Why is ghetto crack stronger than my DIY freebase?

[Marauder]

How do these dudes make such potent crack rocks?

"Crack" and "Freebase Cocaine" is synonymous of course. The method used should not (in theory) determine the end result. I have tried washing my already relatively pure cocaine with acetone, resulting in nearly exactly what I started out with. This was then tossed into a beaker with a stir rod and ammonia was added drop-by-drop not to exceed a pH of 7-8. The white precipitate (cocaine liberated from its acid group) is extracted with Et2O (ether.) The ammonia/ether step was repeated 2-3 times until adding ammonia no longer produced a white precipitate.

The freebase crystals on the evaporating dish looked pure. Sometimes you get an oily residue or a mixture of crystals and oil, an indicator that the cocaine was impure. In my case, the ether evaporated leaving a uniform sea of white crystals. When dry, this was scraped with a razor. Weight by weight my stuff didn't stand a chance against the precooked rocks.

There was a point where filling up HALF of the bowl of a meth pipe (that's A LOT of any drug, let alone crack) was barely a bell ringer, where a bell ringer could be achieved by a ~70 mg rock (precooked) vaped the same way in the same bowl via the same technique.

The rocks I buy are condensed and almost non-porous. They can be white to off-white to having a tinge of yellow. The cocaine mentioned above and the crack are from the same source. Again, the cocaine itself *seems* relatively pure. I pay much more for this stuff. It has nearly zero side effects, has never made me bleed even when I binge an 8ball a day, has a smooth come down and is relatively mellow compared to garbage cocaine or an amphetamine high. I buy it in 3.5g hygroscopic oily shiny soft rocks with the sweet pungent smell permeating the plastic baggie.

(the water, 10% ammonia and ethyl ether are pure. Ether is reagent grade.)

 

[Felonious Monk]

Damn, I don't even like coke and this post makes me want to get rocked. It's like the perfect mix of science and story-telling.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

One of my friends used to wonder the exact same thing.

 

[TriputoryHeadicine]

Nice technique and story marauder! :D

Possibly more levamisole and maybe just having to do with baking soda? maybe baking soda increases the already high bioavailibilty? What else could it be, I wonder...

 

[nsauce]

Why are you vaping crack in a meth pipe?

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

^ it would work but with a much lower rush.

 

[Marauder]

Why are you vaping crack in a meth pipe?

If I buy a lot of crack, my usage habit is usually: Use any pipe or device in the vicinity and as many different smoking techniques as possible to get the best hits I can get. Continue this habit uninterrupted until there's no more crack left, then get up and resume normal life.

Sadly, I don't have any single technique or tool that works again and again, because crack pipes need serious QA. The ideal pipe is fragile enough to explode (literally; Careful with this stuff!) after a few hits. I have had success with very fine screen meshes stuffed into the end of a glass tube (meth pipe with the bowl broken off, or rose pipes) or in a 3" weed pipe with the bowl screwed off.

If one only has a long pipe laying around (meth bowl or any long metal/glass pipe), just stuff a steel mesh in the center of the pipe, throw a rock down there and heat it from the bottom. You don't necessarily have to use the end of the pipe.

No matter how much money my friends and I are willing to throw down on this drug, it's nearly impossible to find a reliable connect. I understand now why a minority of people with a top notch 'cook game' are so 'loved in Brooklyn.'

 

[seanzy4dagr8ice]

I got a good connect I have only been smoking crack for a few months. I shoot ice and when i am coming down i blast a 40 but thing is today i punk every time i start to take a blast. I am about to shoot the crack iv style. I use vinger to break down. What else i here leamon juice works

 

[mostly-human]

The method used should not (in theory) determine the end result.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what makes you say that ?

Obviously - if the end result is the same, then the means shouldn't matter (as in, all those stupid anti-drug propaganda ads that show dangerous chemicals used to cook drug X, they're obviously silly, since a compound is a compound, it doesn't really matter how you made it. A compound is a compound, the actual ingredients used to make it, or process it, have nothing to do with it's final molecular structure.

But I don't quite understand when you say the method used won't determine the end-result? Surely that isn't true.. ?? Surely there must be processes that produce a better end product? In fact, wouldn't that be the indication of your own experimentation?

 

[mysticmusic]

Nice technique and story marauder! :D

Possibly more levamisole and maybe just having to do with baking soda? maybe baking soda increases the already high bioavailibilty? What else could it be, I wonder...

Your technique sounds fine; you should be getting excellent product that way(btw be careful with diethyl ether it can ignite very easily and even explode)
I would guess a higher ratio of levamisole as culprit if the source of the salts were different, but you've indicated they're the same. So next I'd check the weights(the method you're using produces a less dense product, so you may be confusing equal apparent volumes with actual different weights). If the weights check out equal, I'd try cooking the crack way as maybe the sodium bicarbonate is removing some of the levamisole that ammonia's not(long shot but possible).
Cocaine has really gone down hill since the scumbags up the distribution chain started adding levamisole. That de-worming chem is toxic and dangerous for chronic users, especially IV and contaminates 66% to 75% of all coke in the US.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I got a good connect I have only been smoking crack for a few months. I shoot ice and when i am coming down i blast a 40 but thing is today i punk every time i start to take a blast. I am about to shoot the crack iv style. I use vinger to break down. What else i here leamon juice works

Please don't derail threads & for the love of God don't use lemon juice. That can cause you to go blind.

 

[paranoid android]

Hmm I've bought rock and made the stuff using the baking soda method and the ammonia method. I could always make stuff as good as the rock you buy off the street especially if i was using ammonia. I never went the extra step and did the ether bit though. I don't know why it wouldn't rock up as good cause there's no reason why it wouldn't if you did it right. Are you sure the ghetto shit you bought wasn't cut with something hence giving it abit more kick?

And ffs if your going to shoot crack get sterile vitamin C from a needle exchange. Other then that just get the powder cause lemon juice has loads of bacteria in it.

 

[Marauder]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what makes you say that ?

Obviously - if the end result is the same, then the means shouldn't matter (as in, all those stupid anti-drug propaganda ads that show dangerous chemicals used to cook drug X, they're obviously silly, since a compound is a compound, it doesn't really matter how you made it. A compound is a compound, the actual ingredients used to make it, or process it, have nothing to do with it's final molecular structure.

But I don't quite understand when you say the method used won't determine the end-result? Surely that isn't true.. ?? Surely there must be processes that produce a better end product? In fact, wouldn't that be the indication of your own experimentation?

Hey. We agree with each other but my wording was wrong or you misread it? I said the same thing you said: "if the end result is the same, the means (I called it 'method') shouldn't matter.) Yes, a compound is a compound, it doesn't matter what was used to make it. The pharmaceutical drugs we consume coming from Pfizer were made using the same solvents we can buy at home depot to strip paint.

The "method used" meaning what steps in the synthesis were used to make the product, should not determine the final compound. Freebase cocaine is freebase cocaine.

I simply meant that whether baking soda or ammonia is used, the purpose is the same. It's to yank the acidic Hcl group off of the cocaine molecule, giving you "freebase cocaine" - it doesn't matter if the base used is baking soda, ammonia, NaOH, etc. There _is_ a difference in strength between these bases and baking soda, for instance, may not liberate ALL of the cocaine in the solution as well as ammonia (a much stronger base.) The end result is you'll get less freebase and may end up throwing out some cocaine Hcl if you wash your freebase with water afterwards. Of course, if you use a heavily diluted ammonia solution, your ammonia base may be as weak as baking soda in liberating cocaine from the hcl group.

...

The above is of course just theory. In practice, when synthesizing drugs, the precursors used in each step will give you the desired compound but with different contaminants based on what precursors were used. Take this scenario: If a drug requires 30 steps to synthesize, and the yield at each reaction step is 99% pure, then the final product will be what, 70% pure? The impurities in the final product will differ based on the contaminants found in the end product will be from that nasty 1% at each step. Purification of this 70% pure yield will give us 99-100% purity of the final compound. Another way to reach this purity is to purify each compound of each step to 100% before proceeding with the next reaction step.

Tying this back to "does the quality of the cocaine freebase differ if you use baking soda or ammonia?" the short answer is no, both yield freebase cocaine. The more precise answer is, yes, the quality does matter in that baking soda will give you:

Baking soda to freebase will give you: cocaine freebase + NaCl + unreacted baking soda + unreacted cocaine Hcl
Ammonia to freebase will give you: cocaine freebase + unreacted ammonium salts + small amount of unreacted cocaine Hcl

But when you wash either product above with water, both routes will give the same final product of cocaine freebase, because NaCl/ammonium salts/baking soda/cocaine Hcl are water soluble.

---

Anyway, cocaine Hcl --> cocaine freebase is a single step and no amount of contamination from this step should have a noticeable impact on the final product or how it smokes.

 

[Marauder]

Hmm I've bought rock and made the stuff using the baking soda method and the ammonia method. I could always make stuff as good as the rock you buy off the street especially if i was using ammonia. I never went the extra step and did the ether bit though. I don't know why it wouldn't rock up as good cause there's no reason why it wouldn't if you did it right.

Hey, thanks for the reply. Can you please clarify whether my understanding of what you do is correct:

Dissolve cocaine Hcl (powder) into water, add ammonia and the water turns milk white, then let the water evaporate/dry completely and then use the product as-is?


Here are the chemical reactions of sodium and ammonium [bi]carbonate (where Coc-H+Cl is cocaine HCL and Coc is Cocaine freebase):

Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) is

Coc-H+Cl− + NaHCO3 → Coc + H2O + CO2 + NaCl

With Ammonium bicarbonate:

Coc-H+Cl− + NH4HCO3 → Coc + NH4Cl + CO2 + H2O

With Ammonium carbonate:

2(Coc-H+Cl−) + (NH4)2CO3 → 2 Coc + 2 NH4Cl + CO2 + H2O

What concerns me with using ammonia alone is possibly contamination of ammonium chloride in the end product. Is this a problem?

* CO2 bubbles out of the solution and is not a problem in the end product.
* H2O is evaporated away and not a product in the end product.
* NaCl will remain in with the cocaine freebase but it's not flammable and so should not be a problem when smoking the Cocaine.
* NH4Cl is ammonium chloride and as far as I know, it does *not* evaporate/breakdown unless heat is applied. I'm not sure what impact this has in the final product if it's not washed with water (NH4Cl is water soluble.)

 

[Laughing Man]

I used to make free base cocaine using the ammonia and ether method circa 1980. Using usual directions produced fluffy crystals.
I found that fluffy crystals wasted too much during vaporization so I modified my technique.
I made syrupy base in ether and heated a coffee cup of water in microwave, then slowly dripped the loaded ether on the plate which was set on top the boiling hot water. I always did this outside of the microwave oven.
This produced "cocaine ice" crystals which were by far superior to the old evaporation technique.
Then friends introduced me to baking soda produced crack rocks. I was amazed by the difference in the forms of the end product but both the crystal ice and solid rock were very good as compared to fluffy freebase. So my hypothesis is that the more substantial the density the better the efficiency of the vaporization.
This may account for the difference you experience between crack rock and fluffy ether method freebase.
My friends used to ask me to "cook" their cocaine HCL into my crystal ice freebase. My method reduces the hazards associated with using ether since no open flames or heat above 212*F were involved.
Ah, the good old days.
I have never shot up crack; only cocaine salt dissolved in H2O. It gives me the creeps to think about shooting crack dissolved in a weak acid.

 

[Marauder]

Hey Laughing Man, thanks for the reply! Yes I too feel that the fluffiness of the crystals may contribute to oxidation/heat damage or generally not be efficient to vaporize.

I'm sure people will misread this and think they should put cocaine-freebase-loaded ether into their cup of coffee, so I'm going to summarize this here and I have some questions (correct me if I'm wrong.)
be
The fluffiness / formation of the freebase crystals following ether evaporation is due to how fast ether evaporates. We can get "bigger crystals" with a slower evaporation. By placing the ether to be evaporated in a clean dish surrounded by evaporating water, the water humidity effectively lower the rate of evaporation of the ether.

Have you considered or tried just using another solvent altogether? It might be a good idea to find an alternative either way because ether is expensive and dangerous to work with due to flammability. Maybe Xylene? also flammable and perhaps would require more 'washes' of the ammonia solution to get all the Cocaine out but it evaporates slowly.

My method reduces the hazards associated with using ether since no open flames or heat above 212*F were involved.

For anyone reading this: NO flame should ever be used directly or indirectly when using ether. I would NOT apply any heat source whatsoever to evaporating ether as it moves along fast enough at standard temperature and pressure.

anyway, you used boiling water (albeit only indirectly) which is 212F (100C.) cocaine freebase boils at 90C. In practice, the cocaine would be dissolved in ether at this point and either way this probably wouldn't make much of a difference in yield. I'm just writing this so people don't get careless and being steaming their crack.

Using boiling water is clever and safer than attempting to slow down evaporation by using a closed space or lower surface area, something I probably would have overlooked. I'm going to give this method a try next time or may go with baking soda.

Thanks again.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

I don't know any practical way you could get uncontaminated ether. I heard it can spontaneously generate explosive compounds under the right conditions (myth?/ No?) which is one reason why some meth labs blow.

 

[Laughing Man]

Hey Laughing Man, thanks for the reply! Yes I too feel that the fluffiness of the crystals may contribute to oxidation/heat damage or generally not be efficient to vaporize.

I'm sure people will misread this and think they should put cocaine-freebase-loaded ether into their cup of coffee, so I'm going to summarize this here and I have some questions (correct me if I'm wrong.)
be
The fluffiness / formation of the freebase crystals following ether evaporation is due to how fast ether evaporates. We can get "bigger crystals" with a slower evaporation. By placing the ether to be evaporated in a clean dish surrounded by evaporating water, the water humidity effectively lower the rate of evaporation of the ether.

Have you considered or tried just using another solvent altogether? It might be a good idea to find an alternative either way because ether is expensive and dangerous to work with due to flammability. Maybe Xylene? also flammable and perhaps would require more 'washes' of the ammonia solution to get all the Cocaine out but it evaporates slowly.



For anyone reading this: NO flame should ever be used directly or indirectly when using ether. I would NOT apply any heat source whatsoever to evaporating ether as it moves along fast enough at standard temperature and pressure.

anyway, you used boiling water (albeit only indirectly) which is 212F (100C.) cocaine freebase boils at 90C. In practice, the cocaine would be dissolved in ether at this point and either way this probably wouldn't make much of a difference in yield. I'm just writing this so people don't get careless and being steaming their crack.

Using boiling water is clever and safer than attempting to slow down evaporation by using a closed space or lower surface area, something I probably would have overlooked. I'm going to give this method a try next time or may go with baking soda.

Thanks again.

I'll try to elaborate and answer some of your questions.
One of the key steps to get hard crystalline freebase is to try to make the solute as concentrated as possible. Use no more H2O and petroleum ether than is necessary. Very little water is necessary to dissolve quite a bit of cocaine HCL. Likewise, use very little petroleum ether in order to get a saturated solute.
Sometimes it's worth it to try a second precipitation but that yield will be small and usually of low quality.
Use a watch glass drying dish and slowly drop the concentrate on the dish at about the same rate as it hardens.
Although the container of boiling water has reached 212*F it is much cooler by the time you begin and is cooling fairly quickly while you execute the technique.
I haven't ever tried xylene as the solvent. I've tried 2 alternate solvents, diethyl ether and acetone. Diethyl ether has an extremely strong chemical smell and is much more likely to explode if an ignition source reached the vapor. If you live in an apartment complex your neighbors will definitely smell the fumes. The experiment with acetone was a waste of product. The result was hard crystals which were harsh to smoke and caused the eyes to order. Avoid using acetone because of it's carcinogenic properties.
Also the resulting product is not as safe nor is the resulting product as good tasting as is that which is produced using petroleum ether. Avoid diethyl ether. It is a known carcinogen to boot.
Going back to using petroleum ether, it is best to keep the evaporating solute in as small an area as possible in the evaporative dish if you wish to create crystals of maximum density.
Pouring all the solute into the watch glass evaporative dish all at one time will defeat the purpose of obtaining glass-like freebase crystals. You will get fluffy crystals again.

 

[Laughing Man]

I don't know any practical way you could get uncontaminated ether. I heard it can spontaneously generate explosive compounds under the right conditions (myth?/ No?) which is one reason why some meth labs blow.

I was only making my freebase in 1980 and 1981. At that time one could buy pure petroleum ether at most head shops.
All solvents which may be used to make freebase carry serious hazards of explosion when there is solvent vapor present and any potential source of ignition.
I would only recommend petroleum ether and allow for good ventilation.

 

[Marauder]

Laughing Man: So every time you mentioned 'ether' you were referring to petroleum ether and not diethyl ether (unless explicitly stated), correct? I was assuming that you were talking about diethyl ether.

I have never worked with petroleum ether but I may because it's much cheaper than diethyl ether. I initially liked diethyl ether because it evaporates very fast and leaves no residue. It did its purpose of moving compound from solution onto dish and vanished with no trace. Elegant. Also, diethyl ether is a long used anesthetic drug and recreational drug (from Fear & Loathing: "The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge, and I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon.")

There is no link to acetone nor diethyl ether being a carcinogen. Other than being fire hazards, they aren't too bad to be around. Always do a test of your solvents. Put a few drops on glass, let it evaporate and see if there's any residue/smell left over. Even IF acetone is a carcinogen (it's not), it should ALL evaporate away before you consume the end product.

Back to the topic. I know that water dissolves a massive amount of cocaine hcl but I don't know how much diethyl ether dissolves freebase cocaine, so I always used a lot. I figured, once it's all evaporated and I scrape the crystals together, weight wise it should be the same, albeit I wasted a lot of ether. Another justification was to avoid having to multiple washes.

The thought of making the freebase solvent (petroleum or diethyl ether) saturated didn't occur to me as a significant factor in the end product. I did not think a million tiny crystals piled together would smoke/vaporize differently than a single big crystal. Of course a bigger crystal means purity and integrity of everything inside the crystal lattice. But could cocaine freebase "flakes" or mini crystals really lose potency upon exposure to air/light this quickly?

I'll definitely use way less ether next time.


Would you mind explaining your baking soda method or what your friends did? I would like to perfect this instead of using any ether.