• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators: Esperighanto

Favorite type of Molly Discussion.

scureto1 said:
...any MDMA synth is producing MDMA and will give an MDMA high. There's so much about a high that's subjective, though, its almost impossible to discuss the idea of a different high. You might roll from MDMA from a particular batch, wait the requisite amount of time, then roll again, same dose, same batch, and will most likely have a different experience from the first one.
Click to expand...
indeed. as we know, the physical appearance of an individual pill gives no indication as to its contents. as such, saying "pill z is more dancey" is pretty meaningless as you (plural) don't even know what's in pill z...

alasdair
 
I just went and read some of those reports. Looks like a lot of those reports had sent off samples for lab testing in Holland. If they're using GC/MS or NMR and say there's only MDMA, then I would say it just has to be a combination of chance and the power of suggestion that many people happen to be reporting the same kinds of experiences on them. Maybe the people writing some of the reports had read other people's reports beforehand and went into their roll with that expectation and made a self-fulfilling prophecy and ended up with the same sort of experience.
 
alasdairm said:
indeed. as we know, the physical appearance of an individual pill gives no indication as to its contents. as such, saying "pill z is more dancey" is pretty meaningless as you (plural) don't even know what's in pill z...

alasdair
Click to expand...

They have every pill lab (GC/MS) tested over and over to contain 170-200mgs of MDMA.


To be fair, people arnt calling it a more speedy roll, but that there are batches that have a much better body roll (euphoria) and pills with much more emotion (empathy)
 
orly?

Damn, I didnt know it was impossible for different synthesization routes to leave different impurities that could change the effects, and/or have different ratios of the isomers that could lead to a semi-consistent type of roll from pill to pill.


What was unexpected was that neither isomer gave the magic of the racemic MDMA. It was almost as if both the separate pharmacological components needed to be present to experience the unusual properties of this drug.
Click to expand...

From Alexander Shulgin, different ratios of the R to S isomer have different effects, ranging from more speedy, to more psychedelic.
 
exhibit A: folley again does a 10-second search on google, grasps onto some jargon, rehashes it in ed to make it seems like he's an expert, adds 2 and 2 and gets 6.

:\

maybe it's because "it had something to do with it being an HCL salt or something" or maybe one manufacturer "used a higher amount of hydrochloride or something like that when stabilizing it". lolfail.

weirdly enough, there's a post here wherein a bluelighter called 'folley' tells another user that "MDMA is MDMA", implying the exact opposite of what you're saying here. are you two related?

alasdair
 
Folley said:
Damn, I didnt know it was impossible for different synthesization routes to leave different impurities that could change the effects, and/or have different ratios of the isomers that could lead to a semi-consistent type of roll from pill to pill.
Click to expand...
I thought you were saying that different ways of synthesizing mdma could result in different isomer ratios in the final product. I think I read it wrong. My mistake :)
 
Uhh except that I answered it before I quoted you?


and you do realize how EXTREMELY hypocritical it is of you to say that right...? Because you have been doing that with almost every post you've replied to of mine.

If your talking about the middle part though, that only very clearly shows how you have to resort to finding old information that we have already moved past and corrected, and try to use that to discredit me. As was your only method in the "Capped MDMA" thread...


That only speaks about your character.



I would like to point out how reluctant alasdair is to say that I could be right, even when Alexander Shulgin himself is the one who originally made the claim.
 
Last edited:
I would say that you're both right and wrong. Clearly, from Shulgin's notes, if someone had gone to the great (for a clandestine chemist) lengths and cost that it would take to make enantiomerically pure MDMA, or even a mixture that heavily favored one enantiomer over the other, it _would_ have a dramatic effect on the roll vs. your typical racemic mixture. So, in that sense, you are right about the synthesis having an effect on the outcome.

However:
a) two different enantiomers are two different things. They will often have similar properties, sometimes even behave chemically identically. But not necessarily, sometimes they will behave very differently, with one being active and the other inactive in humans, or one functioning in the expected way, and the other being highly toxic (rare case, but it has happened). Just because they are both very similar and have the same chemical formula does not mean they are both the same thing. So, if you want to get down that deep into it, R-MDMA and S-MDMA should be considered 2 different and completely distinct drugs, with typical racemic MDMA being a mixture of the two. A left and right shoe are extremely similar, but if you try to use one as the other, you're going to have some problems.

b) No one makes enantiomerically pure MDMA, it would be extremely cost-ineffective, and I would wager that any clandestine chemist with the capability to make enantiomerically pure anything has the sense to know it is not worthwhile, and any clandestine chemist who would be silly enough to do it would not be capable of doing it.

In these ways, I would say that you are wrong.

So, while the theory is possible, it is highly implausible.
 
You must not realize the current scene in Holland.


Every pill there has obscene amounts of MDMA, and all are of the HIGHEST quality. They are everywhere, so for one presser to gain the upper hand (you cant just press a higher dose pill, they're already dosed too high..) it would make a ton of sense to go through the extra effort.

Also, I never said it was going to be a pure R or S isomer pill, in fact I said that the RATIOS of the isomer would be different from pill to pill... Shulgin even said that pure R or S has almost none of the magic of the racemic
 
Yes, that part about Shulgin was the part I was acknowledging and agreeing with you about. A difference in enantiomeric ratios would make a difference. However, by your OWN QUOTE, an enantiomerically pure batch doesn't have the magic. That makes racemic the better product, AND easier to make. Without going too far into synth talk because it is prohibited, I will say that all of the cost-effective routes to synthesizing MDMA involve going from a NON-CHIRAL (neither R or S) reactant to a chiral final product.

What this means is that, basically, each molecule of starting material and each molecule of reagent can either bump into each other from the top face, or the bottom face. There's a 50/50 chance, and with billions upon billions of molecules in the reaction, statistics start to become pretty much perfect. If you flip a coin an infinite number (or 10^100) times, you're pretty much going to get very close to exactly 50% heads and 50% tails, no matter how many "batches" you do.

There are only 2 ways to get a different result: one is to start with an enantiomerically pure starting material (very, very cost-prohibitive) and dramatically alter the synthesis (the resulting synthesis will not be well-suited to industrial-scale, which adds another layer of cost-prohibitiveness). The other way is to use a very specific catalyst that is able to influence the odds of the bottom vs. top approach at that stereocenter-forming step. Usually, finding the right catalyst for a stereoselective reaction like that takes a lot of research and experimentation, even in the best conditions (university or corporate lab, etc). This would be even less cost-effective than the first way.

Even if pure R or S enantiomers were marginally better than racemic MDMA, it would absolutely NOT be cost-effective to go to all that trouble, and as you've said yourself, they are NOT marginally better than racemic MDMA, they are worse. No one is doing this.

So, once again, while this elaborate explanation is POSSIBLE, there is a much simpler and straightforward explanation that is a hell of a lot more likely, and that's just that people happened to report similar experiences from the same drug.

You are obviously smart and do a lot of investigating into the things you are interested in (drugs, drug chemistry, the biology side of how drugs work, etc), and know a lot more than the average person on the street about them, but you are only scratching the surface of understanding the scope of the science behind what you're reading. This is leading you to a lot of erroneous conclusions that would be obvious to you if you had a strong grasp on the more basic concepts of those sciences.

Before getting into an argument about the synthesis of and differences between enantiomers with a group of people whose education levels on these topics you have no idea about, you should probably have taken organic chemistry 1 and 2, or thoroughly read (cover-to-cover, not cherry-picking) a couple of organic chemistry texts.

It's not a coincidence that people seem to be attacking your posts a lot. : /
 
Yes, that would be possible, but the ridiculous cost-and-labor-prohibitiveness of it is well-explained in my post.
 
Again, I dont think you really understand the scene in Holland... people can get the best of the best everyday, no matter what, a pill has to be better than the best MDMA to get any attention around there...

Not to mention, they make it in professional labs funded by the millions of dollars that making drugs can get you..


I really dont think its any big problem for what is considered to be the best MDMA presses in the world :\
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top