What reagent tests ( Marquis, Mecke etc) really tell you:

[Jabberwocky]

Testing only identifies the presence of a substance.


Marquis will return purple/black for MDXX, DXM, codeine, morphine, and heroin


Marquis does not react with PMA, any piperazines, many cathinones, and thew 2-CT-X


So, a pill with a little MDMA plus any of the following: DXM, codeine, morphine, bath salts, PMA (deadly), mephedrone, and the C-Ts; will return purple black.


What about foxy Methoxy?? what does it show on a Marquis?



SO -- to the Moderators -- is it actually harm reduction to say a Marquis test tells you a pill is OK? Or should one also look to other means to support the test -- like solubility, and dosage?




I think one can say with as much certainty one can base a purple/black marquis reaction -- that a 5-10 mg dose resulting in +2 euphoria in 30 minutes -- IS CATEGORICALLY NOT MDMA


And we also know for certain that such doses are indicative of other substances that masquerade as MDMA

 

[Yeetbeat]

SO -- to the Moderators -- is it actually harm reduction to say a Marquis test tells you a pill is OK? Or should one also look to other means to support the test -- like solubility, and dosage?

It's recommended to utilise more than just one reagent to reduce the possibility that whatever the user has is adultered in the manner you described. It would absolutely be preferable to have easy access to GC/MS testing, but alas given the illicit status of these substances it's more easily said than done. Of course we can still send a sample to a laboratory that offers such services, but given the time, effort, and relative costs required it's just not practical.

Test kits, as you said, only show the presence of certain compounds. They're labelled as 'presumptive' and should never be taken as gospel, merely indicative. It's still up to the user to decide whether they're happy with what they have or not. We're trying to reduce harm; the only advice we could ever dispense under the guise of preventing harm would be to recommend nobody takes recreational drugs, period.

 

[Jabberwocky]

It's recommended to utilise more than just one reagent to reduce the possibility that whatever the user has is adultered in the manner you described. It would absolutely be preferable to have easy access to GC/MS testing, but alas given the illicit status of these substances it's more easily said than done. Of course we can still send a sample to a laboratory that offers such services, but given the time, effort, and relative costs required it's just not practical.

Test kits, as you said, only show the presence of certain compounds. They're labelled as 'presumptive' and should never be taken as gospel, merely indicative. It's still up to the user to decide whether they're happy with what they have or not. We're trying to reduce harm; the only advice we could ever dispense under the guise of preventing harm would be to recommend nobody takes recreational drugs, period.

You didn't answer my second question. also using dosage and solubility

Dosage is a very good discriminator if the adulterants are certain cathinones/tryptamines/amphetamines

Many adulterants are fully active at doses of 5-10 mg oral being a ++ with heavy effects at 20 mg being +++

such an oral dose of MDMA will not be felt by any but the most sensitive individual, and then only as a transient feeling of something -- but not even a +

 

[Yeetbeat]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean regarding using dosage to verify presence of adulterants, though yes I do agree certain adulterants may have a much lower active dose than MDMA, so if you rolled balls off 50mg you definitely did not have MDMA....or you somehow inadvertently combined it with something like an MAOI, though very unlikely (and very unsafe).

Solubility can be performed prior to ingestion, so it could be used in some way though I honestly couldn't say how; MDMA is water soluble, so are we looking for the presence of something that ISN'T? What about inert fillers/binders, some may be insoluble and remain behind. Some adulterants may be soluble like MDMA.

Dosage - at least as far as I can see it being useful and assuming absolute minimal tolerance - can only really be used post-ingestion. Say you took that 50mg and rolled hard, it was very potentially not MDMA or also contained something other than MDMA. If you took 300mg and got a buzz - could've been anything, you can't say for sure as you don't know how impure/cut it was. All you can say is that it was not 100% MDMA.


If you tested something with a reagent test kit and it showed positive for MDMA, you still need to ingest it for 'dosage' testing to have any value as far as I can see. Am I interpreting that wrongly?

 

[nau5ea]

if you're really that worried, don't do drugs. the BEST harm reduction technique is abstinence.

 

[terarc]

Everyone knows there are limitations to reagent kits.

This is why anyone testing should use as many reagents as possible.

There are reagents which indicate the presence of the adulterants you mention marquis being unable to detect.

GC/MS is absolutely preferable and the only way to be sure of what you have, but this kind of service is unfortunately just not available to the vast majority of people, and it takes more time and prior planning than reagent kits, which reduces the number of people that would even use such a service.

Even the 'prior planning' of ordering a batch of test kits for any future drugs you buy is too much for some people.

It's not perfect but I'd argue that reagent testing, coupled with other harm reduction measures such as dose/re-dosing control, usage frequency control, avoiding unhealthy drug combinations and staying hydrated and cool during use, offers a pretty decent level of safety. The testing is kind of like a preliminary screening whereby anything that does appear to be an unexpected substance can be immediately avoided before it has the chance to do harm, rather than a guarantee that what you have is what the result says.

 

[Jabberwocky]

if you're really that worried, don't do drugs. the BEST harm reduction technique is abstinence.

I'm not worried at all.

Simply pointing out how arbitrary the 'ban' on anything that remotely resembles discussion regarding what a substance could possibly be, but a reagent test is deemed ok, when all it can show is the presence of things that actually react to it.


For a harm reduction site to prevent the dissemination of information seems counter-productive. Even statements such as the following are considered "substance ID"


" bath salts commonly look like little bits of gravel, when crushed they turn to powder almost completely without much (if any) evidence of crystals. Sometimes the powder is clumpy due to the highly hygroscopic (absorb water from the air) nature of bath salts. Bath salts tend to make one compulsively re-dose, and are active in the range of 5-10 mg with 20 mg being a heavy dose. MDPV, a-pvp, and a-php are among the cathinones known as bath salts. "


Half of the newbie posters (or more) probably have no idea that they could be getting methylone, ethylone, an APB, a halogenated amphetamine (4-FA), a tryptamine (5-Meo-DIPT, 5-Meo-DALT), MDPV, a-php, a-pvp, or any number of newer RCs.

The worst part is that if someone mixes MDMA powder and bath salts for sale as "molly rocks" -- people are likely to just test the powder -- and get a purple/black, or -- if MDMA & bath salts were crushed and mixed -- the purple/black overpowers the yellow

 

[Jabberwocky]

If you tested something with a reagent test kit and it showed positive for MDMA, you still need to ingest it for 'dosage' testing to have any value as far as I can see. Am I interpreting that wrongly?

Yes, an allergy test dose is usually 5 mg or so -- if someone gets a ++ from that; many uninformed would just think "wow this molly is strong" instead of thinking "wow this isn't MDMA -- probably a PV -- or if I start tripping a tryptamine"

 

[Solipsis]

No, a reagent test does not make everything perfectly fine - it does make a difference compared to complete random guesses but should not be mistaken for safety. It would actually be a false sense of security, so if you are taking complete mystery pills you should still be careful and start low even if you used reagents on it.

Probably this concern stems from the fact that many people don't use any reagent at all, and compared to that using a reagent is much safer. This tendency may give users and the forum the idea that the safety from reagents is the highest you can achieve and foolproof, whereas this is not true and is only relative.

It's good as a reconsideration, but as for what this forum deems "OK" should be seen as relative, since it should should always been remembered that reagents are only a preliminary indicator.

Lower incidence of reagent tested pills causing health problems may give off the false idea that it is safe, but it is only safer.

That it feels this is slowly forgotten over time is a part of renormalization, it is normal for this to happen and it is extremely painful when this flaw is shown when someone eats a bad reagent tested pill... it's just hard to guard against, the best we can usually do is occasionally freshen each other up on the matter.

 

[Clocktower]

Simply pointing out how arbitrary the 'ban' on anything that remotely resembles discussion regarding what a substance could possibly be, but a reagent test is deemed ok, when all it can show is the presence of things that actually react to it.

The nice thing about a reagent test is that it's objective. Even if a reagent test gives you incomplete information, it at least gives the same information every time it's used. Unfortunately, in the absence of objective tests, pretty much any discussion is just unproductive conjecture. Not sure what you mean by 'deemed ok.'

For a harm reduction site to prevent the dissemination of information seems counter-productive. Even statements such as the following are considered "substance ID"


" bath salts commonly look like little bits of gravel, when crushed they turn to powder almost completely without much (if any) evidence of crystals. Sometimes the powder is clumpy due to the highly hygroscopic (absorb water from the air) nature of bath salts. Bath salts tend to make one compulsively re-dose, and are active in the range of 5-10 mg with 20 mg being a heavy dose. MDPV, a-pvp, and a-php are among the cathinones known as bath salts. "

This is great, but is it useful? AFAIK these drugs don't necessarily look like gravel, aren't necessarily clumpy, etc. However, as cathinones they DO necessarily react with reagents.

Half of the newbie posters (or more) probably have no idea that they could be getting methylone, ethylone, an APB, a halogenated amphetamine (4-FA), a tryptamine (5-Meo-DIPT, 5-Meo-DALT), MDPV, a-php, a-pvp, or any number of newer RCs.

But if they reagent test, they may at least be able to rule some of those things out.

The worst part is that if someone mixes MDMA powder and bath salts for sale as "molly rocks" -- people are likely to just test the powder -- and get a purple/black, or -- if MDMA & bath salts were crushed and mixed -- the purple/black overpowers the yellow

This is unfortunately true, but it is the world we live in. Even though reagent testing is not perfect, it's better than nothing, and in a case like this one a discussion of the mixture's properties is unlikely to yield any benefit either.

Yes, an allergy test dose is usually 5 mg or so -- if someone gets a ++ from that; many uninformed would just think "wow this molly is strong" instead of thinking "wow this isn't MDMA -- probably a PV -- or if I start tripping a tryptamine"

Yes, that would rule out MDMA, but I don't think it's reasonable to start guessing other drugs in that scenario. Even if you yourself can identify drugs by their psychoactive effects, those effects are subjective (different for different people), and that method is unlikely to be effective for most users of this forum.

 

[Yeetbeat]

Simply pointing out how arbitrary the 'ban' on anything that remotely resembles discussion regarding what a substance could possibly be, but a reagent test is deemed ok, when all it can show is the presence of things that actually react to it.

Now I'm not 100% on this next bit: I have the impression, from somewhere in the past, that even posting pictures of test results is close enough to seeking identification. We will guide the user on how to make the best informed decision, but that decision is theirs. We will direct them to use a test kit, but we still won't quite conclude anything somebody else on the internet possesses is MDMA. Even looking at pictures showing a purple/black reaction on a computer screen isn't enough information for someone to conclusively state the drug tested was MDMA. Ultimately, we don't want that responsibility to fall on anybody's head but the user who will potentially be ingesting the drug.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Now I'm not 100% on this next bit: I have the impression, from somewhere in the past, that even posting pictures of test results is close enough to seeking identification. We will guide the user on how to make the best informed decision, but that decision is theirs. We will direct them to use a test kit, but we still won't quite conclude anything somebody else on the internet possesses is MDMA. Even looking at pictures showing a purple/black reaction on a computer screen isn't enough information for someone to conclusively state the drug tested was MDMA. Ultimately, we don't want that responsibility to fall on anybody's head but the user who will potentially be ingesting the drug.

So how does providing the physical properties of a substance and known active dose ranges, and known re-dosing compulsion constitute substance ID?

As long as statements such as "what you took was" "it was probably" or statements to that effect == are not present,

how does providing more discriminating data hurt anybody?


As an example: MDMA HCL has a melting point of approximately 147-153 Celsius depending on method of crystallization that is 302 Fahrenheit

MDA has a melting point of 180-188 Celsius depending on method of crystallization -- 356-370 Fahrenheit

MDPV has a melting point of 408 degrees Fahrenheit

Modern ovens are only a few degrees off temp (some are very good) -- it would be easy to confirm/exclude a substance by melting point

 

[Yeetbeat]

We don't like speculating because users are far too determined on coming to a solid conclusion on the identity of what they took or what they plan on taking, so anything that seems plausible may quickly become 'fact' in their mind, even though the user who provided the speculative ID could be completely and utterly wrong but their wording conveyed a false impression of knowledge and/or qualification.

Not only do I believe the average user is going to be unable to accurately ascertain the physical properties you mentioned like melting point due to inexperience and lacking the correct equipment, but I also believe the average user won't even be remotely interested in going to such lengths. Hell, the average user couldn't even be fucked entertaining the idea of a test kit prior to ingesting ungodly amounts of what they assumed to be MDMA.

Honestly, what's so hard to accept about our 'better safe than sorry/err on side of caution' approach?

 

[Jabberwocky]

We don't like speculating because users are far too determined on coming to a solid conclusion on the identity of what they took or what they plan on taking, so anything that seems plausible may quickly become 'fact' in their mind, even though the user who provided the speculative ID could be completely and utterly wrong but their wording conveyed a false impression of knowledge and/or qualification.

Not only do I believe the average user is going to be unable to accurately ascertain the physical properties you mentioned like melting point due to inexperience and lacking the correct equipment, but I also believe the average user won't even be remotely interested in going to such lengths. Hell, the average user couldn't even be fucked entertaining the idea of a test kit prior to ingesting ungodly amounts of what they assumed to be MDMA.

Honestly, what's so hard to accept about our 'better safe than sorry/err on side of caution' approach?

How are the factual statements "MDMA melts at 147-153 degrees Celsius" "MDMA is not orally active at 5 or 10 mg -- however many substances sold as MDMA are"

in any way, shape, or form, speculation?

 

[Yeetbeat]

Those properties aren't speculation, however something tells me that a user who was not only determined enough to bother going about ascertaining the melting point and could successfully ascertain it accurately/without error, would very likely be a user who has no need to go to the extent of working it out and posting it on a public forum. They'd already be knowledged and experienced enough themselves to ascertain what they have without our input. The speculation bit comes in when almost every substance ID request you'd find on Bluelight will absolutely lack this information. I've only even seen people provide the solubility results of their "MDxx" a few times. It just doesn't strike me as something an unknowing user is going to be able to provide.

Don't get me wrong, if someone could accurately present all physical properties of their "MDMA", I won't stand by and say it cannot be identified (whether the rules would allow it or not is a different question); I just don't think that's ever likely to happen.

IMO it'd be naive to assume any user who needs to ask the question on a public forum also possesses the ability to accurately determine the melting point or any other physical properties. Especially when we take into account potential cuts/contaminants present from synthesis that may visibly begin to melt at a lower temperature - would an inexperienced user be able to tell when they should record the melting point when a small amount of the test substance starts melting before the rest?

 

[Jabberwocky]

My statements were mainly toward crystals.

 

[Yeetbeat]

Raw sugar, rock salt, whatever else you might find around the kitchen. What temps do they melt?

 

[Jabberwocky]

Raw sugar, rock salt, whatever else you might find around the kitchen. What temps do they melt?

Sugar decomposes -- but its hard to mistake sugar for anything but sugar -- unless you were born yesterday

Rock Salt -- hotter than you can safely generate heat -- hotter than any psychoactive chemical (1500 F)

 

[Cotcha Yankinov]

I think the physical properties of substances and how to ascertain legal equipment (hot plate with a temperature guage?) that is capable of testing those properties should be made available as a harm reduction tactic - you might say that the E tards won't care but there are a few people that would, and there will be more as time goes on in this increasingly scientific world.

For example, there are a fair number of college kids who are interested in using MDMA but that are also intellectually and financially capable (concerning acquiring equipment and being willing to spend product testing it) of determining some of the physical properties of crystals, maybe even following directions to wash a product to crystal form (shugenja's area not mine! Don't shoot I just like neuroscience)

The important thing to realize about this subject of physical properties and how it relates to the populations that are capable of correctly using these physical properties is that there are some people that never even thought to use them. There are different kinds of knowledge: what you know you know, what you know that you don't know, and what you don't know that you don't know.

For the sake of the people who don't know that they don't know, this information and a guide should be made available in my opinion. At least a link to a Reddit page if we're really going to enforce the "no ID'ing" thing.

 

[Yeetbeat]

I'd never go against the idea of having the information available; however if a thread was created for the purpose of identifying a substance based off physical properties ascertained by the user such as melting point, I'd still argue that a user that has to ask the question is somewhat akin to a user who is likely unable to accurately ascertain those measurements. If they possessed the knowledge and ability to obtain the equipment and perform the test with accuracy, I'd like to think they wouldn't need to ask if they got it right. More than happy for them to come to their own conclusion based on information provided in a sticky thread though.

My main point in all my ramblings is that it shouldn't be up to anyone to take the responsibility upon themselves to advise a user with any sense of certainty that what they have in their possession is drug X, when ultimately everyone makes mistakes and getting it wrong may result in an innocent person coming to harm all because they took your word. Not fair on the user, not fair on whomever issued the advice. That's the take-home message I'm trying to get across.