Path: weeds!utopia!hacktic!sun4nl!mcsun!uunet!olivea!pagesat!decwrl!netcomsv!!bprofane
From: (Gert Niewahr)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: long term effects of 2cb?
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 08:20:20 GMT
References: <2735jl$>
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Lines: 57

In article <2735jl$> (Brian Behlendorf) writes:
>	After peusing the various net.resources on the subject, as
>well as checking PiHKAL, I haven't been able to find any info on
>possible long-term effects of 2CB.  Anyone have any recent info
>on this?  I suppose I could ask Shulgin, since he's teaching a
>class here at Cal....

If you mean 2C-B toxicity tests equivalent to those done for MDMA
(Ecstacy), no, I haven't heard of any.  Those neurotransmitter
degradation tests filtered out to the net pretty quickly too, so I'd be
half surprised if a 2C-B evaluation was underway that we haven't heard

I'd offer the same lay demographic survey I described at length a few
years ago to rebut the MDMA toxicity tests: As an undergraduate, I was
part of what was effectively a test group of 18-21 year-old college
students regularly consuming very pure phenethylamines (mainly MDMA and
2C-B).  This group was large enough to be statistically stable (500+
subjects) yet so homongenous in terms of intelligence, motivation,
education, and background as to form a narrow behavioral profile.
Moreover, this group was complemented by an otherwise identical control
group of about 700 subjects.  Both groups can be characterized as highly
intelligent (having had to score in the top 5th percentile of most
standardized tests in order to be part of either group) and destined for
careers demanding high intellectual ability.

As I noted a few years back, the differentiation between these two groups is
effectively zilch.  The most significant statistic characterizing samples
of this type of subject (i.e., graduates of this college) is that about
one in five attains a PhD, the highest percentage for non-science
universities in the US.  Almost half finish some kind of graduate
degree.  It's a little early, even after ten years, to evaluate whether
these groups have or will attain the norms, but it looks like both are
on track.  In fact, the per capita numbers are climbing a little.  
Unless the puritans are working overtime to make up for the druggies,
both parties are on the beam.

But, as I say, the differentiation is nil.  I knew a large percentage of
both groups personally, and as I look over the class notes, knowing who
did what, I see no sign that the two groups are diverging in terms of
the gross career achievement profile.  Lots of lawyers and MDs on both
sides of the fence.  Lots of papers being published by grads of both
stripes.  In fact, some of the most notorious drug chemists (who cooked
up most of the X and bromo we all ingested) are post-docs or teaching
faculty already.  (Yes, that bright young assistant prof. teaching
organic may have been whipping up job lots of X not that long ago.)

Yes, this is a very rough demographic analysis.  I can't hand out
questionaires about past drug use and current grad school at reunions.
But I'm also close enough to feel empirically confident about the
profiles, and I've seen serious studies published that relied on smaller
and more dubious samples that this.  

Oh, I should make it clear, in light of Brian's question, that about
35-40% of the phenethylamines ingested were 2C-B, by my estimation.
That's a lot, given the per capita volume.  It was quite easy to score
5-10 grams a pop.