Racemisation of l-methamphetamine

[negrogesic]

As many are aware, the Mexican cartels now produce methamphetamine via the P2P route due to lower cost and scalability of this method. This of course produces teeth grinding, white knuckle, highly adrenergic racemic methamphetamine -- good for truckers and biker gangs of the 1980s, but nowhere nearly as enjoyable as the enantiomerically pure d-meth produced from pseudoephedrine. Unlike l-amphetamine, which is somewhat dopaminergic, l-methamphetamine is mostly a norepinephrine releasing agent, in fact even ephedrine is more dopaminergic than l-methamphetamine (although only slightly).

In any event, while I was aware that Mexican labs had figured out how to resolve the d-methamphetamine from the racemate, I guess I assumed they discarded the l-methamphetamine. Turns out that while that used to be the case, they now have figured out how to recycle that l-methamphetamine waste by turning it back into racemic meth, then removing the l-methamphetamine again and converting it back into racemic meth, only to again remove the l-meth, convert into d,l etc....



Astonishingly, these Mexican labs apparently perform racemisation of the waste l-meth multiple times, over and over, like wringing a sponge dry. Seems like fairly laborious and sophisticated chemistry, but then again, these are the people that invented the enchilada.

Main methamphetamine production methods used in Europe | www.emcdda.europa.eu

www.emcdda.europa.eu

 

[Atomic_Decay]

Nice find. I think I remember discussions here about the potential of doing this and the likelihood that it was being done given how consistently potent seizures of Mexican P2P meth have been. Good to have the evidence. Less good is Europe possibly not going to be the refuge from high-grade meth I thought it might be…

 

[G_Chem]

It’s actually quite simple, on paper at least. A nickel catalyst can be used. The article I saw after 10hrs only retained 15% original optical purity. Not bad considering the catalyst is only nickel and completely reusable.

-GC

 

[Atomic_Decay]

It’s actually quite simple, on paper at least. A nickel catalyst can be used. The article I saw after 10hrs only retained 15% original optical purity. Not bad considering the catalyst is only nickel and completely reusable.

-GC

I think when it was discussed here way back when Platinum was suggested as a likely potential catalyst. Does that sound right?

 

[4meSM]

Great find.

So according to that publication it turns out they're doing a radical mediated racemization, probably from the method described in this article: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jo061033l

So it seems like they don't need to use a transition metal catalyst in this case.

 

[negrogesic]

Yeah no nickel involved here, just a radical initiator and thiyl radical source.

I tried some of this recycled meth recently. It looks like the good old school pseudo d-meth, nice large crystals, etc. Granted it has been years since I've had the old stuff, but my memory of it is quite good, and this new stuff tastes a bit different, a bit sharper and more acrid.

The effect is different too. Certainly more adrenergic than the smooth effect of pseudo d-meth. When smoked it doesn't produce the same kind of floaty feeling as the old stuff, never really producing a pleasant high. The comedown from whatever high it does produce occurs very quickly. It's almost like the entire effect is a comedown. Intranasal isn't great either.

But out of curiosity, I tried a large oral dose, a single crystalline chunk weighing ~140mg, my hypothesis being that a large single dose might produce a large enough serotonin release to offset the adrenergic effects. My hypothesis was correct. The effect was actually quite good, euphoric, pleasant. The good overpowered the bad.

Oral administration is certainly the best way to consume this stuff. You simply can't smoke enough of this stuff at one time to release enough serotonin to smooth out the norepinephrine dump. I didn't try a large intranasal dose, but I would imagine that the rapid spike in blood levels would cause one to be hit with the adrenergic effects before anything else. I would imagine the intravenous ROA would similarly be pretty unpleasant.

I tried it again via the oral route at around 180mg, and the effect was good, but when I tried to smoke some during the peak effects I triggered a premature comedown and ruined the whole thing. I will never smoke it again, in fact I'm not so sure I'll ever smoke any stimulant ever again.

So while the high dose oral ROA seems to be the way to go with this stuff, it also must be pretty horrible for you and quite neurotoxic if done repeatedly, akin to abusing MDMA.

I have a feeling they aren't resolving out all the l-meth, or something else bizarre happens during the recycling process. I've never been a meth fan, but this stuff is certainly different.

 

[Rectify]

Maybe it's ethylamphetamine.

 

[G_Chem]

Yeah no nickel involved here, just a radical initiator and thiyl radical source.

I tried some of this recycled meth recently. It looks like the good old school pseudo d-meth, nice large crystals, etc. Granted it has been years since I've had the old stuff, but my memory of it is quite good, and this new stuff tastes a bit different, a bit sharper and more acrid.

The effect is different too. Certainly more adrenergic than the smooth effect of pseudo d-meth. When smoked it doesn't produce the same kind of floaty feeling as the old stuff, never really producing a pleasant high. The comedown from whatever high it does produce occurs very quickly. It's almost like the entire effect is a comedown. Intranasal isn't great either.

But out of curiosity, I tried a large oral dose, a single crystalline chunk weighing ~140mg, my hypothesis being that a large single dose might produce a large enough serotonin release to offset the adrenergic effects. My hypothesis was correct. The effect was actually quite good, euphoric, pleasant. The good overpowered the bad.

Oral administration is certainly the best way to consume this stuff. You simply can't smoke enough of this stuff at one time to release enough serotonin to smooth out the norepinephrine dump. I didn't try a large intranasal dose, but I would imagine that the rapid spike in blood levels would cause one to be hit with the adrenergic effects before anything else. I would imagine the intravenous ROA would similarly be pretty unpleasant.

I tried it again via the oral route at around 180mg, and the effect was good, but when I tried to smoke some during the peak effects I triggered a premature comedown and ruined the whole thing. I will never smoke it again, in fact I'm not so sure I'll ever smoke any stimulant ever again.

So while the high dose oral ROA seems to be the way to go with this stuff, it also must be pretty horrible for you and quite neurotoxic if done repeatedly, akin to abusing MDMA.

I have a feeling they aren't resolving out all the l-meth, or something else bizarre happens during the recycling process. I've never been a meth fan, but this stuff is certainly different.

Well as I said, I believe every article I’ve seen actually, says it still retains some of the original optical purity. If this recycled batch was then left as is and not resolved again to obtain more d-meth, it’s going to be l-meth excessive. Was it claimed to be resolved again to d-meth or just stated as “recycled?”

-GC

 

[negrogesic]

Was it claimed to be resolved again to d-meth or just stated as “recycled?”

It wasn't sold with any label as to how it was made. But seeing as it is modern cartel meth, one would assume it was made from P2P on an industrial scale that includes RRR (resolution-racemization-recycling). It is definitely quite different than the crystalline pseudo based d-meth I've had years ago. But nonetheless, the GCMS came back as "methamphetamine" (isomers not identified).

The guy who I got it from is someone that I've gotten pseudo d-meth from a decade ago, and he warned me, "just letting you know this stuff isn't like that stuff from back in the day, you can't get meth like that anymore".

It's funny though, when I discovered that this stuff was actually quite recreational when taken in large oral doses, I texted the guy I got it from and asked if he had ever eaten a large amount of it, to which he replied no. I then told him to try eating .3g of it and to let me know how it went. I then get a text from him around an hour and a half later saying something, "holy shit dude, you were right, reminds me of the shit from back in the day".

Essentially you have to use this stuff more like MDMA than traditional d-methamphetamine. This requires quite a commitment to the experience, since large oral doses have powerful, long-lived effects. But recruiting significant serotonin release seems to be the only way to get past the rough edges on this stuff. Again, I never was a big fan of meth (even good pseudoephedrine based d-meth), but this stuff is definitely worse. It is also shockingly inexpensive.

 

[FallenOne86]

If anyone ever gets the chance to inject the new shitty meth let me know if you guys also feel like it also makes you feel like your bones are more fragile almost immediately. This shit gives you arthritis all over quick damn!

 

[G_Chem]

It wasn't sold with any label as to how it was made. But seeing as it is modern cartel meth, one would assume it was made from P2P on an industrial scale that includes RRR (resolution-racemization-recycling). It is definitely quite different than the crystalline pseudo based d-meth I've had years ago. But nonetheless, the GCMS came back as "methamphetamine" (isomers not identified).

The guy who I got it from is someone that I've gotten pseudo d-meth from a decade ago, and he warned me, "just letting you know this stuff isn't like that stuff from back in the day, you can't get meth like that anymore".

It's funny though, when I discovered that this stuff was actually quite recreational when taken in large oral doses, I texted the guy I got it from and asked if he had ever eaten a large amount of it, to which he replied no. I then told him to try eating .3g of it and to let me know how it went. I then get a text from him around an hour and a half later saying something, "holy shit dude, you were right, reminds me of the shit from back in the day".

Essentially you have to use this stuff more like MDMA than traditional d-methamphetamine. This requires quite a commitment to the experience, since large oral doses have powerful, long-lived effects. But recruiting significant serotonin release seems to be the only way to get past the rough edges on this stuff. Again, I never was a big fan of meth (even good pseudoephedrine based d-meth), but this stuff is definitely worse. It is also shockingly inexpensive.

So I guess I gotta ask the question you’ve more or less already stated but… Does this mean you think the meths changed? Have you gone to the dark side?

This may also be why I haven’t noticed as much change, as I take it orally. (I’ve also been using meth obtained in 17-18, so when that finally runs out I’ll be on to the new stuff.)

I still think the issues relate to butylamphetamine and other related impurities leftover from the nitrostyrene reaction.

-GC

 

[Rectify]

I went off on a drug taking tangent taking new chems in 2017 or 18, and then tried some new stuff from an old acquaintance last spring. It was then that I realized how bad his was and that it had also been 4 years since I'd had much, if any, meth at all. It came from Atlanta, was dirt cheap, and looked like white, bleached toothpaste, but $10 got me high, I got to hangout out with my buddy, and I got a boost of much needed motivation. He, on the other hand, must have terrible connects now and was actually shooting that largely weak, white and pasty powder.

 

[4meSM]

Well I'm not in the US but I've tried Mexican d-meth produced from p2p and it works just as well as the one made from pseudoephedrine/ephedrine. Smoking small amounts (20-50mg) provide some nice euphoria and pretty much everything you'd expect from meth.
That being said I've also had some experiences that weren't as enjoyable and the meth seemed to be cut with something, but still felt like meth nonetheless.

 

[negrogesic]

So I guess I gotta ask the question you’ve more or less already stated but… Does this mean you think the meths changed? Have you gone to the dark side?

This may also be why I haven’t noticed as much change, as I take it orally. (I’ve also been using meth obtained in 17-18, so when that finally runs out I’ll be on to the new stuff.)

I still think the issues relate to butylamphetamine and other related impurities leftover from the nitrostyrene reaction.

-GC

Something feels different, though as a rational person I am certainly open to the notion that what I have is actually pure d-methamphetamine and the only thing that has changed is me.

But having had both good pseudoephedrine based meth, as well as having a pharmaceutical desoxyn d-meth script for a short time, this new P2P meth feels more adrenergic and not enantiomerically pure.

I suppose I could simply get some pseudoephedrine and cook up a batch of old school d-meth on a small scale just to see how that compares, but not really willing to go through all the effort for a drug I don't really care for.

But something does seem off. 30-40mg insufflated doesn't yield that same smooth stimulation that I've known dextromethamphetamine to produce, instead feeling jittery, ephedrine-like. Vaporized is a similar story. Good d-meth almost had a sedating like quality when vaporized, with a soft and comfortable stimulation at low doses. Vaping this stuff produces an effect that is very reminiscent of the residual stimulation that one experiences at the tail end of meth use, when one is stimulated but sort of dysphoric and anhedonic.

Yet orally it is ok, but only in high doses. Low oral doses, like say 30mg-40mg, suffer from the same deficits as the other routes, edgy peripheral stimulation, etc. It is somewhat reminiscent of what happens when one consumes 40mg of MDMA.

Nonetheless, the GCMS came back as "methamphetamine". I consider myself an objective person and am particularly unemotional about this subject matter; I hold no nostalgic feelings about the effects of the old "good" meth, and I am certainly open to the possibility that this stuff could in fact be the pure d-meth, chemically indistinct from what I had before, with the only difference being that something in me has changed in the course of time. But while inevitably something in me has changed, I'd wager to say that there is more to the story here.

I'm fairly certain that if I made my own batch of d-meth from pseudoephedrine, the effect profile from the resulting produce would be noticeably different, namely less adrenergic. But I'm certainly not invested enough in this subject to go through that effort as I've never been a fan of even the "good stuff". Even pharmaceutical desoxyn was unimpressive to me when I was prescribed it, finding it too sedating, and requested to switch back to dexedrine after just a month. But the difference between 40mg of desoxyn and 40mg of this P2P based "d-meth" is like night and day, with 40mg of desoxyn providing exceptionally smooth, calm stimulation, and 40mg of this P2P meth producing a scattered, jittery effect that sort of resembles propylhexedrine.

That said, this recycled P2P d-meth has recreational potential, but it seems like giant oral doses are the way to go given the gradual and more tolerable rise in blood levels and as a means to leverage the serotonin release that accompanies large doses against the edgy adrenergic effects. However this has to be terrible for you on any regular basis, akin to abusing MDMA.

How would one go about identifying the enantiomeric composition of something like this (the place I use for GCMS is unable to diffentiate)? As far as butylamphetamine presence, I would imagine it would be picked up on GCMS. Additionally, the place I use doesn't generally report dilutents or synthesis byproducts/contaminants unless they make up a significant proportion of the total mass (a notable example being "ketamine synthesis precursor A").

 

[G_Chem]

Something feels different, though as a rational person I am certainly open to the notion that what I have is actually pure d-methamphetamine and the only thing that has changed is me.

But having had both good pseudoephedrine based meth, as well as having a pharmaceutical desoxyn d-meth script for a short time, this new P2P meth feels more adrenergic and not enantiomerically pure.

I suppose I could simply get some pseudoephedrine and cook up a batch of old school d-meth on a small scale just to see how that compares, but not really willing to go through all the effort for a drug I don't really care for.

But something does seem off. 30-40mg insufflated doesn't yield that same smooth stimulation that I've known dextromethamphetamine to produce, instead feeling jittery, ephedrine-like. Vaporized is a similar story. Good d-meth almost had a sedating like quality when vaporized, with a soft and comfortable stimulation at low doses. Vaping this stuff produces an effect that is very reminiscent of the residual stimulation that one experiences at the tail end of meth use, when one is stimulated but sort of dysphoric and anhedonic.

Yet orally it is ok, but only in high doses. Low oral doses, like say 30mg-40mg, suffer from the same deficits as the other routes, edgy peripheral stimulation, etc. It is somewhat reminiscent of what happens when one consumes 40mg of MDMA.

Nonetheless, the GCMS came back as "methamphetamine". I consider myself an objective person and am particularly unemotional about this subject matter; I hold no nostalgic feelings about the effects of the old "good" meth, and I am certainly open to the possibility that this stuff could in fact be the pure d-meth, chemically indistinct from what I had before, with the only difference being that something in me has changed in the course of time. But while inevitably something in me has changed, I'd wager to say that there is more to the story here.

I'm fairly certain that if I made my own batch of d-meth from pseudoephedrine, the effect profile from the resulting produce would be noticeably different, namely less adrenergic. But I'm certainly not invested enough in this subject to go through that effort as I've never been a fan of even the "good stuff". Even pharmaceutical desoxyn was unimpressive to me when I was prescribed it, finding it too sedating, and requested to switch back to dexedrine after just a month. But the difference between 40mg of desoxyn and 40mg of this P2P based "d-meth" is like night and day, with 40mg of desoxyn providing exceptionally smooth, calm stimulation, and 40mg of this P2P meth producing a scattered, jittery effect that sort of resembles propylhexedrine.

That said, this recycled P2P d-meth has recreational potential, but it seems like giant oral doses are the way to go given the gradual and more tolerable rise in blood levels and as a means to leverage the serotonin release that accompanies large doses against the edgy adrenergic effects. However this has to be terrible for you on any regular basis, akin to abusing MDMA.

How would one go about identifying the enantiomeric composition of something like this (the place I use for GCMS is unable to diffentiate)? As far as butylamphetamine presence, I would imagine it would be picked up on GCMS. Additionally, the place I use doesn't generally report dilutents or synthesis byproducts/contaminants unless they make up a significant proportion of the total mass (a notable example being "ketamine synthesis precursor A").

It won’t unless the organization has a reference for it, I know DrugsData does not for certain.

-GC

 

[4meSM]

How would one go about identifying the enantiomeric composition of something like this (the place I use for GCMS is unable to diffentiate)? As far as butylamphetamine presence, I would imagine it would be picked up on GCMS. Additionally, the place I use doesn't generally report dilutents or synthesis byproducts/contaminants unless they make up a significant proportion of the total mass (a notable example being "ketamine synthesis precursor A").

If you can find a polarimeter it would probably be enough (providing your product is fairly pure).
One can also build a cheap one at home, and they're actually still pretty accurate. I've never done it myself but there's a bunch of tutorials online (apparently they're easy to make).

 

[sekio]

Chiral derivitizing agents are also a thing, you react a chiral amine with an enantiomerically pure acid chloride to form a cis/trans pair (= the d/l isomers).

There is no rational explanation I've been able to come up with why a synthesis would produce identical molecules in terms of physical properties (bp, mp, solubility, pKa, appearance, vapour pressure, NMR, MS, chirality, etc) but somehow have a difference in effects when ingested aside from the obvious: amphetamine MW is about 150. Homo sapiens MW is 3 × 10²⁸. Maybe the complexity of the experience is not on the drugs side.

I think I mentioned this in passing too. Economically it's a no brainer. Seperating D/L-meth is a done deal, the L-meth can be recycled indefinitely, and you get all the operational flexibility of using P2P over having to deal with ephedrine.

 

[Fertile]

I used to know a guy who made D-meth from P2P using a chiral auxiliary. which I believe was (1S)-N-methyl-1-phenylethan-1-amine. Convenient since the dehydration (in this case) allowed the water to be distilled off. Just H2 and catalyst.

He once said 'you know those big hydrogenation units used in industry? Well you could have put one of those into our hydrogenation unit.

I didn't enquire further. His boss/punk (as in punk music) got caught and took it all. After all, he WAS top banana so the DEA weren't going to use a dragnet for my mate (who had moved 6000 miles - so they wouldn't have found him).

 

[vash445]

Hello because a polarimeter is a very important tool in my opinion. Unfortunately, but not many have the money to buy one, I will explain a DIY polarimeter to you. Isn't as accurate as a store-bought one, but at least you can see if it's chirally enriched. With a few motifications. Can it be made much more precise.
You will need :
-A cuvette
- Polarized foil
- Your smartphone (LCD, OLED display)

-Look at the polarized film on the smartphone display to see how it behaves. And when they turn it. Make a small continuous line over the foil and the smartphone. Preferably when they can't see anything through the foil and it's black.
- fill the cuvette with distilled H2O, mark the ml level on the cuvette.
- Now turn on your smartphone and make sure that the screen illumination stays on.
- Now place the cuvette on the smartphone screen
- now hold the foil over the cuvette, preferably on the old lines where you could no longer see through the foil at the beginning. Normally, it should be the same as before.
- Now you are producing a well-known h2o solution with your product. And fill your cuvette with it up to the ml mark on your cuvette
-Now put it back on your smartphone, and hold the film over it, ideally you should when you put the film on the
Set aligned strokes. If you can see something through the foil, then you know it's chirally enriched. If it is still black, then there is still a racemat.

As I said, the method is not the most accurate, but at least somewhat

These 2 sheets of polarizing film were $5 on Amazon. I could easily cutnthem inton32-1" squares, which is plenty big enoughntomcover a test tube.. A tip, if its optically active( you see light at the start) If younturn it clockwise and it goes black, its dextro, and if the black spot is counterclockwise from your start it's levo. You can even estimate the enantiomeric excess by how far it turned, with a little practice

 

[3DQSAR]

I note that a few of the more commonly used radical initiators are now watched. I think at lest some of them are used in large quantities and in many different field of chemistry. So I suspect it's no more than IF a few watched chemicals are all spotted in the same location, it's an indication that someone is in business.

If one seeks to find a silver lining for the war in Ukraine, it's likely to have made the BMK that was known to be made on a huge scale in Russia might not make it to Western Europe quite as easily.