Negi isn’t naive. Far-fetched conspiracy theories strike me as naive though.
Police is not your friend.
Most people aren’t, but these matters don’t require friendship and are largely predicated on legalities, academic study, and professionalism. Police exist to serve the people, and were it not for drug laws and other vices being labelled “crimes” most people would view the police department the way they view the fire department – favorably and seen as only there to help you, not hurt you or lead to your imprisonment.
Researchers in close collaboration with the dutch police neither.
It’s good to always be skeptical, but most researchers won’t risk their professional reputation by publishing questionable and/or dishonest studies in the science journals. They invest too much in their careers to do so, trust me, and careers have been ruined by researchers pandering too much to drug prohibitionists in the govt. for grants while publishing false and misleading studies that are later debunked.
I think they know very well what's going on, they just simply won't disclose what they know because isn't in their agenda.
Sounds like conspiratorial conjecture.
Everything is easier with things being as they are now.
As if law enforcement is behind a conspiracy to put out bad MDMA analogues so no one can enjoy MDMA, because sadism is their bottom line. Hahahaha
For sure they won't tell somerandomguyfromthewebcallednegi (no offense!)
(no offense to what? Referring to Negi as a random guy? That shouldn’t offend anyone. I’m as random to you and Negi as you two are to me (loosely defining “random”)).
about what's really going on, unless the request is coming from a legit accademic or governative organization.
I’m not saying this totally disqualifies what you’re saying, but “
accademic or
governative organization”? —.—
If you forget for a moment what Kranenburg told you, and start analyzing the issue with a fresh mind you can see that the ortho, or 2,3 deoxyring position isomer is the only viable option here,
You mean, *2,3-dimethoxy ring, and this is bad logic without underlying evidence; again just poorly informed conjecture, no disrespect.
You can't ignore some facts, whatever it's been said by "official" sources.
Untruths and opinions are often presented as facts. And also simply stating “Fact” before declaring something does not make it a fact nor true.
Fact: test labs failed to identify any major adulterant with phamacological activity in many different samples and from different labs
Which “labs” do you mean? Major adulterants have been found. This thread was attempting to limit the sharing of experiences to those experiences that involve samples purportedly only containing MDMA as the active ingredient.
Fact: it resists any purification attempts,
This is not a fact. Virtually anything can be purified given the proper knowledge, technique, and equipment to do so.
a minor but ultra potent potent adulterant
And which adulterant would that be? There’s nothing that potent that would be a by-product of MDMA synthesis.
would be easily removed by recrystallization,
No, if the impurity were also an amine-bearing compound, recrystallization would simply also recrystallize the impurity. There are better, more suitable purification techniques for this.
besides the fact that from a chemistry point of view it is impossible the creation of such unknown by-product,
I think you accidentally a word. You might be echoing what I said above though, hopefully.
mdma chemistry is pretty basic and simple.
Oh so you’ve synthesized it yourself? In your “accademic” pursuits, you were a chemical engineer and that’s what gives you the authority to say with confidence “mdma chemistry is pretty basic and simple”? And are you framing this within the context of clandestine chemistry and working with suboptimal environments with chemicals that aren’t always reagent grade and all of this without any advanced analytical equipment? And btw I’m speaking from experience with this – I’ve synthesized MDMA.
Fact: It's more profitable than MDMA, because of its shorter duration and due to being less potent by mg/Kg users consume more
Wrong. The more potent the drug, the more profitable it is to produce it. The best evidence of this is LSD. Just producing 1 kilogram is 10 million hits of LSD. This is why no one hardly ever produces Mescaline any more – threshold dose is too low.
Fact: It became mass available short after the ban of essential oils from asia, so precursor change plays a major role here
No arguments there, but that sudden loss of source lead to a flood of identifiable MDMA analogs for a few years until no sources were procured and MDMA production picked back up. We’re in that era now.
Fact: Both street drug test and official test labs identify meh as magic,
Yes, they even use those exact terms, because: science.
see the Kranenburg research to understand that to differentiate the two substances very accurate and directional test procedures are needed, which aren't performed normally.
There’s some validity to what you’re saying here a bit, but it doesn’t justify all these other half-drawn conclusions.
Fact: from a legal point of view in most countries the two M's are equally illegal (analogues law)
Fact: irrelevant point. I like “the two M’s” those… sounds ominous but also makes me want some M&Ms. Mmmmm…
Fact: The number of trials and convictions that would go expunged or in re trial would be massive in those countries where doesn't exists the above illegal status (analogues law)
Ok first of all that would be contingent on a government addressing “retroactivity” as it’s called, and they sometimes drag their feet on this subject. Secondly, it would require carefully reexamining drug sample evidence that is likely long-since destroyed, and would also require a legal system that gave enough of a shit to attempt correcting any such technical error. But see, that‘s a dilemma for a justice department to deal with. Law enforcment is separate from that, as are legislators, and as are yet still private research firms.
Sorry but if you guys really want to see the light at the end of the tunnel and have a definite answer to the meh vs. magic discourse this is the main, fundamental first thing that need direct and personal verification.
Which thing? You listed over a half-dozen points. And I have doubts there is an answer or a certain conclusion to this topic.
Every other theory comes after this, no matter how you put it, or if you like it or not.
Sorry for dismantling your post and picking it apart point by point, and while I applaud you for thinking about this topic critically and give you credit for applying what seems logical to you, I have to disagree with—respectfully of course—the majority of your points, as outlined in the rebuttals above.
- Fact: using this format makes me think of Dwight from The Office.