• Welcome Guest

    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
    Fun 💃 Threads Overdosed? Click
    D R U G   C U L T U R E

Calling Old School Meth Users, How Has It Changed?

G

G_Chem

Moderator: OD
Staff member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
7,881
Alright guys you’ve got my attention. I am not a habitual meth user only having done it a handful of times but the chemistry around various substances interests me to no end.

I’d like to hear from meth users with every detail they can think of as to how the product has changed over the years. Everything from visually how it looks, crack back patterns, to behavioral changes you’ve seen in users.

The one reason I’ve gained more interest is the reports of seemingly increased brain damage and loss of cognitive function that can take years to recover. Supposedly more so than meth addicts needed before.

Looking at the purity graph on another thread posted by @4meSM it would seem if there is any toxic impurity it would have to be there in single digit quantities. I’m still leaning towards the problem being high accessibility but someone convince me otherwise.

-GC
 
Here they are, from 2005 to 2017 (the same purity trend continues at least until 2019, I'll try to find the missing graphs) :
figure8.gif

unnamed.jpg



2006 is the year when the Mexican government really started to restrict ephedrine imports, this is somewhat correlated with the purity dip from 2006-2008. During that time, the cartels were transitioning from the historical HI/red P method (Nagai reduction of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine) to the P2P method (reductive amination). It's worth noting that a typical reductive amination reaction yields a racemic amine.
However, after 2008, they clearly perfected the reductive amination method (+ variants) and figured out a way to export highly pure d-methamphetamine (not racemic).
In other words, they're most likely separating the underisable l-meth and converting part of it into d-meth (via multiple racemizations reactions, yielding increasing amounts of d-meth).
They could also be adding some kind of chiral catalyst to produce a much higher % of the dextro isomer (this would be a diastereoselective process), but I haven't found any info about this.
"Mexican TCOs produce methamphetamine using the reductive amination method, which uses the precursor phenyl-2-propanone (P2P) instead of pseudoephedrine".
In 2018, 98% of the samples analyzed showed methamphetamine produced by reductive amination (some variant of the classic P2P method).

"Data reflects that the newer P2P-Nitrostyrene method decreased in prevalence from the first half of 2018 from 22 percent of samples analyzed to 12% in the second half of 2018, a 45% decrease from the second half of 2017, and a 77% decrease from the first half of 2017."
"Older phenyl-acetic acid (PAA) profiles have experienced a 45% increase from the first half of 2018 supporting a growing trend of older PAA-type recipes. Profiles that contained a mixture of both P2P methods decreased by 13% from the first half of 2018, but maintained a larger portion of analyzed samples than in the first half of 2017 increasing 88%. This shift may be in reaction to precursor chemical restrictions and seizures focusing on the newer Nitrostyrene methods."

"DEA reporting also indicates a potential new PAA production method utilizing benzyl chloride and sodium cyanide to make an oil called benzylnitrile."


I think you might have a hard time getting "relevant" data because personal experiences from meth users tend to be quite unreliable when it comes to this particular topic.
To be clear, I don't think people are lying but there are just too many myths going around and a lot of variables to consider.

But hey let's see how it goes hehe.
 
Last edited:
Don't have anything to add, but I wonder what I would think of the meth going around these days. I haven't had meth in maybe 8-9 years. I was never a frequent meth user however, having only used maybe a few ounces of meth in my entire life (which might seem like alot to some, though not to a regular meth user).

Someone posted this interesting article the other day: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/ . It is interesting and nicely written but its abit hyperbolic and seems to jump to conclusions (ie, that P2P derived meth causes increased negative neuropsychiatric health outcomes).
 
4meSM said:
-I will edit this later to add the graphs-

I think you might have a hard time getting "relevant" data because personal experiences from meth users tend to be quite unreliable when it comes to this particular topic.
To be clear, I don't think people are lying but there are just too many myths going around and a lot of variables to consider.

But hey let's see how it goes hehe.
Click to expand...

This is partly for science artly for my lust of nostalgic rose tinted tweaker stories ;)

That said I am a believer in impurities causing differences in effects so am willing to stay open minded.

-GC
 
I saw that Atlantic article too but it confused me. I mean after watching Breaking Bad I thought the P2P method was the best?? But I can not comment. And as far as meth I think I took about 10 mgs in 1987 along with my shot of heroin and felt it all day and night. I said never again. My neighbor who was a meth head kept coming by wanting to give me some. He kept saying "dude it's great you will be awake for days". And I said I don't want to be awake for days I like sleep. :) Never had it or saw it again. But what I had zooted me and he tried to give me 4 x the amount.This was Long Beach CA, so whateer meth was at that time is what I got and he called it crystal meth.

I will say when I was on programming classes years ago I had a classmate give me ritalin to take when we got a big project we had to code for the next day From there I did look for meth. It is not big here in the NE USA unless I am just green. (In Southern California it was more abundant) But I even went to my cousins house in The Village in NYC. We had the guy come over on a bike for weed. But meth was no where to be had. But ritalin was perfect for those projects. I would take a 10 mgs tablet some bee pollen and a cup of green tea and stay up till 4:00AM getting these tough programming projects done. It worked I graduated with honors. Smoked a lot of weed too. :)
 
Last edited:
negrogesic said:
Don't have anything to add, but I wonder what I would think of the meth going around these days. I haven't had meth in maybe 8-9 years. I was never a frequent meth user however, having only used maybe a few ounces of meth in my entire life (which might seem like alot to some, though not to a regular meth user).

Someone posted this interesting article the other day: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new-meth/620174/ . It is interesting and nicely written but its abit hyperbolic and seems to jump to conclusions (ie, that P2P derived meth causes increased negative neuropsychiatric health outcomes).
Click to expand...

That’s the article that’s gotten me thinking twice. While it did have a sensationalist vibe there were some interesting points brought up as well. Particularly how users nowadays seem to just want to recluse, that’s not really the meth I’ve known in the past but my experience is pretty slim with the drug so hard for me to know too.. Also how users seem to need longer to recover. The term brain fog being used for both the high and recovery phase.

In the end though could just be too much meth for too cheap..

-GC
 
You know or meth is not necessarily a crystalline substance? Also MDMA is methamlhetamine with a methyl and dioxylene chains attached. You can literally test positive for meth with reactants via that route.
 
From the time it made its official debut, in late '99 here in Texas, by way of a literal ice tsunami during which the meeting of a distributor was more likely to occur than the meeting of Curtis (the distraught father just trying to get money for gas to make it to the Children's Hospital to see his boy, not to spend at the trap you just saw him walking from as you pulled into the E-Z Mart across the street) until like 2005 or 6, you would very often see people scraping the stem of their pipe down. Why? Because after a week of smoking, even sooner if sharing, you absolutely had to if you wished to keep on smoking with it because the meth recondensing in the stem would literally close it up. No clue as to what was possibly changed regarding the manufacturing process or why but with todays meth, I bet you could smoke for a year through a single pipe and it wouldn't get anywhere near to closing up. Also, most of the dope around that time tasted like toluene the first few hits or smelled of it when first crushed down to make lines.
 
In 2005ish when I was a teenager, we were doing "crank" which was pink-tinted shards. I don't recall it having much effect on me back then but my brother & our truck driver neighbor seemed to love the shit.

Wasn't until a year or two later I tried genuine "crystal" for the first time. Looked like glass back then (compared to the more salt-like looking shards around today).

Unfortunately I don't' have much more input & I'm not as old as some one who was doing meth in the 80's, but I'd say it's been variable through out different era's I'd imagine, similar to how cannabis was weaker back in the 50's and 60's and the heroin is now fentanyl (yuck).


Anyone have any idea what these pink shards back in 2004-2006 were that I was doing as a teenager? It was nowhere near as good as the translucent crystals and shards that I tried later on in life, but it had some what of an effect I suppose. Is pink crank different from meth or is it just an old trendy slang term for the shitty meth back then?
 
Last edited:
I used meth for awhile back in 2006. Most of the time it was clear shards.

I've used it several times in the last three years or so and it was white shards/crystals. The stuff that's around now is 10x cheaper and also more potent. It's also available on street corners and city parks now whereas before you had to know somebody.
 
I literally haven't been on this site in a minute, but was curious about this very particular question here.... it's strange because I know all the reports say the quality is getting purer and what not, but it def feels like they are putting something in it to make a user more docile and less euphoric and almost all of it has fent nowadays, which I never wanted to believe at first but then found out first hand after a vehicle accident the tox reports came back positive for meTh and fent and I don't do or like opioids or downers , so they only way I'd test positive for that would be the rumor was true, further more that would make sense why it def feels like more a physical addiction opposed to when I first had a run with it, which also seemed like lesser amount seemed to last longer and be more speed like and less "whoa, why'd that hot rail make me wanna fall asleep shortly after it was ripped?".... maybe it's just the different method they are making it nowadays , but just kinda wondering others feedback....
 
When I started, it was all that foul smelling, wet, dirty yellow biker speed. If you could handle snorting the tiniest of lines, it was fantastic. I’d kill for that stuff now, gags and all. I’m assuming it’s the way it’s made now, but it doesn’t even seem like a similar drug. Just the physical properties alone are stark. It used to be sticky and hard to crush. Now it’s fluffy and turns to powder with little force. The old stuff was impossible to eat on and would make you a little edgy. Not jittery, so much, just a hair anxious. And strong. Jesus. I’m a girl who unloaded a large appliance from my truck, by myself, and got it to my kitchen, where I didn’t hesitate to hard wire it in time to cook dinner. It made you unafraid of anything. I wouldn’t call it euphoria, as I couldn’t see using it just for kicks if I didn’t have a lot of shit I needed to get done. It was like I was me but with superpowers. Ahh… the good ol’ days. Meth today doesn’t do much besides make me vaguely aware I want to do more meth. For literally no reason.
 
nevereverseverclever said:
I literally haven't been on this site in a minute, but was curious about this very particular question here.... it's strange because I know all the reports say the quality is getting purer and what not, but it def feels like they are putting something in it to make a user more docile and less euphoric and almost all of it has fent nowadays, which I never wanted to believe at first but then found out first hand after a vehicle accident the tox reports came back positive for meTh and fent and I don't do or like opioids or downers , so they only way I'd test positive for that would be the rumor was true, further more that would make sense why it def feels like more a physical addiction opposed to when I first had a run with it, which also seemed like lesser amount seemed to last longer and be more speed like and less "whoa, why'd that hot rail make me wanna fall asleep shortly after it was ripped?".... maybe it's just the different method they are making it nowadays , but just kinda wondering others feedback....
Click to expand...
Today's speed definitely feels a little different depending on where you get it.

I'm not sure if I believe the "fent in the meth" rumors. Most meth users inject or smoke large doses, every few hours. Could you imagine how much fentanyl you'd be taking in if you did that? It just seems unrealistic.

I think the most logical explanation is that maybe you do have ADD/ADHD, so stimulants calm you down. Or your brain was empty of neurotransmitters, so when you smoke some more and your brain has nothing left, you'll get paradoxical tiredness instead of awakeness. I've felt this on meth/speed before there was ever fent out there.

But I can't explain a toxicology showing fent. You could be right. Just seems like more people would be overdosing and dying then if the rumors were true, considering meth users typically take much larger doses of their drug than say...a heroin or fentanyl user.
 
Is methamphetamine made by the big cartels using some neurotoxic metal these days?

Leeched metal (mercury and tin are very common neurotoxic ones used in synthetic chemistry) could be in this shit. It would come through in large amounts in recrystalized meth or even chromatographed meth. It bioaccumulates so it wouldn't even need to be a lot in there just builds up over time in chronic users. It won't show up or will be overlooked on any regular lcms checking for organic impurities...have to do ICP MS.

I've always been paranoid about how much leeched mercury et al. Ends up in RCs because using these metals is just so common in organic synthesis. Meth could be subject to the same problem.
 
LucidSDreamr said:
Is methamphetamine made by the big cartels using some neurotoxic metal these days?

Leeched metal (mercury and tin are very common neurotoxic ones used in synthetic chemistry) could be in this shit. It would come through in large amounts in recrystalized meth or even chromatographed meth. It bioaccumulates so it wouldn't even need to be a lot in there just builds up over time in chronic users. It won't show up or will be overlooked on any regular lcms checking for organic impurities...have to do ICP MS.

I've always been paranoid about how much leeched mercury et al. Ends up in RCs because using these metals is just so common in organic synthesis. Meth could be subject to the same problem.
Click to expand...

I never thought this was truly an issue until I picked up a batch of MDMA once that looked really good. Typical fused shard but not bad, but one rock had a flat bottom (obvious it was at the bottom of the tray or whatever they used) and at this flat bottom side was a layer a mm or two thick of what appeared to be metallic residual impurities. My educated guess is that during the heating and cooling of the fusing process these impurities settled at the bottom. Knowing MDMA too is often made with Al/Hg it had me worried, but I took the risk knowing most these days is done via hydrogenation.

Bottom line is, I wouldn’t be surprised to find much more metal impurities in meth than MDMA.

-GC
 
it has become way more caustic, dirty and is a totally different substance, imo/e.
wish i could expound but this is written somewhere in a like thread about a year ago.
 
ketaset84 said:
I completely agree
Click to expand...
I could actually do the crank back then. It just unnerves the fuck out of me on this "new" stuff. I know we change chemically over time or whatever but drugs are a whole new flavor today. Not "bad" but not used to some of the effects so maybe kinda shy of them, IDK.
Would absolutely love to obtain a g of both good meth and coke. Love the mix. Cant get that today so not lookin fer it. ;)
One
 
6am-64-14m said:
I could actually do the crank back then. It just unnerves the fuck out of me on this "new" stuff. I know we change chemically over time or whatever but drugs are a whole new flavor today. Not "bad" but not used to some of the effects so maybe kinda shy of them, IDK.
Would absolutely love to obtain a g of both good meth and coke. Love the mix. Cant get that today so not lookin fer it. ;)
One
Click to expand...
Out of interest how did you combine meth and coke?
 
6am-64-14m said:
it has become way more caustic, dirty and is a totally different substance, imo/e.
wish i could expound but this is written somewhere in a like thread about a year ago.
Click to expand...

Hasn't analysis shown that meth is more pure these days? I'm not sure if you used the term "dirty" In a figurative or literal sense.

As for it being caustic I don't think caustisity has any correlation to level of neurotoxicity.

Meth back in the day was racemic now its D meth. That alone could make a world of difference.

So like the mdma thread of similar topic...I'm going to bet on the following explanations in this order of probability

1) leeched toxic metals
2) pure D meth is worse on the brain than racemate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top