What is wrong with the MDMA available today? - v2

[unodelacosa]

If the conversion of PMK Glycidate to PMK is not 100% efficient then some PMK Glycidate is left in the reaction vessel.
If this unreacted precursor is not removed completely by the subsequent workup, it can get amidated and its epoxy ring can be opened by subsequent reaction with Methylamine, generating M-ALPHA-HMCA as a contaminant.

Yeah I'm not sure why I made that previous statement, as if I had forgotten how terribly inept some clandestine chemists are. Murphy's law definitely applies here. I would like to think the percentage of unconverted PMK-glycidate making its way to the reaction vessel would be quite small to the point of having a negligible effect, if any, on the end product. This is making a lot of assumptions though, I admit, and furthermore, while we know M-ALPHA is active, what's the word on M-ALPHA-HMCA activity? Haven't done a deep dive into this question but from a cursory search it looks like this has yet to be investigated.

Obviously, any side product reactants present will be aminated ("amidate" is a drug) – I've said this for a while now, especially in reference to how excessive heat when refluxing safrole in the presence of a strong base to isomerize it results in the methylenedioxy ring breaking open to produce a 3,4-dimethoxy compound. This compound is aminated to 3,4-dimethoxy-n-methyl-amphetamine which is a CNS stimulant primarily, and much less of a serotonergic compound purportedly. I imagine something similar could occur if a clandestine chemist uses too much heat while cleaving off the glycidate molecules…

And then add to it what you said about dimethylamine. I think this was an interesting notion mentioned early in the thread. To wit: methylamine is highly watched and controlled, so clandestine chemists sometimes synthesize their own. Dimethylamine and trimethylamine will form along with methylamine, and unless removed, it will contaminate the end product to produce such compounds as MDDMA and even MDTMA, both of which act as 5-HT reuptake inhibitors and in theory would disrupt MDMA's activity of traveling up the serotonin transporter to the presynaptic storage of serotonin.

So while all of these things are possible and theoretically cool to think about, we have no way of knowing exactly which, if any or all, of these theories is what's causing some people to swear what's being called MDMA is more contaminated now than in the past. However, you're right – there are certainly ways in which contamination of MDMA occurs, but this is nothing new, and I'm skeptical this is the ultimate cause for some people's disenchantment with MDMA.

hope there’s a resolution to all this at some point.

This is really only a problem if you cannot find real MDMA pure enough to float your proverbial boat. Otherwise it's no different now than it was in the past – without proper oversight and regulation, quality will vary wildly, and there will always be assholes who sell fake and/or mislabelled drugs. The real solution would be for civilization to accept recreational drug use, decriminalize and eventually legalize and control psychoactive drugs while respecting body autonomy and the right to explore our own minds… end global drug prohibition, and we could ensure the MDMA.HCl we ingest is of the highest caliber. Wouldn't that be lovely?

 

[user666]

The Lee paper investigated the M-ALPHA-HMCA chemistry.

...while we know M-ALPHA is active, what's the word on M-ALPHA-HMCA activity? Haven't done a deep dive into this question just yet but from a cursory search it looks like this has yet to be investigated.

 

[unodelacosa]

There was no problem with supply here since the last drought around 2009-2010. After that drought there were a few good batches of pills and MDMA but it tailed off quite sharply. Last decent pills I saw were orange Q dances.

Ohhhhh, I get it now. You're in New South Wales, Australia… yeah dude, your scene is totally different. Oops, lemme translate my 'murrican english into 'strine for yeh. Yer, bloke, yah scene is totally fahkin' different. I really don't know how the bloody mdmah in new south wales is compahred ta the bloody rest of the bloody wawrld. Geographic isolation is a dual edge swawrd with these matters, mate. (Lol, courtesy of https://lingojam.com/EnglishtoAustralian)

Believe what you like nobody is arguing.

No?

But I've been doing MDMA since the early 2000's and there's no way the mass prodiced stuff coming out of the Netherlands now is as good as it once was.

Maybe, maybe not. How would we know, scientifically that is? I've been taking MDMA in the U.S. since 1995, so can't speak for the Euro/UK crowd nor the Aussie scene, but as far as I'm concerned, and having manufactured MDMA around the turn of the new millennium, the MDMA today is just as good as it was in the late 90s. But that's just my opinion, take it w/a grain of hydrochloride.

I've even been at parties and not taken any, and watched other people. Its not the same when everyone is rolling around the floor rather than dancing. I've even tried lower doses of the recent stuff and still no energy, empathy or wanting to dance off it. I'm far from the only one who thinks this. Go and look at the European regional pill discussion thread.

No offense, but lots of people believe in UFOs and alien abductions and shit like that, it doesn't prove the existence of aliens though. Lots of people believe in God, but this does not make God real. A breakthrough experience on DMT on the other might make God real, or even realer. YMMV, or, erm, what's the European equivalent to gas-mileage? Ah, fuck, forgive me, bruvva, you get the gist of what I'm on about over here, right? Don't mind my blathering yankee New Yawka squawk box.

The Lee paper investigated the M-ALPHA-HMCA chemistry.

Fuckin' sick. Thank you for sharing this. Much obliged

 

[unodelacosa]

Those orange qdances really were fantastic if you are referring to the round orange ones with the logo stamped.

Someone told me those are actually 2C-E. Can anyone confirm or corroborate that claim?

 

[indigoaura]

Thought all of you may get a kick out of this one. I logged in to my International Energy Control account to view the results of some of the old samples that I sent in. Noted this comment on one of the samples:

We are sending you the result again because we have checked the database and found that the application selected MDMA by default. It turns out to be a different substance, so we are sending you the result again.
We are very sorry for the mistake.

WHOOPS.

Sorry, but the machine was on auto pilot and we accidentally told you one thing when it was really another. Sorry!

Does anyone here have any doubt that they would miss rare, similar compounds on analysis?

<edited to add: apparently it was MDA and not MDMA, but who knows, really? It is shocking to me that they would not be accurate about such a common drug.>

 

[unodelacosa]

Thought all of you may get a kick out of this one. I logged in to my International Energy Control account to view the results of some of the old samples that I sent in. Noted this comment on one of the samples

I like how they blame it all on the software as if that's what's to blame here, not incompetence. It's also more than a little irresponsible and dangerous of them. And it's exactly what I predicted. Thanks for confirming my hunch.

Does anyone here have any doubt that they would miss rare, similar compounds on analysis?

Doubt of myself or IEC? Obviously, I have very little faith in IEC. I've opined to you before I don't trust them to know whatTF they're talking about or render an accurate testing results summary and conclusion.

Sounds like good cause to ask them for a refund. Tell them: sure is a good thing there was no PMMA in those samples; someone could've died no thanks to their bogus, careless reporting.

As far as analysis goes, well… take a look at the Shulgin Index, Vol I entries: https://imgur.com/a/46UunKf



They're distinct. Of course it helps to have some idea of what to look for, but it isn't like you didn't provide that. Supposed "language barrier" or not (as if Google Translate can't convert Spanish and English near perfectly), this is just unprofessional and embarrassing. It's frustrating and has had me looking at used GC-MS machines on eBay… they're a lot more affordable than you might think considering the cost of a new one.

 

[indigoaura]

I like how they blame it all on the software as if that's what's to blame here, not incompetence. It's also more than a little irresponsible and dangerous of them. And it's exactly what I predicted. Thanks for confirming my hunch.


Doubt of myself or IEC? Obviously, I have very little faith in IEC. I've opined to you before I don't trust them to know whatTF they're talking about or render an accurate testing results summary and conclusion.

Sounds like good cause to ask them for a refund. Tell them: sure is a good thing there was no PMMA in those samples; someone could've died no thanks to their bogus, careless reporting.

As far as analysis goes, well… take a look at the Shulgin Index, Vol I entries: https://imgur.com/a/46UunKf



They're distinct. Of course it helps to have some idea of what to look for, but it isn't like you didn't provide that. Supposed "language barrier" or not (as if Google Translate can't convert Spanish and English near perfectly), this is just unprofessional and embarrassing. It's frustrating and has had me looking at used GC-MS machines on eBay… they're a lot more affordable than you might think considering the cost of a new one.

What is ridiculous as well is that for this particular sample, in my notes on submission, I indicated that I suspected it was MDA due to an inactive Simon's result. The title of the submission was literally "MDMA or MDA compound." Then, they tell me that it is MDMA and NOT MDA, so I think my Simon's test is bad. It is just such absolutely unprofessional and (like you said) dangerous work. I make the choice about whether to mix drugs based on those results. MDA and 2CB do not mix well, and that combo has caused me serious issues in the past.

It just supports what I have suspected all along, which is that a great deal of the accuracy depends on the settings of the GCMS machine. In order to properly set up a machine for differentiating between MDMA and some of these similar compounds, you would have to really know what you are doing. Do they? Or, are they mostly volunteers with limited training?

In any case, I am probably not going to waste any further money sending samples to IEC. They are not providing what I need. Drugs Data, although more limited in the information they can provide, do seem to at least adequately identify basic compounds.

Let me know what you find out about buying equipment. Although, from the earlier data, I am not convinced GCMS is going to identify what we want in all cases.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

Combine LCMS or gcms with NMR and I think you can identify most compounds, although lc and NMR might be a tad more expensive

 

[user666]

Combine LCMS or gcms with NMR and I think you can identify most compounds, although lc and NMR might be a tad more expensive

And what do you think of HPLC + Raman ?

 

[someguyontheinternet]

That might be good but iirc you get some extra info from NMR compared to Raman spectra like isomer content

 

[unodelacosa]

Combine LCMS or gcms with NMR and I think you can identify most compounds, although lc and NMR might be a tad more expensive

What, "nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy", expensive? Nah, sounds like something we could whip together over a weekend w/some tuning forks, a strong battery, an avocado, and a polygraph. I've made mass spec machines with less, lol.
J/k, yeah no, as you know: NMR spectrometers are typically the most expensive of the instruments mentioned—HPLC, LCMS, RS, GC-MS being the others—due to their complexity and sophisticated technology.

And what do you think of HPLC + Raman ?

Three points to consider:

1. HPLC + Raman is versatile and can analyze a wide range of sample types—e.g.: liquids, solids, gases—giving it broader applications.
   GC-MS + NMR is more suited for (semi-)volatile compounds, and NMR has limitations w/large molecules or certain sample types.
2. HPLC + Raman provides structural info based on the unique Raman spectra of compounds, which allows for identification without the need for pure standards.
   GC-MS + NMR offers more precise and detailed structural information through NMR, which is especially valuable for complex molecules or when structural confirmation is crucial.
3. Raman spectroscopy has improved in sensitivity over the years, but GC-MS remains more sensitive for trace analysis.
   GC-MS generally offers excellent sensitivity and detection limits, making it suitable for trace analysis of volatile compounds.

In my opinion, in the hands of the competent, we should—in theory—be able to find what we need via any of the aforementioned methods. 3,4-MDMA.HCl is not that complex of a molecule, nor are the vast majority of related impurities produced from less-than-ideal MDMA syntheses, labs, conditions, reagents, understanding, experience, &c.

 

[indigoaura]

Did any of you see this? I would have to embark on a long post search, but I am pretty sure I have seen that weird, non-blue, Simon's reaction before.

IMPORTANT: Reagent Reaction Updates | DanceSafe

dancesafe.org

 

[unodelacosa]

Did any of you see this? I would have to embark on a long post search, but I am pretty sure I have seen that weird, non-blue, Simon's reaction before.

IMPORTANT: Reagent Reaction Updates | DanceSafe

dancesafe.org

I'm really starting to suspect this whole drug-/pill-testing industry is mostly a big scam built on a crock of shit and lack of technical comprehension on the customer side. Sure non-profits are not for profit, but that doesn't mean they still don't pay out fat salaries with yearly bonuses, ya know what I mean? Or am I just being too cynical here? Between this and that amateur hour shit show in Spain they call "energy control", it's hard to trust anyone in this market, particularly if they're charging money for goods and services.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

I'm really starting to suspect this whole drug-/pill-testing industry is mostly a big scam built on a crock of shit and lack of technical comprehension on the customer side. Sure non-profits are not for profit, but that doesn't mean they still don't pay out fat salaries with yearly bonuses, ya know what I mean? Or am I just being too cynical here? Between this and that amateur hour shit show in Spain they call "energy control", it's hard to trust anyone in this market, particularly if they're charging money for goods and services.

You may have a point about energy control but in regards to reagent testing this is at the bottom of the announcement page we're discussing:

"Mixtures, precursors, adulterants, novel substances, impurities, diluents, and all sorts of other curveballs can make it extremely difficult to identify a standard set of expected reactions for a given drug, and accurate reactions may become inaccurate (or be discovered to be inaccurate) down the line as things change"

 

[MedicinalUser247]

Well most of what goes for MDMA now a days isn't MDMA it's a bunch of mixed garbage.

 

[tryptakid]

Ohhhhh, I get it now. You're in New South Wales, Australia… yeah dude, your scene is totally different. Oops, lemme translate my 'murrican english into 'strine for yeh. Yer, bloke, yah scene is totally fahkin' different. I really don't know how the bloody mdma in new south wales is compahred ta the bloody rest of the bloody wawrld. Geographic isolation is a dual edge swawrd with these matters, mate. (Lol, courtesy of https://lingojam.com/EnglishtoAustralian)


No?

Maybe, maybe not. How would we know, scientifically that is? I've been taking MDMA in the U.S. since 1995, so can't speak for the Euro/UK crowd nor the Aussie scene, but as far as I'm concerned, and having manufactured MDMA around the turn of the new millennium, the MDMA today is just as good as it was in the late 90s. But that's just my opinion, take it w/a grain of hydrochloride.


No offense, but lots of people believe in UFOs and alien abductions and shit like that, it doesn't prove the existence of aliens though. Lots of people believe in God, but this does not make God real. A breakthrough experience on DMT on the other might make God real, or even realer. YMMV, or, erm, what's the European equivalent to gas-mileage? Ah, fuck, forgive me, bruvva, you get the gist of what I'm on about over here, right? Don't mind my blathering yankee New Yawka squawk box.


Fuckin' sick. Thank you for sharing this. Much obliged

I wanted to throw my $.02 in to this discussion, I feel like this is a topic that I hear/read a fair amount about, and often the discussion explores possible chemical variations, testing issues, and other potential variations in related areas. I think that's definitely something that could have an impact, structural isomers may be different (I have no idea what d-MDMA vs. racemic vs. levo would change subjectively, and am only assuming it's a d/l type molecule - please correct me if I"m wrong).

My way of thinking about this stuff comes more from the qualitative/subjective and enthnohumanistic perspectives - I'm a clinical social worker and also have a Master's in Public Health, these don't make me any more of an expert than anyone else, but I put that out there to give a sense of where I'm coming from. I picked the dual degree program because public health gives you that big lense, while social work is much more on the individual/personal interventions - I like duality, what can I say.

When I was taking pills in the late 90s, most of the time it was in the context of raves. Raves were literally designed to be appreciated by people rolling on E pills, there were piles of humans covered in Vick's vaporub and cuddling in a mix of euphoric sweaty innocence reclaimed - it was the dawn of a new millenia, the internet was bring us together, the music was new, and so was MDMA - We were the amongst the first generation of humans to have relatively widespread exposure to MDMA - It was popping up in magazines, there was a book by Simon Reynolds called Energy Flash, but in the US, it was titled "Generation Ecstasy".

When we talk about psychedelics, the common recited axiom is 'Dose/Set/Setting': widely considered to be three of the most influential and controllable variables which can effect your experience in any number of ways, positive and negative.

If we step aside from the hypothetical chemistry for a moment and assume that generally speaking, the chemical is basically the same, that certain isomeric fluctuations have existed over the years, but generally speaking, the drug isn't all that different. If we make this one assumption, that means we would need to look at the other two variables to assess whether they could be significant enough to influence the quality of the drug experiences taking place two decades later.

Mindset: There are a few components that I can come up with off the top of my head that absolutely could be influencing people's experiences:

1. Pre-millenium tension and the optimism of the early internet - The 90s were a time of sudden and unmistakeable discovery and novelty. Digital revolution was happening and the possibilities at times felt endless and utopian. Raves, where MDMA was very strongly connected, embodied this ethos which created large, relatively safe, spaces for many people to use drugs and allow their inhibitions to be let down.
   1. Related to this - communication on the internet was still in it's infancy. Current events remained largely channeled through existing media sources, the 'Culture of Fear' and 'Shock Doctrine' that defined the 00's had not yet coalesced. People hadn't been primed for outrage and helplessness in the ways that we have seen more and more.
   2. People's expectation of MDMA was pretty new - most users likely only had a handful of experiences, and the same would go for their friends. There was rarely bags of Molly floating around, it was typically pressed pills. The cost has also dropped significantly while people can now use multiple doses relatively easily by taking more and more out of the bag.
   3. people to use drugs and allow their inhibitions to be let down.
      
2. Prozac Nation - Generation Ecstasy
   1. Our serotonin systems in the mid to late 90s, en masse, were largely naive to most agents that activated the 5-ht system. I don't have population data in front of me, but the widespread use of SSRIs, SNDRIs and other pharmacological agents of the serotonin system has increased substantially since the mid 90s. While that may not impact every single MDMA user, it does mean that there are a number of people who take MDMA for the first time in 2023, after already having taken drugs like fluoxetine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, etc. While concurrent use is known to diminish/nullify effects of MDMA, there is very little data I am aware of that would speak to the long term downstream subjective impact of historic reuptake inhibitor use on present MDMA use. That said, those 5-ht systems in the 1990s were much more likely to be pharmacologically naive.
   2. Why did we take so many reuptake inhibitors?
      1. Two reasons: the pharmaceutical industry convinced people based on half-baked hypothetical research that they would improve the lives of those who take them - their actual impact seems modest at best, and risky at worst. I've always been skeptical of them, I often discuss this with patients who have them recommended to them by prescribers - I don't want to go too far down that path, but suffice to say, I would not encourage a loved one to take them under most conceivable circumstances.
      2. There has been a lot of reasons to feel depressed since the mid 90s. From 9/11 to multiple wars, to the financial crisis and blossoming of opioid addiction, to more wars, polarized politics and the culture of outrage, the manipulation of the outrage to facilitate an increased power transfer at the expense of your emotional and financial health, a former 2nd rate reality television show host becoming president and 'guiding' the nation through the pandemic while continuing to keep the focus on himself at the ongoing expense of most people's mental health, a continued passive drift away from social engagement - Fun(ish?) fact: DYK that the amount of time that children spend socializing with friends has dropped 70% since 1995. Most socializing is now done online instead of in-person - This issue, the epidemic of loneliness, was discussed by our current Surgeon General, as well as recently by Hillary Clinton in the Atlantic and I believe a book she co-authored. That loneliness fuels destructive drug use. MDMA use in the 90s honestly felt like the opposite of that kind of drug use. It was transformative in a way that few people had ever experienced.... I imagine that Aldous Huxley's early mescaline trips were probably the most recent analog to such a sudden, transformative, psychedelic change.
   3. Summary: Mindset of the 90s had novel serotonin systems, much less outrage stress, and optimism on the precipice of *the future*, people socialized mostly in person, and news was primarily delivered through small and acceptable vetted mediums
      Mindset of the 2010s-present carries a ton of local, national, and global problems that have had widespread adverse effects on mental health, regardless of where you're from. That suffering has been rapidly retweeted and commodified due to the dystopian evolution of our internet, and *the future* to most people hasn't felt like casual conversation in a minute.
      Setting - This has evolved along with the accessibility of MDMA as well as the proliferation of it's presence from a club drug to something that people take in a variety of settings, the vast majority of which are not intentionally constructed to enhance MDMA. Some people do still use it rave/club settings, though I'm too old to know if massive cuddle puddles still form, or the smell of vicks vaporub permeate the air as you pierce the veil of 140 bpm progressive trance and fog machines.
      There was a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Then the Combat Methamphetamine Act of 2005 saw to the end of widespread rave culture, pushing electronic music into both the mainstream as well as deeper into the underground, simultaneously.
      In the 90s, you were literally taking MDMA in *the 90s* - there's no way you can replicate that subjective effect. That said, MDMA is quite potent, widely availble, and much less likely to be a DXM containing pill - There are also a number of other pretty damned cool amphetamines (3-MMA and 4-FA) that offer unique twists on the typical effect which I personally prefer to MDMA. I don't like cathinones at all, so the MMCs aren't my bag, but the substituted amphetamines are pretty cool IMHO.

 

[Littana]

Well most of what goes for MDMA now a days isn't MDMA it's a bunch of mixed garbage.

ur opinion is only 10+ years late.. drought is over, been a long time... sure theres still lots of shit sold as mdma/xtc pills but nothing like like then just more options... thank shiva theres testkits so cheap nobody has reason not to get one really...

 

[indigoaura]

You may have a point about energy control but in regards to reagent testing this is at the bottom of the announcement page we're discussing:

"Mixtures, precursors, adulterants, novel substances, impurities, diluents, and all sorts of other curveballs can make it extremely difficult to identify a standard set of expected reactions for a given drug, and accurate reactions may become inaccurate (or be discovered to be inaccurate) down the line as things change"

IMO, this announcement from Dancesafe only further supports the idea that there are variables that are changing within the products available today, and those variables are impacting the reagent testing results as well.

When they calibrated/calculated all of this back in the late 90s, they may not have been seeing this much variation in the results.

Shit, even in my own personal experiments with reagent testing/lab testing, I have seen different reagent colors for multiple products that all test as MDMA at the lab. Here in the thread, we have discussed the various tints that Lieberman reagent has with various batches of MDMA, for example.

Bottom line, I think this is all more complex that the original harm reduction movement wanted to let on. @unodelacosa, I don't think we need to view this with cynicism, though. I remember actually meeting Emanuel Sferios (leader of Dancesafe at that time) back when I volunteered with Dancesafe, and he was an absolute visionary. Inspirational. The world so desperately needed an alternative to the DARE program, and harm reduction dared to offer up the idea that drugs could be used in a safer way. They NEEDED something like reagent testing to be viable. And, to be fair, back when it was developed, DXM was a big problem and mixing DXM and MDMA could be catastrophic. I have no doubt those reagent tests saved lives. The difference between meth (orange) and purple (MDMA) was obvious. I used to take my kit to my dealer's house and look at the results for the various pills he had available before every purchase.

But I see updates like the one listed on the Dancesafe page, and I personally feel like it is just more evidence that there ARE variations in batches of MDMA. Those variations can even be evident in reagent testing. There is more to it than MDMA simply turning the exact same color every time.

I could be wrong, but I really suspect we are going to see A LOT of movement in this conversation next year. With the FDA poised to move MDMA out of schedule 1, there is going to be additional research coming out, additional labs making MDMA legally, and I think knowledge is only going to grow.

 

[G_Chem]

IMO, this announcement from Dancesafe only further supports the idea that there are variables that are changing within the products available today, and those variables are impacting the reagent testing results as well.

When they calibrated/calculated all of this back in the late 90s, they may not have been seeing this much variation in the results.

Shit, even in my own personal experiments with reagent testing/lab testing, I have seen different reagent colors for multiple products that all test as MDMA at the lab. Here in the thread, we have discussed the various tints that Lieberman reagent has with various batches of MDMA, for example.

Bottom line, I think this is all more complex that the original harm reduction movement wanted to let on. @unodelacosa, I don't think we need to view this with cynicism, though. I remember actually meeting Emanuel Sferios (leader of Dancesafe at that time) back when I volunteered with Dancesafe, and he was an absolute visionary. Inspirational. The world so desperately needed an alternative to the DARE program, and harm reduction dared to offer up the idea that drugs could be used in a safer way. They NEEDED something like reagent testing to be viable. And, to be fair, back when it was developed, DXM was a big problem and mixing DXM and MDMA could be catastrophic. I have no doubt those reagent tests saved lives. The difference between meth (orange) and purple (MDMA) was obvious. I used to take my kit to my dealer's house and look at the results for the various pills he had available before every purchase.

But I see updates like the one listed on the Dancesafe page, and I personally feel like it is just more evidence that there ARE variations in batches of MDMA. Those variations can even be evident in reagent testing. There is more to it than MDMA simply turning the exact same color every time.

I could be wrong, but I really suspect we are going to see A LOT of movement in this conversation next year. With the FDA poised to move MDMA out of schedule 1, there is going to be additional research coming out, additional labs making MDMA legally, and I think knowledge is only going to grow.

This is my take on it too. Just an indication of changing synthesis routes. What may happen in the future too is we start to see more frequent updates that help us better keep our finger on the pulse of synthesis route changes.

Also just like with cannabis, once there’s legal production we will hopefully see some of that product diverted to illegal circles.

-GC

 

[unodelacosa]

IMO, this announcement from Dancesafe only further supports the idea that there are variables that are changing within the products available today, and those variables are impacting the reagent testing results as well.

As long as you understand that “those variables” = impurities, then we're on the same page.

When they calibrated/calculated all of this back in the late 90s, they may not have been seeing this much variation in the results.

No, of course not; that was a quarter century ago. New clandestine synthetic routes have been invented since then along w/a few spells of serotonergic MDMA-imposters in the market, some better than others, but in 2023, MDMA every bit as good as MDMA from the 1990s can still be acquired if you know the right ppl.

in my own personal experiments with reagent testing/lab testing, I have seen different reagent colors for multiple products that all test as MDMA at the lab.

You don't have to justify reagent testing. It saves lives, no doubt, and more importantly, it raises awareness to the problem. And yes, reagent testing is better than nothing, it's just not but so accurate if we're being honest. That's all. Not even a point of contention I'm making; just a warning not to go overboard w/guesswork until more research can be completed. Reagent tests are fine; we just need to be honest about their limits. I've seen too many MDMA dealers bragging about how fast their product turns black.

@unodelacosa, I don't think we need to view this with cynicism, though.

Perhaps. Cynical and skeptical are not the same thing though, let's not forget.

I remember meeting Emanuel Sferios when I volunteered with Dancesafe, and he was an absolute visionary. Inspirational.

To be fair, so was Enron CEO Ken Lay, and Bernie Madoff, Elizabeth Holmes from Theranos, the FYRE Festival guy Billy McFarland, Charles Ponzi, and many other con artists, plus you know other people on the societal shit-list for being sociopaths, ppl like Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Epstein, the list goes on, and that's only the people whom we know about, the ones who got caught and recorded by history.

The world so desperately needed an alternative to the DARE program,

D.A.R.E. is just a program in the US, not international. Probs bc other countries have enough sense to know it's a stupid idea to let police officers – who have zero qualifications or experience in education – teach classes to school children about illegal drugs.

Sex can be a crime. Let's invite underpaid city cops to teach Abstinence Only! "Just Say No To Sex and Your Social Life" classes to children next! We'll call it the Sexual Harassment Laws Unnecessary Training program, or S.H.L.U.T. for short. Brilliant idea!

Was DanceSafe intended to replace D.A.R.E.? I'm gonna start my own Harm Redux front, call it: Responsible Extracurricular Training About Recreational Drugs, or R.E.T.A.R.D. Ridiculous Exploit Taxing Anyone Remotely Desperate? Eh, idk.

I have no doubt those reagent tests saved lives.

Do you think they've ever inadvertently given someone a false sense of security regarding a tested pill and it cost them their life?

The difference between meth (orange) and purple (MDMA) was obvious. I used to take my kit to my dealer's house and look at the results for the various pills he had available before every purchase.

Wow, unusually patient drug dealer, sounds like. Every purchase?

But I see updates like the one listed on the Dancesafe page, and I personally feel like it is just more evidence that there ARE variations in batches of MDMA.

As long as you understand that those "variations” = impurities, then we're on the same page.

Those variations can even be evident in reagent testing.

Again, so long as you realize those "variations"—or, "variables" you said earlier—those are impurities. We might not be able to identify all of them just yet, but we could. However, I don't imagine that particular research of clandestine MDMA will be popular going forward once pharmaceutical-grade MDMA has the spotlight.

There is more to it than MDMA simply turning the exact same color every time.

Not if the product is pure. In fact, it's that exact consistency that makes the test any use at all, if you think about it… like a test control.

I could be wrong, but I really suspect we are going to see A LOT of movement in this conversation next year. With the FDA poised to move MDMA out of schedule 1, there is going to be additional research coming out, additional labs making MDMA legally, and I think knowledge is only going to grow.

Of course. It's not going to lead to a loss in data

But yes, I too am looking forward to future discoveries surrounding this fascinating compound, (±)-3,4-MDMA.HCl. See? I'm not cynical about MDMA's future.