Talk:Ganesha (psychedelic)

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

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Synthesis[edit]

The article says: "Ganesha can be synthesized from 3,4-methyl-2,5-dimethoxy-phenethylamine", though I can't find any references for this at the moment, though PIHKAL mentions a synth from 2,5-dimethoxy-3,4-dimethylbenzaldehyde. --Mark PEA 11:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah adding an alpha-methyl group onto 2CG would be pretty challenging from a synthetic standpoint, it would require multiple steps and would be an impractical way of making Ganesha. I might just delete this line although feel free to reinstate it if you can find a reference! Also i changed the article slightly to state that oral administration is the most common route, as most research chemicals are consumed orally, so i doubt rectal administration is the route of choice for most users of this drug. Meodipt 06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without a source to justify its relevance, I wonder if rectal administration of this drug is really worthy of mention in the article at all.--Eloil 01:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chemical formula does not match and the IUPAC name is incorrect--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures for 3C-G4 and 5 are identical.71.213.52.229 (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 3C-G is a correct name[edit]

I don't think 3C-G is a correct name for this drug. 3Cs are not analogs of 2Cs. Here is a quote from PIHKAL about this, under the entry for B:

A brief reiteration of the 2C-3C nomenclature, to avoid a possible misunderstanding. The drug 2C-B is so named in that it is the two-carbon chain analogue of the three-carbon chain compound DOB. The drug 3C-B is so named because it is the three-carbon chain analogue of the two-carbon chain compound Buscaline, or more simply, B. There is no logical connection whatsoever, either structural or pharmacological, between 2C-B and 3C-B.

I'll remove references to 3C-G if no one has any objections. --Utility Monster (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]