Talk:BDPC

If
If people object to bromadol consider moving to BDPC, but dont use IUPAC name as a title.

That doesnt leave enough room in the chemboxes.--Nuklear (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article says "Marketed as 10,000 times the potency of morphine..." Does this mean that it was a commercial product?  If so, this article should probably use that name, rather than bromadol, which seems to be a "street name".  Otherwise, I would prefer BDPC, which is definitely less unwieldy that the systematic name.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and moved to BDPC. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That stated potency of 10000x was an early study, later studies showed it to be closer to 600x morphine, which is more inline with the potency of it's thiophene analogue. The old page showed thus information and I think this one should aswell as it is inportant information. I will try to find the paper I saw it mentioned in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.113.68 (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

=Legal Status=

The statement "Its structural distinctiveness from controlled opioid drugs makes it likely that BDPC would be legal throughout the world" is generally untrue, because the U.S. Federal Analog Act applies to any substance chemically similar to a controlled substance or "(ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II," which this compound certainly does. I have made the relevant changes in the document.

Federal Analog Act —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.21.133 (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While this was posted a very long time ago, now, this misreading of the analogue act should be corrected if only for the record. The analogue act, as interpreted by US Federal Courts, requires that a compound INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION have

A) a substantially similar structure to a drug already in Schedule I or II of the CSA and B) a substantially similar stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect OR C) Be represented as having a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect substantially similar to a drug in Schedule I or II

The courts have ruled that parts (A) and either (B) or (C) must be satisfied for the compound to be considered an analogue. All three parts could be satisfied but if it's not intended for human consumption, the law is not being violated. This is why bath salts and plant fertilizers are being snorted and smoked these days.

-- Hammilton

Yes, bromadol has never been scheduled in the US and it is not correct to list it as Schedule II. Plus, bromadol is clearly not a structural analog of tapentadol or any other controlled substance. Even if at some point in the future the determination is made by a court that bromadol is an analog of a scheduled drug, that does not mean that it is scheduled, only that someone could be prosecuted for selling or possessing it for human use. Analogs are legal to possess and distribute unless the intent is administration to humans to produce effects similar to those of a Schedule I or II substance. The only mechanism for a drug to be schedule II is for congress or the DEA to add the compound to the CSA.

-- halbax

It's never going to become a widespread street drug because their are other novel scaffolds with the same range of potency. I think we need to be careful publishing these simple, novel scaffolds because it looks awfully like the criminals ordering up these super-opiates are using Wiki as their guide.

-- D.V.Wyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.74.135 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Potency
The later, larger Chinese study on the thienyl analogue assigned a potency of x504 morphine to trans-BDPC. If anyone has other figures, a reference would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.243.179 (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

NMDA Connection?
Why does this section exist? It's terribly written and as far as I can tell, without merit. It seems to say that 4-substituted arylcyclohexylamines have been pursued, perhaps because of the potency of BDPC, but it doesn't cite anything and doesn't directly say whatever it's trying to say. I'm going to remove this section because so far as I can tell, it's inaccurate and it definitely doesn't belong in this article. If anything it might belong in a ketamine or 4-OH-PCP article.

-- Hammilton

Br -> -CH3
I asked Daniel Lednicer if they had tested the p-CH3 analogue and his answer was that in all the excitement, they forgot to test it. He seems to believe that it WOULD be highly active but a p-CH3 would provide such a convenient metabolic handle that it's current short-duration would be even shorter which might make it a good option for balanced anesthesia. Nobody has made this or the thiophene homologue but they could replace things like remifentanyl or alfentanil. Need cLogP & pKa values to know onset onset & redistribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.74.135 (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)