Stimulants Claims regarding meth and n-iso: prevalence, detection, cleaning.

[TheAddicted]

This is the link for the process I used to separate.

 

[Atomic_Decay]

This is the link for the process I used to separate.

Ok. Let me stop you right there for a moment. I’ve read through this Reddit thread (twice). It does not contain either confirmation that either of the substances you are extracting/finding/precipitating/separating etc are methamphetamine or n-isopropylbenzylamine. However, you have stated in several posts here that you have a complete process for separating n-iso and meth and that you have been using it to clean people’s meth in the area where you live.

However, your more detailed posts describing your method are not convincing and you did not post the same stuff on Reddit at all.

What I see is that you have taken a not unreasonable hypothesis and applied some basic but incomplete high-school chemistry concepts and techniques and taken what you came up with to a chemistry Reddit - full of university qualified chemists - for help. There you found some moral support ( which may or may not have been ironic) but little technical help or advice to advance your hypothesis. You also received some criticism there for you naïveté and for promoting potentially unsafe practices.

So citing what you did on Reddit does not seem likely to earn you any credit here or advance this discussion.

BUT: we are way more friendly, encouraging, and helpful than a bunch of snobby chemists on Reddit. And we have cool chemists of our own here who are far more interesting than Reddit chemists because ours are, were, or inevitably will be serious drug fiends.

AND: the last thing we want to do is shut you down or disengage from discussion of your concerns and ideas about meth/n-iso (provided they are restricted to this thread for the moment and you are cordial and polite towards people disagreeing with you).

SO: I suggest you make a new post below clearly detailing on a step-by-step basis your proposed process for separating meth and n-iso. Please make it is simple as possible so people with, say, high-school level chemistry can grasp the general idea. Please also be very clear what steps you yourself have actually performed and what steps you have only theorised. However, do not be specific about volumes/temperature/timings - we do not want a how-to-for-dummies at this point Please be clear about whether you yourself have successfully completed the process and specify the amount of meth cleaned and the yield of both (presumed) meth and (presumed) n-iso. You then need to be prepared to defend your method from technical criticism from members here. So far, you have not been great at this last bit (especially with @G_Chem - who is staff and actually quite enthusiastic about the possibility of a technical solution to separating meth/n-iso).

IF: you can do this then I think it will open up room for some interesting discussion here and I am sure we can rustle up some qualified chemists to see what they think 0f your method. If you cannot, then we are reaching the point where further posting of unsubstantiated claims and confusing and unproven ideas / suggestions for separating meth and n-iso will be actively discouraged by the Moderators.

Please feel free to post any problems/questions/concerns/objections regarding what I have said here. Or feel free to contact one of the other BDD mods. They are listed in the banner at the top of this page.

 

[sparky33]

hi, i came across this thread when looking up n-iso just now and decided to make an account to share my findings on the subject, as i truly believe n-iso to be a rampant problem that is very easy to disguise. back in 2020, there were a few months when the problem was especially bad, and i was getting batches that were about 50% n-iso and 50% racemic meth. it looked like very thin panes of glass with powder impurities trapped inside. i'm really sensitive to vasoconstriction, and meth is usually the least vasoconstrictive stimulant for me, but this stuff made me really think i was going to die of a heart attack (grapeseed extract and cayenne pepper are helpful in those situations). 3.5g yielded me about 0.5g of racemic meth after i kept dissolving it water, evaporating it, and removing the flat iso crystals. 2 months prior, i found a vendor on the deepweb that was just a lone chemist that made 1 and only batch for the fun of it, and the crystals from that were very hard / opaque white with a lot of complex intricate ridges like a mountain range, and those were super clean feeling with way less side effects than anything else i've tried

i did a lot of research, and the general consensus across multiple deepweb forums at the time was that only 1 vendor that was selling stuff with no n-iso (and shipping to the states). i bought the smallest amount he sold, which was 7g, and i instantly knew it was a cocrystallization with n-iso. the ridges were just a little too smooth and simplistic, and the crystals had just a slight transparency to them. a pure meth crystal should be sort of fractalesque looking. the effects seemed fine in comparison to the other stuff going around, but after a few consecutive days of use, it clearly was doing more harm on my body, and the vasoconstriction would sort of build up until it felt like a full dose of n-iso if i kept dosing

i decided to do a recrystallization with ethanol as a test, and sure enough, i was seeing the same flat, transparent crystals appear. the other product of the crystallization was meth that was less painful to snort, better tasting to smoke, less vasoconstrictive, and easier to stay awake on (enough n-iso seems to actually counteract this effect somehow). i practiced the crystallization process while on meth a few times, and really refined my technique. then i purified a slightly larger batch of about 3g, and these are the two sets of crystals i ended up with:



as you can see, the ones in the first picture look very simple and transparent, whereas in the second picture, it's more complex and jagged looking with more opaqueness (relative to the thickness). there were surely impurities causing both to have regions with characteristics slightly more like the other crystal, but overall they seem pretty distinct. whenever i try to find n-iso pictures online, they look similar to the ones in the first picture. i did run another crystallization on that beaker and got a tiny bit more meth out of it, though, so this picture could show cocrystallizations with a higher n-iso percentage than meth. one other thing i want to mention is that these molecules are very similar in structure and have the same molecular weight, so a lab test could falslely identify the n-iso as meth depending on the method used. even to this day, i am unable to find anything on the streets without n-iso. the postal feds have since banned me from the deep web, so i cannot speak for anything going around there lately

 

[G_Chem]

God.. Once again we have had multiple agencies look all over for N-Iso and yet to find it.

There IS actual research to show new impurities have popped up in the last 5’ish years that may effect the experience. (Butylamphetamine and cyclohexylamphetamine are two, butylamphetamine is likely to negate the meth high based on scant pharmacological data.)

Follow this link..

Stimulants - Maybe the Meth Has Changed?

I’d like to further entertain the idea Meth in the US has changed somehow. Before I continue I hope this isn’t a repeat but I tried looking a bit to not find anything. It appears there has been over the past 5yrs a shift in the way p2p is produced to the nitrostyrene method. Producing two...

bluelight.org

hi, i came across this thread when looking up n-iso just now and decided to make an account to share my findings on the subject, as i truly believe n-iso to be a rampant problem that is very easy to disguise. back in 2020, there were a few months when the problem was especially bad, and i was getting batches that were about 50% n-iso and 50% racemic meth. it looked like very thin panes of glass with powder impurities trapped inside. i'm really sensitive to vasoconstriction, and meth is usually the least vasoconstrictive stimulant for me, but this stuff made me really think i was going to die of a heart attack (grapeseed extract and cayenne pepper are helpful in those situations). 3.5g yielded me about 0.5g of racemic meth after i kept dissolving it water, evaporating it, and removing the flat iso crystals. 2 months prior, i found a vendor on the deepweb that was just a lone chemist that made 1 and only batch for the fun of it, and the crystals from that were very hard / opaque white with a lot of complex intricate ridges like a mountain range, and those were super clean feeling with way less side effects than anything else i've tried

i did a lot of research, and the general consensus across multiple deepweb forums at the time was that only 1 vendor that was selling stuff with no n-iso (and shipping to the states). i bought the smallest amount he sold, which was 7g, and i instantly knew it was a cocrystallization with n-iso. the ridges were just a little too smooth and simplistic, and the crystals had just a slight transparency to them. a pure meth crystal should be sort of fractalesque looking. the effects seemed fine in comparison to the other stuff going around, but after a few consecutive days of use, it clearly was doing more harm on my body, and the vasoconstriction would sort of build up until it felt like a full dose of n-iso if i kept dosing

i decided to do a recrystallization with ethanol as a test, and sure enough, i was seeing the same flat, transparent crystals appear. the other product of the crystallization was meth that was less painful to snort, better tasting to smoke, less vasoconstrictive, and easier to stay awake on (enough n-iso seems to actually counteract this effect somehow). i practiced the crystallization process while on meth a few times, and really refined my technique. then i purified a slightly larger batch of about 3g, and these are the two sets of crystals i ended up with:



as you can see, the ones in the first picture look very simple and transparent, whereas in the second picture, it's more complex and jagged looking with more opaqueness (relative to the thickness). there were surely impurities causing both to have regions with characteristics slightly more like the other crystal, but overall they seem pretty distinct. whenever i try to find n-iso pictures online, they look similar to the ones in the first picture. i did run another crystallization on that beaker and got a tiny bit more meth out of it, though, so this picture could show cocrystallizations with a higher n-iso percentage than meth. one other thing i want to mention is that these molecules are very similar in structure and have the same molecular weight, so a lab test could falslely identify the n-iso as meth depending on the method used. even to this day, i am unable to find anything on the streets without n-iso. the postal feds have since banned me from the deep web, so i cannot speak for anything going around there lately

I appreciate you’re recrystallization efforts but again you’ve got the wrong cut/impurity. You can’t make assertions like you are unless you lab test the resulting products. I’m willing to believe that’s not all meth but you’ve gotta prove it. So far the people doing that work haven’t found any N-Iso. (Erowid crew has worked tirelessly to come to these conclusions.)

-GC

 

[sparky33]

i guess it's possible it's something other than n-iso. i've considered that it is a different isopropylbenzylamine. can those other chemicals be cocrystallized with meth, though? that is why i assumed it was n-iso. it definitely comes as a single crystal with properties between those of meth crystals n-iso crystals. i dont have pictures of what i finally ended up with after 3 or four recrystallizations of the less pure beaker, but the final result looked exactly what i expected n-iso to look like based on descriptions online. completely transparent, thin sheets with a lot of straight lines and flat surfaces. the outer perimeter of the second picture in my previous post actually shows something kind of like it, but even that is more jagged and chaotic looking

edit: oh, i actually found a picture of it on my old phone

 

[sparky33]

Whatever the second molecule is, I figured out a slightly more effective way to crystalize them separately. I tried to think more in terms of materials science than chemistry. This is a really crude method that could probably be improved, so you might have to experiment a bit if you try it. It probably isn't great if you have less than a few grams or so. I used about 12g.

First, i started a normal recrystalization and let most of the alcohol evaporate. This step is probably not necessary, but it does start to separate the molecules a bit. I scooped it all onto a mirror and tried to separate the n-iso pieces. Then i stacked up everything, trying to keep the meth more on the top and the n-iso on the bottom, because the n-iso is usually on the bottom of the beaker after recrystalizing.

Eventually I converged on a method of waiting for it to dry out a bit, pressing the pile into a sort of pyramid shape, and dripping a mixture of ethanol, distilled water, and acetone on the top and around the sides. It should barely be enough to see liquid seeping a bit out from the bottom perimeter, but not enough to extend out beyond the pile more than that. It takes a minute or 2 before that happens if you add too much. If you don't add too much and if you get the mixture right (mine was less than ideal), it won't dissolve the crystals entirely. The liquid disperses across the whole pile, and the crystals partially desolve, starting with the weakest points. Existing crystals will begin to fuse together, and the internal grain boundaries will start realigning. I tried to have some temperature differential at some point during the drying phase, but it didn't have to be that extreme. Any crystals I was sure were meth would be added to the top. If I saw n-iso crystals anywhere but the bottom surface, i would aim to dissolve those when dripping solution onto the pile. For me, after enough cycles of this, there were a few really pure, solid, decent sized meth crystals occupying the all seeing eye portion of the pyramid, so i scooped those off and reformed a slightly smaller pyramid.

Then i found that the pyrex pie dish i used to pour the acetone after an initial rinse had nice crystal formations in it, so i transfered the pile into there. That's pretty much where i am now. I guess the takeaway is that you don't have to start the crystallization from scratch every time if you use less solvent. The meth prefers to bind with meth, so it seems, so the crystals become more homogenized if you soften them up without fully dissolving them. lattice structure will not be as perfect, and the resulting crystals will be more fragile, but they taste much cleaner and seem free of the molecule they were cocrystalized with. you could easily do a recrystalization after doing this to get proper crystals

edit:i find this very helpful

https://www.pharmpress.com/files/docs/ch01_sample%20chapter.pdf

i think i will try more heating and cooling next time to get better crystals. also, if i'm reading this correctly, it might be possible to remove the n-iso crystals before the meth starts crystalizing. it would be more wasteful in practice, but you wouldn't have to do a million recrystallizations

 

[visualblind]

Welp Yep Sounds just like it, and the more and more I search it seems to be it. I'm confused on what its natural state is. Is it shards or an oil? And I hear people talking about doing a bleach test and if you see an oil sheen floating on top that it is real meth. But yet theres some places talking about ISO as if it is an oil. If it is, then that oily sheen you see when doing a bleach test could probably be ISO, right?

Exactly, N-ISO mimics it due to their closely related chem structure. I'll just say right now there is absolutely no household test you can do on it to verify whether or not it's meth or n-iso. I use to think when I did the A/B wash with anhydrous acetone and isopropyl alcohol that I was removing most impurities, I think I was just fooling myself. Keeping an open mind is important, especially today.

For 99.9% of us, the only way to verify that info would be to take it to a research lab for testing. I have wanted to for 2-3 years now simply because I have always suspected this is not meth. Can't be. But yet it still does something so it's hard to stop. The longer the habit, the harder it is to stop even if the stuff we're getting is complete DOGSHIT.

It's still a vasoconstrictor. It overworks our hearts and prevents normal blood-flow to extremities, including the brain. My own general rule of thumb has been meth should provide more of a rush than pure fishscale Columbian coke. Then do a comparison, notice there is no euphoria but instead are more awake probably with a jittery feeling? Makes it very hard to not wonder "what the fuck is this shit?." I can literally sleep 5 minutes after a big hit. Not suppose to work like that unless extremely sleep deprived which I wasn't.

Those that might say it's dopamine depletion. Nope, been there many times. I have my black belt in dopamine depletion.

I know there is now a separate subject regarding the validity of suspecting the cut/entire thing to be iopropylbenzylamine.
It (over)captured my attention a few years back when the DEA made a huge bust in Bakersfield, CA that had entirely n-iso. Whatever the case may be, as the title says "we're not stupid."

When I see any uniform shapes like bottom of a container, squares, etc I can't help but think what hell is this fucking shit? I think it has either been modified since creation as in via re-crystallization or it's something else entirely. Shape isn't exactly an indicator, however those very few of us know what real meth looks like. Small, hard, non-uniform shaped shards, sometimes with slight yellowish/cloudy tint, sometimes not, that looks oily but isn't. If you can crush it between 2 fingers, it's not meth. We need to stop calling it meth. I don't know about you, but in my circle we call it "clear". Originally I thought this was because the word meth had such a bad rep. Could another possibility be that it is was never meant to be meth in the first place? You tell me.

They're not even trying to fool us anymore... the shape of a bottom of a container corner, are you fucking kidding me? FUCK YOU whoever is creating this fake bullshit.

Be nice to form some sort of group so we can get it tested. I know about the test on that eo website. More are needed. For me and just about everyone else the main issue preventing that is #1: Money and #2: Motivation. I don't have the first, and even less than the second. The desire for the lab test information overrides #2 because it effects not just me, but my friends and people I care about. If there was no stigma about meth, this should have hit mainstream news already with the sheer amount of voices involved.

 

[Atomic_Decay]

We have discussed and reviewed the n-so question here for years over multiple threads: and collected and reviiewed all the available evidence.

We can no longer accept claims without substantive new evidence. There are some threads in BL where n/iso can
be discussed. But please don’t use this one. It’s 3 yeaars old and did not reviving.

Erowid: N-iso meth is not a real thing.

https://www.erowid.org/columns/crew/2022/08/drugsdata-meth-and-the-n-iso-boogeyman/ So some people got around to doing what they should have done and looked into what a GCMS sees given mixtures of N-iso and meth. Turns out the two seperate completely on GC, have different mass spectra, and...

bluelight.org

 

[unodelacosa]

Oh yeah I thought I had answered this already but then I never hit "Post reply". Oops.

Does anyone have any idea what it is that they put in ice these days? It’s crazy all you seem to get is this odd shaky crap at the bottom of the bag that if you’re not up and moving around it will cause you to start nodding out I think that it must have fentanyl or some type of opiate in it cause it’s almost like a speedball affect and it doesn’t matter how many different sources I go to it seems like I get the same inferior product almost makes SWIM want to get a box and get out the supply’s and shake it something SWIM had done before but I’m telling you the prison sentences for that are worse then child rape. But the good old washing it seems to never work. A couple I know first hand is blowing thru nearly a half oz a week. We sleep every night and eat well too BTW every now and then SWIM might come across afew nice shards and they might party for few days. But anyways is this a local problem I’m in NC and Florida
Living half the time in each place. So fire away who got the

First, no need to say SWIM. That is not and has never been a legal defense or protective strategy worthy of attempting. Any would-be prosecutor worth their weight in salt could easily dismantle that in front of a jury. Fortunately prosecutors have limited budgets with which to seek convictions. Avoiding appearing like an easy target for some D.A. is a good strategy, overall, I think… Second, the phenomenon you're describing isn't just endemic to NC and FL. The problem is fairly widespread across the U.S., which mostly has Mexican cartel meth and Asian meth from N. Korea and Myanmar courtesy of Asian criminal syndicates who control the bulk of that market. And my hunch is this is the case for Australia and the various Asian countries as well. There's a special in hell for those who cut drugs, you know…

So these are the common impurities and cuts for methamphetamine as I understand it:

(first here's the methamphetamine molecule for reference)

• n-isopropylbenzylamine is the most likely meth cut. Also makes unwelcomed guest appearances on Ketamine's albums, and some of MDMA's older mixtapes, lol.UPDATE: evidently n-isopropylbenzylamine I am being told is not a cut and never was. Sorry, for the bad intel, and I trust @Atomic_Decay to be right on this topic (though I will still investigate this myself further).
  
  
  (← n-iso)
• MSM – Methylsulfonylmethane – I don't see this cut as often anymore, but this was the stuff that you could sort of sublimate off by blowing through the first hit off a freshly packed bowl. You've been chiefing since '96, so I know you've seen ppl do this.
  
  
  • With MSM, the first hit looks like it will be massive, but when you exhale – no cloud!
  • Sometimes it might take 2–3 hits to smoke that shit off, but after that the bowl is usually good to go and if it isn't too cut it shouldn't leave much residue behind either.
• Unconverted Pseudoephedrine – associated w/ephedrine reductions like the original Nagai, aka: the "Red, White, and Blue" or the "RP/I/E"…
  
  
  
  (The two enantiomers, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, and their respective d- and l- isomers. All four isomers produce only d-methamphetamine when reduced by cleaving their respective OH bonds.)
  • Reduces ephedrine and/or pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine by sending two electrons and cleaving the hydroxyl bond on the beta position of the molecule.
  • This oxygen atom = chemical difference b/t meth and ephedrine isomers.
  • Pharmacodynamically, the oxygen atom on ephedrine is what prevents it from crossing the fatty blood-brain barrier.
  • By removing the oxygen, it becomes meth, and the molecule is sufficiently lipophilic enough to cross the BBB.
  • This is also the rationale behind the pharmaceutical brand name "Desoxyn" for methamphetamine.hcl. It indicates the oxygen atom is removed …
  • The Nagai typically has about a 75% conversion yield from ephedrine to methamphetamine. It should be run a second time through the refluxing process to allow a higher conversion yield of up to 92%.
  • The Birch can achieve 92% conversion yield on a first run if the chemist knows what they're doing.
  • Regardless, meth made from ephedrine/pseudo results in a stereospecific conversion to d-isomer methamphetamine, which is sweet, but it should be mentioned that it still won't be but so clean. There's likely to be other shit present.
  • Will you notice the 8% pseudo in a batch of good Birch Reduction gear? No, probably not.
  • That lithium-and-ammonia "cold cook" gear we made back in the late 90s was pure There's a really interesting story behind the invention of this route to clandestine methamphetamine.
• Levomethamphetamine – this being the l-isomer of methamphetamine, the mirror image of the d- or dextro-isomer, aka dextromethamphetamine, methedrine, the dextrorotatory optical isomer that bends light to the right, clockwise. It's not psychoactive but still has a stimulating effect on the peripheral nervous system and acts as an effective bronchodilator. Meth that is synthesized from P2P will typically produce racemic meth, that is: a 50/50 blend of both d- and l- isomers. This can be separated and resolved somewhat painstakingly with tartaric acid, owing to the fact that it is itself chiral.

Seriously, check out that article I linked above: https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2017/05/27/man-who-reinvented-meth/330877001/

 

[visualblind]

We have discussed and reviewed the n-so question here for years over multiple threads: and collected and reviiewed all the available evidence.

We can no longer accept claims without substantive new evidence. There are some threads in BL where n/iso can
be discussed. But please don’t use this one. It’s 3 yeaars old and did not reviving.

Erowid: N-iso meth is not a real thing.

https://www.erowid.org/columns/crew/2022/08/drugsdata-meth-and-the-n-iso-boogeyman/ So some people got around to doing what they should have done and looked into what a GCMS sees given mixtures of N-iso and meth. Turns out the two seperate completely on GC, have different mass spectra, and...

bluelight.org

Where did I make a claim it was N-ISO? Please enlighten me.
I get it about using the old thread, sorry mod. Are you able to move that post where it's accepted?

 

[unodelacosa]

The evidence has been reviewed and without new evidence we cannot accept any more speculation or hypthotheticL or even theoretically possible claims like this to be posted as fact.

Who is "we" exactly? What about when law enforcement posts about it, as they have? Given how close in structure it is to methamphetamine and the prevalence of L.E. claims published as late as Oct 2022, I question your logic here. The Erowid Crew prove what I already assumed to be true, namely that n-iPBA can be distinguished from methamphetamine via GC-MS.

Please don’t further pursue the question of n-iso in this thread .

What about methylbenzylamine and ethylbenzylamine? This notion did not originate from nowhere, and furthermore there is a good deal of evidence from various L.E. seizures of the stuff circa 2007 - 2009. It still appears according to L.E. via press statements. For example, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission said in this report from February 2021 (bold mine):

> "Over the course of the next month the origins and links between multiple consignments seized by the ABF were reviewed and found to contain border controlled substances, including eight kilograms of isopropylbenzylamine (a methamphetamine analogue) and quantities of heroin, cocaine and other drugs from various source countries."​

And then in Toxicology Volume 480, October 2022 (!), here's another article discussing the toxicity of n-iPBA: N-isopropylbenzylamine, [an isomer of] methamphetamine, mimics [and] produces toxicity via increasing nitric oxide in vitro. It says right in the opening:

> "N-isopropylbenzylamine, an isomer of methamphetamine, has been used to adulterate methamphetamine, and distributed as fake 'Ice' methamphetamine by illicit manufacturers, leading to a world problem of N-isopropylbenzylamine exposure."​

​

This is from this very month. Ten authors. Lotta professional reputations…

This is not censorship.

All due respect, but I beg to differ. I think you should revisit this policy, and call it what you want, but it is censorship. Regardless, I don't know why this is such a hot button topic.

There are still several threads in different sub-forums open to this topic.

Yeah but only this one is called "Meth Primer Post Your Meth Tips, Hints, Hacks Here." My Meth tips are: 1. avoid any n-iso-cut gear should one encounter it, 2. beware of confirmation bias and the tendency to draw conclusions from far too small of a sampling or far too few samples, and 3. as always – question authority and think for yourself.

Look, ultimately this is a harm reduction forum. That compound and its ilk are potentially pretty toxic for human consumption. Based on the number of legitimate law enforcement media pieces that report having found n-iPBA, even if it were 13 yrs ago, it's a legitimate enough concern for somebody considering trying meth. This is something legit to consider, and it might be dangerous, or at least irresponsible, to suggest otherwise.

 

[unodelacosa]

Where did I make a claim it was N-ISO? Please enlighten me.
I get it about using the old thread, sorry mod. Are you able to move that post where it's accepted?

Evidently this is a hot button topic here, or at least with this mod, and any and all discussion of the compound n-iso is being targeted regardless of all context. It's really frustrating and not the brightest approach in my opinion, nor a very welcoming one. Focusing on-topic is one thing, but this is the forced siloing of information, and for no purpose, even if some ostensible aim has been thrown out to hide behind

 

[Jabberwocky]

Evidently this is a hot button topic here, or at least with this mod, and any and all discussion of the compound n-iso is being targeted regardless of all context. It's really frustrating and not the brightest approach in my opinion, nor a very welcoming one. Focusing on-topic is one thing, but this is the forced siloing of information, and for no purpose, even if some ostensible aim has been thrown out to hide behind

Bluelight does not censor information, but we do often organize it into proper channels and threads to avoid redundancy and confusion.

 

[G_Chem]

Who is "we" exactly? What about when law enforcement posts about it, as they have? Given how close in structure it is to methamphetamine and the prevalence of L.E. claims published as late as Oct 2022, I question your logic here. The Erowid Crew prove what I already assumed to be true, namely that n-iPBA can be distinguished from methamphetamine via GC-MS.


What about methylbenzylamine and ethylbenzylamine? This notion did not originate from nowhere, and furthermore there is a good deal of evidence from various L.E. seizures of the stuff circa 2007 - 2009. It still appears according to L.E. via press statements. For example, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission said in this report from February 2021 (bold mine):

> "Over the course of the next month the origins and links between multiple consignments seized by the ABF were reviewed and found to contain border controlled substances, including eight kilograms of isopropylbenzylamine (a methamphetamine analogue) and quantities of heroin, cocaine and other drugs from various source countries."​

And then in Toxicology Volume 480, October 2022 (!), here's another article discussing the toxicity of n-iPBA: N-isopropylbenzylamine, [an isomer of] methamphetamine, mimics [and] produces toxicity via increasing nitric oxide in vitro. It says right in the opening:

> "N-isopropylbenzylamine, an isomer of methamphetamine, has been used to adulterate methamphetamine, and distributed as fake 'Ice' methamphetamine by illicit manufacturers, leading to a world problem of N-isopropylbenzylamine exposure."​

​

This is from this very month. Ten authors. Lotta professional reputations…


All due respect, but I beg to differ. I think you should revisit this policy, and call it what you want, but it is censorship. Regardless, I don't know why this is such a hot button topic.


Yeah but only this one is called "Meth Primer Post Your Meth Tips, Hints, Hacks Here." My Meth tips are: 1. avoid any n-iso-cut gear should one encounter it, 2. beware of confirmation bias and the tendency to draw conclusions from far too small of a sampling or far too few samples, and 3. as always – question authority and think for yourself.

Look, ultimately this is a harm reduction forum. That compound and its ilk are potentially pretty toxic for human consumption. Based on the number of legitimate law enforcement media pieces that report having found n-iPBA, even if it were 13 yrs ago, it's a legitimate enough concern for somebody considering trying meth. This is something legit to consider, and it might be dangerous, or at least irresponsible, to suggest otherwise.

Erowid Crew have also found absolutely zero n-iso in all the batches they’ve tested. It seems completely against HR to allow this myth to continue to flourish when all evidence points to the opposite. Moving these conversations that keep popping up to a common thread like this helps to keep that myth in check.

As I’ve said in my “Maybe Meth Has Changed?” thread, there is the possibility butylamphetamine or the likes are to blame as impurities. We won’t know more until some testing agency adds this to their reference repertoire so they can find it upon testing. At this point though it’s safe to say n-iso is not some huge commonly used cut that’s in everyone’s meth.

-GC

 

[Kaden_Nite]

Evidently this is a hot button topic here, or at least with this mod, and any and all discussion of the compound n-iso is being targeted regardless of all context. It's really frustrating and not the brightest approach in my opinion, nor a very welcoming one. Focusing on-topic is one thing, but this is the forced siloing of information, and for no purpose, even if some ostensible aim has been thrown out to hide behind

The issue as I see it: Methamphetamine users are particularly at risk of paranoid beliefs. Users show up complaining that their regular meth use is causing problems associated with regular meth use, but they just read about this n-iso stuff and decide "that must be the reason!".

There's no convincing them otherwise, despite overwhelming evidence that "that isn't the reason at all".

The rising sale of isopropylbenzylamine is a self-fulfilling prophecy IMO. People talk about it being meth-like, dealers catch on.

Nobody's arguing that it exists, is available online, probably has been used as a cut or sold as meth by shysters - but it hasn't replaced the methamphetamine market, doesn't even play anywhere near as significant a role as MSM. If it actually did, it would kill an incredibly lucrative trade for certain people who like their trade remaining lucrative.

My point is, talking about it has only created a market for it. It's relative insignificance to methamphetamine in terms of amount and harm caused (something we try to minimise) is immense.

Like MDMA, there are people who have convinced themselves that the world's supply is tainted. Giving those people a place to assimilate, get in each other's heads, and assure one another of their misinformed beliefs is not a good thing. It's also quite contrary to the site's goals.

 

[unodelacosa]

Le sigh. Goddammit. I actually really respect everyone on this discussion right now, too, from @Atomic_Decay (even if you're cursing me out right now) to you and @G_Chem and @Snafu in the Void and some others. I hate feeling compelled to defend myself and point out when and where group thinking and confirmation biases occur. Ironically it's what poorly thought-out moderation like this inadvertently causes to happen. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy. Fine. Strap in, I have some things to say.

Allow me to establish upfront something regarding DrugsData.org. Firstly, there is data on testing and finding n-iPBA so let's stop denying that, please. They even found 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylbenzylamine. Gee, how'd that get in there? Had a mod jumping down my throat for not agreeing with the suggesting that benzylamine compounds are "not a thing". So let's put that to rest: https://www.drugsdata.org/results.php?search_field=substance&s=benzylamine

Also read their disclaimer on this page: "Please note that the data from the DrugsData (formerly EcstasyData) testing project is not necessarily representative of what is available in the underground markets. Most samples are voluntarily submitted by harm reduction workers or individuals and the data will naturally have unknowable sampling biases." Ok let's do this.

Oh but TL;DR: I never said half the shit people are thinking I'm saying. Please read my entire posts before anyone haphazardly replies based on wrong assumptions.

The issue as I see it: Methamphetamine users are particularly at risk of paranoid beliefs. Users show up complaining that their regular meth use is causing problems associated with regular meth use, but they just read about this n-iso stuff and decide "that must be the reason!".

Kinda like reading the Erowid's blog and going, "Ha! Debunked by the truest scientific authority in the land. What a peer-reviewed deep dive that was; I won't even consider any other arguments now; I have all the science I need from 'earth, Sylvia, Fire, and Roi', aka The Four Mononyms®" (all fine folks, nothing against them, just making a point).
It's less to do with meth users and more like paranoid, not-so-bright types with delusions of persecution and reckless, harmful habits. This isn't everyone on meth, and people who aren't on meth can become paranoid for other reasons, which I know you know, but I want to mention it because the impulse to look down on meth users is also quite real and rampant on this site.

As I've said for a long time and know from my background and years in synthesis that unconverted precursors are the biggest impurity in meth, but rarely a deliberate diluent. If someone asks what meth is cut with, as in a deliberate diluent, then I will tell them: MSM, n-isopropylbenzylamine, methylbenzylamine, and ethylbenzylamine have all been reportedly seized according to law enforcement data and various media sources. DrugsData's lab even admits as much:

> "As of August 2022, DrugsData’s lab has found isopropylbenzylamine in eight samples total, ever, and two DEA-tested samples are republished in our database: https://www.drugsdata.org/results.php?search_field=substance&s=Isopropylbenzylamine"​

Setting aside frequency, no one can deny that this compound has been used to cut methamphetamine. I'm not claiming it's widespread, so the whole time we've probably all agreed and mods are acting trigger happy and drunk with censorship power. Probs not true but it sure feels like it today. I mentioned several other salient points in my post, but they just got fucked off by overzealous moderation courtesy of @Atomic_Decay …

So the solution is to silo all discussion about it into one place, regardless of new information as it comes to light? Regardless of the fact that law enforcement in Australia published a press release last year announcing a bust and how it included eight kilos of n-iPBA? Or what about this article from a study published in Toxicology this month?

There's no convincing them otherwise, despite overwhelming evidence that "that isn't the reason at all".

Even if that's so, that has nothing to do with me, and also it doesn't justify trying to corral and hide all mentions of the term "n-iso" on the site because a handful of people think they have it all figured out. Yeah, compared to tweeked-out brickwork drug abusers who can't handle their own self-medication, the site mods come across as God-like geniuses. Run across someone with a cogent argument and it's off to the forum's concentration camp for dissidents, infidels and rapscallion thoughts.

The rising sale of isopropylbenzylamine is a self-fulfilling prophecy IMO. People talk about it being meth-like, dealers catch on.

The idea started somewhere though regardless if it's "self-fulfilling". My guess is the idea did not come about apropos of nothing, especially considering the L.E. reports about finding it.

Nobody's arguing that it exists, is available online, probably has been used as a cut or sold as meth by shysters

Saying "n-iso is not a thing" could be misleading. It's probably uncommon now in 2022 and something else has replaced it for some reason, but it's going overboard not allowing discussion of a real phenomenon, even if uncommon. No need for Gestapo tactics, though I'm impressed with how fervent and gleefully zealous @Atomic_Decay is to tackle this non-issue and drum up bullshit drama and trouble for someone who contributes to this site regularly and meaningfully. Censorship is a bad idea here. Next time any mod wants to flex on someone, choose a better target.

It's also an unhelpful stereotype to assume all, or even most, meth users are out of control paranoid maniacs who cannot distinguish fact from fiction.

- but it hasn't replaced the methamphetamine market, doesn't even play anywhere near as significant a role as MSM.

Please point out to me when and where I insisted that it has "replaced the methamphetamine market". Why does everyone want to stick that argument on me that I am not making? Meanwhile, blanket bans on certain chemical names, "cleaning up" threads, and siloing data = fine. That includes it be placed in a garbage bin that functions as censorship and then be told it's not censorship. Ok. Let me just piss in someone's face and tell them it's raining.

If it actually did, it would kill an incredibly lucrative trade for certain people who like their trade remaining lucrative.

Yes, I agree. Again, never made any claims otherwise and generally I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories. In fact similar to my argument against the MehDMA theory, I think there are false assumptions here underlying unhelpful conclusions. I don't fully trust DrugsData.org the same as I don't fully trust Energy Control to have the acumen to identify everything they encounter. The fact that n-iso has been used to cut methamphetamine and other drugs is obvious with very little research to me and alone justifies their discussion..

My point is, talking about it has only created a market for it.

That's just conjecture and anyway why did someone start talking about it in the first place?

It's relative insignificance to methamphetamine in terms of amount and harm caused (something we try to minimise) is immense.

"N-isopropylbenzylamine, a methamphetamine mimic, produces toxicity via increasing nitric oxide in vitro" ← I didn't make this up, you know: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300483X22002499

Like MDMA, there are people who have convinced themselves that the world's supply is tainted. Giving those people a place to assimilate, get in each other's heads, and assure one another of their misinformed beliefs is not a good thing.

And somehow dumping all mentions of n-iso into one thread is a solution to this?

It's also quite contrary to the site's goals.

I disagree. I think the current tact of sweeping up all mentions of a thing so that: "outta sight, outta mind" runs contrary to the site's goals of safety and harm reduction through intelligent discourse, disseminating useful and truthful data, and accepting reality and that people are going to use drugs regardless of the law. Acceptance, you know? Not ostrich heads buried in the sand.

 

[Kaden_Nite]

Even if that's so, that has nothing to do with me

Nothing that I said was targeting you in any way. I only quoted you, to offer you my perspective, which is not based on anyone else's.

In my own efforts to find some legitimacy of this widespread contamination of meth with isopropylbenzylamine, I keep coming up empty handed. I know it's available online, but has a bad reputation and often costs more than dealers care to spend on cuts.

- A WordPress document written by someone who ran kitchen tests on methamphetamine he bought on DNM, already having assumed it would be isopropylbenzylamine.
- A handful of relatively small (relative to methamphetamine) amounts found in police seizures, which may or may not have been related to meth.

^ This is what I'm offered, over and over, when asked for evidence that the stuff has "flooded the market" in the numerous 'what is wrong with the meth available today' threads that have been made over the years. They all just go down the same rabbit hole.

Same as people blaming 'this new P2P method', or 'cartel meth' for the methamphetamine side-effects they are experiencing while hailing the good ol' pseudoephedrine days. I've seen horrible shit transpire due to people using uncut pseudoephedrine produced meth; people very close to me too.

When I see, on this site, the same things happening to others but focusing their reasoning on isopropylbenzylamine or 'Mexican P2P meth' (which people often don't see has been around in the form of bikie speed, trucker crank etc. for a very long time), I try to get them to see, it's the meth. The problem is the meth, not it's backstory or cut.

I'm in Australia, isopropylbenzylamine crystal was being sold on eBay, by the ounce, until recently. (About a quarter of the price of an ounce of meth). Anyone selling it as meth though, is setting themself up for problems bigger than non-returning customers. It's the returning customers they would need to worry about..

 

[deficiT]

And somehow dumping all mentions of n-iso into one thread is a solution to this?

Your thread or posts got shuffled man. It happens on a forum like this. No one is trying to censor you. I don't have the time or willpower to go through all of this, but I'm just hoping you recognize that no one's drunk with power here or trying to rain on your parade, compiling information on a single topic in one thread is an extremely common strategy and happens daily, not just here but on all forums of this type. It's the BDD mods job to organize their sub forum how they'd like it. Hopefully this will just end any conflict here, because I don't think it's worth the energy to go at it like this.

 

[unodelacosa]

The problem is the meth, not it's backstory or cut.

Some meth chemists are more talented, experienced, and or knowledgeable than others, and consequently some batches of street meth are closer to pure than others, nvm if a deliberate cut is added. The synthesis, the follow-through, optimizing the process, and then cleaning it to purity and repeating any processes as necessary to ensure high purity – these are all factors. Meth from a reduction of ephedrine will usually contain some unconverted ephedrine. Meth from p-2-p, in addition to being racemic if not stereoselectively resolved, may contain unconverted ketone and/or n,n-dimethylamphetamine depending on the purity of the methylamine used.

I think it's interesting to note some of the samples on drugsdata.org when searching for "benzylamine". Firstly, n-isopropylbenzylamine appears in several ketamine samples. Secondly, there are a few MDMA samples that tested positive both for 3,4-methylenedioxy-n-methylamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxy-n-methylbenzylamine.

Chemical name shorthand can get a bit confusing at times and there are more than a few ways to name a chemical outside of IUPEC standards. For example, the original name for amphetamine I believe was phenylisopropylamine. Similarly another word for methamphetamine along those nomenclature lines is phenylisopropylmethylamine. Not that it has much to do with the topic at hand… and regardless, I take your point.

Your thread or posts got shuffled man. It happens on a forum like this. No one is trying to censor you.

Fair enough. Perhaps I overreacted. As I assume this is so, @Atomic_Decay, I apologize for overreacting and responding harshly.

Someone asked a question about methamphetamine cuts. I gave an answer that included several possibilities — e.g.: n-iPBA, methylsulfonylmethane, unconverted precursors — and I included several images of the various chemical compounds' structures. Certainly it is appreciated and worthy of noting the updated information regarding the low prevalence as a meth cut n-isopropylbenzylamine has, but it is neither completely absent nor is it a "debunked myth". Moreover, drugsdata.org's sample base is limited and likely biased.

And sure, maybe some of the info starts to dip into more sophisticated or complex chemistry, but not to the extent that warranted it being relegated to this cut-rate thread with the derisive title "Claims Regarding Meth and n-Iso Prevalence Detection Cleaning". As if I don't understand the euphemism.

I would argue that this is not part of a common strategy to compile data into one place, and it's awfully coincidental that my posts are moved by the very mod with whom I was arguing. Said mod made a request that I censor my posts, and I cooperated in a timely manner only to have my comments moved anyway. That's a bit capricious, don't you think? And I remain feeling like this is disrespectful. It's one thing if my comments had just been moved. It's another thing if I had been asked to reword my comments removing the sarcasm, and after doing so, my comments were left in place and intact. But to ask me to change the comments and then move them after I do so anyway to an insultingly titled thread is a slap in the face. Pick one approach or another, but don't make me jump through hoops just to insult me anyway by "cleaning" away my "claims".

Does anybody else see my point or am I completely out-of-my-mind delusional and/or overly sensitive?

 

[G_Chem]

This is exactly the same as if someone would post another “what’s wrong with MDMA?” thread. It would get moved to the the main thread because too many would clutter up the forum. That has happened countless times and if anything gets more eyes on it than less. I wouldn’t take this personally.

Also DrugsData sample base is far from limited compared to most and the bias if anything falls in favor of people believing their product contains n-iso. You’d think out of all those people thinking they have n-iso or some cut up meth, it would be found.

I’ve also seen research articles where it was found but the samples found compared to samples analyzed quickly shows it’s a drop in the bucket and more than likely a few cases of self fulfilling prophecy. I know one of which has been posted a few times on here.

And on your last point.. To be fair you argue with everyone lol I mean that in the nicest possible way. It’s part of what makes you a good contributor here, but you can’t deny you like playing devils advocate. I don’t think that should be a considered factor in all this.

-GC