Freebase Zolpidem?

[Pothedd]

This is ridiculous. A moderator closed my previous post on this subject, which makes no sense whatsoever. If we are not to Discuss Drugs in ADVANCED DRUG DISCUSSION, then what are we to do?

Do not close this thread, citing "zero harm reduction" as the reason. That is imbecilic. You are saying that no harm could possibly come (to myself) if I try to freebase zolpidem tartrate, and without discussion on the subject there is but one option.
And that is to try it.
Now for christ's sakes, could I get some smart people to have a fucking discussion with me???

Zolpidem tartrate has a melting point of 190-something degrees. I have a manual vaporizer with pyrex vials and a torch lighter.
Is there any evidence that suggests that this wouldn't work?
Somebody in the "snorting ambien" thread had stated that they put it on their weed, and that it worked. That was most likely a placebo effect. I have coated weed with it, and it simply creates a nasty black chunk of drug, wasting them both.
Direct flame destroys it, without a doubt.
However, the tartrate is already a salt, so there would be no need to basify it(?).

Please give me some straight answers. Please don't close my thread. And PLEASE, no flaming, no "ambien works just fine if you eat it", just answer the damn question.
That is all.

 

[ebola?]

You would need first extract the Z' from the pill binders (which likely isn't viable). From there, you'd need to react the Z' with a base and extract to yield the freebase (which may be part of the extraction above), which may be prohibitively difficult, and the freebase may be prohibitively difficult to handle. We'd then need to know the boiling and flash points of the substance, to see whether you can viably vaporize the freebase.

So you can see, this probably isn't viable for amateurs, and if it is, it won't be worth your time.

ebola

 

[Pothedd]

Thank god someone with some information.
Thank you for that.
okay okay, I get it now.
See, I thought that a salt and a base were one in the same.
But come to find out bases react with acids to create a salt or ester (just looked it up).
Meaning tartrate is the end result of of said reaction.
So yes, I finally see what you mean. This process would have to be reversed to produce a base, which would inevitably be a very difficult feat.

So what if one was to attempt to vaporize a salt? Would it simply be destroyed in the process?

 

[Turing Machine]

Depends on the salt. People smoke meth which is a salt all the time, but cocaine hcl doesn't work.

 

[Pothedd]

Hmm... Interesting... So I suppose what matters most is the difference between the melting point and the flash point.
Unfortunately I can't find record of its flash point...
Wow, the melting point however is 196°C.
That's 300something°F
Dang... It sure sounds plausible... But of course no research has been done into such matters. I don't want to risk wasting ambien (lol), but it's beginning to look like the only surefire way of knowing is through experimentation...

 

[cj]

put the shit on some foil and find out I guess? Worst case scenerio you waste drugs and fuck your lungs up a little. I dunno dude what are you trying to achieve more potentency with less drug or a rush? I dont think it will make you rush no matter what as that is just not how the Z drugs work. But by all means let us know how it goes.

 

[Pothedd]

No you misunderstand. I'm not looking to make it more potent or induce a rush of any sort.
My nose is torn up, and even if I don't snort anything for months it doesn't seem to get much better.
Sublingual administration works, you can feel it coming up quickly as long as you keep it in your mouth, but it tastes terrible, and as soon as you swallow it the effect stops.
So you see my dilemma.

I suppose if I do try it I'll tell everyone if it works or not. We recently purchased "The Essential VAAAP" but it is not ideal for plant matter. It works best with liquids or things that melt, but I haven't gotten to use it for anything interesting besides a little hash.

 

[MurphyClox]

Have you read all posts in the now-closed thread??? The thread was not only closed due to "zero harm reduction", but because...

...it was suggested that vaporization won't work due to the already high melting point of zolpidem freebase.

...smoking zolpidem would most probably neither enhance bioavailability nor the 'rush'.

...your insensitivity to zolpidem can not be cured by smoking it and has most probably other reasons, like tolerance or simply because you are a non-responder (ever considered that?).


And these were not so much opinions (as you stated) than rather educated guesses to solve your problem. Seriously, folks were actually trying to help you, but you simply refused. Why so? If you don't believe others, why did you ask in the first place?

You obviously have problems with accepting mod decisions. Let's see how long this thread stays open


- Murphy

 

[Pothedd]

It seems that you haven't been paying attention. Nobody offered any information in the other thread that answered any questions. It was full of flaming and idiots like you. There was not a single response that was an "educated" guess. There were opinions.

A zolpidem freebase was not created, and nobody knows that melting point since we don't have access to it. We have access to zolpidem tartrate, a salt, NOT a freebase, the melting point of which being 196°C.

In THIS thread people answered the questions. People had educated responses.

I didn't say zolpidem doesn't work on me at all. I said it's weak. Get over it.
I have grown weary of using my nose.
I don't know how many times I have to say that. I'm not trying to enhance bioavailability. There is no "rush."

And nobody asked for your input "murphy." I specifically said if you have an irrelevant opinion (such as yours) to avoid the thread at all.

Now here are my findings. It works, you dumbass. Not great, but it works. Scientific experimentation is the answer, not your "(un)educated guesses."
I successfully vaporized zolpidem tartrate last night. It induced an instant head change after the first and second hits, but without a digital thermometer to keep the temperature constant you inevitably end up burning it. After a few hits it began to taste the same as it would if smoked from a pipe. It turned black and stuck to the sides and bottom, and the tartrate doesn't melt, most likely because of pill binders.

As the first person's response stated, for best results the drug would have to be removed from its inert binders. Those binders (I assume) reduce the flash point of the chemical and make the zolpidem that much more flammable.

So, murphy. Just STFU. This is advanced drug discussion, and the purpose of such is to discuss scientific ideals and theories, and to pose all results of experimentation, regardless of the positivity (or negativity) of the outcome.
That is science dumbass. Experimentation with results that can be duplicated.
You don't reduce harm with opinions, so please remove yours from any scientific atmosphere.

"Let's see how long this thread stays open"
To close a thread that is most interested in harm reduction and scientific discovery, on a harm reduction forum, in the most scientific room on said forum, would be a bit counterproductive to say the least.
At any rate IDGAF if it is closed now, because the harm reduction portion has passed. I spoke with an educated moderator, I gathered the information I needed, and I found that freebasing zolpidem IS POSSIBLE. I didn't say it works amazingly well, or that it's even worth it if you're looking to get high on zolpidem, but it IS POSSIBLE. The high doesn't last for long, much shorter than insufflation, and with the binders it is too flammable for vaporization to be a viable RoA.

But this has been the first and only experimentation I have been able to locate on such a matter. I wanted an answer to my questions, but Google was no help.
So thank you, ebola. You have aided me and anyone else who has the same idea.
If you have zolpidem tartrate just snort it. Fuck your nose... Until a less flammable rendition of the chemical is developed, vaporization is not nearly a viable RoA.

And Murphy... Please refrain from sticking your head into rooms you are not welcome in. Maybe read a step or two of the scientific method, then come talk to me about anything (ever).

 

[MurphyClox]

It seems that you haven't been paying attention.

Oh yes, I have.

Nobody offered any information in the other thread that answered any questions. It was full of flaming and idiots like you.

Upon repeated reading, I could find only a single instance of flaming (...by MikeHawk; although he was just right to call the other thread 'ridiculous'). I could also only find one idiot - some retard called "Pothedd".

There was not a single response that was an "educated" guess. There were opinions.

The melting point of zolpidem freebase is not an opinion, it's not even a guess, but a fact from a chemical database.
The complete lack of a boiling for zolpidem in the literature (as well as for its tartrate) - more than 1200 publications for this substance alone! - is indicating that it is not possible to vaporize it, and therefore, not possible to smoke. This too, is not an opinion but very much of a well educated guess, albeit intended for a totally under-educated imbecile like you.

A zolpidem freebase was not created, and nobody knows that melting point since we don't have access to it.

So you are illiterate...or maybe simply daft, because I gave you the melting point of zolpidem freebase. Yes yes, in that other (now closed) thread. Need it again? No need to search, Murphy will be so kind:

Zolpidem freebase got a reported melting point of 194-196 °C.

We have access to zolpidem tartrate, a salt, NOT a freebase, the melting point of which being 196°C.

Ever heard of acid-base-extraction? Naaahh, you didn't even hear of good manners...

In THIS thread people answered the questions. People had educated responses.

Said what??? You call this an 'educated response':

put the shit on some foil and find out I guess? Worst case scenerio you waste drugs and fuck your lungs up a little.

And nobody asked for your input "murphy."

Well, asking stuff in a public forum actually calls for everybody's opinion.

So, murphy. Just STFU. This is advanced drug discussion, and the purpose of such is to discuss scientific ideals and theories, and to pose all results of experimentation, regardless of the positivity (or negativity) of the outcome.

Oh damn it! Now I see. And I thought I was in "Second Opinion". I'm soooo sorry!

That is science dumbass. Experimentation with results that can be duplicated.

You call smoking zolpidem 'science'? Oh man, you are sick, so sick, seriously.


You still did not answer to the question, why the heck you are trying to smoke this shit?! Bioavailability upon oral consumption is great. Ruining your nose (and now your lungs) is just another account for your stupidity.
It doesn't even make sense to smoke a drug (whichever), loosing a lot of material due to combustion, but denying the oral ROA. This is plainly illogical!



...'nuff!

 

[dread]

I had hoped the pill smoking threads had stopped but apparently not... 8)

@OP: stop pilfering mommy's medicine cabinet and smoking/snorting random pills. You're not impressing anyone.

 

[Pothedd]

LMFAO wow murphy you really are an imbecile.
A freebase and a tartrate are two different things. An acid-base extraction is what created the salt. The melting point of the salt and the base would not be the same. You have provided the melting point of the tartrate. That information is everywhere on the internet, so wow, you know how to use google. Good job, you get a gold star.

There is no literature about the vaporization of zolpidem, which is why I am posting here. Also, a person's chosen route of administration doesn't make yours any better. You come to a drug forum and talk shit about how people do their drugs. That makes sense.
Bioavailability may be great, but that's your outlook. 98% of zolpidem is bound in plasma, meaning most of the drug isn't even active in your body. Not to mention oral consumption takes about 15 minutes to kick in, and when it does only a small percentage of the drug is active at any given moment.
Upon intranasal administration all available drug is introduced to the bloodstream AT ONE TIME, which is frankly the only way the substance has an effect on me.

Tin foil isn't an educated response. I was talking about ebola's response. He was helpful. You still have presented nothing more than a couple facts on the melting point of zolpidem TARTRATE, along with a tirade of irrelevance.

And excuse me, but who was the first person to smoke marijuana, or tobacco? Who was the first person to drink rotten fruit? How was any drug discovered and tested?
Science involves experimentation, not hearsay. You say zolpidem is impossible to vaporize. I say you're wrong. Who else has tried it? I'd like to see the literature you refer to. It did not melt, though the zolpidem is not the sole catalyst in that reaction. With binders it is even less likely to do so.
However a certain amount of the drug was vaporized. A very light vapor and a mild head change were produced, but the line between vaporization and combustion was very thin indeed.

The vaporization of zolpidem was not harsh whatsoever. No coughing, much smoother than even marijuana, leading me to believe that the damage to my lungs was negligible compared to the damage done to my nasal cavities.

So seriously; you're trippin'. I don't know where you got your credentials, but when I stated in a public forum that I only wanted responses from people who actually know wtf they're talking about;
that means you, with your head up your ass, can suck a nut and keep your opinion to yourself.
And as I said, you must not have been paying attention. The question has been answered. It is possible to freebase this chemical but it's not a good idea. The differential between vapor and smoke is very low.

Smoking a drug is one of the best RoA for most chemicals. First-pass metabolism reduces the effect of any drug taken orally.
Combustion and vaporization are two different things. Direct flame should not be applied to any purified chemical.

@dread - the pills are mine, I'm an adult fucktard. The purpose of this thread was not to impress anyone but to gather information and empirical research.

You may now resume your normally scheduled flaming and various addictions.
And just because you don't like to snort or smoke a certain drug doesn't mean you're holier than fucking thou. I don't do heroin but that doesn't mean I'm a better person than someone who does. Get over yourselves, get on with your lives, and broaden your fucking horizons you uneducated pieces of shit.
Maybe go to college instead of presenting "educated" guesses all the time. You might learn a thing or two (or not, w/e).
Have fun with your shitty and meaningless existence.

 

[SKL]

LOL wow

I'm legitimately speechless right now

 

[MurphyClox]

The melting point of the salt and the base would not be the same.

Give me a scientific reason why this should be so!

You have provided the melting point of the tartrate.

*yaaaawn* No, I have provided the melting point of the free base...

I'd like to see the literature you refer to.

Will you finally shut up then?
For example:

• 196°C: European patent EP 50563 (do you speak french or just bullshit?)
  194°C: Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2010, 49, p.2803
  194-195°C: German patent DE 10121638 A1

Yes, I know how to use Google. Google and at least a dozen other quite sophisticated databases for which you lack the sanity to either know or to use 'em.

The rest of your last post was just not worth responding to.

 

[Pothedd]

At any rate, I don't know why this thread is still open. I've compiled the data I needed. The vaporization of zolpidem is possible, but as stated before the line between vaporization and combustion is very thin.

But hey, those patents are still talking about zolpidem SALTS. They go on to state that the salts "do not exhibit a melting endotherm corresponding to zolpidem freebase."
Meaning they don't melt as the freebase would.

Anyway, I've been done with this experiment since last night. I truly don't care what you think you know. The results are in; vaporization is plausible but definitely not the best way to do the drug.
That was my only purpose, was to answer that question.
This thread has now lost its value and can be closed.

 

[SKL]

ib4tc

 

[MurphyClox]

At any rate, I don't know why this thread is still open.

Me neither.

I've compiled the data I needed.

You've compiled a heap of bullshit, nothing else.

But hey, those patents are still talking about zolpidem SALTS. They go on to state that the salts "do not exhibit a melting endotherm corresponding to zolpidem freebase."
Meaning they don't melt as the freebase would.

In contrary to you did I actually read these 3 references. NONE of them is referring to a salt. All three describe the synthesis of zolpidem, but none mentions the conversion into a salt.

This thread has now lost its value and can be closed.

It never had any real value except entertaining the mods. You are simply afraid of facing the truth, which is that you were talking nonsense since your last thread was opened.


Why are you so ignorant? Take the time and try to find those 3 cited references. Seriously! I know that you think of me as an arrogant asshole. But the patents and the supporting information of the Angewandte Chemie-article are all open access. You are nothing than a coward fool, denying the obvious fact that somebody has proven you wrong. There are several other references stating the same, but I've deliberately chosen sources with free access so that anybody can check it himself.
I took the time and searched the whole support info of the Angew Chem-paper for the terms "tartrate" or "tartaric acid". No surprise, I couldn't find them. Because I guess that you are simply too proud to face the truth, may I cite it for you:




I have no idea whatsoever where your citation was taken from; personally, I trust Scifinder and peer-review-journals with an impact factor greater 1.0. The only thing you are demonstrating is the so-called bullshit-factor, although at an uncommonly high value.

You are simply dumb. It's as simply as that, I'm afraid.

 

[atara]

I, uh, have a better idea.

Crush up the pill with a mortar and pestle until your arm wants to fall off. Do a cold water extraction for three hours, then filter out the pill and swish the water around in your mouth for fifteen minutes or until you realize I made this all up, but it still might work. I don't have any idea whether sublingual would be better than oral, but maybe it'll work and you can stop looking like a moron.

EDIT: Sublingual is mentioned as a ROA on the Wikipedia page. Score!

 

[kong]

Pure zopiclone powder has a quicker onset smoked, peaking in a couple minutes. No real rush or increase in recreational effects which imo hardly exist to start with.

Can't imagine going to the trouble of extracting from pills to smoke. If smoked zolpidem is anything like zopiclone it won't be worth the effort.

 

[dread]

I'm an adult fucktard

That, I agree with.