What is wrong with the MDMA available today?

[Jabberwocky]

I'm still waiting for him to answer my questions in post 249, which are largely based around the paragraph where he uses red writing. But then having seen another post in another thread by him where he tries to use his 'pure science' to tell me I've been taking the wrong dose of MDMA for 15 years out of 27 years usage, I'm not holding my breath.

His scientific theory may be great, I don't know, I don't have the knowledge to argue that, but his relations with the real world - the practical applications of his science? - are skewed to me and many others with long term experience of MDMA use.

165 mg plus 100 mg top offs - rectally administered may be preferred by you -- but are not proper.

265 mg or 365 mg of plugged MDMA is overkill -- regardless of 27 years of use

 

[Jabberwocky]

Interesting. So as someone who appears to know quite a lot about this are you going to try it out?

Why? I have not encountered the "mongy" MDMA.

Like I said before, people proffering a fantastical synthesis that magically creates mongy MDMA are the ones that must provide the proposed scientific process instead of WILD ASS GUESSES.

 

[Dresden]

2,3-MDMA and 5-methyl-MDA are wild ass guesses. R-MDMA is an impropable one.

The new MDMA smells and tastes different than the old stuff. That alone says a lot.

 

[Dresden]

It tastes a lot less bitter and is crunchy in my experience.

 

[Jabberwocky]

2,3-MDMA and 5-methyl-MDA are wild ass guesses. R-MDMA is an impropable one.

The new MDMA smells and tastes different than the old stuff. That alone says a lot.

no 2,3 MDMA and 5-Methyl MDA are examples of known structural analogues -- with no monographs in the common GCMS database -- that have the same mass and functional groups of MDMA


different taste = different salt -- or different substance

I already posted regarding how bitartrate/tartrate (35%/50%) will reduce the amount of MDMA per mg -- same thing with citrate

There is evidence that the citrate and (bi)tartrate salts are metabolized differently as well


much more likely that a different acid was used to precipitate the freebase than magical isomeric synthesis

if it tastes that much differently -- it follows it smells differently -- perhaps this is a way to avoid canines

 

[Jabberwocky]

It tastes a lot less bitter and is crunchy in my experience.

see posts regarding the citrate and (bi)tartrate salts

FYI - tartrate is 4+ times more massive than HCl per mole (bitartrate approaches 9)

citrate is a little more than 5 times as massive per mole

 

[Jabberwocky]

I am not a scientist and cannot and would not begin to question any chemistry knowledge you've laid out in this thread. The last few posts look like they may be moving in a particularly interesting direction with Le Junk offering to go further and wanting to know what to ask.

However. What I have quoted you saying here is, IMO, bunk. Define 'remarkably identical'. Because you must have a different definition to me. There is no way I could say those two quoted compounds are even anywhere close to 'remarkably identical' to MDMA. It is hyperbole like that which made vendors lots of money from selling inferior products. And there is no way apb products, dosed at even 200mg, make you "high for two days".

When you write stuff like that, stuff I certainly know about, I have to then reluctantly wonder about other stuff you write. Because what you've written in that quote is simply incorrect. And no, I'm not even doubting "some people" say 'better than MDMA'. But I learned discernment many years ago.

1. according to multiple experience reports on erowid and elsewhere -- the APBs are subjectively almost identical depending on dose and visuals - and not all users get the extra psychedelia

the APBs are considered better for many that review them -- NOT ALL, but many

2. the APBs can have a profound psychedelic action in some users that have been experienced for 12-14 hours plus at doses under 100 mg --


would an experienced user likely be fooled -- no

"mongy effects" -- easily

 

[Dresden]

The apb's are routinely tested for and show up on www.ecstasydata.org

I talked to someone today who used to press MDMA pills, and he averred the reason that the old pressed pills were so good was because that trace amounts of heroin were added.

 

[Dresden]

However, MDMA shows up in the test results of these new pressed pills. The apb's have not yet, to my knowledge, shown up in that form.

 

[Dresden]

Edit: one of them was in a pressed pill, but it was marked "not sold as ecstasy."

 

[Jabberwocky]

The apb's are routinely tested for and show up on www.ecstasydata.org

I talked to someone today who used to press MDMA pills, and he averred the reason that the old pressed pills were so good was because that trace amounts of heroin were added.

This was only in reference to untested pills -- and/or same logo but not same batch/chemist

Like I posted several days ago -- I was looking in the wrong place for the GCMS.

That said, GCMS uses a database -- if a substance has the same mass it can easily be conflated for MDMA -- unless it has a monograph in the database

My bet on the weak effects from 200 mg pills is a different salt -- 200 mg of the r-isomer doesn't even get to a + (meaning you can tell something sort of, but don't know what)

200 mg of MDMA bitartrate = ~75 mg MDMA

Heroin was NEVER added to MDMA pills -- nobody would waste the dope needed at a 35% MAX oral bioavailability -- especially with dopesick junkies waiting in line to pay $$

He was full of shit -- "trace amounts" would be below the threshold of action, and depending on how nuch "trace" is you could OD snorting them

For example 20 mg of heroin per pill would not be felt orally (~7mg) -- but if you railed 2 of them -- (snorted) that 40 mg could make you OD (not die but seriously f-ed up) if you were not expecting it

 

[Brenner]

Why? I have not encountered the "mongy" MDMA.

Like I said before, people proffering a fantastical synthesis that magically creates mongy MDMA are the ones that must provide the proposed scientific process instead of WILD ASS GUESSES.

Really? So if you take a single dose of 100mg MDMA (tested) - how long do the effects last?

 

[Jabberwocky]

Really? So if you take a single dose of 100mg MDMA (tested) - how long do the effects last?

complete return to baseline in about 7 hours

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

165 mg plus 100 mg top offs - rectally administered may be preferred by you -- but are not proper.

265 mg or 365 mg of plugged MDMA is overkill -- regardless of 27 years of use

You make no reference to time over which these doses are taken, making it seem like I suggest those doses in a very limited space of time. A) I don't B) This makes you look disingenuous, as are a few of your posts. Don't twist what I say, it doesn't endear me to you at all.

Why? I have not encountered the "mongy" MDMA.

Because you are the luckiest man in the world and have, at least, never encountered MDEA (posing as MDMA). Again, I think you are being disingenuous. I thought this thread was about attaining truth. Again, you do not impress.

1. according to multiple experience reports on erowid and elsewhere -- the APBs are subjectively almost identical depending on dose and visuals - and not all users get the extra psychedelia

the APBs are considered better for many that review them -- NOT ALL, but many

2. the APBs can have a profound psychedelic action in some users that have been experienced for 12-14 hours plus at doses under 100 mg --

Just completely disagree with this post and my peer group goes wider, I believe, than what you are seeing on Erowid. I also know plenty of idiots who have had reports accepted by Erowid. Erowid is not God.

Heroin was NEVER added to MDMA pills -- nobody would waste the dope needed at a 35% MAX oral bioavailability -- especially with dopesick junkies waiting in line to pay $$

He was full of shit -- "trace amounts" would be below the threshold of action, and depending on how nuch "trace" is you could OD snorting them

For example 20 mg of heroin per pill would not be felt orally (~7mg) -- but if you railed 2 of them -- (snorted) that 40 mg could make you OD (not die but seriously f-ed up) if you were not expecting it

And just to show you I'm not being contrary for the sake of it - everything you say here meets with what I know as the truth.

 

[Jabberwocky]

You make no reference to time over which these doses are taken, making it seem like I suggest those doses in a very limited space of time. A) I don't B) This makes you look disingenuous, as are a few of your posts. Don't twist what I say, it doesn't endear me to you at all.



Because you are the luckiest man in the world and have, at least, never encountered MDEA (posing as MDMA). Again, I think you are being disingenuous. I thought this thread was about attaining truth. Again, you do not impress.



Just completely disagree with this post and my peer group goes wider, I believe, than what you are seeing on Erowid. I also know plenty of idiots who have had reports accepted by Erowid. Erowid is not God.



And just to show you I'm not being contrary for the sake of it - everything you say here meets with what I know as the truth.

1. you said 165 mg plus 100 mg top offs -- not me --

2. I said I have not had any tested MDMA that was mongy

3. Agree to disagree -- experience is subjective

4. Noted

FWIW -- If you care to; read the thread I started about different salts of MDMA. It is a much more likely explanation

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

1. you said 165 mg plus 100 mg top offs -- not me --

2. I said I have not had any tested MDMA that was mongy

3. Agree to disagree -- experience is subjective

4. Noted

FWIW -- If you care to; read the thread I started about different salts of MDMA. It is a much more likely explanation

1) Yes I said that. But I wasn't the one making it sound like those 'top-offs' (we say top-ups FWIW) were immediate, adding up to "365mg of MDMA is overkill"

2) Why? I have not encountered the "mongy" MDMA.

That's a direct quote from post 262. You don't mention the word 'tested'.

3) Sure, agree to disagree. But if you believe every report you read on Erowid, its only you fooling yourself, don't come here quoting it as evidence.

4) Cool. And I'll try to read your thread. But any advanced chemistry is beyond me. 27 years experience isn't though.

 

[Jabberwocky]

4) Cool. And I'll try to read your thread. But any advanced chemistry is beyond me. 27 years experience isn't though.

No advanced chemistry needed -- its about how a different salt attached to the MDMA (citrate instead of HCl for example) could cause the difference in effects -- and still be seen as MDMA (because it is)

 

[Biscuit]

PMK-gly is to MDMA-HCL as PMK/MDP2P is to the freebase of MDMA

This is not an appropriate analogy given that PMK-glycidate is a precursor to PMK but MDMA-HCl is not a precursor to anything (aside from having the most boss time, assuming of course, that you are lucky enough to get racemic MDMA-HCL and not some other isomeric combination); the HCl salt of MDMA is obviously produced from MDMA freebase at the very end of the process.

no 2,3 MDMA and 5-Methyl MDA are examples of known structural analogues -- with no monographs in the common GCMS database -- that have the same mass and functional groups of MDMA different taste = different salt -- or different substance

The forensic government laboratories cannot afford to misidentify seized drugs in drug prosecutions; if this routinely occurred, it would bring the entire system into disrepute. The mass spectra of the chemicals you have mentioned would not be the same as the mass spectra for MDMA. If these chemicals were present in pills, then the laboratory would need to identify them precisely or, if they had no reference data for such novel compounds and couldn't identify them, then the substance would be reported as not containing ANY identifiable illicit or prohibited drug. They cannot just pretend it is MDMA, even though no one else is going to know any different.

What you have stated also ignores the recent data that we have from various government agencies, such as the United Nations, Australian Crime Commission and the European Drug investigation agency (the name escapes me). The reports put out by these agencies have all identified PMK-glycidate as the most common MDXX precursor seized worldwide. What we would have to agree on is the MDMA analogues that you mentioned above are NOT being manufactured from PMK-glycidate. The very issue being debated is a common phenomenon reported by ecstasy users worldwide. It is no coincidence that the most prevalent MDMA precursor over the past several years also appears to be the source of the most prevalent problem/issue/complaint made by ecstasy users over the past several years.

One needs to approach this issue like a circumstantial case in a criminal trial - you don't look at the evidence in a piecemeal fashion when attempting to find an answer to this problem, an answer which can only be determined through inferential reasoning; rather, you need to examine all of the available evidence (from all of the different sources) in its totality, before attempting to draw inferences or conclusions which might be capable of providing a reasonable and logical answer to this conundrum.

I already posted regarding how bitartrate/tartrate (35%/50 will reduce the amount of MDMA per mg -- same thing with citrate

There is evidence that the citrate and (bi)tartrate salts are metabolized differently as well

Again, when looked at in isolation, this is an entirely reasonable theory which could account for potential differences in subjective effects and would certainly explain the sudden massive increase in the amount of "MDMA salt" being pumped into such pills. However, if this were the case then all of the discussion about these new "Super" or "Mega-Dosed" MDMA pills in the mainstream press, on user web sites such as this and in the many government reports, would be completely fallacious and utterly pointless. If the "mega" dose of "MDMA" in these mega dosed pills is simply the result of a comparatively heavy MDMA salt like MDMA-citrate or MDMA-tartrate being used, where the reported dose of a pill is in fact the total mass of the salt pressed into the pills, then such pills would in fact have an effective MDMA content which is relatively similar to the more traditionally dosed MDMA tablets made from the MDMA-HCl salt.

After applying a modicum of common sense it's obvious that the above situation has not been happening. Therefore, the lab results for these mega dosed pills are either only reporting the quantity of MDMA freebase (with whatever corresponding inorganic anion making up the other half of the MDMA salt molecule not included) or the labs are in fact quoting the amount of "MDMA-HCL" in the tablets, because MDMA-HCl is basically all that there ever is. I have noted that the results from European labs seem to specify MDMA-HCl almost exclusively in pills containing MDMA. However, the Dancesafe results do not mention which type of MDMA salt it is at all. Australian Government laboratories appear to adopt the Dancesafe approach and therefore rarely mention what salt the relevant drug is present in, unless this is somehow relevant to the tests being carried out (which it rarely is).

As I have already explained in one of the other threads started by shugenja on this topic, I have personally read a report from an Australian government laboratory which confirmed that one of the better known mega dosed European pills from last year was found to contain ~ 210mg of MDMA at a purity of about 55% (so 45% of the pill was inactive binder/impurities from the reactions etc). The report did not mention which MDMA salt was found in the pill. The reason for reporting this pill in the first place was to highlight the discovery of an MDMA pill in the Australian market which contained 2-3 times the MDMA content as MDMA pills commonly found in this country. These highly trained analytical and forensic chemists, with immense experience in all types of illicit drug analysis, are hardly going to report such a discovery if the pill contained a "mega" dose of MDMA-citrate, which whilst interesting for its novelty factor, would not have a markedly stronger EFFECTIVE dose than the typical MDMA-HCl pill, and certainly wouldn't warrant the laboratory issuing a report highlighting obvious concerns about this pill's strength as opposed to its composition (which aside from its size and the effective dose of MDMA which it contained, was otherwise completely unremarkable).

 

[Jabberwocky]

This is not an appropriate analogy given that PMK-glycidate is a precursor to PMK but MDMA-HCl is not a precursor to anything (aside from having the most boss time, assuming of course, that you are lucky enough to get racemic MDMA-HCL and not some other isomeric combination); the HCl salt of MDMA is obviously produced from MDMA freebase at the very end of the process.

uhhh Wrongo!!!


PMK is reacted with an acid (glycidic) to form PMK-glycidate

PMK is actually the precursor to PMK-glycidate

The fact the gylcidic acid group needs to be stripped off the ketone, doesn't really make it a precursor. -- (more correctly I think it should be an ester) of PMK


MDMA freebase is reacted with HCl to create MDMA-HCl


PMK+glycidic acid => PMK-gly + (strip the acid) => PMK

MDMA + HCl => MDMA-HCl + (strip the acid) => MDMA freebase

If you say PMK-gly is a precursor to PMK then MDMA-HCl is a precursor to MDMA freebase

Perhaps you didn't know that PMK-gly is simply the glycidate (ester) of PMK -- the same way MDMA-HCl is the hydrochloride salt of MDMA

 

[Biscuit]

PMK is reacted with an acid (glycidic) to form PMK-glycidate

PMK is actually the precursor to PMK-glycidate

Fair enough however this wasn't clear to me from what you were saying. I certainly won't argue with the chemistry above however I maintain it isn't the best analogy in the circumstances. Obviously, that is my opinion and you are free to disagree. Other BL's may have understood what you were saying, although I suspect most wouldn't have.