Talk:2,5-Dimethoxy-4-bromoamphetamine

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles

Unsourced advice

I chopped the following, because it is unsourced and attempts to give advice to potential users. WP shouldn't be giving advice, and any advice that WP quotes needs to be sourced. This is doubly true of medical/safety advice.

Upon tasting the chemical, if one notices a highly bitter or "chemically" taste, this should serve as a warning sign that the drug is not LSD, but likely a psychedelic amphetamine (DOC, DOB or DOI). Although it must be noted that the absence of a bitter taste does not necessarily mean the blotter contains LSD, detecting other blotter substrate drugs like 5-MeO-AMT or Bromo-DragonFLY, by taste, has not yet been reported. An active dose of LSD (~100 μg) is so small that it has virtually no perceivable taste^{[citation needed]}.

Ashmoo (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above and I am tempted to simply cut out the advice.

The taste of something bitter on blotter won't also necessarily ensure that you *DO* have something other than LSD. It might, but it's not a very reliable test. It could mean that you have LSD in addition to another compound and just because that compound is better doesn't necessarily mean much. Furthermore, where is the evidence that DOB, DOC, DOI, etc. are bitter?

Perhaps the only reliable way to detect whether or not one likely has LSD (and I can offer a source for this) is to expose the sample to a blacklight in the dark. Lysergic acid and derivatives (so long as it has the pi system) will fluoresce blue. Hence, blue fluorescence indicates that one at least has a compound with the lysergic acid moiety.AlkaloidMan (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)AlkaloidMan[reply]

Chemical structure

The picture of structure is wrong. The picture implies a particular chirality that compound does not have. It needs to be depicted as the racemate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.73.226 (talk • contribs) 17 February 2011‎

Hopefully I just addressed that. Catclock (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is still wrong... structure is 2,5 methoxy.. picture shows 3,6 methoxy

I second what the above poster says, this structure seems to indicate 3,6 and NOT 2,5 96.245.14.58 (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The chemical names 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromoamphetamine and 3,6-dimethoxy-4-bromoamphetamine indicate exactly the same structure. Each involves counting around the ring in the opposite direction of the other. The direction that gives the lower numbering (2,5- in this case) is chosen as the proper numbering. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-bromoamphetamine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302130637/http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/list/green.pdf to http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/list/green.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]