ON MAY 4TH AFTER 80 INSULIN UNITS...

1909

→And on we raced, hurling watchdogs against doorsteps, curling them under our burning tires like collars under a flatiron. Death, domesticated, met me at every turn, gracefully holding out a paw, or once in a while hunkering down, making velvety caressing eyes at me from every puddle.

→→‘Let’s break out of the horrible shell of wisdom and throw ourselves like pride-ripened fruit into the wide, contorted mouth of the wind! Let’s give ourselves utterly to the Unknown, not in desperation but only to replenish the deep wells of the Absurd!’

UNEXPECTED

7

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

KIERKEGAARD UNFAIR TO SCHLEGEL

But with irony quote the phenomenon is not the essence but the opposite of the essence unquote page 264. The object is deprived of its reality by what I have said about it. Regarded in an ironical light, the object shivers, shatters, disappears. Irony is thus destructive and what Kierkegaard worries about a lot is that irony has nothing to put in the place of what it has destroyed. The new actuality--what the ironist has said about the object--is peculiar in that it is a comment upon a former actuality rather than a new actuality.

NAPTHALENE IS SO OVER

I'm seriously fucking peeved about how few synthetic cannabinoids incorporate a 2-methoxyphenyl moiety. Admittedly, JWH-250 is kind of boring but the same holds true for JWH-018, JWH-081, and JWH-200. JWH-073 is the only one of these compounds which warrants (calculatedly) risking ones health - as it is truly a powerful psychedelic catalyst which surpasses Δ9-THC in every possible way - if not for that pesky (putative) carcinogenic metabolite.

I have heard well informed people say that they think, in terms of carcinogenicity, the napthalene moiety is a red herring, but why? If napthalene is not to blame then what is? Regardless, when one exchanges a 2-methoxyphenyl for napthalene the decrease in potency and binding at CB1 is modest enough that there is really no reason to continue using and selling these naphthyl compounds. In terms of subjective effects the N-butyl compounds like JWH-073 are superior to the more potent N-pentyls - so what about N-butyl JWH-250? I'm sure Huffman has synthed it but I can't look up its numerical designation right now, what I do know is that it has never been sold. It would be only a hair less potent than JWH-073, the same goes for the WIN55212-x compounds which are unexplored and fertile territory and as far as I can tell have never undergone 3-methoxyphenyl substitution.

I wish there were more work done to elucidate the nuanced effects of these cannabinoids - sure affinity at CB1 is an important measure of potency but why are certain cannabinoids more colorful - or psychedelic - or stimulating? As technology stands such tests would require human consumption and a cannabinoid version of Pihkal would probably be very (very) redundant. But now that im getting really into the SAR of CB1 agonists I'm realizing what an insane ligand whore that receptor really is - there is no hope in creating tests to screen for them all - this is only the beginning!!!

Ah, so much work to be done...

NBOMe-A-GO-GO

It has been hypothesized that all the worlds psychedelic tryptamines and phenethylamines were synthesized en masse and then divvied up globally sometime around 2002. It has also been hypothesized that forensic chemical fingerprinting could be used analyze trace impurities and prove this now - or in the near future. Lastly, It has been predicted that these global stores of phenethylamines with a primary amine will soon undergo the facile conversion to their secondary amine 2-methoxybenzylated counterparts.

The implications of this are obvious.