Talk:Bromo-DragonFLY/Archives/2020/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

is this real?? lol. its named so wierdly. Flying Hamster 23:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is quite real, a recently created psychedelic. The name comes from the appearance of the molecule.

The experiences of this can be found at www.erowid.com

If you google for Bromo-DragonFLY you only get this article and mirrors of it (and one post on the Shroomery). Similar result with Bromo-benzodifuranyl-isopropylamine. Hmm.. 80.203.115.12 10:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
try DOB, quite more common of a name for this substance, largely researched on erowid and phikal.

DOB has an entry, they seem to be very similar but not quite the same chemical. --Heah (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Please check out this thread at bluelight if you're still having doubts: http://www.bluelight.nu/vb/showthread.php?threadid=167978 All the sources are listed at the bottom of the post. -n


From my understanding, it is like taking LSD, but the effects last much longer and are quite psychological (ie. intrapersonal revelations, lots of thinking, not so many visuals).


I can assure you (<--whoever said it was DOB), Bromo-DragonFLY (Bromo-benzodifuranyl-isopropylamine) is not the same chemical as DOB (4-bromo-2,5-Dimethoxy-amphetamine)--Ddhix 2002 09:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Error in the article

"It is not illegal anywhere in the world at this time although it may be considered a controlled substance analogue under US and Australian drug laws"

Actually, from reading the Misuse Of Drugs Act:

any compound (not being methoxyphenamine or a compound for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (a) above) structurally derived from phenethylamine, an N-alkylphenethylamine, alpha-methylphenethylamine, an N-alkyl-alpha-methylphenethylamine, alpha-ethylphenethylamine, or an N-alkyl-alpha-ethylphenethylamine by substitution in the ring to any extent with alkyl, alkoxy, alkylenedioxy or halide substitutents, whether or not further substituted in the ring by one or more other univalent substituents;

Bromo-DragonFLY is an "alpha-methylphenethylamine" with a "halide substituent" on the ring, so it must be illegal. I will change the article accordingly. Mark PEA 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Bromo-DragonFLY does NOT fall under the definition above because the furano-parts are fused to the ring, they are not "univalent substituents". Cacycle 22:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
"whether or not further substituted in the ring by one or more other univalent substituents" - I may be misinterpreting it, but it seems that it doesn't matter if it is a univalent substituent or not. Mark PEA 09:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
"...whether or not further substituted in the ring by one or more other univalent substituents;" means either not substuted in the ring at all or substituted with univalent substituents. Therefore, the definition does not fit this compound. Сасусlе 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the wording seems to lack clarity, but coincidentally the BBC article mentioned in the section below [1] states that Bromo-Dragonfly is "a Class A hallucinogenic", and in the talk section below, ironically, BBC news is mentioned as a reliable source. --Mark PEA (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/7315020.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.46.101 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: In the media

Is this as a new section really necessary? Honestly it reads a lot like a newspaper clipping than a encyclopedia (no offense author). For example the sentence "His mother was told he would be lucky to survive - but did, and was discharged a few days later" doesn't sound like a wikipedia article. I move that "In the media" be removed and the information merged into "Toxicity" or renaming "Toxicity" into "Dangers" to conform to other psychoactive pages. If not at least clean up "In the media" so it doesn't read like a book and just summarize the event. Thank you.--Astavats (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Another example "with some friends they decided to try the drug at a cost of £5 a go from a street dealer."...this doesn't sound a like a wikipedia article at all! Again, I don't mean to offend the author but this isn't a magazine or newspaper.--Astavats (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable source but I am happy to see us present this source differently. I actually found the piece quite authentic. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not arguing the BBC as a valid source or not, but do feel it is indeed a valid one. I commented on the way the "In the Media" is written, and how the information could very easily be categorized under another section (making it easier to read the article). Furthermore I mentioned how it is written like a magazine and/or a newspaper (which Wikipedia is not+no offense author). I do intend to as you said "present [the] source differently" when I get a chance, however if anyone then disagree they are welcome to revert the article to a/the previous version. Sorry for the confusion.--Astavats (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting info

There seem to be several contradictions in this article. I understand that there is not a lot of concrete information available about this compound, but the information here varies widely. The introductory paragraph states that it is "only slightly less potent than LSD with a normal dose in the region of 200 μg to 800 μg," while the Dosage section says, "The typical dose of Bromo-DragonFLY is not known, however it has varied from 500 μg to 1 mg," and "It has . . . 1/5th the potency of LSD." --68.39.187.136 (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Erowid is the only current reliable source of human dosage information (that I know of) for bromo-DragonFLY, and they contradict themselves as a result of "two distinct "batches" of material: one more potent and one less". Feel free to edit the article if you can resolve this.--Astavats (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

therapeutic range

"The toxicity of Bromo-DragonFLY appears to be fairly high for humans when taken in doses above the therapeutic range." That page describes therapeutic range as the range of doses over which the drug is not lethal. So is the sentence saying "the toxicity of Bromo-DragonFLY appears to be fairly high in cases where it has killed people"? I wouldn't have thought that needed saying. 213.122.37.84 (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"European" Batch vs. "American" Batch

according to http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/bromo_dragonfly/bromo_dragonfly_dose.shtml isn't it dangerous to name common dosage from 500 to 1000 μg while there is some stuff going around which has a common dosage of 200-400 μg? my worries are related to safer-use purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.90.146 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Legality in UK

I flagged this as a reference problem last month, but the text has been more-or-less reverted. In the section on legality in the UK, the cited Erowid reference goes into some detail about the ambiguity around whether bromo-dragonFLY is covered by the phenylamine catch-all clause, before coming to the conclusion that, whilst open to interpretation to a certain degree, the author's view was that it would be seen as being included (and thus illegal). The recent text of the page states "it is not obviously covered by the UK phenethylamine catch-all clause", using that text as a reference.

I have altered it to try and better reflect the source, and added further references: "as of 2014, it remains unclear to what extent it is covered by the UK phenylethylamine catch-all clause, with commentators noting both the structural similarities and differences to the phenylethylamine class. If the prosecution could demonstrate structural similarity in court, it would be considered a Class A substance.".

If anyone is aware of a case involving Br-DF actually coming to court in the UK, this section could be updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.240.194 (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say forget looking for a court case involving B-D-FLY. No it is not obviously covered by the UK PEA catch-all clause. But is this true with regards to the new benzofuran law? It looks to me as if it would be covered by the UK benzofuran catch-all. Meaning that it should be regarded at least as a Class B illegal drug. If it is covered by the PEA laws then it class A. But I would consider it a Class B for the mean time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.57.95 (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not covered by the benzofuran law because it is not a simple benzofuran. Testem (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Drugbox

The {{chembox}} should be changed to a {{drugbox}} to allow for easier access of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchotreeo (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bromo-DragonFLY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bromo-DragonFLY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bromo-DragonFLY/Archives/2020/February&oldid=956460779"