• REAGENT TESTING & DRUG CHECKING Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Featured Link 1 Featured Link 2
  • RT&DC Moderators: Senior Staff

Dancesafe testing

  • Thread starter Thread starter clear skies
  • Start date Start date
C

clear skies

Guest
Someone mentioned the testing methods used by Dancesafe for active compounds. The theory of these methods are actually not very complicated, and in fact in my opinion, are simpler than the mechanism of the marquis reagent. Gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy basically use the fundamental law that compounds emit and absorb light at a specific wavelength. For example, sodium emits light at a lower wavelength, somewhere in the neighborhood of the color yellow on the spectrum (remember ROY G. BIV?) Gas chromatography basically "burns" the compound in question and uses optical sensors to determine the wavelength of the light emitted. This is done on a device called a spectrophotometer. This is a much easier, and far more accurate way to test for MDMA than the marquis reagent, but tremendously more expensive.
 
Yeah, and the reason you can't do this in your kitchen, and thus can never really know the strength of a pill... btw, this is also how scientists know the chemical makeup of stars, by the spectra they emit
smile.gif

Does anyone know why DanceSafe will test pills for free, but says you must make a $100 donation to have a gelcap/powder tested? The only thing I can think of is that they are mainly set up for pills, so a cap is kind of a "special order" situation - they charge money not because it's harder to test (I would think it would be easier, or at least faster - you don't have to prepare the substance at all, it's right there), but simply because the procedure required is slightly different than what they're mostly set up to do?
------------------
Live wrong and preposterously.
 
I'm not completely sure on this one, but here's what I've heard on why Dancesafe won't test powder for free. I don't think it has to do with the ease or cost of the test. Rather, Dancesafe pays the bill for pill testing because it benefits everyone -- people can see what the pill looks like and what it came from. They can post a picture, the pill dimensions, and everyone can benefit from it. On the other hand, powder is powder and gel caps are gel caps. They're not distinct, so it doesn't really benefit everyone else like a pill does. Dancesafe would essentially be doing a favor to a single individual, or group of individuals. Dancesafe exists to truly help keep people safer, and being a non-profit organization, I would guess that their financial priorities lie where it can benefit the most people.
 
Oh... dude... I feel dumb now. That's some really good reasoning there.
(If anyone's wondering why I don't just ask DanceSafe, it's because I'm shy about randomly emailing people, just like I hate calling up businesses even to find out their hours. I'm a hermit. I'm antisocial. That, and I couldn't tell which of their email addys would be the appropriate one.)
------------------
Live wrong and preposterously.
 
DanceSafe is a young organisation that still has to learn a lot, if you ask me.
You wrote "Rather, Dancesafe pays the bill for pill testing because it benefits everyone -- people can see what the pill looks like and what it came from. They can post a picture, the pill dimensions, and everyone can benefit from it. "
Did it ever occur to anyone that they are facilitating copycats ??
DanceSafe is making a very big mistake by publishing positive results. They should only publish negative results. By publishing positive results, copycats know exactly what to make etc.
This is not really my opinion but the opinion of several HR organisations (DIMS) in The Netherlands and after listening to their story, I must say I agree with them.
These guys also thought that just publishing negative results would not be a bad idea.
Anyway, I wanted to say this a long time ago already but kept it for myself. Not anymore...
What do you guys think ?
Is it a good idea to publish positive results as well or would it be more sensible to only publish negative results ??
aj
 
I think it would be better to publish only negative results, because of the copycat thing. If you check out pillreports.com and go back a month or so you notice that a pill first described as good often ends up described as crappy a while later. (ie; the copies have started to appear).
 
all of dancesafe's local chapters are only permitted to post negative results. however, the national office posts all the results, and this reason, well i can ask them, but i would have to imagine its because of the amount of pills they get in to test.. people who send in a pill that tests positive would never get any information back from dancesafe, so they would never know if their pill was actually tested, or recieved. this doesnt hold true with the local chapters however, because the only testing they get done is at a party or one on one basis.
 
I think Dancesafe should definitely publish results, whether good or bad. It may encourage copycats -- but I don't think that's the big determinate. Remember when everyone was taking Green Tweeties, and they were all "woah! This is the best shit ever!" A bunk batch followed soon. And there was never a report on Dancesafe. Hype is so much more potent, and most E users are ignorant of online testing.
But Dancesafe doesn't really tell you how *good* it is. If it says "MDMA only" that just means MDMA is the only active drug. So a Double Stack Ferrari might contain 120 mg of MDMA, and maybe a Mitsi is 30 mg MDMA with a lot of filler. But they'd still be listed as "MDMA only". That's why it's got to be the hype that determines what brands are gonna get corrupted.
 
Hi everyone,
It's Emanuel from DanceSafe. The reason we post all results from the lab (even positive ones) is because this is the only way we can communicate results to the user. Since pills are sent in anonymously, people would have no way of knowing whether their pill arrived if we didn't post the results.
As someone else mentioned, onsite positive test results are not posted publicly, but rather only negative ones.
And, yes, the reason we do not pay for powder samples is because then nobody would send in the whole tablet, but rather just scrape some off, and others would not get to see what the pill actually looked like.
Also, aj, are you aj from EZ-Test? If so, we should talk privately. Please email me.
Emanuel
 
I believe its good to post both the good and the bad results. Whilst copycats do appear, is no info at all better than some?
Dancesafe have the added bonus of being about to do proper lab testing, here in Aus we can't truly tell what is what here (btw - where are those TLC plates? heh), as the only things we can use are the reagents.
 
You wrote: "The reason we post all results from the lab (even positive ones) is because this is the only way we can communicate results to the user."
I understand you want to communicate results to a user but it still facilitates copycats... Anyway, this is my opinion and the opinion of Dutch Harm reduction organisations that do this kind of stuff for more than ten years already. I think publishing negative results only is better. Just my opinion. And Yes, I am aj from EZ Test.
Why should I contact you ?
Pls. contact Ewoud, he has emailed you numerous times.
aj
 
Since we have to be anonymous for the testing to be legal and all (so I understand?) how do they link up $100 donations to gelcaps? I mean, if I sent a cap with a check it'd be bloody obvious who exactly possessed the thing, right? How does that work? And are results from that posted to the site too, or what?
------------------
Live wrong and preposterously.
 
the reason dancesafe tests pills for free but charges $100 to have them tested in a lab is simple: onsite pill testing uses Marquis reagent which is practically free, and lab testing uses extremely expensive and sensitive equipment.
your statements about GC/MS are wrong. GC and MS are fairly complicated. but i feel like explaining them. =)
gas chromatography works by heating the sample, causing the components of the sample to volatilize at their respective boiling points, and forcing the vapor through a column with helium gas, then recording the absorption to get a graph. the variables involved are current (related to boiling point) and retention time (related to how long it takes the gas to go through the column, which in turn is related to the boiling point; substances with a lower boiling point are extracted first). the procedure is quite sensitive and can detect differences in boiling point of as little as 0.1 degree. essentially, GC tells you little about the compound's chemistry; it does, however, tell you how many chemicals are in the sample, and a very advanced spectrometer may even allow the analyst to collect each fraction separately.
these fractions can then be tested using mass spectrometry, which is probably the best method of characterizing an unknown. mass spectrometry works by ionizing the compound in an electric field, essentially creating a 'stream' of charged particles, which is bent in a magnetic field. the position on the detector plate at which the ions strike is then recorded, and the results are output as a very, very confusing graph of mass/charge ratio vs. percent composition relative to the most common species (if i remember right). this allows you to establish the molecular weight of the "molecular ion" as well as fragments of the molecule created as it breaks apart. even more confusingly, because of the different isotopes involved, MS may detect as many as five or six peaks *per ion formed*. the dancesafe labs would compare their results against a database, but you could, in theory, identify a compound based on its MS data alone.
summary: GC separates the components of the pill, MS identifies them.
btw: the lab DOES know exactly how much of each compound is in the sample. they just aren't allowed to report it.
 
the reason dancesafe tests pills for free but charges $100 to have them tested in a lab is simple: onsite pill testing uses Marquis reagent which is practically free, and lab testing uses extremely expensive and sensitive equipment.
Click to expand...
Nuh-uh. They do lab testing of PILLS for free (you mail it in, free, anonymous). They require a $100 donation for GELCAPS and I was wondering about that. Clear Skies gave a pretty good rationale.. now I'm just wondering how they know a gelcap that's been sent in has been "paid for", or how it can remain anon/legal/etc otherwise, or whatever. Just confused...
------------------
Live wrong and preposterously.
 
It's obvious that Dancesafe has access to the content of a pill -- lab testing, and MS identifies that. Since they DON'T post that (anymore), I still feel that Dancesafe is not promoting copycats. The majority of what's sold as Ecstasy truly does contain MDMA. Granted there is a good bit of bunk stuff out there, and Dancesafe does a good job of discouraging those brands. But if you look at the lab results, and you see most of everything saying "MDMA only" then no brand is singled out to be copied. Copycats are the result of hype. Unless you have a spectrophotometer on hand, you DON'T know the content. Dancesafe won't tell you. The hype is what tells dealers what's popular. Thus, Dancesafe is doing no disservice to anyone by posting public results.
 
"I understand you want to communicate results to a user but it still facilitates copycats... Anyway, this is my opinion and the opinion of Dutch Harm reduction organisations that do this kind of stuff for more than ten years already. I think publishing negative results only is better. Just my opinion. And Yes, I am aj from EZ Test."
Click to expand...
But AJ, is it not also possible in the Netherlands for anyone to walk into a HR office and get their pill tested with the same level of detail as the dancesafe reports. In the US, you would be arrested for sure.
The reason then, that the dutch don't post positive reports is because it is possible for the user to have the same detail privately communicated to them. This is not the case in the US.
It my harm reduction mindset, it would not make sense to only give the drug user negative information. How, for instance, would someone know that the pill they sent in was actually safe rather than full of PMA and lost in the mail.
Maybe it would be good to institute some way of letting users write an anonymous 'reference code' on their pills. This could then be used in an web based lookup to see if your pill had been tested.
We are still in the process of trying to set up a lab in Canada. If we do it will be interesting to see how it is possible to fund it and run it.
I think this argument is based primarily on the different services that are available in each country. It's secondarily a tiff between rival testing kits manufacturers. :p
 
yeah, sorry about the gelcap thing, i read it wrong. i think another reason for it might be to discourage people from sending in caps of some other powder they bought to see if it's real, since dancesafe's testing mandate is to test *E* to see if it's real MDMA or something more dangerous, not to make sure someone's crystal is real. also, gelcap results are of little use to anyone but the person who sent in the cap because you obviously can't tell caps apart.
and yeah, hype is definitely the reason copycats happen, not dancesafe. not everyone knows about dancesafe's page, but *everyone* hears about what's 'good' and 'bad'. ones that sell more get copied. and really, i don't think they'd take the time to make pills *exactly* the same size as the ones on the page, which stresses why it's important to measure pills before assuming they're the same as the one on the page.
personally, i favor posting *all* results. suppose someone has to choose between, oh, pink bunnies, green hearts and white mitsus. they measure both pills and check dancesafe, but now they're only posting negative results. well, green hearts are PCP and crystal, so they don't get those, but neither of the other ones are on there. remembering the PMA white mitsus, they pick the pink bunnies. and it just happens that pink bunnies are PMA, p-chloroamphetamine (highly neurotoxic), Magic Acid (a 'superacid') and a chunk of razor blade.
it's an extreme example, yeah, but now imagine that dancesafe still tested positive results... and the person found pure MDMA white mitsus with exactly the same measurements on the site.
basically.. there's a huge variety of pills out there, and dancesafe can't test them all. since no one is likely to duplicate the measurements down to 0.1 mm, a sample tab with the same appearance and measurements as one on the site is fairly likely to have the same contents. that allows a potential user to know a few relatively better choices than just knowing a few to avoid. at any rate, i'd say you have a smaller probability of choosing a dangerous pill if you choose one based on it having a positive result on the page, rather than it NOT having a negative one. see what i mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top