Herbal Ecstasy/ Highs

Has anyone tried the herbal ecstasy. I bought a pack of the energy ones for an event this weekend. I was curious if they were any good and how they compare to actual ecstasy?

[EDIT: No sources. hoptis]

Oh + if you've tried them, did you also take actual ecstasy in the same night and how did the two interact?

Please note that linking to sources of even herbal products violates forum guidelines

they are actually quite powerful - i ignored the warning on the packet and dosed daily........i ended up in the ER! never again

i got this herbal stuff called go go 3x. its a browny liquid in a bottle, apparently your supposed to put a few drops in a drink to get going. i thought, and was told i would get a speedy effect from it, but its just like drinking a couple of red bulls.. not really worth the money the shop charged

[Edit- Removed price. lil angel15]

the 'piperine' based products are the ones with a kick!

Not sure on the one's u got, but u can get get these things, 'red bliss' i think the name is. They are gel caps with red things inside of them, they were pretty damn good, compared to a actual pill i prefer them, no damage and u feel good the next day.
They seem to counter alcohol so don't bother drinking with them, drink water though.

The ones I have do not contain piperazines or ephedra, they're from a company called xpillz. They're sold as yellow capsules, you generally get 2 per pack. Anyone tried these?

I took some 'herbal stimulant' caps I bought at a headshop a few weeks ago (I think they were called 'Eclipse'). Gave a nice speedy buzz, slightly jittery, but the crash afterwards was akin to what I'd expect if I'd actually been smoking real speed for a day or two, as opposed to being slightly high for a couple hours.

baileylsd said:

no damage and u feel good the next day.

Click to expand...

It's worth mentioning that just because a particular "party pill" is legal, it doesn't necessarily mean it won't cause any damage. Example - the neorganics range.

Heh, that's because the neorganics range are very bordeline-legal. VERY borderline.

Anyway, IIRC, Pop and Buzz are two "liquid E's" that are apparently quite potent. My local headshop sells it, I'm yet to try either.

Heh, that's because the neorganics range are very bordeline-legal. VERY borderline.

Click to expand...

No, it has been pretty much concluded in the neo-doves II thread that these compounds are covered under analogue legislation across all states of Australia. In the case of Qld, the products that was analysed are all covered, both through respective chemical and pharmacological similarity to specifically scheduled drugs.

This should ring warning bells to those who automatically think that such herbal labeled products will be 100% legal in Australia. We have perhaps the toughest analogue legislation in the western world, and just because you purchased something at a legal head shop, it doesn't necessarily guarantee it's 100% legal.

Carrying around something in your pocket or handbag that is labeled as such may not be much of a defence if you're arrested and the tablet, powder etc is analysed. It is my understanding that these industries are receiving increased focus from authorities, which will no doubt move to have analogues type legislation in all states amended to include 'pharmacological similarity'. This means a drug or bunch of natural ingredients that is intended to mimic MDMA or speed, would be automatically illegal through such descriptions.

From the consumers POV, it's another reason why manufactures of all products should be required to specifically list all ingredients, be that food, health, medicinal or recreational intended 'consumables'.

So phase dancer, where does that leave us in regards to products that are actually *designed* (and marketed) as say "plant foods" not intended for human consumption? And they may inadverdantly slip down your throat?

phase_dancer said:

No, it has been pretty much concluded in the neo-doves II thread that these compounds are covered under analogue legislation across all states of Australia. In the case of Qld, the products that was analysed are all covered, both through respective chemical and pharmacological similarity to specifically scheduled drugs.

This should ring warning bells to those who automatically think that such herbal labeled products will be 100% legal in Australia. We have perhaps the toughest analogue legislation in the western world, and just because you purchased something at a legal head shop, it doesn't necessarily guarantee it's 100% legal.

Carrying around something in your pocket or handbag that is labeled as such may not be much of a defence if you're arrested and the tablet, powder etc is analysed. It is my understanding that these industries are receiving increased focus from authorities, which will no doubt move to have analogues type legislation in all states amended to include 'pharmacological similarity'. This means a drug or bunch of natural ingredients that is intended to mimic MDMA or speed, would be automatically illegal through such descriptions.

From the consumers POV, it's another reason why manufactures of all products should be required to specifically list all ingredients, be that food, health, medicinal or recreational intended 'consumables'.

Click to expand...

Preaching to the converted here I live in QLD, one of the reasons why I'm very wary of what I purchase, "legal" or not.

I would be very wary spending my money on these herbal ecstasy highs, personally the most I've ever gotten out of something like that is slight stimulation comparable to that of a few red bulls. Just because of the word herbal and legal doesnt make it safe, good thing to remember. They aren't comparable to ecstasy in anyway at all if you ask me. Waste ya money on something good mate

So phase dancer, where does that leave us in regards to products that are actually *designed* (and marketed) as say "plant foods" not intended for human consumption? And they may inadverdantly slip down your throat?

Click to expand...

Probably a question best put to one of BL's legal eagles.

If the ingredient was structurally similar to a scheduled chemical, then it could very well fall under the analogues law. If it couldn't be proven the substance was intended for human consumption, it's hard to know whether charges would be laid. However, if you were also found in possession of other drugs, utensils etc, it could well be that the police could have sufficient cause to charge you.

are two "liquid E's

Click to expand...

I think we should avoid using this term wherever possible. It is applied to various preparations, all entirely different, and in my view none are anything like MDMA.

I agree with P_D: any State or federal drug legislation that has analogue laws renders all the first generation N#@ products illegal. Who knows about the second lot.

In terms of the query above:

As wrong as this sounds, and I do not mean to be morbid, if one were to say they ingested the "substance" to end their life they probably would not be prosecuted. If one ingested the substance to party the night away, they might be. I use this example to highlight the apparent absurdity.

In WA at least, using a prohibited drug is illegal, in the same way that possessing one is. If the substance did not contain a common prohibited drug the authorities might struggle to prove what it was that you consumed, and if they don't know what you took the analogue laws cannot be applied. It would be hard to prove one intended to take a substance to mimic the effect of a listed prohibited drug unless that substance was marketed in that way, and it would still need to be shown the punter was taking the substance for this purpose. Without being caught with the packaging or the actual substance (and then they would focus on the possession charge and forget any usage of it), it would be difficult to prove and for such a minor charge why would they bother. Things might be different if you did something else, such as kill someone in a car accident, but then you would have more problems to worry about anyway.

It also needs to be kept in mind that there is the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact. If you honestly and reasonably believed that the preparation contained certain substances that are actually all legal, then you could not be prosecuted for using or possessing the substance. This is because you are mistaken about the contents of the preparation as opposed to the legality of anything contained in it.

On the contrary, a mistake of law is no defence. If you knew the contents of the preparation but did not know that a particular substance in it was illegal, then you can be prosecuted (=ignorance of the law no excuse).

If you had no idea what it contained then things get a little more complicated. However, wilful blindness and a failure to make any enquiry, particularly if the effects of the preparation are like other common prohibited drugs, might make it difficult to defend any possession or usage charge laid against you.

Who knows about the second lot: From what I've seen of some analysis, if I recall correctly they're an analogue too. So, out of luck there.

Thanks for the post Biscuit.

bustabraincell said:

So phase dancer, where does that leave us in regards to products that are actually *designed* (and marketed) as say "plant foods" not intended for human consumption? And they may inadverdantly slip down your throat?

Click to expand...

I was wondering this myself, I know the products you're talking about and was wondering what legal protection was actually offered by marketing them as plant foods lol... I'm not sure how often I eat fertilizer or how I could convince a judge that I do.

Has anyone had those legal high tabs "head candy" im semi curious as to how they are.