• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

Bermudas (2-cb)

goodfellas said:
I dont think a lab will be able to test a pill and say it is a certain research chemical that will probably be unknown to them, it will come up as an unknown substance. I reckon the best way find out would be to explain the effects to Mr Shuglin who invented and experimented with most of these research chems and see what he thinks. Why aren't we happy enough to just call it ecstacy as it is probably a synthetic phenylamphetamine anyway. We just gotta have common sense when it comes too dosing with them
Click to expand...

Why would we leave it as Ecstasy (MDMA) when it clearly is not. The best bet is to wait for the government to release their energy control test results. Anyone sent a query to Dr Shulgin before ?
 
Originally posted by goodfellas
I dont think a lab will be able to test a pill and say it is a certain research chemical that will probably be unknown to them, it will come up as an unknown substance. I reckon the best way find out would be to explain the effects to Mr Shuglin who invented and experimented with most of these research chems and see what he thinks. Why aren't we happy enough to just call it ecstacy as it is probably a synthetic phenylamphetamine anyway. We just gotta have common sense when it comes too dosing with them

I am sorry to disappoint you, but a GCMS test will determine the active chemical. If you are basing this on the American Dancesafe reports where results came back as 'Unknown Substance' then I am led to believe it done as a method of 'security through obscurity'. That is they did not want other copy cat manufacturers to start incorporating research chemicals into pills. Research chemicals can be identified through lab testing.

Do not waste Shulgin's time with such a trivial issue. Although he may have synthesized these compounds, even if he had consumed it his view would also be subjective, and as a scientist would no doubt want to confirm it with a GCMS test. I refer your question to point 2.

Ask Dr. Shulgin Your Question

1. Before asking your question, please browse the archive. It may have already been answered.

2. Also, it is impossible for Dr. Shulgin to tell you what was in "the little dolphin pill" (etc.). For "ecstasy" pill reports, please see ecstacydata.org

3. Ask your question.
 
Last edited:
My understanding was that you needed a standard to compare the results of a GCMS test to before any conclusions could be made. From reading microgram is aprears that even the DEA forensic labs don't have calibration data for some of the more exotic research chems. That said I truely hope that Enlighten get a deffinative answer to this one!
 
goodfellas said:
Why aren't we happy enough to just call it ecstacy as it is probably a synthetic phenylamphetamine anyway. We just gotta have common sense when it comes too dosing with them
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but please do not promote the calling of unknown drugs 'ecstasy'. Common sense , as you state, would show that the above is a good way to undo all the hard work people have done towards harm reduction. I think that FINALLY it is becoming clear to people that the term ecstasy is used in the reference of the drug MDMA, not speed bombs, ketamine pills, research chems, and most of all unknown substances! And if others are with me (which i'm sure they are), that is the way it should stay.

Maybe 'party drug' is a better description you could use.
 
Cowboy Mac said:
Originally posted by goodfellas
I dont think a lab will be able to test a pill and say it is a certain research chemical that will probably be unknown to them, it will come up as an unknown substance. I reckon the best way find out would be to explain the effects to Mr Shuglin who invented and experimented with most of these research chems and see what he thinks. Why aren't we happy enough to just call it ecstacy as it is probably a synthetic phenylamphetamine anyway. We just gotta have common sense when it comes too dosing with them

I am sorry to disappoint you, but a GCMS test will determine the active chemical. If you are basing this on the American Dancesafe reports where results came back as 'Unknown Substance' then I am led to believe it done as a method of 'security through obscurity'. That is they did not want other copy cat manufacturers to start incorporating research chemicals into pills. Research chemicals can be identified through lab testing.

Do not waste Shulgin's time with such a trivial issue. Although he may have synthesized these compounds, even if he had consumed it his view would also be subjective, and as a scientist would no doubt want to confirm it with a GCMS test. I refer your question to point 2.

Ask Dr. Shulgin Your Question

1. Before asking your question, please browse the archive. It may have already been answered.

2. Also, it is impossible for Dr. Shulgin to tell you what was in "the little dolphin pill" (etc.). For "ecstasy" pill reports, please see ecstacydata.org

3. Ask your question.
Click to expand...

Just a quick question in reguards to the government gc/ms analysis, Say i had a pill and i was very suspicious after various reagent tests on that pill, would there be any chance that i could forward the suspect pill to enlighten and then enlighten fowards it of to the gc/ms government facilities? i would be willing to pay for whatever it takes. Somehow i think it wont be possible :(
 
We do know the results of samples collected last November, but are withholding those until a full sample can be GCMS tested.
 
Cowboy Mac said:
We do know the results of samples collected last November, but are withholding those until a full sample can be GCMS tested.
Click to expand...

Were the results of novembers test quite suprising to you cm ?
 
No_Fishing.jpg

;) Hopefully it won't be too long until we can release the details.
 
^^^^^^
So much for Harm Reduction gotta wait hey, Well it mustn't be too life threatning if you haven't said stay away from them, even if they have suspicous substances. Wheres the harm reduction in that, ohh its a different batch so we gotta wait, yeah right, cant have people getting confused with past and present batches can we, even though its likely thet are the same. politics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Originally posted by goodfellas
So much for Harm Reduction gotta wait hey, Well it mustn't be too life threatning if you haven't said stay away from them, even if they have suspicous substances. Wheres the harm reduction in that, ohh its a different batch so we gotta wait, yeah right, cant have people getting confused with past and present batches can we, even though its likely thet are the same. politics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know where to start tearing apart that comment. Firstly, GCMS testing as a harm reduction tool in Australia is only just beginning, and it is very political, and in an infant stage. Because of this it must be handled very carefully, and Enlighten must not overstep its bounds. There are a few reasons why we cannot release any data at this stage, and part of that includes more tests need to be done. I, along with a few others, have been working towards this for 4 years and counting, you have been on bluelight for less than a year, you don't have the right to tell me where to get off.

My advice to anyone taking any pill is to reagent test it first, and if it does not return a standard MDxx reaction backed up by anecdotal user reports confirming MDxx, then don't have it. Everyone knows the pills contain some kind of psychedelic substance, and if you want GCMS testing to become a permanent avenue in which data is collected and released then I suggest you support Enlighten, and the decisions and people involved in it. It is very easy to discriminate from the sidelines, be proactive and get involved. No one needs a whinger.
 
Last edited:
Well Said X 2..



This MUST BE DONE the right way otherwise all the hard work will go down the drain. I think we will only get one chance in the future to get this up and running and IT HAS to be done right. There is simply too much at stake.
 
yeh shit goodfellas, you don't even have a freaking clue whats going on with it. Probably a good idea to trust the people that are actually going ahead and doing it in the first place!
 
goodfellas: You are an absolute tool, if you think the results should be released prematuraly go and pay for them to be GCMS tested yourself and then do what ever you want with the results, in particular stick them up your ungratefull arse.
 
Are these things still around? I can't find them anywhere... I heard they ran out? did they make a new batch or something?
but yeah i agree 'goodfellas' is a tool, just be thankful for what help you get and quit your bitching, by the looks of it I don't think you deserve harm minimisation, lets just wait for darwins theory to sort you out...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top