What is wrong with the MDMA available today? - v2

[Jabberwocky]

I don't believe so. I think natural genetic variance of neuroreceptors and neurotransmitter balances/levels takes that out of play. If someone came up with something that hit everyone's button, it wouldn't be MDMA, but a novel compound.

But we had before and after. Which means it's dosage, adulteration, a completely different substance, a combination of the above, or potentially a skewed stereo isometric mix, which is the least likely, but it is still within the realm of possibility.

 

[MountainTrails]

But we had before and after. Which means it's dosage, adulteration, a completely different substance, a combination of the above, or potentially a skewed stereo isometric mix, which is the least likely, but it is still within the realm of possibility.

We might be talking past each other.

Before MDMA was ever synthesized, there were human brains where the compound would not be as effective. (I seized on the "everyone" part.)

 

[Jabberwocky]

We might be talking past each other.

Before MDMA was ever synthesized, there were human brains where the compound would not be as effective. (I seized on the "everyone" part.)

Your assertion.

And you missed the point.

Regardless, if your assertion is correct that there are some human brains where MDMA is not as effective, it is immaterial to the question at hand.

There's no definitive measurement or process to identify the subjective euphoria and effects of MDMA between two individuals (the effectiveness of MDMA as you put it).

There is no way to actually determine that one brain would have less subjective effects than another. That's why it's called subjective and not objective.

Without being able to compare pure racemic 3,4 MDMA to something that isn't, NOBODY would be able to say whether or not something is MDMA or mehDMA, from subjective effects. They literally do not have the experience with actual MDMA to make that assessment, regardless of how their brain works on it.

And your assertion about hitting everyone's buttons while it has some merit with respect to paradoxical reactions like desoxyn for ADHD; the sympathomimetic, euphoric, and psychedelic effects of phenethylamines like METH, MDMA, MDA are highly conserved at recreational doses. That's why doses of methamphetamine for ADHD are usually in the 5 to 10 mg per day range, whereas a single administration of recreational MDMA is 125 to 150 mg, and a single administration of recreational methamphetamine is 30 to 50 mg.

I challenge your basic premise as not being consistent with the known effects profile of MDMA and other phenethylamine stimulants. If and that's a big if there are people that 150 mg of MDMA does not affect, they're probably at the 0.1%-0.01% of the population. The reported incidence of mehDMA is much higher than that.

All science and signs point to it being in descending order of likelihood:

1a. Not MDMA for whatever reason, but rather is MDE, MDA, a Substituted methcathinone, a Benzofuran, etc.

1b. Adulteration (reagent testing kits, or sent away to a lab is necessary if you want to know what you're taking, or have a reasonably good guess)

2. See #1 above and add "not the same dose"

3. A Regioisomer, there are 18 known for MDMA that cause enough problem with actual lab testing that the DEA created a 400 page document detailing how to create specialized procedures and processes to capture these isomers that break down identically in the same way with respect to GCMS as MDMA. PM if you want me to send you the link to the paper I'd have to dig it up.

4. I put this one after the regioisomers, because I think it has the least likelihood unless people are just extremely unlucky.

MDMA from a stereoisomer (enantiomer) asymmetric synthesis, or somebody decided to waste time and money creating (R,R)MDMA(bi?)tartrate and (S,R)MDMA(bi?)tartrate,
then separating the diastereomers, then basifying and recrystallizing with HCl to come up with stereo isometrically pure both (R) and (S) MDMA.

Simple evaluation of drug samples sent in to free testing sites that identify how vast numbers of pills sold as MDMA, powder and crystal sold as MDMA, that actually is not MDMA, is adulterated with multiple other drugs, and/or is low quality/ purity, points a finger squarely at human error.

The people taking what they thought was MDMA erred.

As far as anecdotal reports of drugs testing as pure MDMA via GCMS, I have captured that above, however, I would again say human error or even operator or equipment error.

People seem to think that just because you have 100 pills from a particular press they are homogeneous. They are likely not, and you should not expect them to be.

Just because somebody sent a pill in out of a lot that looks the same as all the rest doesn't mean that it's the same as all the rest. The pill sent in could test pure, the ones left in the bag not so much.

Pill counterfeiters explicitly make their pressed pills look as close as possible to real MDMA (color and press) so that they can scam people.

Dealers, not the most scrupulous people in the world, have been known to mix known counterfeit pills with good pills to push up profits, then they could just blame it on mehDMA.

After all, that one pill that got sent in tested good didn't it?

 

[MountainTrails]

Your assertion.

And you missed the point.

Regardless, if your assertion is correct that there are some human brains where MDMA is not as effective, it is immaterial to the question at hand.

There's no definitive measurement or process to identify the subjective euphoria and effects of MDMA between two individuals (the effectiveness of MDMA as you put it).

There is no way to actually determine that one brain would have less subjective effects than another. That's why it's called subjective and not objective.

Without being able to compare pure racemic 3,4 MDMA to something that isn't, NOBODY would be able to say whether or not something is MDMA or mehDMA, from subjective effects. They literally do not have the experience with actual MDMA to make that assessment, regardless of how their brain works on it.

And your assertion about hitting everyone's buttons while it has some merit with respect to paradoxical reactions like desoxyn for ADHD; the sympathomimetic, euphoric, and psychedelic effects of phenethylamines like METH, MDMA, MDA are highly conserved at recreational doses. That's why doses of methamphetamine for ADHD are usually in the 5 to 10 mg per day range, whereas a single administration of recreational MDMA is 125 to 150 mg, and a single administration of recreational methamphetamine is 30 to 50 mg.

I challenge your basic premise as not being consistent with the known effects profile of MDMA and other phenethylamine stimulants. If and that's a big if there are people that 150 mg of MDMA does not affect, they're probably at the 0.1%-0.01% of the population. The reported incidence of mehDMA is much higher than that.

All science and signs point to it being in descending order of likelihood:

1a. Not MDMA for whatever reason, but rather is MDE, MDA, a Substituted methcathinone, a Benzofuran, etc.

1b. Adulteration (reagent testing kits, or sent away to a lab is necessary if you want to know what you're taking, or have a reasonably good guess)

2. See #1 above and add "not the same dose"

3. A Regioisomer, there are 18 known for MDMA that cause enough problem with actual lab testing that the DEA created a 400 page document detailing how to create specialized procedures and processes to capture these isomers that break down identically in the same way with respect to GCMS as MDMA. PM if you want me to send you the link to the paper I'd have to dig it up.

4. I put this one after the regioisomers, because I think it has the least likelihood unless people are just extremely unlucky.

MDMA from a stereoisomer (enantiomer) asymmetric synthesis, or somebody decided to waste time and money creating (R,R)MDMA(bi?)tartrate and (S,R)MDMA(bi?)tartrate,
then separating the diastereomers, then basifying and recrystallizing with HCl to come up with stereo isometrically pure both (R) and (S) MDMA.

Simple evaluation of drug samples sent in to free testing sites that identify how vast numbers of pills sold as MDMA, powder and crystal sold as MDMA, that actually is not MDMA, is adulterated with multiple other drugs, and/or is low quality/ purity, points a finger squarely at human error.

The people taking what they thought was MDMA erred.

As far as anecdotal reports of drugs testing as pure MDMA via GCMS, I have captured that above, however, I would again say human error or even operator or equipment error.

People seem to think that just because you have 100 pills from a particular press they are homogeneous. They are likely not, and you should not expect them to be.

Just because somebody sent a pill in out of a lot that looks the same as all the rest doesn't mean that it's the same as all the rest. The pill sent in could test pure, the ones left in the bag not so much.

Pill counterfeiters explicitly make their pressed pills look as close as possible to real MDMA (color and press) so that they can scam people.

Dealers, not the most scrupulous people in the world, have been known to mix known counterfeit pills with good pills to push up profits, then they could just blame it on mehDMA.

After all, that one pill that got sent in tested good didn't it?

My "assertion," as you put it, is backed by peer-reviewed studies. So there's that.

In terms of missing points (or setting the scope correctly), I was replying to JackARoe's comment about "MDMA that without a doubt will give the same glorious experience to everyone every time." Set, setting, and drug purity aren't the only factors in whether something works or not for an individual. Removing impurities doesn't change that basic fact. In fact, that's been one part of the discussion here -- the idea that some people may be affected more by potential impurities. Different people respond to different molecules ... differently.

"There's no definitive measurement or process to identify the subjective euphoria and effects of MDMA between two individuals. There is no way to actually determine that one brain would have less subjective effects than another. That's why it's called subjective and not objective."

Quantifying a quality is hard, yes. And imprecise. But we do it every day. Some people have atypical results. Period. Maybe they have low brain serotonin. Maybe their receptors are a bit different. Maybe this or that. We don't currently have the ability to track brain activity with this level of discrimination, and gain some understanding as to why (could be multiple reasons, right?), but this population exists.

 

[Jabberwocky]

My "assertion," as you put it, is backed by peer-reviewed studies. So there's that.

In terms of missing points (or setting the scope correctly), I was replying to JackARoe's comment about "MDMA that without a doubt will give the same glorious experience to everyone every time." Set, setting, and drug purity aren't the only factors in whether something works or not for an individual. Removing impurities doesn't change that basic fact. In fact, that's been one part of the discussion here -- the idea that some people may be affected more by potential impurities. Different people respond to different molecules ... differently.

"There's no definitive measurement or process to identify the subjective euphoria and effects of MDMA between two individuals. There is no way to actually determine that one brain would have less subjective effects than another. That's why it's called subjective and not objective."

Quantifying a quality is hard, yes. And imprecise. But we do it every day. Some people have atypical results. Period. Maybe they have low brain serotonin. Maybe their receptors are a bit different. Maybe this or that. We don't currently have the ability to track brain activity with this level of discrimination, and gain some understanding as to why (could be multiple reasons, right?), but this population exists.

No, there's not science to back up what you said.

Please explain the process by which you experimented with pure racemic MDMA on individuals that both did and did not have what you say are typical and atypical experiences.

When was the experiment done? What college, university, or DEA approved lab performed the study since it is required to have had laboratory grade racemic MDMA?

Oh wait, you didn't.

You cannot determine how two individuals separately subjectively assess their experience from the effects of MDMA.

Too much perception bias, meaning each of them has 100% of their own, 0% of each other's and you have 0% of both.

A subjective experience is not a quantity. Stop trying to act like what you're saying is valid.

The best you can do is take subjective experience reports from the individuals at face value. You cannot validate them. You can verify the individual said what was in the report but you cannot validate what they said.

 

[Jabberwocky]

In terms of missing points (or setting the scope correctly), I was replying to JackARoe's comment about "MDMA that without a doubt will give the same glorious experience to everyone every time." Set, setting, and drug purity aren't the only factors in whether something works or not for an individual. Removing impurities doesn't change that basic fact. In fact, that's been one part of the discussion here -- the idea that some people may be affected more by potential impurities. Different people respond to different molecules ... differently.

He's pretty much right.

Excluding the 0.0% to 0.01% of the population,

Pretty much every time it's pure MDMA people are going to react substantively the same, as long as they have an abused MDXX substances or amphetamines and stimulants.

It's not given that people react to different substances SUBSTANTLY DIFFERENTLY ENOUGH to skew the subjective effects of MDMA.

Of course, people react differently to different substances. But the vast majority of people react pretty much the same to the same substance. And even the ones that react differently, most of them don't react differently enough for it to be an issue.

Yes, there are people that are allergic to substances. Yes there is paradoxical reactions.

Aside from the major allergens, the beta lactam antibiotics and so on, people remarkably similarly to substances.

That's why there's a pharmaceutical industry, because people react the same or close enough that the differences don't matter.

The onus is on you to prove with actual experimental data that certain impurities were present in the samples that you really don't have anymore. But if you did, you'd have to prove what impurities there were and that they were present.

Then you would have to prove that those substances actually have some wide range of effects on humans instead of like most substances. The effects are almost all identical or similar with a very small set of differences that usually don't amount to anything.

Then you have to prove the people in question regarding mehDMA actually behaved differently to the impurities.

Then you have to prove that there was a significant enough subjective difference that was caused by the impurities acting in concert with the MDMA.

The fact that you have none of that information, none of the data, and it is hell of more likely that the people in question didn't even have MDMA makes your whole argument Laughable.

 

[MountainTrails]

No, there's not science to back up what you said.

Please explain the process by which you experimented with pure racemic MDMA on individuals that both did and did not have what you say are typical and atypical experiences.

When was the experiment done? What college, university, or DEA approved lab performed the study since it is required to have had laboratory grade racemic MDMA?

Oh wait, you didn't.

You cannot determine how two individuals separately subjectively assess their experience from the effects of MDMA.

Too much perception bias, meaning each of them has 100% of their own, 0% of each other's and you have 0% of both.

A subjective experience is not a quantity. Stop trying to act like what you're saying is valid.

The best you can do is take subjective experience reports from the individuals at face value. You cannot validate them. You can verify the individual said what was in the report but you cannot validate what they said.

Let's just do this one.

Didn't I say just that? Quantify/qualify? WTF are you going on about? Not being able to measure something due to the current limitations of metrology doesn't make that thing impossible.

Anyway, you're just arguing now. Peolple have different responses to MDMA, some outside the usual/majority range of experience. That you want to argue against that is mind boggling. Maybe people who have trouble waking up from anesthesia are just faking it, that must be it ...


Anyway, I was about to hit post and saw your next post.

"The fact that you have none of that information, none of the data, and it is hell of more likely that the people in question didn't even have MDMA makes your whole argument Laughable."

What's laughable are the amount of assumptions you've made and continue to make. You seem to have shit reading skills, which doesn't bode well for your independent research. But I get the tone (and matched it, happy?). I'm out. Argue with the wall. You may win that one.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Let's just do this one.

Didn't I say just that? Quantify/qualify? WTF are you going on about? Not being able to measure something due to the current limitations of metrology doesn't make that thing impossible.

Anyway, you're just arguing now. Peolple have different responses to MDMA, some outside the usual/majority range of experience. That you want to argue against that is mind boggling. Maybe people who have trouble waking up from anesthesia are just faking it, that must be it ...


Anyway, I was about to hit post and saw your next post.

"The fact that you have none of that information, none of the data, and it is hell of more likely that the people in question didn't even have MDMA makes your whole argument Laughable."

What's laughable are the amount of assumptions you've made and continue to make. You seem to have shit reading skills, which doesn't bode well for your independent research. But I get the tone (and matched it, happy?). I'm out. Argue with the wall. You may win that one.

Blah blah I don't have any data to backup what I'm saying.

So I'll just say someone else is wrong.

As far as my data, people sent in bad pills that were empirically measured to either not contain MDMA or be adulterated. Therefore, at least some subset of people that complained about mehDMA didn't have MDMA, or they had adulterated MDMA, or they had low dose MDMA.

Documented, on drugdata.org. Myriad posts here on bluelight that goes something like "yeah I thought it was mehDMA, but then the testing report came back and it wasn't even MDMA".

So my assertion about the pharmaceutical industry is incorrect? The whole testing of drugs to make sure that they act on and affect people the same way is something I made up?


Right!

 

[cosmosmariner]

Your point about some segment of users not having MDMA is well made and has been already made on his thread.

 

[unodelacosa]

Well I didn't mention important thing, what I call pharma grade was lab tested and was same purity as what would be required if it was sold trough some pharma company, no mater if only acid-base, washing and recrystallization were used, it was enough. Most medicine is not purified in a way LSD needs to be purified.

That's assuming whoever performed the various syntheses before getting to MDMA really knew what they were doing in the lab and their workups were pretty clean to begin with. Something tells me this is not the case regarding root-beer-colored, sassafras-smelling MDMA rocks, where chemists are known to splash a bit of raw sassafras oil into the finished product as a signature of sorts and to prove their product is made from that natural source and thus the real deal. I'll admit though that with certain synthetic routes, a distillation, gassing, a couple two-solvent recrystallizations, and some acetone rinsing w/filtering can perhaps get the product to sufficient purity to be on-, or near-par with pharmaceutical-grade.

My concern is that saying "pharmaceutical-grade" might create the false impression that a substance was produced by the pharmaceutical industry, implying a certain safety level when this is not the case. I'm probably just being extra, and it's not that critical. Clarification can always be requested, after all.

I'm pretty sure some would still swear brand A has more genuine magic than brand B.

Agreed 100%. There will always be those who claim this sort of thing, and in a similar manner, there will likely always be superstitious people among us. And then consider: there will likely always be those who believe MDMA isn't what it once was, and for decent reasons with some degree of logic as well. The truth can be quite elusive in these instances.

Last silly question. MDMA seems to becoming legal in ways. Let's assume we have full legalization and the pharm companies produce it. Do you all think this conversation would even be had if we had pharmaceutical and regulated MDMA? Uno said one of the main issues was unregulation. So if it was I wonder if the medical community could produce MDMA that without a doubt will give the same glorious experience to everyone every time (not including tolerance).

Well so there have been clinical trials, and I would guess we'll see MDMA shift from Schedule I to Schedule II. However, in the U.S., drug patents last for 17 years—long enough to offset the cost of R&D for any pioneering Big Pharma companies. After that, the generics jump into the market. The patent for MDMA expired over a century ago. So my guess is that MDMA will need to be adequately monetized in some manner that might look like the strategy used with Adderall in which there is a mixture of "salts of MDMA" consisting of various protonated forms and a specific ratio of optical isomers.

I wonder if the medical or pharm field will figure this out after leagalization. Something like "we found an impurity that alters the experience and it is common!!" lol

I'm gonna guess no, particularly since it's unlikely legitimate industry would use the same synthesis procedures as clandestine chemists. Though I admit this is my conjecture. Also, there is literature, posted in this thread somewhere, that explains how MDDMA and MDTMA—two side product impurities sometimes found in impure, clandestine MDMA—act as a prohibiting agent to pure MDMA's effect in the brain.

 

[Didgital]

Also, there is literature, posted in this thread somewhere, that explains how MDDMA and MDTMA

These side products are going to be extremely rare as they would generally only be possible via direct methylation of MDA, which hardly anyone does due to lower yields. I spose people might be using impure methylamine during reductive amination that contains dimethylamine etc, but I highly doubt that's the case. If these sideproducts are present, I could definitely see them affecting the experience.

I'm gonna guess no, particularly since it's unlikely legitimate industry would use the same synthesis procedures as clandestine chemists. Though I admit this is my conjecture

Both industry and clandestine labs will both follow the most efficient and profitable route. It's usually industry/academia that develops novel synthetic methods, but it is frequently the underground that optimizes the reactions.

Just my opinion

 

[unodelacosa]

These side products are going to be extremely rare as they would generally only be possible via direct methylation of MDA, which hardly anyone does due to lower yields.

No not quite right. You're forgetting reductive amination, which is common for making MDMA from an Al/Hg amalgam.

I spose people might be using impure methylamine during reductive amination that contains dimethylamine etc, but I highly doubt that's the case.

No, that is sometimes the case, sadly. Many chemists side-synth methylamine, and they sometimes accidentally produce dimethylamine and trimethylamine, introducing those to produce side-product impurities which also indicate to L.E. what synthetic routes were likely used.

If these sideproducts are present, I could definitely see them affecting the experience.

Hence the theory.

Both industry and clandestine labs will both follow the most efficient and profitable route.

In theory yes, but in practice, clandestine chemists are also factoring in fear of unwanted attention, fear of law enforcement, and relative ease of reagent procurement.

It's usually industry/academia that develops novel synthetic methods, but it is frequently the underground that optimizes the reactions.

I don't think the underground optimizes reactions all that frequently, TBH. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are much better suited at running multivariate tests in an effort to optimize perfect conditions for a reaction.

That said, clandestine chemistry is an art onto itself. Also the chemist who invented MXE was underground, and the method of synthesizing 4-methylaminorex from PPA and KOCN was pioneered by an underground chemist.

Just my opinion

Fair.

 

[Rectify]

Show me the pupils.

 

[vash445]

sorry, Ive been gone. the pure MDMA looking like glass was better then before but still no pupils... I'm hoping Rock hard MDMA the MDA and MDMA that ive gotten from canada with good effects are something have we considered? This rock hard MDMA is what maps is using. It was obtained using different solvents and crystallization techniques


Another significant lesson from the last 12 months of API development work was the discovery of two new polymorphic forms of MDMA, never seen previously in the literature. A polymorph refers to a well-defined crystalline structure, where the molecules are attached to each other in a repeatable pattern. A good example of this is C6 (carbon). Carbon will bond to itself six times to form the commonly known “benzene ring” molecule. However, the way these C6 molecules bond to each other can take different crystalline or polymorphic forms, such as diamond vs graphite. Both polymorphs are the same molecule—but one, diamond, is the hardest substance known and the other, graphite, one of the softest. This is an extreme example, but clearly shows why it is so important to understand the chemistry of any molecule that is being developed for human use.

Thankfully, in the case of MDMA, the polymorphism is not as extreme as carbon. But previously in the literature, based on the limited investigations, there was thought to be only one polymorph form of MDMA (“The ecstasy and the agony; compression studies of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA]”, Acta Crystallographica Section B Structural Science, Crystal Engineering and Materials, 2015).

This MDMA polymorph form is the same that has been used in all MAPS sponsored studies to date, now known as “Form 1,” previously characterized through X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD). It is by far the most stable of the forms, and to force the MDMA molecules into the new polymorphs (Form 2 and Form 3) it requires manipulation using different solvents and crystallization techniques. Both Form 2 and Form 3 are metastable to Form 1, meaning that they easily revert to Form 1. However, now that their presence is known, identification of these forms has been added to the release and stability specifications via a method sensitive enough to identify them (even in small quantities relative to Form 1).
I remember we briefly touched polymorphs... but what if the issue is due to impurties it's not bondeing correctly.

The Commercial Chemistry of MDMA: From Research to Patient Access – Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies – MAPS

maps.org

 

[Jabberwocky]

sorry, Ive been gone. the pure MDMA looking like glass was better then before but still no pupils... I'm hoping Rock hard MDMA the MDA and MDMA that ive gotten from canada with good effects are something have we considered? This rock hard MDMA is what maps is using. It was obtained using different solvents and crystallization techniques


Another significant lesson from the last 12 months of API development work was the discovery of two new polymorphic forms of MDMA, never seen previously in the literature. A polymorph refers to a well-defined crystalline structure, where the molecules are attached to each other in a repeatable pattern. A good example of this is C6 (carbon). Carbon will bond to itself six times to form the commonly known “benzene ring” molecule. However, the way these C6 molecules bond to each other can take different crystalline or polymorphic forms, such as diamond vs graphite. Both polymorphs are the same molecule—but one, diamond, is the hardest substance known and the other, graphite, one of the softest. This is an extreme example, but clearly shows why it is so important to understand the chemistry of any molecule that is being developed for human use.

Thankfully, in the case of MDMA, the polymorphism is not as extreme as carbon. But previously in the literature, based on the limited investigations, there was thought to be only one polymorph form of MDMA (“The ecstasy and the agony; compression studies of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA]”, Acta Crystallographica Section B Structural Science, Crystal Engineering and Materials, 2015).

This MDMA polymorph form is the same that has been used in all MAPS sponsored studies to date, now known as “Form 1,” previously characterized through X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD). It is by far the most stable of the forms, and to force the MDMA molecules into the new polymorphs (Form 2 and Form 3) it requires manipulation using different solvents and crystallization techniques. Both Form 2 and Form 3 are metastable to Form 1, meaning that they easily revert to Form 1. However, now that their presence is known, identification of these forms has been added to the release and stability specifications via a method sensitive enough to identify them (even in small quantities relative to Form 1).
I remember we briefly touched polymorphs... but what if the issue is due to impurties it's not bondeing correctly.

The Commercial Chemistry of MDMA: From Research to Patient Access – Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies – MAPS

maps.org

Regardless of polymorph crystalline shape when it reverts to molecules in solution, it doesn't retain the same shape.

Edit 2/22/23 - and that's true for molecules in solution after it dissolves in your stomach. Which means, regardless of polymorph (1,2, whatever number) crystalline shape in powder, crystal, or pill form of MDMA. When it hits your stomach, it dissolves into solution and the shape of that molecule when it hits your brain is the same regardless of polymorph #.

 

[Phobophobic]

Prohibition only makes the substance diluted, or dangerous. Remember good ol' crank? Gone

 

[Jabberwocky]

Prohibition only makes the substance diluted, or dangerous. Remember good ol' crank? Gone

Yeah I don't know where you live but the stuff that's around here is way better.

 

[unodelacosa]

Prohibition only makes the substance diluted, or dangerous. Remember good ol' crank? Gone

Agreed wholeheartedly on the prohibition statement. We need to rethink public policy on recreational drugs with tolerance and respect. Public opinion needs to change and society has to stop viewing responsible drug-use by adults as criminal.

But you lost me on the sentiment toward crank, which is ironically a good example of prohibition leading to impure drugs on the market. "Crank" from ~1960 – 1995 was typically racemic methamphetamine synthesized from P-2-P via reductive amination with methylamine. According to legend, west coast bike gangs in the U.S. would run the reaction in a 55-gallon steel drum, mixing P-2-P + methylamine in the presence of an Al/Hg amalgam, which is exothermic to the point that the steel drum became dangerously pressurized and too hot to touch. So, for cooling, the bikers would drop the sealed barrel into a river before it got too hot. They would tie a large chain around it and connect that to a nearby tree to keep it situated as it churned along, processing the reaction and sending up steam from the river water around it. Picture that.

Post-reaction clean-up skills could vary quite a bit from "cook" to "cook". What's more, the product would be racemic (50/50 d- to l-isomer), and isomeric resolution was not nearly as common in the underground scene. "Ice", "glass", "Tina", "shards", or aka pure d-methamphetamine didn't hit the streets in the U.S. until the mid-90s when a legendary underground chemist figured out a brilliant way of applying the Birch reduction to ephedrine to produce very pure d-methamphetamine in high yields and in relatively short reaction times. The mass proliferation of Internet access facilitated the rapid spread of this new method – among others – and before you knew it, every hick town across the U.S. had at a least a handful of hillbillies whipping up pyrex dishes of aesthetically pleasing, clear-white crystals. It also fueled the first major U.S. meth epidemic that would persist until after 9/11. That's when police budgets swelled as George W Bush & Co. starting milking the Clinton administration's Federal budget surplus. Also tighter regulation of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine put a chokehold on domestic production of methamphetamine, but this only removed the supply, not the demand.

The demand was filled by Mexican crime syndicates / "cartels" with existing routes for smuggling large quantities of contraband into the U.S. They setup giant "super lab" operations capable of producing vast quantities of highly pure d-methamphetamine. Initially this was done by reducing ephedrine extracted from imported Chinese Ma Huang, the ephedra plant, but over time the precursor and synthesis have had to change and adapt to shifting LE tactics and various new disruptive policies.

My point is: “crank” is inferior to shards of pure d-methamphetamine. I was not sad to see it go. With MDA and MDMA though, the racemate is what’s most commonly encountered, by far, but I’m super interested in R-MDA.HCl which is purportedly stronger and more euphoric. Meanwhile, I wonder if the same holds true for MDMA.hcl?

EDIT: btw, cool username

 

[Yolodan214]

What happens if you do those two?

The wife and I do these two all the time now. You really don’t know which drug you’re feeling. But we literally dance the night away and if on viagra or something similar then you can have sex all throughout the night. Speaking of which we are locking ourselves in our room tonight and doing it again! You can last for hours.

 

[ageingpartyfiend]

The wife and I do these two all the time now. You really don’t know which drug you’re feeling. But we literally dance the night away and if on viagra or something similar then you can have sex all throughout the night. Speaking of which we are locking ourselves in our room tonight and doing it again! You can last for hours.

It's a dangerous combo mate (physically and mentally - especially if expending huge amounts of energy dancing and fucking) and the cocaine dominates and blocks the empathic effect of the mdma

Much better consumed separately