If the mdma has a slightly green tinge to it, you may wanna reply / PM me and ill tell you what it may be for harm minimisation purposes.
Instead of disappearing 16 days after registering, why not tell us here, publicly, on a harm reduction board, where such info can have some impact? As someone actively involved in outreach HR, if an OTC chemical impurity or some sloppy lab technique is responsible for an impurity in MDMA powder, then I'd really like to know what it is.
Look up common MDMA impurities.. Most chemicals from different synthsn are untested on any animals but OBVIOUSLY have effect when digested
Most if not all chemicals used in any syntheses have received some toxicity profiling. An MSDS exists for practically all chemicals used in the lab, which should be referred to before first using a substance. That's standard lab practice. Major impurities with a clandestine drug like MDMA are often intermediates of the synthesis. All chems used a typical MDMA synth (pure chems, not OTC products), and the intermediates formed via these routes have had some toxicological evaluation.
In regards to side reaction impurities, if you look at some of the Forensic journal articles which profile different syntheses, then do a search for those impurities, you'll find the toxicity for many have at least been partially evaluated for acute exposure. However, these impurities may not be completely representative of those produced using less than pure starting materials (OTC chems). This is where things become very cloudy.
Whether or not these typical impurities have a noticeable effect on the pharmacology of MDMA, is, in many cases also difficult to accurately determine without appropriate studies being done. Obviously, some psychoactive impurities could well be expected to alter the experience, but others may work in a more subtle way, causing changes in metabolism and even absorption and elimination of the drug. Some impurities are toxic, there's no doubt about that, and others in combination may be toxic, but that doesn't mean any and all possible impurities from a synthesis will alter the
perceived pharmacological effects of MDMA.
Pills died when they started being synthed here.
MDMA has been produced locally for many years. I'm not saying it supplied the whole market, but the large MDP2P bust a couple of years ago certainly indicated that a good portion of the local market was then being catered for by a local organisation.
I'm not denying that large scale operations such as that busted in Indonesia some years ago were in all likelihood producing a relatively high quality product, however, without seeing respective analytical data there's no reason to believe that product purity would be that much better with a big OS operation than with a smaller, well run and adequately resourced local operation. Some of the lab busts in Aus have reported sophisticated labs - I believe even gas chromatographs have been found in labs in Aus and NZ.
MDMA lab busts may have been rare 8-10 years ago, but a lot of things affected that, not least the relatively limited resources available to LE at the time and the ease by which chemicals could be purchased back then. Don't forget, the required essential oil was still accessible OTC in 2000. Around that time, I was told by a senior forensics officer that it was then available in quantity from some pet shops (for delousing animals).
After seeing it on the shelf in shops that sold essential oils, I rang the local distributor to ask how they were able to legally sell it. I was told they couldn't sell larger than 100mL bottles without notifying authorities, but the lady went on to say they could sell as many 100mL bottles as the customer wanted without notifying anyone. There's a bit more to this story, which I followed up within the University project mentioned above. This involved the low percentage of the allyl benzene found to be present in the oil. From discussions with lecturers it was concluded the remaining 60-70% had probably been distilled off, and the oil topped up with terpenes to keep the books "straight". The valuable allyl benzene could then be diverted to the illicit market where it would have fetched big money. This made sense, and perhaps explains why the company disappeared some 6 months later
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
"Pills died", as Billabongor2 puts it, when various interstate and federal LE departments began cooperating better and the ACC and other bodies focused on improving intelligence gathering, expanding the chemical industry code of practice and increasing border security. Ion mobility scanning became commonplace, departments got additional staff, and greater numbers of undercover officers infiltrated the scene.
As a result, MDMA became somewhat less easy to get into the country and more difficult to produce locally. This resulted in a) the price holding steady, and even increasing in some areas b) the amount present in tablets becoming generally less and c) increases in novel substitutes and adulterants (other than speed & ketamine and the odd PEA). Let's face it, unless demand drops, there's more incentive for the crooks to supply low MDMA content pills, and/or be more inclined to substitute with piperazines, pharmaceuticals etc. So, while a typical pill may cost less today than back in 2000, if 3 pills are required to do the same job, then who's the better off?
None of this should be surprising considering the effectiveness of improved supply reduction together with a local illicit market where demand remains high. From a HR perspective, what's frustrating is that LE and government agencies prioritise prohibition while ignoring the inevitable increased risks to drug users and their families. The many warnings – some of which came from BLers, Doctors and the “Drug Industry Elite”
that term
– have been ignored, despite these points being brought to the attention of authorities on numerous occasions i.e. if demand was not concurrently reduced with supply, there would be added incentive for crooks to produce lower quality (less safe) , substituted or adulterated products.
Increasing maximum sentences probably deters few dedicated crooks and probably doesn't do much to deter new one's entering the market either- what's another 5 years when you're already risking 15-20? The profits are huge, and well syndicated networks are still relatively safe. Let's not also forget the technology around to counter intelligence gathering. It's widely available, inexpensive, and from reports, also very effective. So, if manufacturing syndicates have no personal or traceable contact with traffickers, and traffickers have no personal or traceable contact with street dealers, how does LE catch the big bosses? Let's not also forget the relative risks associated with local production compared to importing. Providing that the necessary resources can be obtained locally via inconspicuous means, there's relatively little chance of being caught.
