Making meth out of straight Ephedra plant?

[agnosia]

I've been looking into the meth being produced in afghanistan an wondering i anyone knows more about it. I hope it's slot better than the Mexican shit. If sonic hope I makes it way to the west coast. Here's a link

Afghanistan, home to the heroin trade, moves into meth

A new report warns Afghanistan is becoming a major methamphetamine producer, leaving addicts in its wake.

www.bbc.com

if you are serious about this then you should read the study that was done in 1995 . here is the abstract and link -

Ephedra's Role As a Precursor in the Clandestine Manufacture of Methamphetamine​

Abstract​

In February 1993, an illicit, fully operational methamphetamine laboratory was confiscated in Vacaville, California. In addition to seizing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine tablets, approximately 1.3 kg of ephedra was found at the lab site. Ephedra (also referred to as Ma Huang) is a plant material that contains numerous alkaloids, including l-ephedrine and d-pseudoephedrine. Ephedra products are currently sold over-the-counter in various forms such as tablets and capsules. Quantitative analysis reveals that some ephedra capsules and tablets contain as much methamphetamine precursors as a synthetic 25 mg ephedrine tablet. Because of this, ephedra is becoming a "substitute precursor" for ephedrine compounds for use in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine.

Ephedra's Role As a Precursor in the Clandestine Manufacture of Methamphetamine - [www.rhodium.ws]

www.thevespiary.org

 

[Jabberwocky]

Your English is actually pretty average. English is a second language to me, and I don't find your phrasing or grammar are particularly good. As for reasoned arguments, your argument is not reasoned at all. You basically shot yourself in the proverbial foot by disproving your own claims. Stating that I am wrong because not every one that takes meth develops Parkinson's is asinine, because not 100% of people will develop a particular illness to anyting. Hell, there are people that are exposed to MPTP, which is one of the most potent neurotoxins to dopaminergics neurons and don't develop Parkinson's. Basing your argument on a dicothomy of either/or is absurd. Meth is a proven neurotoxin. In fact, a few years back the FDA almost revoked the license for Desoxyn on the grounds of all the studies, done in both cell cultures and live rodents and monkeys, that demonstrated dramatic declines in substantia nigra volume and dopamine metabolites. Granted, humans tend to be more resilient to neurotoxic models than rodents and monkeys due to higher levels of antioxidant enzymes like SOD and catalase, but that meth is harmful to the brain is NOT debatable.

Hyperbole? Hardly. What I think is that you are a meth user, you enjoy the euphoria that it cases and you want to justify, to yourself, that meth is not really that harmful. But it is. And here is the thing...I LOVE meth. It is my favorite drug ever, more than coke, other amphetamines or opiates. But this drug is incredibly hard on the system. Meth makes even strong DRIs like methylphenidate and amineptine seem like candy in comparison. It is a terrible drug that gives a rush of euphoria that is unmatched. While coke makes you feel on top of the World, meth makes you feel like the conqueror of the Universe. It is amazingly strong and euphoric, but we cannot pretend that it is harmless.

Thank you for that academic evaluation. You may be correct. I guess I should now be asking the professors in my first English Lit degree a few hard questions about how I actually won the University Medal and investigate whether my team mates were somehow cheating without my knowledge when we won all those inter-varsity debating competitions. I’ve already put a call into the Economics faculty where I did my second Economics degree to ask why I fail to understand statistics. Admittedly, this education was many years ago so perhaps my skills have declined with all the meth I’ve been taking over the last year. Although to be fair I was still being published in reputable journals up to six months ago.

Perhaps you can also ask your educators why they left out the bit in the curriculum that should have been dedicated to identifying the ‘key-point’ in someone’s argument? Unfortunately the functionality of Bluelight does not allow me to write it out on the floor in crayon for you, but my one and only point in the original post is that while meth is indeed statistically more likely to give someone Parkinson’s, it is hyperbolic to state that consuming meth is a ‘sure-fire’ way to get it because ‘sure-fire’ is basically a synonym for ‘guaranteed’.

Until recently I did indeed consume meth. However I no longer felt it euphoric and believed it was limiting my intellectual abilities, and presented an unacceptable risk of long term cognitive and neurological damage so I have quit. I have posted my belief in the dangers of meth in many places on Bluelight and I am no evangelist for this drug. It’s a highly dangerous drug despite it also being enormous fun when you first start. It does also tend to make lesser minds and weaker characters strident and aggressive when challenged or confronted, I hope that does not happen to you in your use. Keep safe. Keep reading. Stay hydrated. Never go more than 48 hours without sleep.

All the best. Thanks for playing.

 

[Rectify]

My roughly 2% ephedra Mormon Tea helps with my syphilis.

 

[psychlo0015]

to my knowledge the fda has banned ephedra sinica since many people died from heart failure. i see people saying that it's unregulated but not in the USA. That shit's banned from sale.

 

[Bravoncius Roxford]

When someone says “sure fire way” it implies highly likely, I think Atelier did well explain how it isn’t.. Semantics I suppose but since English isn’t your first language it makes sense you may not realize that.

Also the poison is in the dosage, low doses of methamphetamine (similar to Amphetamine) actually provide neuroprotection and possibly neurogenesis.

The neuroprotective potential of low-dose methamphetamine in preclinical models of stroke and traumatic brain injury

Methamphetamine is a psychostimulant that was initially synthesized in 1920. Since then it has been used to treat attention deficit hyperactive disord…

www.sciencedirect.com

Long-Term Treatment with Low Doses of Methamphetamine Promotes Neuronal Differentiation and Strengthens Long-Term Potentiation of Glutamatergic Synapses onto Dentate Granule Neurons

Methamphetamine (METH) is a psychostimulant, affecting hippocampal function with disparate cognitive effects, which depends on the dose and time of administration, ranging from improvement to impairment of memory. Importantly, in the United States, METH ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

-GC

I highly doubt this to be true. You are basing this in one study? Do you know what a meta-analysis is? Because any meta-aanlysis will tell you clearly that meth is harmful to the brain at any dosage. And the argument is moot anyway, since almost nobody is able to use meth in low oral doses. Dose escalation and chaging to more bioavailable methods of delivery, insufflation and then smoking and/or injecting, are the most common pattern for those who start using amphetamines orally and enjoy the effects. Been there, done that.

And I am not interested in continuing this discussion. It is going nowhere, and I have said everything I had to on the topic.

 

[Bravoncius Roxford]

Thank you for that academic evaluation. You may be correct. I guess I should now be asking the professors in my first English Lit degree a few hard questions about how I actually won the University Medal and investigate whether my team mates were somehow cheating without my knowledge when we won all those inter-varsity debating competitions. I’ve already put a call into the Economics faculty where I did my second Economics degree to ask why I fail to understand statistics. Admittedly, this education was many years ago so perhaps my skills have declined with all the meth I’ve been taking over the last year. Although to be fair I was still being published in reputable journals up to six months ago.

Perhaps you can also ask your educators why they left out the bit in the curriculum that should have been dedicated to identifying the ‘key-point’ in someone’s argument? Unfortunately the functionality of Bluelight does not allow me to write it out on the floor in crayon for you, but my one and only point in the original post is that while meth is indeed statistically more likely to give someone Parkinson’s, it is hyperbolic to state that consuming meth is a ‘sure-fire’ way to get it because ‘sure-fire’ is basically a synonym for ‘guaranteed’.

Until recently I did indeed consume meth. However I no longer felt it euphoric and believed it was limiting my intellectual abilities, and presented an unacceptable risk of long term cognitive and neurological damage so I have quit. I have posted my belief in the dangers of meth in many places on Bluelight and I am no evangelist for this drug. It’s a highly dangerous drug despite it also being enormous fun when you first start. It does also tend to make lesser minds and weaker characters strident and aggressive when challenged or confronted, I hope that does not happen to you in your use. Keep safe. Keep reading. Stay hydrated. Never go more than 48 hours without sleep.

All the best. Thanks for playing.

Geez., your atempt at sarcasm was terrible.

Anyway, believe it or not, I was trying to help. But this is what you often get when you answer a question with an answer the user doesn't like: you get trashed. Oh well, maybe I should not reply to threads like this.

 

[Jabberwocky]

And I am not interested in continuing this discussion. It is going nowhere, and I have said everything I had to on the topic.

Clearly not. This reminded me that one of the first cognitive abilities meth ruins is executive control. The ability to make a decision and stick to it without falling prey to other impulses. It’s a terrible drug.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Wow. Now there's a next level insult that I've not seen around these parts before! Obviously I've not been around long enough to see 'em all!

Based on my short experience here though: you couldn't be more wrong (just by the way).

Not the friendliest of people then I take it?

Cut him a little slack seeing English is not his first language. I often sound brash in my second language and sometimes clumsily insult people by accident in my third.

This is sounding like The Lounge. Mea Culpa NPD Mods and my apologies. Lets agree to ceasefire and get back on topic. This sub-Forum is the only reasonable and rational one we have.

 

[G_Chem]

I highly doubt this to be true. You are basing this in one study? Do you know what a meta-analysis is? Because any meta-aanlysis will tell you clearly that meth is harmful to the brain at any dosage. And the argument is moot anyway, since almost nobody is able to use meth in low oral doses. Dose escalation and chaging to more bioavailable methods of delivery, insufflation and then smoking and/or injecting, are the most common pattern for those who start using amphetamines orally and enjoy the effects. Been there, done that.

And I am not interested in continuing this discussion. It is going nowhere, and I have said everything I had to on the topic.

Lol ya I’d stop if I were you.. There was two there, and that was after two seconds of searching. Many more studies to back up those claims.

But since it’s going “nowhere” we’ll stop, for your sake.

GC

 

[Bravoncius Roxford]

Clearly not. This reminded me that one of the first cognitive abilities meth ruins is executive control. The ability to make a decision and stick to it without falling prey to other impulses. It’s a terrible drug.

My cognitive abilities are still good enough to trash you in this debate. Trust me, buddy: I could smoke meth for 50 years, bang my head on a wall and I would still be smarter than you. I think one of the cognitive abilities most often ruined by meth, as in your case, is common sense and temperance. Your poor emotional control and inability to understand the pointlessness of a debate indicates organic brain damage. One of the characteristics of intelligent people is understanding that some things are a waste of time.

 

[Bravoncius Roxford]

Lol ya I’d stop if I were you.. There was two there, and that was after two seconds of searching. Many more studies to back up those claims.

But since it’s going “nowhere” we’ll stop, for your sake.

GC

You can find any research to support or contradict any point you want to make. For instance, you can find hundreds of studies stating that saturated fat is heart-healthy, when that is clearly not the case. The official position of the American Heart Association is that saturated animal fats cause arteriosclerosis. This is the result of meta-analysis done over decades from thousands of studies. Two studies mean nothing.

"for your sake"

Why do people that are less intelligent and edicated than me think I "fear" them or don't want to engage with them because I am afraid I would lose or someting? It is flabbergasting. I have better things to do than scan Pubmed or SD or any other reserach engine finding studies to disprove the idiocy of those who clearly don't know what they are talking about. Has it ever occured to you that the reason why I don't want to keep this up is because I have better things to do? If you want, I can engage you, but it is going to end very badfly for you. It might be worth to wipe that smirk out of you, but I would rather just do something else.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Has it ever occured to you that the reason why I don't want to keep this up is because I have better things to do? If you want, I can engage you, but it is going to end very badfly for you. It might be worth to wipe that smirk out of you, but I would rather just do something else.

Clearly not (again!). You’ve twice declared you’ve left the discussion only to return yet again to declare but not prove your intellectual superiority and have a sledge at the people who simply highlighted some problems in your argument. You’ve also claimed a meta-analysis proves your point but not linked us to this analysis. In this sub-forum it’s usual practice to cite scholarly articles to back up disputed or contentious claims.

We all had a bit of fun with a few sledges but in my last post I offered an olive branch and asked @dalpat077 to give you the benefit of the doubt. In the spirit of keeping things productive I would ask you to accept the olive branch, stay on topic, make no more ad hominen sledges, and provide links to resources that validate your view on issues that are contentious. I’ll be quite happy to proceed on the assumption that you are the most brilliant mind in this thread if you are smart enough to go along with this request. Let’s together make this more Debate Club and less kindergarten playground.

 

[sekio]

I can always close the thread if y'all don't play nice.

Now kiss...

 

[Jabberwocky]

Commercial production of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine is based on extraction from a species of Ephedra is it not?

If you had a ready supply of the correct species would it be easiest to extract these precursors and then proceed with a traditional recipe for your old-school meth.

Apparently it takes 100,000 tons of Ephedra to produce China’s total commercial production of 400 tons of pseudo.

Interestingly, because of the envoronmental costs of Ephedra production the Chinese are now turning to an Indian method of producing pseudo out of yeast fermentation of dextrose (sugar) with benzaldehyde. Fermenting the molasses is a complex process. Indian scientists developed the right yeast strain from a rotting apricot 30 years ago.

Learning how to do that and getting hold of some of the correct yeast could reinvigorate domestic production of pseudo derived meth in the US.

 

[Kaden_Nite]

people that are less intelligent and edicated than me

 

[vecktor]

Commercial production of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine is based on extraction from a species of Ephedra is it not?

If you had a ready supply of the correct species would it be easiest to extract these precursors and then proceed with a traditional recipe for your old-school meth.

Apparently it takes 100,000 tons of Ephedra to produce China’s total commercial production of 400 tons of pseudo.

Interestingly, because of the envoronmental costs of Ephedra production the Chinese are now turning to an Indian method of producing pseudo out of yeast fermentation of dextrose (sugar) with benzaldehyde. Fermenting the molasses is a complex process. Indian scientists developed the right yeast strain from a rotting apricot 30 years ago.

Learning how to do that and getting hold of some of the correct yeast could reinvigorate domestic production of pseudo derived meth in the US.

There are convenient ways of making pseudoephedrine which should get circumvent the domestic shortage of pseudoephedrine in the USA.

https://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume19/v19i3/Pseudoephedrine.pdf

Almost all commercial ephedrine and pseudoephedrine and the Norephedrine compounds come from L-PAC.

The molasses is first fermented to provide pyruvate and then the benzaldehyde is added and the using the enzyme pyruvate decarboxylase any yeast couples the two (the pyruvate is incorporated in Acetyl Coenzyme A) and a further enzyme reduces the product to an alcohol. There is actually no need to ferment molasses or dextrose to get pyruvate for the yeast to use but fermenting molasses is the cheapest way to get pyruvate and has other advantages.
The method goes back to Neuberg and Hirsch in Germany who first described it in 1921;
( Neuberg, C. and Hirsch, J. Biochem. Z., 1921 115 282-310.) Further German research in the early 1930s made it commercial and it was patented in 1934 as US pat 1,956,950

The method was developed heavily in the late 1950s and it had taken over almost completely by the 1990s. It is cheaper. Tricks increasing the volume efficiency yield and reducing the amount of benzoic acid that is produced. The yeast isn't special. Any yeast capable of effecting reduction may be used. It is economically advantageous to use the cheapest yeast available, and ordinary baker's yeast, Saccharomryces cerevisiae, is preferred. For maximum efficiency of reaction, it is advisable to present the maximum surface area of yeast for contact with the reactants. This can be effected by using "active" dried yeast, which is readily commercially available as "instant dry yeast", and may be stored at room temperature.
The L-PAC is then reductively aminated with methylamine to give chiral material.

Ephedra is still grown in large quantities, Natural extracts are valuable in China because of TCM and Ma huang and natural extracted material sells at a premium, but the bulk even in China is fermentation derived, usually from Indian sources who are cheaper.

 

[Jabberwocky]

There are convenient ways of making pseudoephedrine which should get circumvent the domestic shortage of pseudoephedrine in the USA.

https://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume19/v19i3/Pseudoephedrine.pdf

Almost all commercial ephedrine and pseudoephedrine and the Norephedrine compounds come from L-PAC.

The molasses is first fermented to provide pyruvate and then the benzaldehyde is added and the using the enzyme pyruvate decarboxylase any yeast couples the two (the pyruvate is incorporated in Acetyl Coenzyme A) and a further enzyme reduces the product to an alcohol. There is actually no need to ferment molasses or dextrose to get pyruvate for the yeast to use but fermenting molasses is the cheapest way to get pyruvate and has other advantages.
The method goes back to Neuberg and Hirsch in Germany who first described it in 1921;
( Neuberg, C. and Hirsch, J. Biochem. Z., 1921 115 282-310.) Further German research in the early 1930s made it commercial and it was patented in 1934 as US pat 1,956,950

The method was developed heavily in the late 1950s and it had taken over almost completely by the 1990s. It is cheaper. Tricks increasing the volume efficiency yield and reducing the amount of benzoic acid that is produced. The yeast isn't special. Any yeast capable of effecting reduction may be used. It is economically advantageous to use the cheapest yeast available, and ordinary baker's yeast, Saccharomryces cerevisiae, is preferred. For maximum efficiency of reaction, it is advisable to present the maximum surface area of yeast for contact with the reactants. This can be effected by using "active" dried yeast, which is readily commercially available as "instant dry yeast", and may be stored at room temperature.
The L-PAC is then reductively aminated with methylamine to give chiral material.

Ephedra is still grown in large quantities, Natural extracts are valuable in China because of TCM and Ma huang and natural extracted material sells at a premium, but the bulk even in China is fermentation derived, usually from Indian sources who are cheaper.

Wow. Great info and clarification. I’m no expert and my info came from reading a UN paper that I now can’t find. Thanks.

 

[vecktor]

Wow. Great info and clarification. I’m no expert and my info came from reading a UN paper that I now can’t find. Thanks.

All of the information is in the patent literature. Search for L-Pac ephedrine patent and then go back through the references and cited patents.

a late 90's review of the overall process is here.

Biotransformation for L-ephedrine production - PubMed

L-ephedrine is widely used in pharmaceutical preparations as a decongestant and anti-asthmatic compound. One of the key intermediates in its production is L-phenylacetylcarbinol (L-PAC) which can be obtained either from plants (Ephedra sp.), chemical synthesis involving resolution of a racemic...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

volume efficiency.
20g per litre of fermenter volume is considered exceptional, OK if you are running many 10 000 litre fermenters and getting 50 to 200kg per week but most of the processes are down at 50% yield and 5g/litre of L-PAC which would be 50kg in a 10KL fermenter. L-PAC is only worth 150 USD per kilo commercially. The cheap raw materials are the driving force but the energy used removing the product is also a major cost.

It is an interesting process, it is not very economic in countries that pay their workers properly and so the Indian labor price is crucial.

 

[dalpat077]

Wow. Great info and clarification. I’m no expert and my info came from reading a UN paper that I now can’t find. Thanks.

May I ask what you’re so happy about? Dunno about the rest (not on my radar) but you do realise that the .PDF link is a joke as in meant to be funny and make you laugh.

 

[Jabberwocky]

May I ask what you’re so happy about? Dunno about the rest (not on my radar) but you do realise that the .PDF link is a joke as in meant to be funny and make you laugh. Either that or I’m not seeing the point and/or misreading/misinterpreting big time!

Was just being polite. I didn’t read the PDF - because ‘improbable.com’ didn’t seem like a scientific or academic reference. Plus I’m kind of busy tonight.

However I already knew that L-PAC was primarily produced in India and is a precursor in manufacturing pseudoephedrine so the rest of the information seemed superficially credible before I went and checked out the cited references (as a PhD student I’m unaccustomed to people inventing spurious references just to fuck with me so I was giving the benefit of the doubt they were real and as I mentioned I am no expert in any of this, but generally interested in learning more about it).

If it was a hoax post as you infer, then it’s a damn good one because a cursory look at L-PAC in Wikipedia says broadly similar things.