• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators: Esperighanto

Availability of Safrole for MDMA manufacture, alter availability?

The whole of Europe though, how long would 1000kg of MDMA last? 1-2 weeks? if that.
 
Mendo_K said:
The whole of Europe though, how long would 1000kg of MDMA last? 1-2 weeks? if that.
Click to expand...

Knowing that a good Dutch pill contains about 0.2g you could make 5 000 000 pills with that. I think it'll last a little more than a week (I THINK. I have no idea how much Europe consumes in a week but 5 000 000 seems like a lot). Not to mention the 18.5 tonnes of safrole with which you could make a whole lot more...
 
I retract my statement on smell of MDMA/pills smelling like safrole meaning it is widely availible!

Still, MDMA will always be produced there are always other precursors availible.
 
MDMA production is still in full effect and there's still a lot of safrole synthed MDMA out there right now. All I actually have seen in the past year was brown sand safrole precursor MDMA.
 
Considering the Party island of Ibiza can consume between 10,000-20,000 pills per night in peak season, take the WHOLE of Europe, look how big germany is, UK, Belgium etc also not everyone is taking pills, people will happily consume almost a gram of MDMA per night. Easily done.
 
I highly doubt street chemist whipping up 84% are going to alter there smell or color.

I could see people trying to get the smell in Methylone and color thats plausible.

However up here in the forests of the midwest, if it fizzles black and smells like black licorice is amber color I would guess it is Safrole precursor ... I have seen alot of clear fizzing black as well, I was beginning to this this was an iso-safrole.

just my 2 cents
 
^ If MDMA.HCl is 85% pure, then obviously there is 15% of unreacted precursor in there... which is going to "alter there smell or color". Please stop perpetuating this rumor, MDMA.HCL is 100% pure as long as it has no adulterants. 84% of this will be MDMA base, but that makes absolutely NO difference considering ALL dosage listing for MDMA are in the HCl form.


Also, I'm not even going to address the whole "I know which precursor was used because of the reaction's fizzle" thing... that's just obviously misguided :\
 
Folley said:
Also, I'm not even going to address the whole "I know which precursor was used because of the reaction's fizzle" thing... that's just obviously misguided :\
Click to expand...
I agree. I was wondering. Has anyone ever proven with facts that the quality of your MDMA (read: how strong, emphatic, hangover-free, energetic,... your MDMA is) is influenced by which precursor is used? It's been debated a lot I know (1990's MDMA vs. MDMA now) but I have been pondering about this subject. I'm no chemist and don't know a lot about chemistry. But I do know the basics of how a certain molecule can be formed and to me it seems that as long as you end up with pure MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methyl-amphetamine nothing else) it shouldn't matter what precursor is used, no? I mean if the molecules are exactly the same it seems to me it's physically impossible that they have different or more pronunciated effects. Same goes for the reaction with a test kit. MDMA is MDMA, the only thing that can vary is the speed of the reaction (which is influenced by the amount of MDMA in the sample). Is there something I'm missing here? Because I can't understand why people would say "no no the MDMA of the 90's was better, it's because of the synth". Sorry if this is going a bit off topic
 
Folley said:
^ If MDMA.HCl is 85% pure, then obviously there is 15% of unreacted precursor in there... which is going to "alter there smell or color". Please stop perpetuating this rumor, MDMA.HCL is 100% pure as long as it has no adulterants. 84% of this will be MDMA base, but that makes absolutely NO difference considering ALL dosage listing for MDMA are in the HCl form.


Also, I'm not even going to address the whole "I know which precursor was used because of the reaction's fizzle" thing... that's just obviously misguided :\
Click to expand...


lol I was wondering what he meant by that. I thought he was talking about yield, I was going to be like wow.

There are so many different impurities in the products created by clandestine labs. Why do you feel that you can make the distinction between the usage of safrole or isosafrole off of a reagant test? Care to tell me what acid or reagant you are using? I hardly doubt you have the equipment necessary to profile the impurities and tell the difference. What, are you making an "educated" guess? :\


BlueBull said:
I agree. I was wondering. Has anyone ever proven with facts that the quality of your MDMA (read: how strong, emphatic, hangover-free, energetic,... your MDMA is) is influenced by which precursor is used? It's been debated a lot I know (1990's MDMA vs. MDMA now) but I have been pondering about this subject. I'm no chemist and don't know a lot about chemistry. But I do know the basics of how a certain molecule can be formed and to me it seems that as long as you end up with pure MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methyl-amphetamine nothing else) it shouldn't matter what precursor is used, no? I mean if the molecules are exactly the same it seems to me it's physically impossible that they have different or more pronunciated effects. Same goes for the reaction with a test kit. MDMA is MDMA, the only thing that can vary is the speed of the reaction (which is influenced by the amount of MDMA in the sample). Is there something I'm missing here? Because I can't understand why people would say "no no the MDMA of the 90's was better, it's because of the synth". Sorry if this is going a bit off topic
Click to expand...

Well, Bluebull, you'd have to understand that in the 90s, MDMA was barely changed as a Scheduled 1 substance by the DEA. (I think it happened around the 80s.) As you probably know before it was scheduled, MDMA was used for therapy and had an authentic medical use. Certified laboratories were spewing out pharmaceutical grade MDMA, created with almost no impurities and in the most perfect conditions a lab can allow. I'm pretty sure a lot of these labs were still creating MDMA salts and allowing it to somehow "leak" onto the streets after the DEA shut it down. So to answer your question, yes, as long as you end up with *PURE* 3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetamine hydrochloride salt, it should not matter much of what precursor was used. The only problem would be the route of synthesis, because you have to understand that everything in this world is based off of one principle: the law of conservation of mass. However, you have inexperienced, untrained "chemists" who are cooped up in these hazardous labs with hardly any real equipment or any access to purified substances. That means that in every batch, there are likely to be by-products and intermediates, which only gets worse when you think about how dealers have been trying to infiltrate this market with false MDMA that the Average Joe thinks to be real. The product, I'm sure, is rarely re-crystallized (why would they want to lose product and money to make it more potent?).

And then again, think about chirality! S(+) and R(-)! ;)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your reply. I think I understand what you mean. I thought about impurities during synthesis too and indeed to me that seemed like a plausible explanation why it does matter what route of synthesis is used. What I never considered is that the pharma-grade MDMA in the 80s and 90s somehow leaked to the streets and that's why the MDMA of those days seemed a lot better. Interesting point of view and it seems logical to me. I've just begun researching chirality a bit but it's going to take some reading before I can react to that. I've got a very raw concept of what it means but I've got more reading up to do...
 
I'm intrigued, or maybe just ignorant. I always understood that safrole was the precursor of choice. I seem to remember discussions of myrsticin as a precursor but have no idea it is actually used. Safrole is widely used by industry but I'm unaware of a synthetic process. Would somebody care to enlighten me?
 
augustaB said:
I'm intrigued, or maybe just ignorant. I always understood that safrole was the precursor of choice. I seem to remember discussions of myrsticin as a precursor but have no idea it is actually used. Safrole is widely used by industry but I'm unaware of a synthetic process. Would somebody care to enlighten me?
Click to expand...
Although I am very new to this site; I don't think discussions regarding specific synthesis/cooking are allowed on this forum. You might want to check with the moderators on this. But yes...other precursors have and are being used besides safrole.
 
Trust that there is enough Safrole to make this entire planet roll.

Sometimes I think of MDMA as Melange... If you get that reference.

The spice that extends life... The spice that expands consciousness...

If only we could use MDMA to fold space. Hehe.
 
Diloadid said:
Trust that there is enough Safrole to make this entire planet roll.

Sometimes I think of MDMA as Melange... If you get that reference.

The spice that extends life... The spice that expands consciousness...

If only we could use MDMA to fold space. Hehe.
Click to expand...

That would be awesome if the entire planet experienced a roll all at the same moment =D I think a lot of problems would be solved in those 4-5 hours. Now only to find an amount of MDMA big enough and a dispersion method...
 
Anise oil doesn't smell anything like safrole except they are both stinky. And safrole is way harder to get now than 10 or 15 years ago. Anethole smells like Jagermeister tastes and safrole smells like root beer tastes. Also safrole is the only precursor chemical used by clandestine chemists to produce MDMA. Sure, pure MDMA can be made from aspirin or methylone, but it currently is not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top