Talk:Bromo-DragonFLY

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal Bromo-DragonFLY 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.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

	This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)