Talk:(-)-2β-Carbomethoxy-3β-phenyltropane

Untitled[edit]

I hereby award this page, (-)-2β-Carbomethoxy-3β-phenyltropane, the prestigious Strangest Article Name Ever™ award. Congratulations. Picaroon 02:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its the name of the compound the page is about. Whats so strange about that? Meodipt 13:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on legality, with regard to how the difference between Cocaine and this compound is the same as the difference between GHB and ethanol: this isn't exactly correct. The point is still somewhat valid though. If you want to avoid a lot of ugly chemistry talk, skip the next paragraph.

begin chemistry rant*

Substitutional analogues, which were once the bread and butter of the "designer drug" chemist, now rendered illegal by a certain analogue drug act passed not too long ago, did indeed evade the law by *adding* functional groups, or making subtle alterations to the chemical structure, while maintaining an identical "backbone". This rather difficult to pronounce chemical is *NOT* made by taking cocaine and removing a functional group, at least if those molecule graphics are correct. For that matter, the functional group "removed" (a type of ester linkage) isn't even the same one as the one "removed" from GHB! In the case of GHB, you're removing a carboxilic acid group (which is, admittedly, similar to an ester group) AND youre also removing a carbon! (which would actually be difficult to do, carbon carbon bonds are tough to break) The moral of the story is that these two pairs of molecules have similar but different backbones.

end chemistry rant*

The point made that this molecule and cocaine might be too dissimilar to be considered analogues has some merit. It wouldn't hold up in court if it came down to it. In the end, the point is moot, because, too my knowledge the controlled substances analogue act specifically states that the drug must be similar in chemical structure and/or effect to an illegal drug. Its a stupid law though because its so vague. Caffeine has carbon, nitrogen and oxygen atoms too, and its also a stimulant, which could be argued to fit both of the requirements for that law. For more discussion on that law, see PIKHAL and TIHKAL by alexander shulgin. -an interested chemical engineer

Ps[edit]

Speak 2402:8100:2578:AF54:0:0:C170:A329 (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]