Talk:2C-E

Homolog?
2C-E is a homolog of 2C-P and 2C-D, but I do not think that it is a homolog of 2C-B, 2C-T-7 or Mescaline. It is a possible analog of these, however. Correct me if I'm wrong. Ohnodoctor (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

errors in text
Not sure if it's an actual error... My vendor claims, his 2C-E has a melting point of 210.9°C and generally it's 208-211°C. Who's willing to do a melting point test on confirmed 2C-E HCl?

"Insufflating (ie administering the chemical nasally) requires a much lower dose, typically not exceeding 5mgs. Taking 10 mg orally is equivalent to snorting 5mg if you compare the two trips."

first of all, insufflating requires a dosage about 3 times lower. so 5 mg wouldnt be equivalent to 10 mg, its closer to 15mg according to erowid. the dosage doesnt have to be 5 mg at max, its about 5-10 mg, which roughly matches the oral equivalent. its dangerous to tell people "insufflating requires half the oral dose". 2c-e is very potent if used insufflated and small changes in the dosage could produce a much stronger/softer effect. --92.227.30.53 (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Its neither 2x nor 3x the dose but rather something in between and i belive thats what erowid says too. Also effects tend to change about after 2.5mg of dose orally hence about 1mg insufflated. Also 5mg for insufflation is a rather small amount for everyone except maybe first timers, more experienced users would rather go for anything around 8-10mg. Anything under 5mg would be a waste of chemical. Or so i heard. I strongly question the validity of the 120mg IV claim. The linked page says nothing about 2ce. 1.5 mg IV produced overly intense effects that resulted in profuse sweating and 120+bpm heartrate. User thought they were going to die. Thats all original research but it is unsafe to claim that 120Mg has been survived with no hard evidence to back that claim up.

--- I agree, saying 2x lower might cause some problems. Another error in the text I noticed is that it mentions the mental clarity on 2C-E but then it says this suggests judgement is not impaired as much as other psychedelics. I can confirm that this is most definitely not true, it feels less confusing and foggy than many other psychedelics but in my experience it actually impairs me more than a lot of them do. 83.29.176.158 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

2C-E Getting Scheduled Soon?
3/30/2012 LD 1852 http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?LD=1852&snum=125 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.111.144 (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To whomever is providing the updates on the court case: can you give any more info on this right now? (Can you cite Fed court proceedings on Wikipedia, since they're a matter of public record, or can you only do this once they're public record? (i.e., ??are they public record yet, or only after the case is closed?? I don't know...))

2C-E is extremely rare and has not caused a single known reported death. I would think that they'd need more than the usual "analogs act" stuff to schedule it, since current study tends to show that the substance to which it is structurally closest according to Shulgin, mescaline, isn't actually bad for you... I'd hate to see 2C-E scheduled when it hasn't been scientifically demonstrated to be harmful to human beings at recreational doses while potentially-deadly, highly-addictive drugs like nicotine and alcohol remain legal. (Personally, I've watched prohibition not work more times than I can count, and anyone who has ever seen someone else smoke marijuana, for example, can attest to the inefficacy of prohibition in general, whether or not he or she is for the "off-label" use of these substances.)

Obviously, if you can't provide more info, it's understandable.

Thanks,

Tastyummy 08:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing:

It is legal to buy this chemical if you do not intend to consume it or to sell it to others as a product meant to be consumed, correct? Shouldn't you always be able to win a possession case by saying "I'm buying this to support the industry that produces these chemicals because I consider this to be good for society for reasons X, Y, and Z, but I never intended to consume or to sell it?"

(In other words, how can it be proved in court that a person intended to possess or consume it if he/she simply states that he/she buys it as an act of protest against the control of these chemicals in an attempt to legally support their production by the industry that produces them? Can this kind of protest be considered as criminal activity even though the production and sale of these chemicals via the internet by chemical suppliers-- whose customers are only required to click an "I agree" button to affirm that the chemicals will only be used in a laboratory-- is legal for those chemical suppliers, and since thus, seemingly, it can be argued that people accused of possessing this substance and intending to consume or sell it can simply argue that their intent is legal protest and not to consume or sell the analogs-act-triable substance(s) found in their possession?)

"Research chemicals" like 2C-E are often called a "legal grey area"; can anyone expert in law comment on this issue? It's relevant to the article, since this article is about such a quasi-licit drug. Information on the legality of these substances can be hard to find for a person without immediate access to case proceedings.


 * It's untested in court so far as I know, but the burden of proof of "research use" may be placed on the defendant. Presumably, any legitimate research would yield results and other evidence producable to a court.  Of course, this means you would be guilty until proven innocent (unconstitutional), but as I understand it this is not unheard of when prosecuting drug related offenses. 65.80.232.189 (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

3/22/2012

2C-E is _not_ in the same legal category as most of the other 2C's. It is explicitly Schedule I already under federal law. There has been a lot of confusion about this issue, but this is why: 1) DOM is a named, schedule I hallucinogen. 2) per the definition of schedule I hallucinogen, all direct positional isomers are automatically also Schedule I hallucinogens. 3) 2C-E is a direct positional isomer of DOM (The only difference is whether a methyl group is at R-alpha or R-4. That's an extremely straight-forward positional isomer.) 1 + 2 + 3 == 2C-E is a schedule I drug in the US. There are plenty of vendors who do not know this, let alone users, but the bottom line is that it's a S-I hallucinogen and if you were caught in possession of enough of it to attract federal attention they would not need to prove any intent of human consumption. 2C-I, 2C-C, etc do not fall into this category. There are a couple other drugs being passed around as RCs which are in the same situation, though: 2C-D is a positional isomer of 2,5-DMA (which is a schedule I hallucinogen) MIPT is a positional isomer of DET (which is a schedule I hallucinogen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oswaldspengler (talk • contribs) 21:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Legality and proof of 'human consumption' claim
I will try to address some of the concerns above. Yes, one can buy and sell it as long as it is not for human consumption. The reason many online vendors were shot down was because they were making it obvious that they were selling it for human consumption by providing deals and sample packs. For example, buy 2C-I in bulk and get one dose of DXM free. What professional lab selling chemicals for scientific research would do that? Many online vendors who were very strict about their guidelines (Not For Human Consumption) and sold in low quantities did not get busted but did close down voluntarily out of fear. One *could* buy a flask and begin manufacturing and selling this stuff in the US if they're careful, but it's unlikely that anyone is going to risk going to court over it due to heavy court expenses.

How do you prove that you did not intend to consume it? As long as they don't catch you putting it in your cereal, they have no proof and can't charge you. I've heard about people getting caught with possession, but nobody has ever gotten charged AFAIK.

2C-E Being Scheduled: The person who stated that on this website was some punk kid who got busted with it and with shrooms. No one ever got charged with the 2C-E in Utah as far as I know. It was a paranoid delusion of a teenager I was incarcerated with in the Utah County Jail with no factual basis whatsoever. Don't believe everything you read. ~MindHermit~

03/28/2007

The Wikipedia entry for 2C-E currently states that 2C-E is a Schedule I substance in the United States. This is INCORRECT. While 2C-E may be a confirmed analogue of DOM, that does not make it illegal. An analogue is only illegal if it is intended for human consumption. The Legality section of this article needs to be revised. (April 3, 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morthian (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Animated gif in article - not a good idea?
It's 309KBytes as-is (plus non-trivial overhead in transmission) and IMO adds nothing to the article. Even if it did it has to be balanced against the fact that not everyone has broadband. Without wishing to offend it's contributor, I believe it does not add sufficient value and should be removed. Thoughts? 81.157.27.35 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and it could also really trip out anyone currently partaking of the subject material. Never mind, just leave it, it gives the article that modern, professional feel.  Exemplar Sententia. 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exemplar sententia (talk • contribs)

Tranylcypromine
I removed a claim from the law section that read as follows:

"If 2C-E is considered lawfully unfit for distributive necessities it would implicate major pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline for their production and distribution of the drug Tranylcypromine also commonly known as Parnate as another homologue of similar PEA's."

This is poorly written and, from what I can gather, false. 65.80.232.189 (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Long term effects
I removed this sentence:

Based on the current body of evidence and a comparison with the long-term effects of its close chemical analogue, mescaline, it seems reasonable to assume that 2C-E is not likely to produce such effects.

I would consider this OR, since the long term effects of the drug are clearly (and stated as) unknown, so commenting on it "seems reasonable to assume" that it "is not likely" to do anything is pure speculation, and perhaps dangerously so. Without a citation, it would appear obvious that the sentence doesn't belong. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Reported death section
I think we are giving way too much coverage in the "Reported Death" section. Pretty much it is saying the boy may or may not have ingested 2C-E and it may or may not have caused his death. Although it is well sourced, it seems a little unnesecary to give up to the minute reports on this local tragedy. BurtAlert (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider three sentences to be way too much coverage. The reason the details were provided was because there is much controversy and speculation regarding the incident, and this paragraph was addressing that. The section's current state could possibly imply that the death resulted during responsible use, while the information previously provided explained the very likely possibility that the substance was abused, and possibly of being identified improperly. It is reasonable to have this speculation in here, as 2C-E has not previously shown side-effects such as this in all its existence, let alone to such a large group of people. --209.143.10.212 (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We should wait for toxicological results for cause of death, Wikipedia has a guideline specifically against reporting speculation. Grim23 ★ 12:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

nickname
I am quite knowledgeable when it comes to the topic of research chemicals, but I have never heard of 2C-E being nicknamed "Europa". of course I assume that there are people calling it that way, but this is in no sense common. therefore, I suggest to just remove this remark on nicknames. --Diogenes2000 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree, I've never heard this referred to as Europa. Seems like it's been added again, though. Ohnodoctor (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Palliative effect
"The concurrent use of SSRIs generally has a palliative effect upon both the intensity and duration of the effects of 2C-E during their plateau stage." I have no idea what that means. I looked up the definition of "palliative" and I still don't understand it. Taking SSRIs reduces the effects of 2C-E? Somebody please re-write this. Saberus (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Um...
Yeah, the section citing 2c-e as a scheduled substance is incorrect. The sourced document (4) refers entirely to synthetic cannibinoids. I'm going to delete the section. If anyone has a better understanding of chemistry than me and recognizes the chemical structure of 2c-e in the link, feel free to revert the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.96.173 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, it deleted the source. I dug it out of the edit history if anyone wants to check it: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s605is/pdf/BILLS-112s605is.pdf
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.96.173 (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

MAOI?
This article is in the category "Monoamine oxidase inhibitors." There is no mention of this in the text of the article. Can it be sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SauLovesWiki (talk • contribs) 05:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Incident in Germany
See, about 29 homeopaths at a conference OD'd. Choor monster (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)