• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!

Crystal Methamphetamine

Whenever there's an argument that needs to be won, I always like to call in RGB, because he has a way of explaining shit that noone else can on here!

RGB is my hero too!

<3<3<3

No homo, haha
 
RGB said:
Stereo, I think it was useful -- we got a lot of good, real-life replies on how meth negatively impacted people's lives. The OP was correct in that a lot of E users assume that meth is a "bad drug", but I think this thread had challenged and reaffirmed that assumption. Pharmacologically speaking, I think the two are comparable. Meth and MDMA are both amphetamine analogues, and they both reverse the action of reuptake inhibitors. Meth just happens to be strongly dopaminergic and brutally effective, which apparently makes all the difference in terms of its addiction profile.

Personally, I don't believe that there is such thing as a "bad drug"; even a drug like methamphetamine has something to offer. Any disturbance from one's natural state helps to more clearly define the boundaries of that state and meth, like any other psychoactive drug, definitely does disturb the natural state.

As always, there's a risk/benefit ratio, and meth is *strongly* skewed in risk direction. In the spirit of harm minimization, I agree, people should avoid meth; it's simply not worth the risk. Nevertheless, one must admit that it's just a drug -- it's not good or evil in and of itself, and has use both medicinally and for (albeit limited) self-exploration.
Click to expand...

I will agree with you about the bad drug part. Simple labels made from perception, and only really apply to what you apply them to personally. However I don't feel like its wrong to say that meth isn't recreational, or it won't be for long if you continue to take it. It is definitly a HARD drug with EXTREMELY HIGH addiction levels. Its not casual like getting together to spoke a bowl or drop some mdma. It should be feared and respected. But I definitely agree in the sence that medicine is medicine, drugs are drugs, and both can be turned into either one.
 
Definitely agreed on that point. I think that part of the definition of a "recreational" drug is that one can reasonably experiment with it without serious repercussions...in the case of meth, as you said, the addiction potential is ridiculous. It's not the kind of thing you'd want to get into unless you knew exactly what you were doing, and even then you need to weigh how much you can lose versus what little you can gain.

So just to summarize what we've been saying, if you're looking for novel highs, don't do meth -- the experiences of people who've lost a great deal of their lives to it should attest to that. 8o
 
I will never touch meth.. it ruined part of my father's life and part of my childhood because of it.. it's really addictive, and is just crap for your body.

I almost wasn't going to do e because a large amount of pills contain meth in them.. any ways I'm just strongly against this drug because I have seen it personally fuck up peoples lives and not just my dad's.
 
For ecstasy, I thought you could wash it with ethanol (everclear) and it would get rid of amphetamines and I think ketamine. You could also wash it with anhydrous acetone wash to get rid of binders\fillers and shit

that's what Ive gathered though. Haven't tried any of it
 
All I'm saying is my homey back in the day when he was like 22 started doing crystal meth. He started in october, didn't come back down until that next november. Only because he got busted selling pills, so he could buy more. It fucked his life hard, he'd stay up for a week sometimes. He used to always say when I first started going to raves with him, never touch that shit, you never want to see the shadow people. I've felt a meth bomb, and the come down was fucked up. I had anxiety all day, paranoid, scared to be in public, felt like ass, depressed. It sucked man...I didn't like it.. :\ I've tangoed with molly, and that is the best come down in my opinion. Pure joy even the next day and felt physically great. I find a big difference between the two, and I find the only reason someone might get addicted to MDMA is because you feel like you dance better and everything is just better, like you see the world in a different light. Without a care for what everyone else thinks. But you finally just got to accept the fact, you shouldn't care what people think, do what you do and people will love you for that. And the ones who don't ain't worth it. Be careful, be safe, and I'm not dissing meth, because I'm sure we've all had pills with it in there. Just saying..take care man.
 
I dont like meth because I have seen what meth addiction does to people.

One of my best friends dad was a normal guy. He had done his fair share of drugs in the past but had never let it get out of hand. He owned his own carpet buisness and made good money. One day his wife (my friends step mom) died in a car accident. The poor guy got really depressed and started using meth alot. Fast foreward a year. All he does all day is meth meth and more meth. His new girlfriend is a tweaker too. He quits working and loses his buisness. He stops making car/house/insurance payments and loses all his cars, his nice house and his medical coverage. Now he is living with his mom ( his girlfriend left him when he ran out of money), has the most disgusing teeth ever, along with a bunch of other health problems which are costing his parents money and threatening to cause them financial harm too. And even after all of this he still cant put down the godamn pipe. My friend looks at his dad as a disgrace, which he really is.

This story is one of many that I dont feel like typing out right now. I can think of three other people that I know personally whose lives have been destroyed because they let meth take over.

Maybe there are people out there who can use it responsibly, but i've never met any.
 
rollmeover said:
meth can easily be in a pill and the testing kit wont show signs of it, especially when theres mdma in the pill aswell
Click to expand...

you couldnt be more wrong, part of it is testing just for methamphetamines and amphetamines. thanks for being uninformed and giving bad advice to your fellow bluelighters.
 
In Montreal we have a lot of speed pills, Dealers pretty much always have booth so you can choose.
I personally really like speed, UNLESS I'm planning on doing MDMA then I can understand why it's not fun... But other then that I really enjoy it.
 
StereoLogic said:
part of it is testing just for methamphetamines and amphetamines.
Click to expand...

I've found that it is difficult to test for the presence of more than one chemical with the current reagent kits. If MDMA is present in sufficient quantity, all three of the main MDMA-detecting reagents will turn dark, making it hard to see if there's anything else. Some people claim that you can kind of tell if there's meth if there are "flecks" in the reagent, but I've had trouble with it myself. All I can conclude is that either all the pills that went straight to black/blue were clean, or that I'm missing something. :\

Also, the Simons test has the same reaction for MDMA as it does for meth. I think the only way that you can be sure that you have an MDMA-like substance and not meth is if you have an MDA pill, since Ropadope will turn red, but Simons won't react.

(I'd be thrilled if someone knows of a reagent that reacts exclusively to meth; that would make my life a lot easier. Again, if anyone knows of a good way to tell if a pill is MDMA + something else, that would be fantastic. :))

In general, testing kits are good and definitely a good idea, but they unfortunately can't tell you everything. :( You still need to take care of yourself by controlling your dosage and frequency to mitigate the possibility of cuts hurting your health.
 
d4rksun said:
comparing MDMA to Meth is like comparing a Penguin to a Giraffe.

I.E. They are completly different animals.

I think meth gets its huge bad rep is not because of the high...but more so the bad stuff that goes with it.

Meth is HORRIBLE on your body as far as negative side effects no matter what you do, and is rediculously addictive. You hear horror stories of people's lives who were destroyed by meth addiction. Yes there are people who love meth, and more power to them if that is what they want to do, but heavy negative aspects of the drug I think are what give it a bad name.

You dont hear those same stories about E, and you dont have the huge negative side effects.
Click to expand...

I think I'd reevaluate that if I were you. The two substances in question, methamphetamine and mdma are extremely similar and in the same class of drugs.

Methamphetamine is like a super version of amphetamine (speed, Adderall, etc.). The molecule is slightly different from amphetamine and it produces more intense effects. MDMA is an amphetamine also. As a matter of fact I think its mainly referred to as a "psychedelic amphetamine." It might not have the same exact effects profile as meth, but it sure as hell shares a lot of them.

MDMA:

268px-MDMA.svg.png


Meth:

157px-Methamphetamine-2D-skeletal-.svg.png


So you can see that they are both very similar and clearly both amphetamines. I know that slight differences in molecules can really alter toxicity and the effects profile. But I guess my point is that many people seem to think MDMA is harmless, etc., etc. but meth is the devil. By taking MDMA, you are doing a very close relative to meth. I've never personally done meth, but I feel like more people should understand this concept.
 
KeepMeAlive, you make a valid point -- they are both indeed amphetamines. Also, yes, one could think of meth as a "super" version of standard amphetamine like you said. There are some important differences, such as that meth causes reversal of reuptake transporters (much like MDMA, actually), whereas amphetamines mostly promote release of dopamine/norepinephrine and prevents them from being reabsorbed.

In my opinion, and in keeping with the ongoing discussion in this thread, the overwhelming difference that makes meth a life-shattering drug and MDMA not (necessarily) is that meth is strongly dopaminergic, effecting intense stimulation of the brain's reward pathway. Most physically addictive drugs are addictive because they provide instantaneous gratification, which is synonymous with stimulation of the reward pathway. While MDMA does this to some extent, it's nowhere near the level of methamphetamine.

This is why it takes great reserves of willpower to not get addicted to meth: while both do provide feelings of euphoria, which can clearly be psychologically addictive, using meth creates a direct, primal, and unconscious correlation between meth and feeling pleasure.

There are of course other factors which contribute to meth's addictive profile: its status in society, the expectations of people who use meth, and the expectations placed upon meth users (e.g. users being viewed in low esteem, considered "trash", etc.). All of these things are important, and yes, I do believe that demonization of meth does contribute to the likelihood of someone becoming addicted -- in this case, I believe the demonization to be unfair. Nevertheless, there is an undeniable physiological difference between the effects of meth and MDMA that makes meth more addictive.

I'm not saying MDMA is "safe", or that meth is a "bad drug". All drugs should be treated with respect and approached with caution. Essentially, I'm saying that meth (in its common usage) does deserve its reputation as a highly addictive substance for reasons other than people's opinions about it.
 
I've taken meth once orally. I've taken MDMA orally about 12 times. I'd have to say I like meth better as far as amphetamines go. Its very euphoric and lasts like twice as long as MDMA. I doesn't have the psychedelic element that MDMA has however. Amphetamine on the other hand doesn't hold a candle to MDMA or Meth.
 
MistaJeff said:
I've taken meth once orally. I've taken MDMA orally about 12 times. I'd have to say I like meth better as far as amphetamines go. Its very euphoric and lasts like twice as long as MDMA. I doesn't have the psychedelic element that MDMA has however. Amphetamine on the other hand doesn't hold a candle to MDMA or Meth.
Click to expand...

There are good reasons for that, and reasons why your route of administration is actually less addictive than smoking it.

The reason that methamphetamine is so effective in comparison to other amphetamines is its methyl group -- it makes it able to easily cross lipid barriers (e.g. the blood-brain barrier) and provides it extra stability against being metabolized by MAO.

I'm of the opinion that meth outlasts MDMA because meth largely stimulates dopamine receptors, whereas MDMA largely stimulates serotonin receptors. The dopamine system in general is more "robust", meaning that it takes prolonged and intense stimulation for it to significantly downregulate. Serotonin receptors, on the other hand, downregulate quickly and readily in the face of stimulus, and take longer to return to normal. With MDMA, your high ends relatively quickly because your 5-HT receptors downregulate quickly; with meth, the DA receptors take longer to downregulate, thus you even have time to redose multiple times before you've downregulated them sufficiently to return to baseline. Meth's predisposition for dopamine rather than serotonin also explains why you find MDMA more psychedelic -- most hallucinogens are full or partial agonists of the 5-HT2a receptor.

As for methods of administration, there's evidence to suggest that the speed at which the reward pathway is stimulated has a lot to do with a drug's addictive potential -- drugs which provide a "rush" actually do cause an associated rush of dopamine in the reward pathway, and consequently are more addictive. Smoking meth, like smoking crack cocaine or shooting IV heroin, provides a very acute peak. Oral administration of any of these drugs provides a less immediate rush, thus is (theoretically) less addictive.

I realize I provide no sources; I'm running a little late and don't have the time to look them up. :\ If you'd like sources, I'd gladly oblige. :)

Heh, I feel like I'm posting a little too much in this thread as of late...
 
Yeah I will agree that meth can be way more addictive than mdma. I think this probably has to do with the fact that tolerance comes into play rapidly with mdma. As RGB said mdma acts more on the serotonin system and that takes longer to recover. Thanks why its usually recommended that you wait at least a month preferably longer before another mdma experience.

All I was really trying to prove was that they are indeed pretty similar and more similar than many people would think. Not exactly the "day and night" difference claimed by some people.
 
MazDan said:
Woah there brother. Your way off the mark.

Meth is an addictive drug.

MDMA is not an addictive drug.


Both have the power to cause physical and mental problems.

Meth when taken as an addict would use it will fuck you over both mentally and physically.

Mdma when taken to much will tend to lose its fun really quick which in turn makes it not much fun to use so if anything its anti addictive. However it can also cause some mental and physical problems although these dont appear to happen to everyone and certainly not to the extent that meth does........in fact not even close.
Click to expand...

The addictive part comes from the user in my opinion.
MDMA can be just as addictive as Meth depending on the user.
If one likes MDMA enough to make it addictive then it will be...
Same with Meth..
I use both heavily and I'm not addicted to either one more than the other.
They are addicting because I like the way they make me feel, no other reason..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top