-
MDMA &
Empathogenic
Drugs
Welcome Guest! -
MDMA Moderators:
What is wrong with the MDMA available today?
- Thread starter Le Junk
- Start date
- Status
indigoaura
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,707
Psy997, my guinea pig friend tried both the "meh" stuff (which I have had around since 2005) and this newer stuff from the DW. He liked this stuff better. I have not tried this newer stuff yet. I have been waiting for the test result.
These test results are for the new stuff.
These test results are for the new stuff.
Last edited:
Hilopsilo
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2016
- Messages
- 606
It seems everyone discussing in here have made your minds about that MDMA today is simply different than it was before. I have an incredibly, INCREDIBLY, hard time believing this, but you all seem to done some research. I'd love a summary of whats been truly discovered through this thread's discussion, what the reasoning, what is the evidence (NO anecdotes). I'm legitimately curious to learn, and if whats been discussed/discovered in this thread is so important to this topic, why not have the progress synthesized is a more meaningful way than having people just sift through pages of messages?
But here is what I have to say: Reading a lot of the recounted experiences in this thread from people who are positive that MDMA has changed since they began rolling many, many years ago, the listed effects sound just that of someone who either A.) rolled too much and now it doesn't feel the same. or B.) No longer have access to good MDMA as they once did (just because you don't have access to it doesn't mean it has ceased to exist).
I see stuff along the lines of "now the come-up isn't very intense". Anecdote versus anecdote here, but I've been rolling for ~8 years now. I've done a shit ton of drugs over the past 8 years (which may not be a lot compared to some of you), but to this day the most intense come-up of any drug for me, is still 100mg of good MDMA. I cannot fathom how that is just somehow nothing compared to how it used to be. Absolutely beautiful, potent and perfectly clean MDMA.
A couple of times I have had the misfortune of taking MDMA that was weak, adulterated or simply another chemical entirely. These other chemicals are nothing to what MDMA is, they can poorly mimic the style of effects, but its black and white entirely, you know in an instant whether you've taken MDMA or not. It's an absolutely disgusting (even scary) feeling, its described perfectly right here:
There is NOTHING that can come close to the deep, burning, almost god-like pure MDMA. Where I live we get large crystals of licorice smelling MDMA that 100mg of will absolutely knock you on your face. It has the power to break down each and every emotional wall within you, it unleashes everything that you've been scared to express before or felt you should keep deep down inside. It's pure empathy and love. I've never had a "comedown" from MDMA in the hundreds of time I've rolled on good MDMA, I basically feel like I'm in heaven until I easily drift off to sleep that night. It's incredibly therapeutic and I learn something new about myself every time, and as someone who has always struggled with expressing themselves emotionally, I become more connected and in touch with my emotions every time I roll. And it exists, right here in 2018, and depending on where you live, its not rare, at all.
As well, a lot of the anecdotes seem to fall for the same thing as all drug related anecdotes do; lack of accounting for set and setting. I can take the SAME LSD many months apart, and have 2 completely different experiences due to the infinite amount of variables at work; Which time was I more tired? Which time was a happier? Did I eat better one time? Was I more stressed one of the times? Etc. it could go on forever. It doesn't suggest any sort of inconsistency between the substance. I too have experienced "sleepy rolls", but how does that point to that the drug is different if I can't account for whether I was just more tired that day, my environment, my physical/mental state, etc.
One occasion I rolled after finals week(s) at university in which I had been up incredibly late with little sleep, poor diet, stressed, etc. I rolled at a show to celebrate the end of finals, and I was exhausted during the roll. I felt amazing, it was perfectly good MDMA, but at the show I just wanted to sit, roll, and cuddle. I felt cold otherwise. This was entirely due to the how worn out I was. I know this for fact, since 2 months later when I was well rested, stress-free, exercising and eating well I took the exact same MDMA in the exact same dose and danced my ass of all night.
Double blind study with identical doses of pure MDMA from "back in the day" and pure MDMA produced today is really the only way to prove anything here. Theres just so much bias everywhere I try to read in this thread. Every single account of how the "good ol' MDMA" is, is pretty identical to my experience today with good, pure MDMA. And every account of how bad MDMA is today, is identical to my experiences with shite/fake MDMA.
I'm incredibly surprised the availability of MDMA from the DN hasn't set this thread straight.
EDIT: Jesus, and half this discussion is comparing fucking pressed pills. How are you supposed to keep anything consistent when the only points of reference are their hue which cartoon character they resemble
But here is what I have to say: Reading a lot of the recounted experiences in this thread from people who are positive that MDMA has changed since they began rolling many, many years ago, the listed effects sound just that of someone who either A.) rolled too much and now it doesn't feel the same. or B.) No longer have access to good MDMA as they once did (just because you don't have access to it doesn't mean it has ceased to exist).
I see stuff along the lines of "now the come-up isn't very intense". Anecdote versus anecdote here, but I've been rolling for ~8 years now. I've done a shit ton of drugs over the past 8 years (which may not be a lot compared to some of you), but to this day the most intense come-up of any drug for me, is still 100mg of good MDMA. I cannot fathom how that is just somehow nothing compared to how it used to be. Absolutely beautiful, potent and perfectly clean MDMA.
A couple of times I have had the misfortune of taking MDMA that was weak, adulterated or simply another chemical entirely. These other chemicals are nothing to what MDMA is, they can poorly mimic the style of effects, but its black and white entirely, you know in an instant whether you've taken MDMA or not. It's an absolutely disgusting (even scary) feeling, its described perfectly right here:
There is NOTHING that can come close to the deep, burning, almost god-like pure MDMA. Where I live we get large crystals of licorice smelling MDMA that 100mg of will absolutely knock you on your face. It has the power to break down each and every emotional wall within you, it unleashes everything that you've been scared to express before or felt you should keep deep down inside. It's pure empathy and love. I've never had a "comedown" from MDMA in the hundreds of time I've rolled on good MDMA, I basically feel like I'm in heaven until I easily drift off to sleep that night. It's incredibly therapeutic and I learn something new about myself every time, and as someone who has always struggled with expressing themselves emotionally, I become more connected and in touch with my emotions every time I roll. And it exists, right here in 2018, and depending on where you live, its not rare, at all.
As well, a lot of the anecdotes seem to fall for the same thing as all drug related anecdotes do; lack of accounting for set and setting. I can take the SAME LSD many months apart, and have 2 completely different experiences due to the infinite amount of variables at work; Which time was I more tired? Which time was a happier? Did I eat better one time? Was I more stressed one of the times? Etc. it could go on forever. It doesn't suggest any sort of inconsistency between the substance. I too have experienced "sleepy rolls", but how does that point to that the drug is different if I can't account for whether I was just more tired that day, my environment, my physical/mental state, etc.
One occasion I rolled after finals week(s) at university in which I had been up incredibly late with little sleep, poor diet, stressed, etc. I rolled at a show to celebrate the end of finals, and I was exhausted during the roll. I felt amazing, it was perfectly good MDMA, but at the show I just wanted to sit, roll, and cuddle. I felt cold otherwise. This was entirely due to the how worn out I was. I know this for fact, since 2 months later when I was well rested, stress-free, exercising and eating well I took the exact same MDMA in the exact same dose and danced my ass of all night.
Double blind study with identical doses of pure MDMA from "back in the day" and pure MDMA produced today is really the only way to prove anything here. Theres just so much bias everywhere I try to read in this thread. Every single account of how the "good ol' MDMA" is, is pretty identical to my experience today with good, pure MDMA. And every account of how bad MDMA is today, is identical to my experiences with shite/fake MDMA.
I'm incredibly surprised the availability of MDMA from the DN hasn't set this thread straight.
EDIT: Jesus, and half this discussion is comparing fucking pressed pills. How are you supposed to keep anything consistent when the only points of reference are their hue which cartoon character they resemble
Last edited:
Hilopsilo
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2016
- Messages
- 606
I have massive doubts that what they were given was pure "Dutch MDMA crystal". 150mg of pure MDMA completely obliterates every single person I've ever seen take 150mg of pure MDMA.
No pupil dilation? Ok c'moooooon. That just proves the MDMA used there was either low dosed or just fake. Why? Because every single time I've had perfectly good, pure MDMA (the kind that 100mg makes you rethink your whole fucking life, in a good way), my pupils fucking dilate! And so does everyone elses.And no, this MDMA is not from the 90's or whenever, its from 2018.
Yes, I've had completely shite MDMA that did not cause me or anyone who took it to have dilated pupils, but that wasn't even what let us know it was BS, it simply didn't feel like MDMA, because it wasn't or was very poor MDMA.
Lol if thats the designated metric here, next time I roll I'll get pictures of myself, my friends, and everyone else at the festival on good modern day MDMA with pupils that have entirely eclipsed the iris.
I've even had the absolute displeasure of (unknowingly) taking piperazine one time in a pressed pill, you want to see dilated pupils? cause thats how you get dilated pupils. Hell, I've even seen people with saucers from doing horribly adulterated cocaine.
All good MDMA dilates pupils but not all dilated pupils are caused by good MDMA.
Last edited:
ThreePointCircle
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2016
- Messages
- 317
[With my scientist (but not a chemist) hat on]
So there's a couple of people that have questioned the general direction of this thread so I hope we can bring some clarity to the argument.
The general assertion here is that currently available material sold as mdma or mda, is not functioning like it should, specifically with respect to past experiences or what has been published as to typical effects.
Various reports have been given and details/descriptions will be subjective and lacking standardisation. But hopefully we can agree on some broad statements:
Assertion of bad 'mdma' is characterised commonly by:
* low energy or even sedation, as opposed to expected stimulant properties
* less to almost no euphoria
* substantially less physical sensation (e.g. rushes, or however you want to describe it)
additional claims are:
* less/no pupil dilation
* more product mass needed to produce an 'acceptable' experience
* reduced empathy
* reduced affect on music perception
Theories:
1) tolerance build up (temporary or otherwise)
2) psychological factors (mood, setting, placebo)
3) different molecules (i.e. recent material is not mdma, or old material wasn’t mdma)
4) different enantiomer ratio
5) missing augmentation chemicals (e.g. other stimulants)
6) incorrect mass estimation due to contaminants
7) active contaminants having negative effects
Additonal data as reported by users:
* current reagent tests are ok for modern mdma
* comparisons between good old batches and current batches: This thread opened with Le Junk saying they had mdma still from the 80s and it has desired effects, versus the poor effects described for modern mdma. And this is the same person trying both supplies (which is why this thread is fundamentally more interesting than past discussions). That information is compelling, I suppose it just comes down to whether you believe it or not.
Any or none of the theories could be correct, and are therefore worthy of testing, given that the topic is of great importance to many. However, let’s have an initial examination of the theories
1) Tolerance build up: this would be invalidated by reports of contemporary usage of old and new batches with different effects. Also, I’m not aware that tolerance could reach such levels unless reckless usage was done. Yes, you have the phenomena of poop out for SSRIs but they are being used every day, and even then, there is individual variability.
2) Psychological factors. Recreational drugs tend to have powerful effects (that’s why we like them). Subjective enjoyment may change due to mood, setting, etc…, but differences of this size are hard to explain. With regards to someone’s lsd comment - whatever the setting, I would still expect to have major visual distortions and physical sensations, regardless of the environment and whether or not I was enjoying it. I suppose what I’m saying is that getting decent effects from mdma really shouldn't be as hard as holding an aerial out the window to get a decent picture on an old tv.
3) Old or new wasn’t mdma. How good were old reagent testing kits?
4) Enantiomer ratio. Think I will leave this to another post but there appears to be a general consensus that producing a non-racemic version would be tricky so hard to explain why there would be a difference.
6) Mass. Nowadays there are large pills being sold, and there is this reported tendency of people needing what would be regarded as high to very high doses to get reasonable effects. Assuming its not tolerance issues, this could be a contaminant skewing mass figures issue.
7) Active contaminants. For me this feels like an option because it feels like there’s an ‘almost there’ quality of current mdma, and I wonder if there is a sedating contaminant conflicting the mdma. Just an idea.
Testing the hypotheses
1) Tolerance: very difficult I think. Would need a large and long cohort study with different regimes to really prove it. Could do an epidemiological study I guess but they risk incorrect conclusions because of confounding factors.
2) Psychological factors: double blind controlled environment study (as has been suggested). Tricky to get that done and you would need to know what was different chemically about your batches for the results to mean much
3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) At least preliminary data could be obtained by properly lab testing different samples. The test would need to give a breakdown of all the constituents, their mass and by enantiomer. e.g.:
R-MDMA 51.2mg
S-MDMA 50.3mg
Chem x 2.5mg
Chem y 3.7mg
Chem z 1.1mg
Seeing results from different samples will at least give some indication of what is out there. And if we can correlate to user reports then maybe that holds some validity.
So there's a couple of people that have questioned the general direction of this thread so I hope we can bring some clarity to the argument.
The general assertion here is that currently available material sold as mdma or mda, is not functioning like it should, specifically with respect to past experiences or what has been published as to typical effects.
Various reports have been given and details/descriptions will be subjective and lacking standardisation. But hopefully we can agree on some broad statements:
Assertion of bad 'mdma' is characterised commonly by:
* low energy or even sedation, as opposed to expected stimulant properties
* less to almost no euphoria
* substantially less physical sensation (e.g. rushes, or however you want to describe it)
additional claims are:
* less/no pupil dilation
* more product mass needed to produce an 'acceptable' experience
* reduced empathy
* reduced affect on music perception
Theories:
1) tolerance build up (temporary or otherwise)
2) psychological factors (mood, setting, placebo)
3) different molecules (i.e. recent material is not mdma, or old material wasn’t mdma)
4) different enantiomer ratio
5) missing augmentation chemicals (e.g. other stimulants)
6) incorrect mass estimation due to contaminants
7) active contaminants having negative effects
Additonal data as reported by users:
* current reagent tests are ok for modern mdma
* comparisons between good old batches and current batches: This thread opened with Le Junk saying they had mdma still from the 80s and it has desired effects, versus the poor effects described for modern mdma. And this is the same person trying both supplies (which is why this thread is fundamentally more interesting than past discussions). That information is compelling, I suppose it just comes down to whether you believe it or not.
Any or none of the theories could be correct, and are therefore worthy of testing, given that the topic is of great importance to many. However, let’s have an initial examination of the theories
1) Tolerance build up: this would be invalidated by reports of contemporary usage of old and new batches with different effects. Also, I’m not aware that tolerance could reach such levels unless reckless usage was done. Yes, you have the phenomena of poop out for SSRIs but they are being used every day, and even then, there is individual variability.
2) Psychological factors. Recreational drugs tend to have powerful effects (that’s why we like them). Subjective enjoyment may change due to mood, setting, etc…, but differences of this size are hard to explain. With regards to someone’s lsd comment - whatever the setting, I would still expect to have major visual distortions and physical sensations, regardless of the environment and whether or not I was enjoying it. I suppose what I’m saying is that getting decent effects from mdma really shouldn't be as hard as holding an aerial out the window to get a decent picture on an old tv.
3) Old or new wasn’t mdma. How good were old reagent testing kits?
4) Enantiomer ratio. Think I will leave this to another post but there appears to be a general consensus that producing a non-racemic version would be tricky so hard to explain why there would be a difference.
6) Mass. Nowadays there are large pills being sold, and there is this reported tendency of people needing what would be regarded as high to very high doses to get reasonable effects. Assuming its not tolerance issues, this could be a contaminant skewing mass figures issue.
7) Active contaminants. For me this feels like an option because it feels like there’s an ‘almost there’ quality of current mdma, and I wonder if there is a sedating contaminant conflicting the mdma. Just an idea.
Testing the hypotheses
1) Tolerance: very difficult I think. Would need a large and long cohort study with different regimes to really prove it. Could do an epidemiological study I guess but they risk incorrect conclusions because of confounding factors.
2) Psychological factors: double blind controlled environment study (as has been suggested). Tricky to get that done and you would need to know what was different chemically about your batches for the results to mean much
3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) At least preliminary data could be obtained by properly lab testing different samples. The test would need to give a breakdown of all the constituents, their mass and by enantiomer. e.g.:
R-MDMA 51.2mg
S-MDMA 50.3mg
Chem x 2.5mg
Chem y 3.7mg
Chem z 1.1mg
Seeing results from different samples will at least give some indication of what is out there. And if we can correlate to user reports then maybe that holds some validity.
Hilopsilo
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2016
- Messages
- 606
So, the only evidence we have that "its not me its the MDMA" is one guy who'd been rolling for 30 years that claims they have 30 y/o MDMA and it doesn't feel the same compared to whatever it is they have access to now? Cause the other 6 theories ("its you not the MDMA") very plausibly fall under either lack of access to quality product or longterm tolerance/"lost the magic"/rose-colored glasses. I don't see anything there that definitively rules any of that out.
This all reminds me of something that happened a couple months ago; one of my good friend's favorite candy is "Shocktarts", he would always complain about how they don't have Shocktarts here in Canada. I really liked Shocktarts too, and they do sell "Sweet Tarts Chewy Sours" in stores here and they taste exactly the same to me. He was sooo stubborn that they do not taste the same and are not the same candy. I was reading the back of a roll of them, and in small print "Previously Shocktarts", they had simply been rereleased under the sweettarts brand. I looked it up and what do ya know, they are the EXACT same candy, just rebranded under a different name after the 1990's. After this, he tried them again, and reluctantly admitted that maybe they are the same, he now buys a pack of them everyday.
Testing the hypotheses
1.) I'll feed one of these old farts some good 'ol Canadian MDMA and they can try to tell me with a straight face that they feel "less to almost no euphoria", and you can't pretend your pupils aren't dilating
This all reminds me of something that happened a couple months ago; one of my good friend's favorite candy is "Shocktarts", he would always complain about how they don't have Shocktarts here in Canada. I really liked Shocktarts too, and they do sell "Sweet Tarts Chewy Sours" in stores here and they taste exactly the same to me. He was sooo stubborn that they do not taste the same and are not the same candy. I was reading the back of a roll of them, and in small print "Previously Shocktarts", they had simply been rereleased under the sweettarts brand. I looked it up and what do ya know, they are the EXACT same candy, just rebranded under a different name after the 1990's. After this, he tried them again, and reluctantly admitted that maybe they are the same, he now buys a pack of them everyday.
Testing the hypotheses
1.) I'll feed one of these old farts some good 'ol Canadian MDMA and they can try to tell me with a straight face that they feel "less to almost no euphoria", and you can't pretend your pupils aren't dilating
Last edited:
First I must ask, have you read the entire thread? We do come to some interesting conclusions as it progresses beyond the posts you quoted.
While I'll agree there's some really definitive statements throughout (i.e. All MDMA these days is shit, etc) that I've tried my best to give some perspective on, if you really sift through all the evidence and actually have an understanding chemistry it becomes obvious there's been some general changes to production over the years that correlate well with complaints of MDMA "changing."
I'm in the same boat as you brother, get beautiful Canadian MDMA that will rock you. I'm 13yrs in and still roll harder than lots of newbies but I've also taken great care to make sure that happened. But we are apparently some of luckier ones out there and/or it's a geographical problem. It seems most complaints relate to Dutch MDMA and that's specifically what we are addressing here.
Our Canadian MDMA is likely derived from safrole, with each intermediate produced and purified in the lab the final product will come from. Safrole is still easy'ish (relatively) to obtain on this continent. Dutch MDMA and likely other European countries seem to have taken to PMK glycidate made in China. The intermediate is likely used as is to create MDMA and as we've discussed earlier in this thread it's almost certainly not going to be pure.. I could go on but I'd be repeating myself, really read the rest of thread please.
If a few people can't get good product anymore that could be written off as bad or no connects, but since the drought of the late 00's the complaints (especially in the blue light regional forum) have skyrocketed despite lab testing showing high dosage pills. We can't really brush it off anymore, I'm a believer and I've never consumed this mongy MDMA (although I've watched people take Dutch presses with little effects even when lab tested at 150+mg..)
On the plus side, I've noticed a recent turnaround in quality in the European regional MDMA thread, it seems they weren't all burnt out after all.. Just getting sub standard MDMA.
-GC
While I'll agree there's some really definitive statements throughout (i.e. All MDMA these days is shit, etc) that I've tried my best to give some perspective on, if you really sift through all the evidence and actually have an understanding chemistry it becomes obvious there's been some general changes to production over the years that correlate well with complaints of MDMA "changing."
I'm in the same boat as you brother, get beautiful Canadian MDMA that will rock you. I'm 13yrs in and still roll harder than lots of newbies but I've also taken great care to make sure that happened. But we are apparently some of luckier ones out there and/or it's a geographical problem. It seems most complaints relate to Dutch MDMA and that's specifically what we are addressing here.
Our Canadian MDMA is likely derived from safrole, with each intermediate produced and purified in the lab the final product will come from. Safrole is still easy'ish (relatively) to obtain on this continent. Dutch MDMA and likely other European countries seem to have taken to PMK glycidate made in China. The intermediate is likely used as is to create MDMA and as we've discussed earlier in this thread it's almost certainly not going to be pure.. I could go on but I'd be repeating myself, really read the rest of thread please.
If a few people can't get good product anymore that could be written off as bad or no connects, but since the drought of the late 00's the complaints (especially in the blue light regional forum) have skyrocketed despite lab testing showing high dosage pills. We can't really brush it off anymore, I'm a believer and I've never consumed this mongy MDMA (although I've watched people take Dutch presses with little effects even when lab tested at 150+mg..)
On the plus side, I've noticed a recent turnaround in quality in the European regional MDMA thread, it seems they weren't all burnt out after all.. Just getting sub standard MDMA.
-GC
Last edited:
Hilopsilo
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2016
- Messages
- 606
I've read a good portion of it, just the amount of bias, anecdotes, and what is basically MDMA "gatekeeping" (you havent had real mdma unless you rolled in the 80's) started to do my head in lol. It just seems somewhat illogical to get into all this chemistry stuff if we can't even pin down that there even is a difference to begin with.
I've also had dutch MDMA from the DW and it was just as good. Hell, who's to say a lot of the Canadian MDMA isn't just imported Dutch MDMA? Either way, incredible quality MDMA flows like water in Canada, maybe it is a geographical problem, but the assertion that MDMA itself is different now just because you rolled harder 30 years ago is just irrational.
100mg of pure MDMA is 100mg of pure MDMA, the same goes for all drugs, why would MDMA be the exception (I've heard stuff about ketamine isomers, but even then, the differences are minute compared to how people in this thread seem to the think MDMA has changed). Pressed pills? All bets are off. Theres a reason they practically don't exist in certain places. they became so inconsistent, adulterated and sketchy nobody would even buy them.
I've also had dutch MDMA from the DW and it was just as good. Hell, who's to say a lot of the Canadian MDMA isn't just imported Dutch MDMA? Either way, incredible quality MDMA flows like water in Canada, maybe it is a geographical problem, but the assertion that MDMA itself is different now just because you rolled harder 30 years ago is just irrational.
100mg of pure MDMA is 100mg of pure MDMA, the same goes for all drugs, why would MDMA be the exception (I've heard stuff about ketamine isomers, but even then, the differences are minute compared to how people in this thread seem to the think MDMA has changed). Pressed pills? All bets are off. Theres a reason they practically don't exist in certain places. they became so inconsistent, adulterated and sketchy nobody would even buy them.
Last edited:
Sir Ron Pib
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2012
- Messages
- 643
So the "Modern has a sooner onset (< 30mins vs 50mins)" and from another 'The new stuff (2005-present) Can't tell if you are feeling it after 1.5 hours' - well glad to see we are all singing from the same hymn book. There are plausible differences in MDMA but I agree atavism and warm memories of gurning 30 years back might be the most infallible way of assessing all this
psy997
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2012
- Messages
- 2,822
I've had pure, tested MDMA that was exactly as is described here. Total shit. At the time I thought it had to have been something else, and, having had 2-3 experiences since, I'm no longer convinced.
Hilopsilo, I hate to bring in something from another thread, but, I am. You're young, as am I, and, being young it's easy to fall into definitives and rigid systems of thought that don't allow for unusual and bizarre circumstances to exist. If reading the entire thread, and even just having a sample of the reports coming out around the world, you're not convinced. I'm sorry, but it's you.
EDIT: In fact, you can most likely find a post of mine demeaning the entire theory somewhere very early in this thread. It's either in this one or the Acid/Fluff/Needlepoint one.
Hilopsilo, I hate to bring in something from another thread, but, I am. You're young, as am I, and, being young it's easy to fall into definitives and rigid systems of thought that don't allow for unusual and bizarre circumstances to exist. If reading the entire thread, and even just having a sample of the reports coming out around the world, you're not convinced. I'm sorry, but it's you.
EDIT: In fact, you can most likely find a post of mine demeaning the entire theory somewhere very early in this thread. It's either in this one or the Acid/Fluff/Needlepoint one.
Hilopsilo
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2016
- Messages
- 606
Probably thousands of people roll everyday with good, pure MDMA everyday, no amount of anecdotes from the handful old heads in this thread is going to convince me, and it shouldn't convince anyone, its not evidence.
Thats the other thing, I keep reading in here about "tested, pure MDMA". You could mix baby powder with MDMA 10:1 ratio and it would still test as "pure MDMA", that doesn't mean it's potent or strong. There was an anecdote in here saying that someone took 150mg of tested pure dutch MDMA and the subjects eyes didn't even dilate; thats just piss-poor MDMA.
I'd say the opposite is true, being old it is easier "to fall into definitives and rigid systems of thought", just look at politics, religion, what age demographics are progressive, etc. Old people are much less likely to change their longheld views and ideologies. Either way I don't see how thats relevant here. And if anything is "falling into definitives", its believing and defining that something is wrong with ALL MDMA around the world produced in the last X amount of years and it couldn't possibly just be you.
Come-up times? Another thing that depends entirely on external factors. I once ate an entire bag of rice cakes before rolling, and it took like 2.5 hours to kick in. On an empty stomach I feel the hot tingle on the back of my neck in 30 min flat. A friend of mine who I've rolled with ~20 times always comes up about 20-30 minutes after I do, just a slow metabolism. If anything I find fake shit to take a long time to kick in, like this sinister, disgusting stimulating feeling that creeps in slowly.
I'm confused psy, so you're saying you changed your mind? What changed your mind?
And just like G-Chem mentioned, the MDMA in canada is just fine, and I think you all would change your mind if you had it. He mentions that its likely derived from safrole, so I guess maybe I need to understand exactly what the "thesis" here is; is it that "all MDMA now has something wrong with it" or that "MDMA not derived from safrole has something wrong with it"? Because 99% of the MDMA I've taken has that aniseed smell and has been nothing short of godly. It's all the same here, just big fat aniseed smelling crystals. I may be "young", but I've been rolling for nearly a decade now and have gotten fake/adulterated "molly" enough times to tell the difference, like many have said in this thread, it IS night and day.
EDIT: Idk, probably pointless me trying to argue with you all, shugenja and Kaden_Nite's take on all this in the SALT thread really has it nailed down.
Thats the other thing, I keep reading in here about "tested, pure MDMA". You could mix baby powder with MDMA 10:1 ratio and it would still test as "pure MDMA", that doesn't mean it's potent or strong. There was an anecdote in here saying that someone took 150mg of tested pure dutch MDMA and the subjects eyes didn't even dilate; thats just piss-poor MDMA.
I'd say the opposite is true, being old it is easier "to fall into definitives and rigid systems of thought", just look at politics, religion, what age demographics are progressive, etc. Old people are much less likely to change their longheld views and ideologies. Either way I don't see how thats relevant here. And if anything is "falling into definitives", its believing and defining that something is wrong with ALL MDMA around the world produced in the last X amount of years and it couldn't possibly just be you.
Come-up times? Another thing that depends entirely on external factors. I once ate an entire bag of rice cakes before rolling, and it took like 2.5 hours to kick in. On an empty stomach I feel the hot tingle on the back of my neck in 30 min flat. A friend of mine who I've rolled with ~20 times always comes up about 20-30 minutes after I do, just a slow metabolism. If anything I find fake shit to take a long time to kick in, like this sinister, disgusting stimulating feeling that creeps in slowly.
I'm confused psy, so you're saying you changed your mind? What changed your mind?
And just like G-Chem mentioned, the MDMA in canada is just fine, and I think you all would change your mind if you had it. He mentions that its likely derived from safrole, so I guess maybe I need to understand exactly what the "thesis" here is; is it that "all MDMA now has something wrong with it" or that "MDMA not derived from safrole has something wrong with it"? Because 99% of the MDMA I've taken has that aniseed smell and has been nothing short of godly. It's all the same here, just big fat aniseed smelling crystals. I may be "young", but I've been rolling for nearly a decade now and have gotten fake/adulterated "molly" enough times to tell the difference, like many have said in this thread, it IS night and day.
EDIT: Idk, probably pointless me trying to argue with you all, shugenja and Kaden_Nite's take on all this in the SALT thread really has it nailed down.
Last edited:
indigoaura
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,707
Hi Hilopsilo,
From reading your posts, I think you have a few misconceptions. I understand that the thread is long, and we were all talking in another thread for awhile too, so maybe some important points got lost somewhere.
#1. I have never understood the argument to be "all new mdma is bad." On the contrary, old-timer users like Le Junk have stated the opposite. My understanding is that there is plenty of legitimate MDMA out there that produces the expected effects, but there is also some "bad/mongy" MDMA going around as well. The problem is that there is currently no testing kit or lab that seems to reliably show the difference between the two.
#2. I have personally sent samples to the lab of what I consider to be "good" MDMA and "bad" MDMA and the laboratory shows both products as MDMA. I am not talking about one time use. I am talking about many similar experiences over the course of years. Not just by me either, but by friends as well. For example, no eye dilation or minimal eye dilation on 200 mg of MDMA that was tested by a lab and shown to be MDMA. No euphoria on 200 mg etc. And no, set and setting does not explain it when many people report the same thing across multiple experiences.
#3. "I'll feed one of these old farts some good 'ol Canadian MDMA and they can try to tell me with a straight face that they feel "less to almost no euphoria", and you can't pretend your pupils aren't dilating." Well, that is the point. We agree with you. If you take MDMA, then you know you took MDMA because it has certain reliable effects such as eye dilation and euphoria. That is really the whole point. If you are taking something and it is NOT producing those effects, then something is not right. But the complication here is that laboratories are saying the "bunk" stuff IS MDMA. (Also, I'm up for the challenge! Send some my way!)
#4. For the first five years of my MDMA use, I would have said the exact same thing as you. MDMA is MDMA. Get a testing kit, send it to a lab, but if a product is MDMA then it is good. It is hard to believe otherwise when that has been your only experience. There are many people, however, who are noting a new trend where that is not the case, and we want to know WHY.
From reading your posts, I think you have a few misconceptions. I understand that the thread is long, and we were all talking in another thread for awhile too, so maybe some important points got lost somewhere.
#1. I have never understood the argument to be "all new mdma is bad." On the contrary, old-timer users like Le Junk have stated the opposite. My understanding is that there is plenty of legitimate MDMA out there that produces the expected effects, but there is also some "bad/mongy" MDMA going around as well. The problem is that there is currently no testing kit or lab that seems to reliably show the difference between the two.
#2. I have personally sent samples to the lab of what I consider to be "good" MDMA and "bad" MDMA and the laboratory shows both products as MDMA. I am not talking about one time use. I am talking about many similar experiences over the course of years. Not just by me either, but by friends as well. For example, no eye dilation or minimal eye dilation on 200 mg of MDMA that was tested by a lab and shown to be MDMA. No euphoria on 200 mg etc. And no, set and setting does not explain it when many people report the same thing across multiple experiences.
#3. "I'll feed one of these old farts some good 'ol Canadian MDMA and they can try to tell me with a straight face that they feel "less to almost no euphoria", and you can't pretend your pupils aren't dilating." Well, that is the point. We agree with you. If you take MDMA, then you know you took MDMA because it has certain reliable effects such as eye dilation and euphoria. That is really the whole point. If you are taking something and it is NOT producing those effects, then something is not right. But the complication here is that laboratories are saying the "bunk" stuff IS MDMA. (Also, I'm up for the challenge! Send some my way!)
#4. For the first five years of my MDMA use, I would have said the exact same thing as you. MDMA is MDMA. Get a testing kit, send it to a lab, but if a product is MDMA then it is good. It is hard to believe otherwise when that has been your only experience. There are many people, however, who are noting a new trend where that is not the case, and we want to know WHY.
indigoaura
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,707
Also, Hilopsilo...
Safrole is illegal and highly restricted here in America. Chemists here are being forced to turn to alternative production methods. I have only smelled MDMA that smells like aniseed or safrole 2 times since 2005. The other stuff I have access to does not smell like anything. And, I agree with your statement that when it has that smell it is "nothing short of godly."
If I had to write a thesis statement for this thread it would be: "Alternative production methods have resulted in the creation of sub-par MDMA with less than ideal effects and increased risk for negative side effects."
Safrole is illegal and highly restricted here in America. Chemists here are being forced to turn to alternative production methods. I have only smelled MDMA that smells like aniseed or safrole 2 times since 2005. The other stuff I have access to does not smell like anything. And, I agree with your statement that when it has that smell it is "nothing short of godly."
If I had to write a thesis statement for this thread it would be: "Alternative production methods have resulted in the creation of sub-par MDMA with less than ideal effects and increased risk for negative side effects."
Hilopsilo
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2016
- Messages
- 606
America is a big place, but in the PNW/Canada, the huge crystals that smell of anissed/safrole from across the room are rampant, I get butterflies just thinking about the smell! It's rare to find something thats not like that here IME, and generally most people are wary of buying anything that isn't like that. I probably wouldn't take anything that isn't like that just because of bad experiences with fake/adulterated MDMA pre-2013. (although, I have gotten DW mdma that was perfectly fine that didn't have as strong of a smell, but it was also crushed finely and in a very small amount).
QFT
To say definitively that perfectly good MDMA isn't out there and still being produced just makes my blood boil. Everyone deserves good MDMA!
QFT
To say definitively that perfectly good MDMA isn't out there and still being produced just makes my blood boil. Everyone deserves good MDMA!
indigoaura
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,707
Hi Hilopsilo,
I certainly cannot speak for all of America. All I know is that my access has been limited since 2005. I'm not connected, that's for sure. The product I have had access to was sent to a lab. The lab said it was MDMA, but it does not produce the same effects. That is what I know to be true, and at least a half dozen people I know have the same observations as me. The lab did show the presence of a manufacturing byproduct, so perhaps that is the factor here. That is one of our hypothesis, that adulterants are somehow interfering in absorption/processing for some people.
I absolutely think it is a product issue. Here is my question for you though...what does someone like me do? I have utilized all of the known safeguards - testing kit, lab test etc. All of those safeguards say my product is MDMA. I have experimented with doses. It just does not do the same thing as the kind of MDMA you have access to.
So, why would that be the case? I would think I'd blown my neurons if it was just me, but it is not just me.
(and yes, I get butterflies thinking about that smell too)
Isn't it a safety concern that there is something being sold as MDMA, that laboratories say is MDMA, but it does not produce the same effect as MDMA and has a nasty comedown? To add to that concern...some of these alternatives to safrole may have carcinogenic adulterants present.
I certainly cannot speak for all of America. All I know is that my access has been limited since 2005. I'm not connected, that's for sure. The product I have had access to was sent to a lab. The lab said it was MDMA, but it does not produce the same effects. That is what I know to be true, and at least a half dozen people I know have the same observations as me. The lab did show the presence of a manufacturing byproduct, so perhaps that is the factor here. That is one of our hypothesis, that adulterants are somehow interfering in absorption/processing for some people.
I absolutely think it is a product issue. Here is my question for you though...what does someone like me do? I have utilized all of the known safeguards - testing kit, lab test etc. All of those safeguards say my product is MDMA. I have experimented with doses. It just does not do the same thing as the kind of MDMA you have access to.
So, why would that be the case? I would think I'd blown my neurons if it was just me, but it is not just me.
(and yes, I get butterflies thinking about that smell too)
Isn't it a safety concern that there is something being sold as MDMA, that laboratories say is MDMA, but it does not produce the same effect as MDMA and has a nasty comedown? To add to that concern...some of these alternatives to safrole may have carcinogenic adulterants present.
indigoaura
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,707
Let me put this another way...
My cat has urinary retention problems and needs medication in order to urinate. When I buy the name-brand medication from the vet, it works as expected. Cat urinates. Everyone is happy. These pills are soft and dissolve well in water.
When I buy the off-brand medication from Walgreens, it does not work as expected. Cat can't urinate. No one is happy. These pills are hard and don't dissolve as well in water.
Same chemical. Same amount. Same label. Clearly one works correctly and one does not.
Same thing here.
(and it's not "set and setting" for the cat)
My cat has urinary retention problems and needs medication in order to urinate. When I buy the name-brand medication from the vet, it works as expected. Cat urinates. Everyone is happy. These pills are soft and dissolve well in water.
When I buy the off-brand medication from Walgreens, it does not work as expected. Cat can't urinate. No one is happy. These pills are hard and don't dissolve as well in water.
Same chemical. Same amount. Same label. Clearly one works correctly and one does not.
Same thing here.
(and it's not "set and setting" for the cat)
Last edited:
Hilopsilo
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2016
- Messages
- 606
As far as reagent tests go, its been well defined in this thread that the reagent test only tests for the presence of MDMA, not how much is in there or how pure it is. Like I said, you could mix 80mg of baby powder with 20mg of MDMA, and a reagent test would still tell you its MDMA. But you'd take that 100mg of "MDMA" and it would be weak as shit.
I'd certainly want to know more abut the "lab test" results. I don't know anything about lab tests, but if the extent of the returned results were "This is MDMA, but there is also manufacturing byproduct in it" isn't very conclusive. How much byproduct? how much MDMA is there? What is this byproduct?
To me it seems pretty clear, there is just really weak MDMA out there that tests positive as MDMA. And it could be weak for the same reason any street drug might be weak; poor craftsmanship and/or inactive cutting agents. To blame all this on the precursor, which the most knowledgable person on chemistry here by a longshot thinks is most certainly NOT the issue here, is pretty illogical.
I'd certainly want to know more abut the "lab test" results. I don't know anything about lab tests, but if the extent of the returned results were "This is MDMA, but there is also manufacturing byproduct in it" isn't very conclusive. How much byproduct? how much MDMA is there? What is this byproduct?
To me it seems pretty clear, there is just really weak MDMA out there that tests positive as MDMA. And it could be weak for the same reason any street drug might be weak; poor craftsmanship and/or inactive cutting agents. To blame all this on the precursor, which the most knowledgable person on chemistry here by a longshot thinks is most certainly NOT the issue here, is pretty illogical.
Hilopsilo
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2016
- Messages
- 606
I'm trying to find out if MDMA that has been made with PMK also has the aniseed/licorice smell that stuff made with saffrole does?
Cause it seems the easiest way of investigating this would be to find two batches of MDMA, one made with saffrole and one made from PMK, both high quality and synthesized properly, and simply compare them from there. If MDMA make from PMK doesn't have the licorice smell, this wouldn't hard to figure out.
Cause it seems the easiest way of investigating this would be to find two batches of MDMA, one made with saffrole and one made from PMK, both high quality and synthesized properly, and simply compare them from there. If MDMA make from PMK doesn't have the licorice smell, this wouldn't hard to figure out.
You're saying i've done both the "orange tesla's" and the "red surpremes"
Pill form doesnt say anything. Anyone can make any pillform.
Having the same pillform as an online trip report doesnt mean you're taking the same pill.
Alright Hilo I'll respond more tonight but quickly...
Yes safrole MDMA has that characteristic "aniseed" smell whereas the Dutch product does not. This has been documented for many years now. You can actually see the difference with reagents too, Marquis tests with a purple color if there's even the slightest amount of safrole present whereas Dutch PMK glycidate product goes jet black no purple.
Also when some says "lab tested" that means getting a full GCMS report which indicates simply active substances found (America) or if your in Europe they also give dosage. When I quote a dosage of 150mg that's a lab tested amount.
Sure pills can change but when you've got certain pills that are consistently lab tested as a certain high dosage of MDMA and only MD and also consistently looked upon as bad pills then we've gotta think harder on the subject.
Pure MDMA is indeed pure MDMA but illicit product is never pure. Even your stinky aniseed crystals are likely rather impure (smell should be minimal, only evident upon cracking open a crystal.) Also that thread with shunenja and Kaden is old news my man, we're well past that. If you notice shunenja ain't around anymore, it's cuz he got schooled and went home...
Back later,
-GC
Yes safrole MDMA has that characteristic "aniseed" smell whereas the Dutch product does not. This has been documented for many years now. You can actually see the difference with reagents too, Marquis tests with a purple color if there's even the slightest amount of safrole present whereas Dutch PMK glycidate product goes jet black no purple.
Also when some says "lab tested" that means getting a full GCMS report which indicates simply active substances found (America) or if your in Europe they also give dosage. When I quote a dosage of 150mg that's a lab tested amount.
Sure pills can change but when you've got certain pills that are consistently lab tested as a certain high dosage of MDMA and only MD and also consistently looked upon as bad pills then we've gotta think harder on the subject.
Pure MDMA is indeed pure MDMA but illicit product is never pure. Even your stinky aniseed crystals are likely rather impure (smell should be minimal, only evident upon cracking open a crystal.) Also that thread with shunenja and Kaden is old news my man, we're well past that. If you notice shunenja ain't around anymore, it's cuz he got schooled and went home...
Back later,
-GC
- Status