2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine; 4-Methyl-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine; 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methyl-α-methylphenethylamine; Des-oxy-methyl; DOM; DMMTA; α-Me-2C-D; STP; Serenity, Tranquility, and Peace; Super Terrific Psychedelic; Stop The Police; Too Stupid to Puke;[1] K-61,082[2]
In his book PiHKAL (Phenethylamines I Have Known and Loved) and other publications, Alexander Shulgin lists DOM's dose as 3 to 10mg orally and its duration as 14 to 24hours.[3][18][19] An estimated typical dose is about 6mg.[1][2] The (R)-enantiomer, (R)-DOM, was active at a dose of 0.5mg, whereas DOM itself produces threshold effects only at 1mg.[3][1] The (S)-enantiomer, (S)-DOM, showed no psychoactive effects at doses of up to 2.6mg.[3] As such, the activity of DOM appears to reside in (R)-DOM, with this enantiomer appearing to be roughly twice as potent as racemic DOM.[3] In a review by Richard Glennon and colleagues, the approximate hallucinogenic dose was listed as 2 to 5mg for racemic DOM, 1.0 to 2.5mg for (R)-DOM, and greater than 4mg for (S)-DOM, with no known active level of the latter enantiomer.[20] DOM is said by Shulgin to have a slow build-up, with an onset of 30 to 60minutes and a peak of 2 to 6hours.[3][4][1] It may also have a very long duration of up to 3 or 4days when taken in excessively high doses such as 14 to 30mg.[3][4][8][1][2] However, it is unclear the extent to which this is actually true or may just be exaggeration.[1][2] DOM is about 50- to 150-fold as potent as mescaline and around 30- to 60-fold less potent than LSD.[2][8][3][18][19]
The effects of DOM were formally assessed in clinical studies by Solomon H. Snyder and Leo Hollister and colleagues in the late 1960s and early 1970s.[2][1][11][8][21][22][23] At low doses, such as 1 to 4mg, DOM produced effects including stimulation, euphoria, enhanced self-awareness, and mild dose-dependentperceptual disturbances.[2][1][8] At higher doses, of above 5 to 7mg, DOM produces marked and full psychedelic effects.[2][1][8] Hallucinogenic effects were said to start at doses of more than 3 to 5mg.[8][1] Other effects of the drug were also described.[8] Although Shulgin described the effects of DOM as typically lasting 14 to 20hours, clinical studies with low doses reported a duration of only 5 to 8hours, but with a lack of an unexpectedly long duration even at doses of up to 14mg.[8][1][2] Another source listed the average duration as only 8 to 15hours at doses of 5 or 10mg.[2] The reasons for these discrepancies are unclear.[1][2][8] The onset was 0.5 to 1.5hours and peak effects occurred after 3 to 5hours.[2][8]
Repeated administration of DOM results in rapid tolerance development.[3][4][23][24] In one study, in which five people were given 6mg DOM for 3days, there were "extremely intense" effects the first day, but diminished effects on the third day, ranging from "moderately strong" to "felt absolutely nothing".[3][4][24] In another study, in which two people were given gradually increasing doses from 1 to 12mg over 8days, there was development of marked partial tolerance to the effects of DOM.[23] Tolerance developed to both the psychoactive and physiological effects of the drug.[23]
The 2,6-dimethoxy positional isomer of DOM, known as Ψ-DOM, is also mentioned in PiHKAL as being active, as is the α-ethyl homologue Ariadne. Analogues where the methoxy groups at the 2,5- positions of the aromatic ring have been altered have also been synthesised and tested as part of an effort to identify the binding mode of DOM at the serotonin 5-HT2A receptor. Both the 2- and 5- O-desmethyl derivatives 2-DM-DOM and 5-DM-DOM, and the 2- and 5- ethyl analogues 2-Et-DOM and 5-Et-DOM, have been tested, but in all cases were significantly less potent than the corresponding methoxy compound, showing the importance of the oxygen lone pairs in 5-HT2A binding.[7][50]
Chemical structures of DOM analogues and derivatives
DOM was first synthesized and tested in 1963 by Alexander Shulgin, who was investigating the effect of 4-position substitutions on psychedelicamphetamines.[1][3] His 15-year-old son Theodore "Ted" Shulgin assisted in the synthesis of DOM by performing the first step of the synthesis at Dow Chemical Company on June 22, 1963 during a brief period when he was interested in chemistry.[2] Later, Alexander Shulgin completed the synthesis on November 30, 1963.[2] He initially discovered the effects of DOM on January 4, 1964, when he ingested a 1mg dose orally.[2] The hallucinogenic effects of DOM were discovered on February 3, 1964 by Shulgin's colleague Thornton W. Sargent when he ingested 2.3mg.[2] The first clearly psychedelic experience occurred with a dose of 4.1mg on November 6, 1964.[2] Shulgin hoped that Dow Chemical Company would develop DOM for medical purposes.[2]
In mid-1967, tablets containing 20mg and later 10mg of DOM were widely distributed in the Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco under the name of STP, having been manufactured by underground chemists Owsley Stanley and Tim Scully.[1][2] This short-lived appearance of DOM on the black market proved disastrous for several reasons.[1][2] First, the tablets contained an excessively high dose of the chemical.[1][2] This, combined with DOM's slow onset (which encouraged some users, familiar with drugs that have quicker onsets, such as LSD, to re-dose) and its remarkably long duration, caused many users to panic and sent some to the emergency room.[1][2] Second, treatment of such overdoses was complicated by the fact that no one at the time knew that the tablets called STP were, in fact, DOM, and there was no effective antidote.[1][2]
Society and culture
Names
The name DOM is an acronym of the code name "des-oxy-methyl" coined by the drug's inventor Alexander Shulgin.[1][2] The drug was also initially known by the code name K-61,082 and is widely known by its nickname STP.[1][2] The STP name has been said to stand for various acronyms, including Serenity, Tranquility, and Peace, Super Terrific Psychedelic, Stop The Police, and Too Stupid to Puke, among others.[2][1]
Legal status
Australia
DOM is schedule 9 under the Australia Poisons standard.[51] A schedule 9 substance is a "Substances which may be abused or misused, the manufacture, possession, sale or use of which should be prohibited by law except when required for medical or scientific research, or for analytical, teaching or training purposes with approval of Commonwealth and/or State or Territory Health Authorities."[51]
Canada
Listed as a Schedule 1, as it is an analogue of amphetamine.
DOM is Schedule I in the United States. This means it is illegal to manufacture, buy, possess, or distribute (make, trade, own or give) without a DEA license.
Research
DOM, along with DOET, was of interest in the potential treatment of psychiatric disorders such as depression in the 1960s.[2] Subsequently, the related compound Ariadne (4C-D; BL-3912; Dimoxamine) was investigated in the 1970s, but was not marketed either.[2][49]
123Wills B, Erickson T (9 March 2012). "Psychoactive Phenethylamine, Piperazine, and Pyrrolidinophenone Derivatives". In Barceloux DG (ed.). Medical Toxicology of Drug Abuse: Synthesized Chemicals and Psychoactive Plants. Wiley. pp.156–192. doi:10.1002/9781118105955.ch10. ISBN978-0-471-72760-6.
↑Glennon RA, Rosecrans JA (1982). "Indolealkylamine and phenalkylamine hallucinogens: a brief overview". Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 6 (4): 489–497. doi:10.1016/0149-7634(82)90030-6. PMID6757811.
↑Snyder SH, Faillace LA, Weingartner H (September 1968). "DOM (STP), a new hallucinogenic drug, and DOET: effects in normal subjects". Am J Psychiatry. 125 (3): 113–120. doi:10.1176/ajp.125.3.357. PMID4385937.
↑Weingartner H, Snyder SH, Faillace LA (1971). "DOM (STP), a new hallucinogenic drug: specific perceptual changes". J Clin Pharmacol New Drugs. 11 (2): 103–111. doi:10.1177/009127007101100205. PMID5206471.
1234Hollister LE, Macnicol MF, Gillespie HK (1969). "An hallucinogenic amphetamine analog (DOM) in man". Psychopharmacologia. 14 (1): 62–73. doi:10.1007/BF00401535. PMID5351858.
12Angrist B, Rotrosen J, Gershon S (April 1974). "Assessment of tolerance to the hallucinogenic effects of DOM". Psychopharmacologia. 36 (3): 203–207. doi:10.1007/BF00421802. PMID4844244.
↑Fantegrossi WE, Murnane KS, Reissig CJ (January 2008). "The behavioral pharmacology of hallucinogens". Biochem Pharmacol. 75 (1): 17–33. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2007.07.018. PMC2247373. PMID17977517. Despite the reasonably constant recreational use of hallucinogens since at least the early 1970s [44], the reinforcing effects of hallucinogens have not been widely investigated in laboratory animals. Indeed, one of the earliest studies on the reinforcing effects of drugs using the intravenous self-administration procedure in rhesus monkeys found that no animal initiated self-injection of mescaline either spontaneously or after one month of programmed administration [45]. Likewise, the phenethylamine hallucinogen 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine (DOM) was not effective in maintaining self-administration in rhesus monkeys [46]. Nevertheless, the hallucinogen-like phenethylamine 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) has been shown to act as a reinforcer in intravenous self-administration paradigms in baboons [47], rhesus monkeys [48 – 50], rats [51] and mice [52].
↑Canal CE, Murnane KS (January 2017). "The serotonin 5-HT2C receptor and the non-addictive nature of classic hallucinogens". J Psychopharmacol. 31 (1): 127–143. doi:10.1177/0269881116677104. PMC5445387. PMID27903793. One of the earliest studies on the reinforcing effects of drugs using the intravenous self-administration procedure in rhesus monkeys found that no animal initiated self-injection of mescaline either spontaneously or after one month of programmed administration, [...] (Deneau et al., 1969). The lack of mescaline self-administration stood in contrast to positive findings of self-administration of morphine, codeine, cocaine, amphetamine, pentobarbital, ethanol, and caffeine. A subsequent study with rhesus monkeys using 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine (DOM; Yanagita, 1986) provided similar results as the mescaline study. These findings have withstood the test of time, as the primary literature is virtually devoid of any accounts of self-administration of [classical hallucinogens (CH)], suggesting that there are very limited conditions under which laboratory animals voluntarily consume CH.
↑Yanagita T (June 1986). "Intravenous self-administration of (−)-cathinone and 2-amino-1-(2,5-dimethoxy-4-methyl)phenylpropane in rhesus monkeys". Drug Alcohol Depend. 17 (2–3): 135–141. doi:10.1016/0376-8716(86)90004-9. PMID3743404.
↑Cha HJ, Jeon SY, Jang HJ, Shin J, Kim YH, Suh SK (May 2018). "Rewarding and reinforcing effects of 4-chloro-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine and AH-7921 in rodents". Neurosci Lett. 676: 66–70. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2018.04.009. PMID29626650.
↑Kim YJ, Ma SX, Hur KH, Lee Y, Ko YH, Lee BR, Kim SK, Sung SJ, Kim KM, Kim HC, Lee SY, Jang CG (April 2021). "New designer phenethylamines 2C-C and 2C-P have abuse potential and induce neurotoxicity in rodents". Arch Toxicol. 95 (4): 1413–1429. Bibcode:2021ArTox..95.1413K. doi:10.1007/s00204-021-02980-x. PMID33515270.
↑Custodio RJ, Sayson LV, Botanas CJ, Abiero A, You KY, Kim M, Lee HJ, Yoo SY, Lee KW, Lee YS, Seo JW, Ryu IS, Kim HJ, Cheong JH (November 2020). "25B-NBOMe, a novel N-2-methoxybenzyl-phenethylamine (NBOMe) derivative, may induce rewarding and reinforcing effects via a dopaminergic mechanism: Evidence of abuse potential". Addict Biol. 25 (6) e12850. doi:10.1111/adb.12850. PMID31749223.
↑Seo JY, Hur KH, Ko YH, Kim K, Lee BR, Kim YJ, Kim SK, Kim SE, Lee YS, Kim HC, Lee SY, Jang CG (October 2019). "A novel designer drug, 25N-NBOMe, exhibits abuse potential via the dopaminergic system in rodents". Brain Res Bull. 152: 19–26. doi:10.1016/j.brainresbull.2019.07.002. PMID31279579.
↑Lee JG, Hur KH, Hwang SB, Lee S, Lee SY, Jang CG (August 2023). "Designer Drug, 25D-NBOMe, Has Reinforcing and Rewarding Effects through Change of a Dopaminergic Neurochemical System". ACS Chem Neurosci. 14 (15): 2658–2666. doi:10.1021/acschemneuro.3c00196. PMID37463338.
↑Kim YJ, Kook WA, Ma SX, Lee BR, Ko YH, Kim SK, Lee Y, Lee JG, Lee S, Kim KM, Lee SY, Jang CG (April 2024). "The novel psychoactive substance 25E-NBOMe induces reward-related behaviors via dopamine D1 receptor signaling in male rodents". Arch Pharm Res. 47 (4): 360–376. doi:10.1007/s12272-024-01491-4. PMID38551761.
↑Hassan Z, Bosch OG, Singh D, Narayanan S, Kasinather BV, Seifritz E, Kornhuber J, Quednow BB, Müller CP (2017). "Novel Psychoactive Substances-Recent Progress on Neuropharmacological Mechanisms of Action for Selected Drugs". Front Psychiatry. 8 152. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00152. PMC5563308. PMID28868040. The next, even though less accidental, producer of NPS hallucinogens was Alexander T. Shulgin, who synthesized hundreds of novel hallucinogenic tryptamines and phenylethylamines in his home laboratory. He described the synthesis of these compounds and also their psychotomimetic effects experienced in self-experiments in detail in his books PIHKAL and TIHKAL (199, 200). He created several dimethoxy-substituted phenylethylamines, such as DOM, 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromoamphetamine (DOB), 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI), and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine (DOET), which all display strong hallucinogenic properties. These drugs usually have much longer durations of action (12–30 h) and are much more potent agonists at 5-HT2A-Rs (50- to 175-fold) compared to their related phenylethylamine derivative mescaline (duration of action: 4–8 h) (189, 199, 200).
Notes: (1) TAAR1 activity of ligands varies significantly between species. Some agents that are TAAR1 ligands in some species are not in other species. This navbox includes all TAAR1 ligands regardless of species. (2) See the individual pages for references, as well as the List of trace amines, TAAR, and TAAR1 pages. See also:Receptor/signaling modulators
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.