• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators:

What is wrong with the MDMA available today?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, you guys have gone BANANAS with this, and I love it! I only understand a tiny bit of what the chemists are saying, but I get the overall idea. I think indigoaura mentioned crowd funding for testing, etc. Then someone said MAPS might help. MAPS was just in my town, and I tried to meet with them. They are incredibly overwhelmed and looking for funding more than additional investigation. My intuition is that whatever form of MDMA they are studying is NOT the same thing as what you guys are honing in on when you describe the makeup of "old school" MDMA....who knows exactly what MAPS is using (or if you can even find out?).
The only way I know to make the study of pharmaceuticals legal WITHOUT involving the FDA is to place it under the umbrella of a religion (or to find a way to categorize it as a supplement). People are doing that now all the time with ayahuasca - not studying it, but taking it for religious purposes. How hard is it to set up a religious organization as an umbrella to investigate what you guys are discussing instead of trying to beg politicians to do it to make street drugs safe? Crowd fund a religious/spiritual study. Although aren't these machines RIDICULOUSLY expensive?
Any lawyers out there who know about religious protection for this type of thing?
Just an idea because it is so fun to read everything you guys are writing, even though I'm pretty sure I only understand 60%. My point is, even if MAPS succeeds at making MDMA legal, I have a sneaking suspicion it won't be what people like Le Junk and I are describing from the 80s/90s, which I kind of think is related to safrole but I got lost a little bit with the impurities, because I swear one post made it sound as if some impurities were a GOOD thing???? (Hello G-Chem, I'm speaking to you). Anyway, I'm enjoying reading all of your thoughts!

Also, if you are interested, I can come up with a protocol for testing the physiologic effects of one drug vs. another so you have objective, academic results. You compare what you consider to be bad MDMA with good, and then as you take each drug you have people measure the list I would come up with.
 
Last edited:
Hey MD!

Yup it is my theory that early to mid (some in the later part of the decade too, I've heard people say it ended around 97) 90's MDMA was different from the MDMA that came before or after it.

It was this brief period where amphetamine cooks took up making MDMA via the leuckart synthesis, which is known to have the impurities which are psychoactive. Based on people's reports as well as watching videos from back then I can confidently say the MDMA people took back then wasn't quite the same stuff Shulgin talked about. Dosages were lower and effects seemed far more stimulating (although MDMA should always be stimulating it's just the stuff then was on another level.)

I'm sure people still synthesize MDMA via the leuckart reaction (maybe more now cuz I keep talking about it lol) it's just been almost completely replaced with higher yielding reactions. In the 90's high yields were thrown to the wayside in place of ease of materials and synthesis, also the leuckart is the same way they were synthing amphetamine so why stray from the known methods.

With all that said I wouldn't say the MDMA of the 90's was any better than the good stuff we have available today, just different. I also think there was a lot more good quality product to bad product then, as alot of the MDMA was likely made the same way for a period of time. Now we've got people all over the world using many different routes, lots of room for variation these days.

But we must remember not to lump all impurities as "good," there are so many different synthetic routes and as we can see now some impurities can completely fuck up the experience.

I think I'd have to say the best MDMA is still the ultra pure product, which at that level it probably doesn't matter much what route was used. Triple distilled freebase (just like my Jameson) then super slow re-X.

I like you idea though MD, I've been thinking about religious freedoms to circumvent laws for awhile now, I think the money would be the bigger issue though. But Idk much on any of that :/


Thank you ionized for the detailed report. That's textbooks Dutch crap right there. The utter lack of energy, zero empathy or love, coming down only 3hrs after dosing (which is actually good for the Dutch mong, some people get less)..

I think the duration part is what would kill me. There's nothing worse than a short roll. A 3hr roll or less is a disappointment, 4 solid hours minimum. Preferably 5-7.

Snap a pic of the product if you got any left in curious how impure it looks..

-GC
 
G_Chem - I'm still perusing through all this stuff that I missed. I went to Google Scholar and researched articles about the pharmacology and measured physiological effects of the ecstasy done in the 80s before Lloyd Benson (Texas Senator) fucked it all up. So the stuff I experienced when there were free bowls of it on bars was different even than what I did only 8 years later in college (yes I did it first when I was 14). You can dig up some interesting stuff on google scholar (although perhaps you have access to honest-to-god free, academic databases of journals). I do not.

I did a little reading that I'll try to copy and paste for you, where they studied slightly different compounds on rat physiology and behavior. I tried to compare the drugs they used with one of the posts that showed the chemical structure of compounds that can't be distinguished by chromatography. However, I totally agree with you that all sorts of side products can slightly alter the effect and trying to find the one and only MDMA in addition to a cheap way to identify it with a machine seems like a difficult proposition. However, if it can be made into an issue of religious use, then the need for expensive testing machines is not as critical as educated people working to make a good product...I guess. I'm super jet lagged.

I am losing track of what the group goal is here. I know indigo is bravely trying something from the DW after having it tested somewhere, but what tests are being run on it? And if it is great, what do we learn? I think it is because I don't know what you chemists are saying when you get down to the nitty-gritty. It sounds like some people can actually play with synthesis of it, and then knowing the structure of the final product is less important than having ingested the correct final product. In any case, if we want to hone in on the desired effects, the stories people have are useful, looking up the descriptions found in journals written before 1995 are great. And I would LOVE to know what they are using in the MAPS study. I came so close to having lunch with them, and then I realized they just wanted to meet me to donate money.

In any case, here is something that may make sense to you. The study of the rats using related compounds of MDMA. What I don't know is whether or not the things they used in the study are things that might be found in the drugs available today (or from yesteryear).

Here is the rat study:https://www.researchgate.net/profil..._Analogues/links/0046351a614ca75e6f000000.pdf

Also, I cannot even understand what this is. It describes some technical method of evaluating compounds. What is it? (You don't have to answer if it's out in left field. I thought it might be helpful)

http://www.somewhereville.com/2009/...tz-spectrum-of-the-illicit-drug-mdma-ecstasy/

And I can't help it, this just flat out entertained me in terms of the history of MDMA because it directly sites the Texas ring who made the amazing stuff that LeJunk and I experienced.
http://www.maps.org/images/pdf/1994_mcdowell_1.pdf

And Indigo - I can't wait to hear your report.
 
Ionized: what you described is almost exactly what I have been experiencing from my post 2005 product.

Sympathetic MD: You offered, "Also, if you are interested, I can come up with a protocol for testing the physiologic effects of one drug vs. another so you have objective, academic results." Yes, I personally think that would be very helpful. I will participate, and so will my friends.
 
Le-Junk:

This is just a thought, but since it appears you are asking about how to perform synthesis on your own or by someone you trust. IF this is true, then you know that you don't have toxic additives like opiates, etc added. So when you send the end product for tests, what are you hoping to find? Are you wanting to rule out the presence of some of the dangerous side compounds mentioned in earlier posts (which I also think may be unidentifiable with current technology)? Otherwise, it sounds as if the labs that people are sending the testing drugs to do not have the capacity to to precisely identify the subtle makeup within your sample. The technology may exist, but it is likely too expensive. Again, the point of sending them to these labs seems to be to make sure you are safe and haven't been given dangerous fillers by bad "distributors".
That having been said, talk more with the chemists and play around. Take good notes about what you (or your friends do), and when you find a product with the effect you want .... then you have it. And you know what ingredients and techniques made it. Whether its "pure" MDMA as assessed by these machines, or a specific proportion of enantiomers (which I'm not even sure they can test), seems less important than having an effective product with a well-documented recipe. Until we can find a machine that looks at the effective product in perfect detail so that other compounds and combinations can be thrown away.

As long as you are in control of what goes in, then analyzing it for pollutants like too much meth or opiates seems irrelevant. From what I understand, the labs available cannot even identify the compounds which might be poisonous.

You and I had the same legal MDMA. I went to Google Scholar and researched articles about the pharmacology and measured physiological effects of the ecstasy done in the 80s before Lloyd Benson (Texas Senator) fucked it all up. So the stuff I experienced when there were free bowls of it on bars was different even than what I did only 8 years later in college (yes I did it first when I was 14). You can dig up some interesting stuff on google scholar (although perhaps you have access to honest-to-god free, academic databases of journals). I do not.



I am losing track of what the group goal is here. I know indigo is bravely trying something from the DW after having it tested somewhere, but what tests are being run on it? And if it is great, what do we learn? I think it is because I don't know what you chemists are saying when you get down to the nitty-gritty. It sounds like some people can actually play with synthesis of it, and then knowing the structure of the final product is less important than having identified the correct final product (since such test may be out of our reach). In any case, if we want to hone in on the desired love and happiness effects, the stories people have are useful, looking up the descriptions found in journals written before 1995 are also great. And I would LOVE to know what they are using in the MAPS study. I came so close to having lunch with them, and then I realized they just wanted to meet me to donate money.


Also, I thought you might like this because it describes the history of MDMA in the 80s, directly siting the Texas ring who made the amazing stuff that you (LeJunk) and I experienced. They were making A LOT.

http://www.maps.org/images/pdf/1994_mcdowell_1.pdf

The more I reflect, the more I am certain that stuff is gone gone gone. However, there was a following period in the 90s to 2005 or something like that which was also very nice. I'll do some detective work about that Texas ring. Maybe one of them would enlighten. I remember the rush, the release, the floaty arms and the love and wanting to touch and take care of everyone. I remember .. either being warm or cold, but I've read a lot about how the MDMA they studied in the 80s affected body temperature. I was clammy but in a good way. I wasn't super excited about dancing - that desire seems to have shifted more in the 90s batch.

I'm rambling like a dog. But you make me happy because I had forgotten how great all that was. My body was so light and flowy and sensual. When the designated driver took us on excursions, everyone wanting the back middle seat in the car, usually the worst one. The strong very intense burst before the pleasure. I've noticed that is completely gone in newer products. Maybe even by the 90s. Use the Google Scholar search engine, restrict your searches to studies published before 1995 , and try to use those studied parameters to see if they correlate with what your calling the good stuff.

Good luck and keep me posted!
 
Last edited:
I'm locked out and cannot send you a private message. Will you message me tomorrow (I have a terrible memory), and then I'll get an email and i'll send you my ideas. I don't think simple pupil dilation is enough. It would also just be fun to see what happens to the body. But you'll need a good heart rate monitor and a blood pressure cuff. It might just bum you out, and it might be almost impossible to do if you have trouble with speakers (I can relate)
 
Thank you ionized, to be honest I've seen much nastier looking product but many of the impurities are white/clear when pure also I suppose..

And MD I'll get back more later as I'm busy til tmrw, but indeed good product is not long gone it's just harder to find it seems. Also your right the product you were taking in the 80's when legal was likely highly pure product (probably al/hg reduction) and indeed I've heard there was a change around 90-91.

The one thing I find funny though is every time MDMA goes through a change, the old timers from before say it isn't as good. It's a preference thing truly, combined with nostalgia. I'd say that's been the case up until 2010-11 when truly bad MDMA began to hit the market in large quantities, affecting LOTS of people. There's always been subpar MDMA but from 2010 onwards that has increased ten fold.

One more thing, the goal right now is to simply locate the problem. Once we do we can move on to figuring out the next step but right now we can't put the cart before the horse as they say.

With MAPS it doesn't really matter the synthetic route as they are using pure as we as humans are capable of making MDMA. At ultra high purity the only thing which could alter the effects from a chemical composition standpoint would be polymorphs, which they are likely considering as well and aiming for anhydrous MDMA.

Be back later..

-GC
 
I thought we agreed that the several hydrated forms of MDMA were preferred over anhydrous, no?
 
Na we were theorizing on the subject and I still think it's possible that one or more polymorphs are better than others (I do think hydrated possibly being preferable) but it was simply a loose based theory which has since been replaced by the much more plausible theory that impurities are to blame for the Dutch mongy mdma. Polymorphism no doubt affects the experience but how much is the question..

I think polymorphism may play a part but I don't see it being the sole cause for this debate and I'd argue others feel the same way. Sad thing with the polymorphism theory is we simply don't have enough evidence as it's not really studied.

The only study I found that did search for the polymorphism of different ecstasy samples found there was anhydrous as well as two other likely hydrated polymorphs. But other than looking at Raman spectroscopy which isn't used as much to analyze ecstasy these days we haven't got much.

I'd still keep it as an open possibility though. This issue (if chemically related) is definitely an impurity or polymorphism problem, and lately we're leaning towards the latter.

Even with the strong evidence starting to point in favor of impurities it's still just a theory, not an agreed upon fact, until we've an analysis telling us we are right. And even then we could be wrong...

Glubra did you ever run Raman spec on the newer product? I forget.

-GC
 
Ok recent experience with current MDMA dutch salt. Subject has had numerous experiences with MDMA since the 90's and is familiar with the "good old MDMA".

Substance: MDMA Dutch salt advertised at least 84% pure (salt is tan colored rocks).
Reagent Tests: Marquis fizzles directly to black (no purple). Mandelin straight to black. Mecke straight to dark green. Simon straight to cobalt blue. Everything looks good to go.

00:00 - On a totally empty stomach ingestion of 140 mg put inside a capsule with some water.
00:40 - Come up begins of medium intensity.
01:00 - full effect: extreme calmness and relaxation but zero uplifting energy. Basically just a strong chill-out feeling accompanied by drowsiness and lot of yawning, too. Seems like pure serotonin release. Pupil dilation is average. It's there but not very strong. Music is enhanced but not even half as much as expected. Absolutely zero feelings of bonding or increased empathy.
03:00 - Effects start diminishing.
03:15 - Comedown begins.
04:00 - pretty much every effect is gone. At this point subject feels almost totally sober. Pupil dilation is much less but remains noticeable.
09:30 - Pupil dilation is completely back to normal. Afterglow is minimal and mostly feels like a small dose of Xanax. Lasts for about a day.

Based on the above observation the effects of the pure Dutch MDMA salt were very different than the typical happy, uplifting, bonding, characteristics of MDMA. Lets not forget that this MDMA passed all 4 reagent tests.
Click to expand...

This accords entirely with my experiences over the past few years with the majority of MDMA pills or crystal (although not all) which I have consumed. It has also become clear to me that a lot of this "type" of MDMA does last quite a long time, not so much the peak but getting back to baseline and no longer feeling "different".

Ionized's summation is precisely why I still believe the reason for the difference (which do not forget includes a MASSIVE increase in the typical dosages being consumed, even with halves being taken) is that the MDMA is not 50:50 racemic but rather a far greater proportion of the R isomer over the S isomer; who knows, perhaps some batches are close to pure R isomer. Different relative proportions of R and S isomers across particular samples also would account for why some batches of this "type" of MDMA are even more "mongy" than others.

When one considers that this crap MDMA has been around ever since the larger manufacturers swtiched to using a chiral compound in PMK-glycidate as the pre-precursor (instead of safrole or PMK itself) AND switched to using a platinum catalyst for the reductive amination AS WELL (see my earlier post on this for proof), then how can anyone safely say that such a combination is not favouring the production of the R isomer (especially if the manufacturers are NOT purifying the PMK which they are producing from the glycidate - and I for one bet they are not!)

What is frustrating about this theory is that it is one of the easiest to prove or disprove. Forensic government laboratories absolutely have the capability of determining the enantiomeric ratio of different MDMA samples; they do it all the time for this drug and others like it, especially methamphetamine. It is just a matter of identifying someone at such a facility who could and would do this. Or failing that, putting pressure on one of the organisations that lab tests drugs which users send in, to either expand their own capabilities or perhaps use their name and standing in their country to approach another lab to perform such testing. Frankly, the reasons behind why MDMA pills are becoming ridiculously high dosed is something that government laboratories should have an interest in investigating and solving in any event, and if the "user targeted" laboratories approached such a request in this way, then perhaps this might get some traction with the appropriate authority.
 
Last edited:
The shortest way to this answer is finding a good sample (Le-Junk seemed to have access to what he thought was 80's quality stuff). I also am remembering that things changed somewhere in the late 90s (I can't say the exact date of the change because I didn't do any for awhile). The late 90s stuff was different, but as G.Chem says, is different bad as long as the experience is good?

In any case, if Le-Junk stuff and another sample of "good" stuff can be found (I like the comparison because I'm dying to know what the hell was in the 1985 version - it was truly wonderful), then finding a place that would agree to thoroughly test it ... ie make the distinctions that you are all discussing: isomer ratios, polymormphisms, and whatever else these machines can find - then we know the makeup of the product we want.

Granted, I don't know how to find the place to do this. OR how to get the samples to the place that would do this. It might be worth a shot to ask MAPS, but I think they get their product from a certified manufacturer and therefore don't have laboratory testing (I also cannot think of a reason that they would agree to do it).

I still think finding a way to make it a religious act fixes the entire thing - and there would be an even more legitimate argument to use is safely given that the FDA is testing it for approval as a scheduled drug. I'll try to figure that out. But what I don' have is the samples to test.

And Biscuit, thanks for referring to the fact that MASSIVE doses are needed now. I thought I was getting old or had some kind of physiologic issue because I can take a staggering amount and get very little out of it. Nice to know that the problem isn't totally that I screwed up my brain in my crazier years.
 
While I'm still skeptical of the isomer theory I think your right biscuit in that we should pursue this first as it's the easiest to solve. Just checking out polarimeters online and they aren't that expensive relatively. I'd buy one and do it myself but I don't seem to be coming across this mongy MDMA..

I also think we should really figure a way to determine exactly how this stuff feels. Like maybe a separate thread where we can compile descriptions/reports from the mongy MDMA and then we can get a better more complete idea of how this stuff affects people. It'd at least help people like me out who don't have first hand experiences.

I was always under the impression it was simply short lasting but if there is some residual effects that last long after the main peak experience that could indicate R isomer like you said biscuit.

Also I'm reading that post differently I think by ionized but he can come in to correct us I'm sure. But based on what he said I get the feeling there was no residual effects, the only mention is "afterglow was minimal" and a feeling of sedation like taking a xanax which could be related to taking MDMA the night before. My read on that is, possibly the sedative like impurities are still active at that point.. I feel if R isomer felt sedating we'd see that in truly racemic product as well.

So what's this residual effect like for others?

-GC
 
Not sure if we are allowed to post links or not, but I see one polarimeter listed for $450. You could crowdfund that easily just from the people here, I am sure. I see many others in the 1k to 1.5 k range. Even that could be crowdfunded without much difficulty.
 
Can one of you chemistry genius's give me a brief description of exactly what I need to request from edata as far as additional testing goes. Basically the additional things we're wanting to test for like isomers etc. I'll just copy and paste your description along with my latest sample. I'll email them ahead of time to confirm whether or not they're even willing to do it of course. Thanks!
 
SympatheticMD-

My goal is to once and for all identify the actual culprit with todays crap vs. the paradise you and I both enjoyed so many many years ago my friend. Once identified, hopefully a test kit can be established to expose the inferior process thus leading to a forced change in the way MDMA is manufactured illicitly. I feel that is something that can be accomplished fairly easily once it's actually identified.

Regarding MAPS, I'm relatively certain that the product they're getting is from a pharmaceutical company.
 
I didn't read this whole thread, just the first page, I can't believe it has gone over 20 pages.

You are 51 years old, you've been rolling for over 30 years, along with a cornucopia of other hard drugs. MDMA is one of the most powerful drugs you can ingest, acting on the brain in many different ways causing all sorts of changing from gene expression, neuron death, and receptor regulation. Any drug that causes euphoria is known to lose its affect over time.

I would be WAY more surprised if MDMA did cause the same effects now as in the past, its a miracle the best effects don't fade sooner than they do.

At its core, MDMA hasn't changed, assuming that is what you are ingesting and it isn't adulterated with other drugs...you have.
 
Coolwhip said:
I didn't read this whole thread, just the first page, I can't believe it has gone over 20 pages.

You are 51 years old, you've been rolling for over 30 years, along with a cornucopia of other hard drugs. MDMA is one of the most powerful drugs you can ingest, acting on the brain in many different ways causing all sorts of changing from gene expression, neuron death, and receptor regulation. Any drug that causes euphoria is known to lose its affect over time.

I would be WAY more surprised if MDMA did cause the same effects now as in the past, its a miracle the best effects don't fade sooner than they do.

At its core, MDMA hasn't changed, assuming that is what you are ingesting and it isn't adulterated with other drugs...you have.
Click to expand...
You really need to read the whole thread. This has been disproved multiple times, today's MDMA is not the same as the one from many years ago.
 
Coolwhip said:
I didn't read this whole thread, just the first page, I can't believe it has gone over 20 pages.

You are 51 years old, you've been rolling for over 30 years, along with a cornucopia of other hard drugs. MDMA is one of the most powerful drugs you can ingest, acting on the brain in many different ways causing all sorts of changing from gene expression, neuron death, and receptor regulation. Any drug that causes euphoria is known to lose its affect over time.

I would be WAY more surprised if MDMA did cause the same effects now as in the past, its a miracle the best effects don't fade sooner than they do.

At its core, MDMA hasn't changed, assuming that is what you are ingesting and it isn't adulterated with other drugs...you have.
Click to expand...

Mmm I'm quite annoyed at your over-confident ignorance. You remind me of myself 4-5 years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top