What is wrong with the MDMA available today? - v2

[unodelacosa]

as you put it "less than ideal" chemistry

To be clear, I was quoting you when I wrote that, and the quotes were not meant to denote irony or anything. Reading over my comments today, it occurs to me that they could be misconstrued as harsh. Thank you for taking it all in stride. And I glad I could provide some concrete examples. I hope they made sense.

a PhD or even a MSc project could potentially answer many still unanswered questions in this thread.

Americans sure have a penchant for privatizing ALL the things, don't we? … Well as far as stereotypes go, anyways. Makes U.S. medicines more expensive, but generally it's also advanced our understanding of biochemistry and spearheaded the development of important new pharmacological research. And yes of course it's a profitable venture; it's how these projects are funded.

In my imagination, a PhD or even a MSc project could potentially answer many still unanswered questions in this thread.

Most w/ a undergrad degree in Orgo Chem won't see any of these questions as unanswered, esp when they consider the reality and restrictions most clandestine operators face, and consider how—due to the clandestine nature of the blackmarket, data on this will be too incomplete and statistics will be too skewed by various factors to draw any reliable conclusions. These questions have been answered already by intelligent people with formal education and/or practical experience in the field, on this very thread. This isn't some huge mystery that needs solving, and the explanations are covered multiple times within this tediously long thread (read: I don't blame anyone if they skimmed/skipped over some of the longAF comments in here, for which I am responsible maybe for a good ~25% ).

There are myriad reasons someone may report a lackluster experience with illicit MDMA. Some are personal, some are regional-based, some relate back directly to impurities, and some relate back to imposter MDMA and excessive faith given to reagent testing. There are limits to reagent testing. There's also no way to determine what every pill and powder presented as "MDMA" actually contained, not now, nor in the past. And despite laying all of this out several times over in this thread, some ppl are stubborn and refuse to accept science, logic, or reason. People are simply going to believe what they want to believe. Many on here seem fairly convinced that there really is "something wrong with today's MDMA" and I doubt any of my words, demonstrated knowledge, or persuasive attempts have changed opinions on this topic if they were already formed.

Similarly, no one has presented a cogent and logic argument to convince me of the thread's premise when it started years ago. If any of this were a real issue—and especially if it impacted legit commerce—then any real issues would come to light and be solved. The fact that actual pharmaceutical companies aren't rushing to solve some supposed mystery of why occasionally shit batches of supposed MDMA show up in the unregulated blackmarket and some users wind up disappointed their illegal drug use didn't go as hoped. What this tells us is that the real issue is: drug prohibition creates a blackmarket and a dangerous lack of regulation while funding violent criminals across the globe… just as alcohol prohibition did in the U.S. 100+ years ago. Booze could contain methanol enough to blind someone and/or kill them. It could've had formaldehyde, oxalic acid, anti-freeze, or just been thinned out with water. Speakeasies were ubiquitous and tended to lead to tax evasion out of once legitimate bars & liquor stores. Alcoholism rates soared, an people didn't stop drinking. In fact that did the opposite; they drank heavier and were falling down sloppy drunk in the streets. Even staunch prohibitionists like the Rockefellers did a 180 on the topic. So why do people think drug prohibition is any different?

 

[user666]

So why do people think drug prohibition is any different?

Perhaps drug prohibition is profitable for some. Especially those who make decisions about it.
Also, aren't some gov agencies partially funded by the white money and dark money that would be much scarcer without the prohibition ?

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

Also, aren't some gov agencies partially funded by the dark money that would be much scarcer without the prohibition ?

Even without the well known fact that a lot of black market money is funneled directly into agencies like the CIA we have the issue of so many bureaucrats' jobs and retirement being directly the result of prohibition. The DEA, FDA and several other Government agencies would no longer exist without the prohibition. Then there are ones like the CIA which could no longer make massive profits to fund illegal wars without the prohibition and their friends in the FBI. It's corrupt down to the local level with various police/sheriff's departments running drugs all over the place.

It isn't just the profits to be made from illegal substances. The substances being illegal in themselves generates massive profits and makes things like the private prison system profitable. If all drugs were legalized (or even just decriminalized) probably over half of the current people on the US Government's domestic payroll would find themselves out of a job. Most of those people got into Government work because it ensured an easy life of pushing paper and guaranteed retirement after a set number of years. They're all going to side with keeping the status quo because of that no matter how they personally feel about this or that substance being scheduled.

 

[unodelacosa]

unodelacosa said:
So why do people think drug prohibition is any different?

Perhaps drug prohibition is profitable for some. Especially those who make decisions about it.

That question was entirely rhetorical. Obviously drug prohibition is profitable to a great many number of people, the same as alcohol prohibition was profitable to gangster bootleggers like Al Capone. The people who make decisions about it are traditionally legislators and they're compromised by soft money lobbying and political action committee loopholes in campaign finance reform laws (that they, not coincidentally, also wrote).

Also, aren't some gov agencies partially funded by the white money and dark money that would be much scarcer without the prohibition ?

It's not typical white money / dark money finances here. This is codified as either local/state forfeiture laws or as federal forfeiture. Under the feds, the two main funds are: the DOJ Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF). Civil asset forfeiture does create a financial incentive structure around enforcement, since agencies can sometimes keep a portion of seized assets. And then of course there's that whole Iran-Contra scandal from the 1980s involving Ronald Reagan setting up the U.S.S.G. and having drugs smuggled back from the East on military planes, brought into the hoods, used to prop up mini "kingpins" only to take them down and seize all their assets through forfeiture laws, then auction that property off and use the proceeds to fund proxy wars, selling arms to further American interests and make a buck along the way for their cronies in the arms industry.

But, like you said, this is only partial funding, at least on a federal level. The bulk of these agencies' budgets come from standard taxpayer allocations.

 

[Docta]

A what’s the difference vid explains it’s probably not the pill the have changed, it’s you that has.

 

[user666]

A what’s the difference vid explains it’s probably not the pill the have changed, it’s you that has.

Nice try but MDMA-naïve persons also report the altered effect profile.
For example see here.

 

[Docta]

Nice try but MDMA-naïve persons also report the altered effect profile.

A statistical sample of (4) with no Delta distribution function of random variables, not exactly ground breaking.
Nice try with the anecdote. No doubt any group of MDMA naive subjects will have an under metabolizing cohort, that’s nothing new.

I know enough about pharmacology to use the term “probably” and keep an open mind on the subject.

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

Nice try but MDMA-naïve persons also report the altered effect profile.

How is a naive person supposed to compare a chemical ingested today to something from 30 years ago? (probably before they were born). My guess would be a lot of these people expected more than MDMA can provide due to the legendary status the substance has gained over the years. I remember being kind of underwhelmed by what I got from MDMA when I first took it in the early 2000s after spending my youth hearing it hyped up by the media on TV. I expected it to provide me with an instant orgasm instead of the contentment with life that I got from it.

Then there is the issue of a naive user not being able to tell if what they got was really what they thought it was. All the usual tests are easy to fool and most naive users (broke teenagers and college students) typically won't spring for the tests in the first place. They usually take someone's word for it or the word of whatever vendor they bought it from.

I was able to tell right off the first time I got meth bombed. Well not right off. But it was pretty obvious 8+ hours in when I couldn't sleep and felt horrible that something was amiss. No idea if it was meth or any of the other things they were passing off as MDMA back then. Just knew I didn't want anymore of whatever it was.

I'm always suspicious of people claiming MDMA is no good. Since I've had my socks knocked off by several different batches of pills and crystal over the years while people I know for a fact have abused it too much claim it either does nothing or it's weak. It's pretty obvious when you gift someone like that a tablet that you know has at least 200mg+ in it (I had to break them in half). They eat the entire thing then call you in the middle of the night to complain and tell you that you should go yell at the person you bought it from. I don't bother and let them rant. You'd think they'd learn at some point to stop trying but they keep doing back expecting different results. It'd be like me yelling at someone that gifted me a 10mg percocet because I felt almost nothing. Of course I felt nothing. I spent the last 20 years eating them by the handful. I need 50+mg of oxycodone these days to feel anything. Which is why I don't waste my money and time buying it.

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

One thing people need to take into consideration when it comes to MDMA today vs. 30-40 years ago is the rate at which people are prescribed substances like anti-depressants. Let's be realistic most people are not stopping those in preparation for taking MDMA especially not their first time. The vast majority of people do MDMA for the first time as a spur of the moment activity. They go to some party and luck into scoring some, over pay for it then take it with their little group.

I'm not surprised at all to hear that a lot of people are taking things like MDMA and LSD these days and feeling nothing. The GPs are passing out anti-depressants off label for minor sleeping troubles. They're even passing out hardcore anti-psychotics like that now. I haven't checked the stats in awhile but I'd wager 30-50% of the general population is taking something like that now in America. People like that aren't going to feel much from either substance no matter how much they're fed. Their pupils won't dilate either. The vast majority of them aren't going to do any research going in.

The last thing I got from a GP. I forget now what it was maybe olanzapine. He's always trying to put me on random stuff like that for sleep issues. I stupidly took some one night trying to sleep like a normal person would because I was living with other people that thought it was normal to go to bed at 8pm and wake up at 4am. Anyway, I took one. Then 4-5 days later I let my friend talk me into taking LSD out of my stash. He had a really good time. I didn't feel a damn thing. I knew I probably wouldn't going in but I wanted to try just to see. Total waste didn't feel anything at all. I knew LSD was probably safe to mix with it I wouldn't have tried it with MDMA. But I know a lot of people that wouldn't have thought twice about taking MDMA with something like that when they'd been taking the anti-psychotic/depressant daily for years and years.

I've met a lot of people over the years that told me they were on stuff like that and wanted me to hook them up with MDMA and/or LSD. I always told them the same thing: You'll waste it. Quit what you're taking for about a week and I'll gift you some. None of them ever took me up on that offer. They all went behind my back and bought what they wanted from someone else. Most of them complained about getting ripped off. A few of them claimed they felt something and that led right into them taking it every weekend (also against my advice). Wasn't long before they were burned out on it and complaining about how they never should have started. You try to help people but they always want to learn the hard way.

Society now has far more legal drug addicts than it had in the 1980s and 1990s.

 

[Docta]

How is a naive person supposed to compare a chemical ingested today to something from 30 years ago? (..............

Yeah, that first paragraph of yours kinda sums it up, the majority of these anecdotal reports fail to account for the variability of the human factor with its anticipation of reward and how that rebuke distorts perception and critique. I recall times when MDMA purchased legitimately in early 80’s not being as good an experience as clandestine pills 20 years later. Mindset, environment and overall physical and mental heath probably more a factor on the dance floor than; who, how or when the MDMA was synthesized.

I hadn’t ever considered the proliferation of prescription anti-depressants to be a factor, the wave of GP’s attempting to cure insecurity started after my time.

 

[user666]

How is a naive person supposed to compare a chemical ingested today to something from 30 years ago?

By looking in the mirror and seeing the lack of mydriasis.
By remembering no bruxism.
By remembering sitting on a couch throughout the experience.
By remembering being sleepy throughout the experience..
By remembering his/her introverted thoughts.
By noting the shortened duration of the high.
By remembering the lack of tactile sensitivity.
...there are many more points for comparison in the second post of this thread (the different effect during polydrug use e.g.: 2CB/LSD, are especially interesting)

Also, an external observer (e.g. the person conducting the experiment, can note the the externally observable behavior of his subjects and compare them to the usual racemic 3,4-MDMA HCl symptom profile at a specific mg/kg dose).

 

[user666]

I hadn’t ever considered the proliferation of prescription anti-depressants to be a factor, the wave of GP’s attempting to cure insecurity started after my time.

For people that take antidepressants, that is definitely a factor. There are many of those in the US but not in my part of the world.
Anyway, the experience report I had quoted excluded anti-depressants and concomitant substances.
Also, I always pay attention and ask users about their pharma history during their meh experiences. If they let me, I take closeup photos of their pupils, too.

Also, I have never observed unmedicated people some having meh experiences and some having magic experiences while under influence of the same product/batch. It is always one or the other. My sample size with this is ~20 parties with 4-8 people, each.

On the bright side the ratio of meh/magic experiences seems to have decreased in 2025 (incl. N.Y. Eve party).

 

[Observer01]

One thing people need to take into consideration when it comes to MDMA today vs. 30-40 years ago is the rate at which people are prescribed substances like anti-depressants. Let's be realistic most people are not stopping those in preparation for taking MDMA especially not their first time. The vast majority of people do MDMA for the first time as a spur of the moment activity. They go to some party and luck into scoring some, over pay for it then take it with their little group.

I'm not surprised at all to hear that a lot of people are taking things like MDMA and LSD these days and feeling nothing. The GPs are passing out anti-depressants off label for minor sleeping troubles. They're even passing out hardcore anti-psychotics like that now. I haven't checked the stats in awhile but I'd wager 30-50% of the general population is taking something like that now in America. People like that aren't going to feel much from either substance no matter how much they're fed. Their pupils won't dilate either. The vast majority of them aren't going to do any research going in.

The last thing I got from a GP. I forget now what it was maybe olanzapine. He's always trying to put me on random stuff like that for sleep issues. I stupidly took some one night trying to sleep like a normal person would because I was living with other people that thought it was normal to go to bed at 8pm and wake up at 4am. Anyway, I took one. Then 4-5 days later I let my friend talk me into taking LSD out of my stash. He had a really good time. I didn't feel a damn thing. I knew I probably wouldn't going in but I wanted to try just to see. Total waste didn't feel anything at all. I knew LSD was probably safe to mix with it I wouldn't have tried it with MDMA. But I know a lot of people that wouldn't have thought twice about taking MDMA with something like that when they'd been taking the anti-psychotic/depressant daily for years and years.

I've met a lot of people over the years that told me they were on stuff like that and wanted me to hook them up with MDMA and/or LSD. I always told them the same thing: You'll waste it. Quit what you're taking for about a week and I'll gift you some. None of them ever took me up on that offer. They all went behind my back and bought what they wanted from someone else. Most of them complained about getting ripped off. A few of them claimed they felt something and that led right into them taking it every weekend (also against my advice). Wasn't long before they were burned out on it and complaining about how they never should have started. You try to help people but they always want to learn the hard way.

Society now has far more legal drug addicts than it had in the 1980s and 1990s.

I've mostly been a lurker on this thread for many years, but I think you are on a correct line of thinking regarding the MehDMA phenomenon. For what's it worth, as a 25 plus year responsible consumer, I'll share my thoughts.

Obvious caveat that yes, in some instances, people are indeed getting bad drugs. This isn't new though, and as everyone knows, quality tends to ebb and flow. ( I recall the drought of 2010-2012). In recent years, there seems to generally be a relatively reliable and fairly high quality/purity of product available, particularly through DarkWeb channels. Throwing out the cases where someone does indeed get bad product, I don't think this is the primary driver of the MehDMA thing. My gut also says that the "problem" it is not any single blanket issue related to precursors, by-products, or some mis-alignment of the isomers. I would bet that the researchers on here will never have an Ah Ha moment of discovery in terms of finding something that is structurally "wrong" with today's product. (This perhaps should be self-evident after many years of this thread with nothing even approaching a resolution).

I truly believe people's brains have changed in our modern society. The rave culture of the 90's occurred in a very different world. Technology and smartphone usage have in a sense, rotted a lot of our brains with constant and relentless dopamine hits. When you experience something like that all day, everyday, the synthetic "high" that a drug produces will not be as good or revalatory, because your baseline state is so out of whack. Secondly, society has changed. Raves occured in a very supportive and inter-connected sub-culture. I believe we face a kind of societal depression, where the constant flood of division and negativity creates a poor baseline mental state. This is bound to effect MDMA experiences. Throw in the prevalent use of anti-depressants, and you have a situation that could certainly dampen an experience like MDMA.

Lastly, ravers who experienced the 90's and then go try a pill from today, are substantially older, and frankly more worn out from life, as compared to when they were in their teens and twenties. This will inevitably have an effect on the experience as well.

I would bet anything that if you took a person and placed them in a cabin in the woods for 3-6 months, where they meditated daily, ate healthy food, slept deeply, spent time in nature, and ceased all smartphone usage, they would have a far superior MDMA experience coming out of an experiment like that as compared to the average modern person.

Just my thoughts.

 

[unodelacosa]

TL;DR ☞ Even though it seems like a minority share, enough people believe MDMA today has something wrong with it that I'm willing to suspect, with skepticism, that certain areas of the globe have been experiencing substandard purity MDMA and/or imposter MDMA RCs for 10 – 15 years, but only in certain drug markets. MDMA is a massively popular drug and the annual demand for it is really high. Not surprisingly, given the lack of safety standards and oversight, there is a lot of quality variance. Many manufacturers in the underground put their products of varying purity, quality, timbre, and customer satisfaction on the blackmarket. Some people accept that this might be for multiple reasons, perhaps some overlapping, or perhaps not. But rest assured, there is no one culprit and there is no reliable way to pinpoint the cause of each subpar MDMA experience. None of this is worthy of avid pursuit or insistence on unprovable guesswork of the Dunning-Kruger effect persuasion.

By looking in the mirror and seeing the lack of mydriasis.

My eyes almost never dilate much from most drugs. My GF's eyes always do. Whenever we take MDMA, my eyes do not dilate; her's do (the blue almost disappears) and yet we're both rolling.

By remembering no bruxism.

I only get bruxism if I take a dose too large. Let's not be bruxist, bruh

By remembering sitting on a couch throughout the experience.

Sometimes MDMA will couch-lock a person. This proves nothing.

By remembering being sleepy throughout the experience..

Not everyone responds to everything the same way, you know.

By remembering his/her introverted thoughts.

As if one is incapable of introversion on MDMA… that doesn't seem even a little bit ridiculous to you? No offense, btw, I just don't follow your logic on quite a few of these examples.

By noting the shortened duration of the high.

You're in the U.K., aren't you? There's something about you guys in the U.K. that makes me think something must be wrong with your local sources of MDMA, bc yours seems to be the one group who, more than any other, complains about lackluster 'MDMA'.

By remembering the lack of tactile sensitivity.
...there are many more points for comparison in the second post of this thread (the different effect during polydrug use e.g.: 2CB/LCD, are especially interesting)

LCD Soundsystem?

Also, an external observer (e.g. the person conducting the experiment, can note the the externally observable behavior of his subjects and compare them to the usual racemic 3,4-MDMA HCl symptom profile at a specific mg/kg dose).

That's not good science to compare an experience to a 30-year-old memory. You're also making an assumption that the MDMA from 30 years ago was in fact solely MDMA and not a product containing MDMA, Caffeine, Amphetamine sulfate, or a number of various other adulterants. There are myriad possibilities here, and sure, you can drum up possible reasons to refute any of them, and so can I, so could virtually anyone. It can easily be argued either way. But if we apply Occam's razor, the explanation with the fewest assumptions is that various factors are misleading ppl into incorrect conclusions about the world's MDMA supply.

There are two things happening here
☞ 1. faulty generalization: conclusions drawn from weak premises leading to incorrect assumptions about the larger context, and
☞ 2. cherry picking: selecting specific cases that support a broader claim while ignoring those that contradict it.

What's weird to me is how so many here seem to need some kind of supposed "answer" here, but like @Observer01 pointed out: there's not going to be a satisfying answer for any one looking for one distinct "ah ha!" culprit, and this is for reasons we've already covered, QED. Where I disagree with you, @Observer01, is in your lazy criticism of the younger generations and a general pessimism about them, about technology. I also disagree with the assessment that MDMA's effects are somehow dependent on rave culture when in fact it's likely the other way around—if any dependency occurs at all—i.e.: raves perhaps rely on MDMA's effects to enhance their appeal and the overall experience, at least for some people. But MDMA does not need rave culture to work, blow minds, provide healing therapy, or just be used recreationally… nor do raves need one to be: rolling face, pinging, monging, geeking, tweeking, tripping, nodding, candy-flipping, hippie-flipping, dragon-chasing, zip-lining, mainlining, bottom-lining, inner-lining, inner-voicing, inner-training, train-surfing, trainspotting, spot-welding, glowstick wielding and/or on MDMA to have a good time… Social settings help but the drug does not require four-on-the-floor "boots-and-cats-and-boots-and cats" for its effects to take place.

I truly believe people's brains have changed in our modern society.

Sure, this is inevitable as humans continue to evolve, but our brains are still fundamentally working on the same neurotransmitters as the vast majority of humans before us and the vast majority to come after us. There's nothing wrong with the kids today. The current generation will be just fine. I see trends all the time of young people being drawn to various pieces of analog media from books to vinyl, cassette tapes to oil paintings. I think perhaps AI slop will turn a lot of ppl off of social media perhaps, but we'll see…

Technology and smartphone usage have in a sense, rotted a lot of our brains with constant and relentless dopamine hits.

Aw man, your argument was so good until you reached this default sentiment of older millennials and Gen Xers... Saying technology has "rotted our brains" is an absurd, if popular, thing to say right now, but let's not forget that's exactly what people said about the internet, television, and radio in the past. Yes, kids today are developing their brains in a different manner than we did. Of course they are: they're growing up in a world with an advanced Internet culture, artificial intelligence LLMs, ubiquitous broadband + smartphones, and social media. Certain things we learned later in life will be like second nature to them. We can say the same things about ourselves regarding growing up in a world with (color) televisions, microwaves (except for the 52+ crowd), anesthesia, CGI, refrigeration, cable news, antibiotics, air conditioning, the NBA, llpo8j b xvumbo jets and widely available air travel. Handguns, word processors, automatic transmissions, widespread public education that includes teaching algebra, trigonometry, calculus, and/or statistics, in addition to core sciences, history, humanities, language skills and electives. Students can use this to set themselves up for higher education with enough determination, drive, gumption, creativity, and a pinch of dumb luck.

Consider this: no one can deny the sheer marketing power of a cleverly managed social media campaign with many engaged followers. Young people today are dominant in this field, having developed the skills and mental toolboxes necessary to excel at these tasks, and the newest generations are going to be much more "at home" and feel "natural" on social media compared to those of us who learned it later in life. It's akin to the difference between how someone speaks and instinctively knows their first language versus how one learns subsequent languages…

 

[Observer01]

@unodelacosa ....appreciate the banter.

If you review my post, I do not specifically mention young people, or a specific generation in regard to negative effects from technology. I wasn't bagging on younger folks. There are good studies coming out on the effects of smartphone usage and dopamine. I disagree that the development of these technologies is in the same vein as radio or TV in years past. The effects on the brain are substantially more powerful. These devices play on the brain's reward system. Andrew Huberman has some great podcasts and articles on this stuff. Basically, the more dopamine hits you get from things that require no effort (phones, drugs, food), the more your reward system gets out of whack. We are biologically designed where effort=reward=dopamine hit. The evolutionary motivation for this design is so things like the effort of hunting, foraging, or building a shelter actual feel rewarding in our brains. The dopamine gets you up and moving. When you remove the effort part from the equation (which we are so easily able to do) it can wreak havoc on the dopamine system.

Now, regarding the topic at hand, whether this is has any actual effect on an MDMA experience, I'd be willing to say I have no idea. It's a theory, but one that I think can be a factor in how some people experience MDMA.

I mentioned ravers specifically because that is oftentimes the crowd who is the loudest about today's MDMA being bad. Due to their age, and the environment in which they originally consumed MDMA, they seem to be the best case for this specific bias that old MDMA was better. I agree that a rave environment is not needed to feel the benefits of MDMA, I specifically mentioned that group of people because they are frequently cited as the test case for proof that newer MDMA is "bad".

Either way, I think we are in agreement that there will never be a smoking gun in terms of a definitive issue regarding something that is "wrong" with todays' MDMA. I think there are multiple societal, biological, and practical variables at play that can effect an experience.

 

[unodelacosa]

I disagree that the development of these technologies is in the same vein as radio or TV in years past. The effects on the brain are substantially more powerful.

More powerful doesn't imply it's not in the same vane. These are imprecise, subjective terms anyways, but I do think it's in the same circulatory system Not sure what metric is being used here to measure "power", but perhaps the effects are more powerful perhaps not, Idk. Still, I don't think that it warrants denying any semblance to influences of the past.

These devices play on the brain's reward system. Andrew Huberman has some great podcasts and articles on this stuff.

Yeah I'll pass on Huberman, and I'd take what he says with a few grains of proverbial salt. Maybe I'm just cynical, but when there's a profit motive involved people will say and claim some wild shit.

We are biologically designed where effort=reward=dopamine hit. […] When you remove the effort part from the equation (which we are so easily able to do) it can wreak havoc on the dopamine system.

Andrew Huberman tends to oversimplify things like this… The idea that "effort=reward=dopamine hit" is reductionist when describing the intricate dopamine system. Research suggests that DA release is not solely dependent on effort, but also on factors like expectation, surprise, and context. Furthermore, the brain's reward system involves multiple neurotransmitters, including dopamine, serotonin, and endorphins, which interact in complex ways and involve psychological engagements as well.

I specifically mentioned [ravers] because they are frequently cited as the test case for proof that newer MDMA is "bad".

Are they frequently cited as the test case? I'm not sure, but I wasn't trying to nitpick the point. You know: correlation doesn't prove causation… but it stands to reason that ravers would probably be the group most likely to have tried ecstasy in the 90s.

Either way, I think we are in agreement that there will never be a smoking gun in terms of a definitive issue regarding something that is "wrong" with todays' MDMA. I think there are multiple societal, biological, and practical variables at play that can effect an experience.

Yep, agreed. Too many factors and loose data.

 

[new2drugs]

Wonder if it will ever be legal or decriminalisated.. perhaps somewhere like Amsterdam could be a front runner

 

[Observer01]

Wonder if it will ever be legal or decriminalisated.. perhaps somewhere like Amsterdam could be a front runner

My guess is that it will be decriminalized in the sense that at some point it will be an FDA approved drug which could be prescribed for therapy under the supervision of a professional. I don't see full-on retail legalization similar to cannabis. . While traditional psychs like psylocibin will likely be legalized in some fashion, there is a small, but legitimate, physical risk from MDMA, which might prevent it from being fully legalized.

 

[Baboooon87]

On the bright side the ratio of meh/magic experiences seems to have decreased in 2025 (incl. N.Y. Eve party).

I stumbled on the lab results of a recent seizure of pills in Japan and the contents and dosages reflected what was common in the magic years : 100-120 mgs of MDMA with 5 mgs of methamphetamine. A few also had a bit of ketamine. Nothing like the 250 mgs of MDMA that were reported in the lackluster pills of the last decade.

I aslo stand by my point that the small amount of methamphetamine present in many of the old pills has more to do with the magic effects than people would like to admit.

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

I stumbled on the lab results of a recent seizure of pills in Japan and the contents and dosages reflected what was common in the magic years : 100-120 mgs of MDMA with 5 mgs of methamphetamine. A few also had a bit of ketamine. Nothing like the 250 mgs of MDMA that were reported in the lackluster pills of the last decade.

I aslo stand by my point that the small amount of methamphetamine present in many of the old pills has more to do with the magic effects than people would like to admit.

It's important to note that methamphetamine is the most abused drug in Japan so it isn't a surprise it'd be used in any MDMA pills seized within the country.