• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!

How we rolled in the 90s when the pills were super strong

MDMA has been made the same way for 30 or more years. The molecule hasn't changed. Your serotonin system has.

Thats not strictly true there are various ways to make it and a lot of it is dictated by what precursors and equipment are avaiable at the time.

The molecule hasnt changed but added with different salts and isomer charges it can be very different.

When I was last taking MDMA I was still getting strong batches so there were no down regulation issues just that some pills and powders are better than others.
 
Black market MDMA is always racemic and is almost always the HCl salt, although the sulfate salt might be interesting just to synthesize out of curiosity if you wanted. I agree that different pills have different personalities if you will, but it's kind of like alcohol: All alcoholic drinks contain EtOH but there are a plethora of alcoholic bibations, all with different personalities as well.
 
Something I found out recently if you change the salt of MDMA you can have many more possibilitie of isomer options. MDMA HCL has only two isomers but othr salts can have loads of isomers so in theory there could be 100s of different types of MDMA.

Could you point me to where you read that? I don't think that is entirely accurate. Either incorrect or missing some key piece of information.
 
Black market MDMA is always racemic and is almost always the HCl salt,

Not true exstasydata and streetworx wont test for salt or isomer loading so you will never really know heres a forensic report that we rarely get a chance to see and it suggests otherwise to what you are saying.

HCL is more common. Racemic is more common but not unheard of. I lot of the assumption is based on the lack of testing ecstasydata and streetworx will not declare any isomer or salt tests.

We dont really know how many labs use alternative salts but citrates, phosphates and acetates I often hear notes and reports on. Citrates give a more intense up short lived and quick out. I know this because I was recently reading about someone who had made and tried some.

although the sulfate salt might be interesting just to synthesize out of curiosity if you wanted.

When you make a sulphate from MDMA it becomes very hydroscophic and lamost impossible to handle.

Could you point me to where you read that? I don't think that is entirely accurate. Either incorrect or missing some key piece of information.

http://www.4shared.com/folder/i3RtojPn/Tablets.html

Unlike MDMA hydrochloride, which has only one formulation (i.e., [HMDMA]Cl), a triple-charged phosphate anion can exist in
three ionization forms, namely PO4 3, HPO4 2, or H2PO4 . Thus, three phosphate salt formulations of MDMA: (HMDMA)3PO4 (2), (HMDMA)2HPO4 (3), and (HMDMA)H2PO4 (4) are possible.

This is quoted from the same source so theoretically if you can have a triple ionization forms of phosphate then you could have 6 possible isomers all with different characteristics.

As I understand it the citrate salt can have other formations and as a result multiple alternate isomers as well.

It's not accurate at all.

Maybe you could explain what you mean instead of just saying its not right.
 
Unlike MDMA hydrochloride, which has only one formulation (i.e., [HMDMA]Cl), a triple-charged phosphate anion can exist in
three ionization forms, namely PO4 3, HPO4 2, or H2PO4 . Thus, three phosphate salt formulations of MDMA: (HMDMA)3PO4 (2), (HMDMA)2HPO4 (3), and (HMDMA)H2PO4 (4) are possible.

(i) All common synthetic pathways to MDMA, whether by safrole or piperonal, yield the racemate. The only way to get R or S MDMA from there is to separate out the two isomers via chiral resolution. Black market labs don't do that.

(ii) When salts dissociate in water or your stomach, you get R-MDMA, S-MDMA and Cl- ions in the case of the hydrochloride salt. Or, in the case of the phosphate, R-MDMA, S-MDMA (in solution), and various phosphate anions. No new isomers are produced by using phosphoric acid to crystallize the x.

To summarize, MDMA only has two isomers, R and S. Nothing, including using different counter ions, changes that fact.
 
Interesting find on the phosphate salts, that's pretty cool and the way they confirmed it is cool, too.

You are either mistaken or misusing the word isomer, though. You are right about the three different phosphate anion forms, and they will indeed form 3 different salts with MDMA.

However, the word "isomer" refers only to the MDMA (freebase) portion. The word isomer itself means something that has the exact same chemical composition, quantity-wise, but with the bonds positioned differently. A stereoisomer is a special subclass of isomer, referring to a set of compounds that have both identical chemical compositions AND identically positioned bonds. The only different between stereoisomers is in three-dimensional structure. A bond that points "upward" in one stereoisomer may point "downward" on the other. A position at which this type of 3-dimensional isomerism can occur is called a stereocenter, and each stereocenter multiplies the number of possible stereoisomers by 2 (with a molecule that has no stereocenters only having 1 stereoisomer, itself).

MDMA has 1 stereocenter, and thus 2 stereoisomers, the R and S forms. Changing the acid used to make the salt does produce a new salt that may have some influence on rate of absorption and metabolism, but it is not the same thing as a different isomer. The 3 phosphate salts, or any other salt, are still only attached to the R and/or S isomers of MDMA. Stereoisomers can cause very dramatic changes in a substance's effect, ranging from one stereoisomer being active and the other being totally inactive, or even one stereoisomer being safe and useful while the other has toxic effects (read about the drug Thalidomide if interested in this).

So, no matter what salt the MDMA is affixed to, in the end, the drug interacting with your body's receptors is R-MDMA or S-MDMA. There is nothing else. If there is anything else, it is not MDMA.
 
(i) All common synthetic pathways to MDMA, whether by safrole or piperonal, yield the racemate. The only way to get R or S MDMA from there is to separate out the two isomers via chiral resolution. Black market labs don't do that.

To resolve an isomer is more hassle but there is no evidence to suggest a clan lab wont do this. One suspect is the defqon dance pill it GC/MS tests for MDMA only but is very dancey compared to other pills. I have also been on other threads where by users claim certain allergic reactions to defqons. edata and streetworx wont test isomers so we never know. You cannot be sure in this way.

(ii) When salts dissociate in water or your stomach, you get R-MDMA, S-MDMA and Cl- ions in the case of the hydrochloride salt. Or, in the case of the phosphate, R-MDMA, S-MDMA (in solution), and various phosphate anions. No new isomers are produced by using phosphoric acid to crystallize the x.

To summarize, MDMA only has two isomers, R and S. Nothing, including using different counter ions, changes that fact.

I see what your saying about the isomer the molecule would need some kind of change to allow for more isomers. However what this does show is there are other salt types and also alternative salt types with different charged states so many possibilities for 'different' types of pills.

My argument is MDMA is not just MDMA it can be delivered in many different formats before we have even ventured into impurities and adulterants.

Pills of the 90s were very different and cause of frazzled serotonin network and all MDMA is the same is a poor argument.
 
It could also be because of global warming. It could also be because we have a black President. It could also be because of a cosmic alignment that shifted when we transitioned into the year 2000. It could also be because...ad infinitum.

Your argument is based upon a very fragmented understanding of the chemistry side of the picture.

You base this argument:

My argument is MDMA is not just MDMA

upon this premise:

it can be delivered in many different formats

The premise is true, strictly speaking. I very strongly doubt that there are many alternate salts floating around, but I am willing to entertain the idea that I might be wrong about that. However, delivery in a different format does not mean reception of a different drug. If your bread is delivered in a beer truck, will it get you drunk? The sole purpose of the counter-ion is simply to make the stable, near-neutral-pH salt. Some salts will pass through the digestive tract a bit faster than others, which can serve as a sort of mini "extended release" mechanism. But that is ALL. Changing the salt does not change the drug itself. It is still simply R-MDMA or L-MDMA hitting the receptors. If it is not adulterated, MDMA is indeed just MDMA.
 
It could also be because of global warming. It could also be because we have a black President. It could also be because of a cosmic alignment that shifted when we transitioned into the year 2000. It could also be because...ad infinitum.

Your argument is based upon a very fragmented understanding of the chemistry side of the picture.

This is a strange basis for a discussion yes I am very aware you have a chemistry background and I do not. However, I have a brain, I read quite a bit and like with all these drug based discussions there are no absolute answers. I do value your knowledge on this topic a lot and often ask you questions about chemistry which I love and respect but I dont really understand what you mean by this above.

I argue that MDMA is not just MDMA because it comes in so many different formats. If we were given powdered MDMA HCL in a vial with spatula and 0.001g scales were all working to the 100% HCL measurement not the 84% base measurement then I accept an MDMA hit would be an MDMA hit. However this is absolutely not the case. There is still some question over what the dose actually is we have discussed it to death but the final answer was never given from edata or streetworx. We reckon shulgin works to HCL doses but we dont know for sure. The Channel 4 programme drugs live were using the 84% dose. And thats just dosing... Its confusing and totall non conformist.

Add impurities, synth methods, adulterants, criminals playing chemists etc etc then what im really saying is one MDMA pill (ie one that tests mdma) on edata might well be a very different buzz to another mdma pill (on edata)

The sole purpose of the counter-ion is simply to make the stable, near-neutral-pH salt. Some salts will pass through the digestive tract a bit faster than others, which can serve as a sort of mini "extended release" mechanism. But that is ALL. Changing the salt does not change the drug itself. It is still simply R-MDMA or L-MDMA hitting the receptors. If it is not adulterated, MDMA is indeed just MDMA.

As simple as you make this sound many disagree particularly those in the 'Hive' World.

I have seen numerous discussions from cook chemists discussing salts and they definitely add different salts and the process of a different salt sure makes for a different buzz.

Listed below is an extract from a salt based discussion:


Here is the title of a thread named "MDx. Tartrate?"

Anyone tried this? Is it really 2x as potent as MDx.hcl? Love as much info as possible, thanks.

i dont know about the tartrate, but its a fact that the citrate is.
i have seen reference by producers that the tartrate is 2x as potent as the HCl, but not an actual reference in a scientific journal...

a lot of drugs are delivered on different salts to obtain extended release or a more smother high.

If I recall correctly in order to produce a neutral tartrate salt of MDMA it would require two MDMA cations to one Tartrate anion. So in theory you should have a product that is twice the potency relative to molar mass.

In terms of PK/PD, bio-availability, and effects I have no idea if the tartrate salt of MDMA yields any appreciable differences relative to the HCl salt, I suspect there are Cool

the neutral tartrate contains no less than TWICE the MDMA per mole!!!!! the hydrogen citrate too!!! it's like freaking SUPERDRUGS!!!

me and neilpatrickharriss both tried the citrate it was mdma II citrate
the onset is slower but when it peaks it last 3 hours and the comdown is subtle and no hangover.
lasts longer and is more hallucinogenic like mda quite different that street xtc.

I have heard the same types of qualitative reports that the citrate and tartrate salts are more hallucinogenic, may take longer for effects to be experienced, yield a calmer comedown and are devoid of any type of hangover.
This is not surprising to me, I know its hard to grasp since the active molecule is still MDMA

I may be way off, but maybe it has to do with the chirality? With the citrate and tartrate forming the more powerful isomer

Tartaric acid by it self is chiral, it has 3 isomers, but the one you can buy it's pure dextrotartaric acid, since it's the natural isomer occuring in the nature. Who knows if one added dextrotartaric acid to MDMA freebase in alcohol and obtained pure d-MDMA, just like what you can do with racemic meth to obatin pure d-meth, and after a bioassay he said, fuck it's more potent! Cant explain my self what happens with citrates, since with them you cant resolute anything.
 
When I say that you are wrong about something, I'm not trying to say that you don't have a brain or aren't intelligent. The simple fact of the matter is that much of what goes on in chemistry is NOT intuitive, and assessing things based mainly on what "makes sense" intuitively is going to lead to a lot of wrong conclusions. The point I was getting at with all of those "It could also be..." statements was that there are an infinite number of possible hypotheses for this, and without doing any testing whatsoever, all hypotheses are equally plausible or implausible. In such a case, the only thing that can be deferred to is the currently accepted scientific models of how similar systems work. Similar systems (all available data, in fact) indicate that changing the salt does not change the activity of the drug, only the absorption rate.

Add impurities, synth methods, adulterants,

Adulterants absolutely do play a role, but that would not be a case of "MDMA is not just MDMA", that would be a case of "this adulterant is not MDMA". Of course it isn't.

Synth methods play absolutely no role, apart from that fact that a different route will leave behind different impurities. There are multiple papers that have been written in which they have rigorously investigated (by way of DOING the syntheses and analyzing their products at each stage) the identities of the impurities produced by each route. I have one such paper on my desk right now - I'd be happy to share a link to it. It indicates that all of these impurities are in trace amounts, detectable only by sensitive spectroscopic methods. The majority of the by-products are not psychoactive compounds. Of the ones that are, the amounts are so far below threshold amounts that it is laughable to think that they would cause a noticeable effect.

As simple as you make this sound many disagree particularly those in the 'Hive' World.

The posters of the Hive did a lot to collect and disseminate drug synthesis information, and some of them were definitely expert chemists as well. However, a great deal of them were people with little to no chemistry background. On the lowest end, you had people with absolutely no knowledge of chemistry simply following recipes posted by others, in the middle, there were those with just enough chemistry background to produce writings that sound convincing but are not based on sound theory, and then a few who were experts in synthesis who wrote some stuff that was of high enough quality to be publishable. That group in the middle did a LOT of wild speculation that has no business being passed on.

Here is an example of such speculation and incorrect conclusion, from the thread you pasted:

the neutral tartrate contains no less than TWICE the MDMA per mole!!!!! the hydrogen citrate too!!! it's like freaking SUPERDRUGS!!!

Yes, if tartaric acid was used to produce the salt, the resulting salt could have two MDMA-H+ molecules per one mole of tartrate. This has no more of an effect on what you would end up taking than changing to an HBr or any other salt. The resulting salt will be 72% MDMA. (This was obtained by dividing the mass contributed by the 2 MDMA molecules, 386.5, by the total molar mass of the salt, 537.37). If you take a 100mg dose of this salt, you end up with 72mg of MDMA. So, if anything, mass-for-mass, this salt would be LESS potent than the HCl salt. Perhaps it absorbs faster or slower and gives a more or less intense come-up, but that is the limit of the effect that the salt can have.

i dont know about the tartrate, but its a fact that the citrate is.

What makes this a fact?

I may be way off, but maybe it has to do with the chirality? With the citrate and tartrate forming the more powerful isomer

The acids themselves have no effect on which isomer is produced - the identity of the stereoisomer is determined solely at the time of the creation of the stereocenter. In MDMA's case, during the reductive amination. All of the common (and economically viable) methods of reductively aminating MDMA are not stereospecific, i.e. they produce a 50/50 mix of each enantiomer. Using a chiral acid like tartaric acid for making the salt will produce a 50/50 mixture of two salts: one with the R-MDMA and one with the S-MDMA and they will no longer be enantiomers. Thus they may then have different solubilities and be separable by crystallization methods. To get high purity in this way will likely take repeated crystallization cycles. More importantly, though, if the final product is delivered as a single enantiomer, it means that the other enantiomer, 50% of the mass or product produced, is being thrown away. Anyone who believes that is or was ever happening on a large scale is insane. Furthermore, Shulgin's reports of dosing with pure enantiomers do not indicate that there is any benefit to separating the enantiomers.

Before the post I made earlier, I went to read 3 journal articles investigating the efficacy and safety of Adderall XR, since that is a well-known example of a drug sold as mixed salts, to see what was said about the salts. The salts were not mentioned whatsoever in any of the studies, except in referring to the drug as MAS (mixed amphetamine salts). The only things that they measured were plasma concentrations of d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine, because those are the only things that mattered. The only reference whatsoever to the salts were from the manufacturer, who claimed that the mixture of salts made the effects smoother (with softer highs and lows), which would be a result of absorption rate.

Then, there is also this, from the Wikipedia entries on generic drugs and on bioequivalence:

Most nations require generic drug manufacturers to prove their formulation exhibits bioequivalence to the innovator product. In the U.S., the FDA must approve generic drugs just as innovator drugs must be approved. The FDA requires the bioequivalence of the generic product to be between 80% and 125% of that of the innovator product.
...
Bioequivalence, however, does not mean generic drugs must be exactly the same (“pharmaceutical equivalent”) as their innovator product counterparts, as chemical differences may exist (different salt or ester – a “pharmaceutical alternative”).
...
Birkett (2003) defined bioequivalence by stating that, "two pharmaceutical products are bioequivalent if they are pharmaceutically equivalent and their bioavailabilities (rate and extent of availability) after administration in the same molar dose are similar to such a degree that their effects, with respect to both efficacy and safety, can be expected to be essentially the same.

This clearly states that while generic drugs must have bioequivalence with their brand name counterparts, they are not necessarily required to be comprised of the same salts. From this you can infer that salts can be interchanged while still maintaining the same pharmaceutical action from a drug. Find me one example of a pharmaceutical drug that has one effect as one salt, and a distinctly different effect as another salt, and I'll get off your back.

The simplest and most reasonable explanation for all of the differences in subjective experience, the one which doesn't violate numerous other experimental results and models, the one that adheres to Occam's Razor, to use Folley's effective phrasing, is that subjective experiences are, indeed, subjective. Going into an experience after reading someone else's account of it being different and special and thus expecting something different and special may very well lead to an experience that seems different and special to you. Set, setting, expectations, and the individual partaking all play very dramatic roles in the subjective experience of any psychoactive drug. To paraphrase Shulgin, a psychadelic experience does not come just from the drug, it comes from the synergy of the user's mind and the effects of the drug. Two people can take the same drug and have very different experiences. One person can take the same drug on two different occasions and have very different experiences. That's all this is, that and a healthy dose of the confirmation bias.
 
^ thanks for the well-considered post.
Two people can take the same drug and have very different experiences. One person can take the same drug on two different occasions and have very different experiences.
amen.

i would just add that if something "could be..." then it also "could not be..." which makes "could be..." a pretty low-weight debate technique.

alasdair
 
When I say that you are wrong about something, I'm not trying to say that you don't have a brain or aren't intelligent. The simple fact of the matter is that much of what goes on in chemistry is NOT intuitive, and assessing things based mainly on what "makes sense" intuitively is going to lead to a lot of wrong conclusions.

You didnt say I was wrong about something specifically you said my argument was based on a very fragmented understanding of chemistry. What I am saying is either right or wrong just because I dont understand chemistry to the same level as yourself it doesnt make someones argument instantly uncredable.

The point I was getting at with all of those "It could also be..." statements was that there are an infinite number of possible hypotheses for this, and without doing any testing whatsoever, all hypotheses are equally plausible or implausible. In such a case, the only thing that can be deferred to is the currently accepted scientific models of how similar systems work. Similar systems (all available data, in fact) indicate that changing the salt does not change the activity of the drug, only the absorption rate.

This is true to a point but we also have user experience to fall back on and from what I can see if you change the salt you can change the perceived high of the MDMA. I do accept data on this is limited mainly due to the restrictions on edata and streetworx but there is some data out there that indicates what I am saying about salts adjusting the buzz might be true.

Adulterants absolutely do play a role, but that would not be a case of "MDMA is not just MDMA", that would be a case of "this adulterant is not MDMA". Of course it isn't.

Depends how you read into it. I see what you are saying a pill from a purely scientific case this is true but in reality pills contain adulterants whether we like it or not come claim the inert fillers such as manitol interact with the MDMA and can effect the high. Some pressers add pseudoephederine perhaps in hope to enhance the MDMA experience. I accept adulterants are not MDMA but they play a big role in interacting with MDMA possibley contributing to the 90s pill experience.

Synth methods play absolutely no role, apart from that fact that a different route will leave behind different impurities. There are multiple papers that have been written in which they have rigorously investigated (by way of DOING the syntheses and analyzing their products at each stage) the identities of the impurities produced by each route. I have one such paper on my desk right now - I'd be happy to share a link to it. It indicates that all of these impurities are in trace amounts, detectable only by sensitive spectroscopic methods. The majority of the by-products are not psychoactive compounds. Of the ones that are, the amounts are so far below threshold amounts that it is laughable to think that they would cause a noticeable effect.

According to this document pills have been found containing phosphate salts, MDP, MD2P, N-FORMYL-MDMA, MD-P2P all found in the end product most of them synth impurities from ceratin synth methods as stated in the document.

http://www.4shared.com/folder/i3RtojPn/Tablets.html

It is a known fact amongst clandestine chemists if you leave MDMA powder as a brown sludgee it has a heavier 'kick' than crystaline white crystals that are described as a cleaner high. Im not saying a brown splodge of MDMA is good but I think we can honestly say impurities left over from synths definitely effect the overall high of a tab or wrap .

The posters of the Hive did a lot to collect and disseminate drug synthesis information, and some of them were definitely expert chemists as well. However, a great deal of them were people with little to no chemistry background. On the lowest end, you had people with absolutely no knowledge of chemistry simply following recipes posted by others, in the middle, there were those with just enough chemistry background to produce writings that sound convincing but are not based on sound theory, and then a few who were experts in synthesis who wrote some stuff that was of high enough quality to be publishable. That group in the middle did a LOT of wild speculation that has no business being passed on.

Every forum contains a mixture from spot on fact to partial truth to utter nonsense. Thats the whole point isnt it? If everyone on blue light was an HR specialist, chemistry wizz kid, drug dictionary then we would have no questions, no mistakes, no debates. The varied opinion on the hive was the whole buzz about it everyone has business saying what they think.

Here is an example of such speculation and incorrect conclusion, from the thread you pasted:

the neutral tartrate contains no less than TWICE the MDMA per mole!!!!! the hydrogen citrate too!!! it's like freaking SUPERDRUGS!!!
Yes, if tartaric acid was used to produce the salt, the resulting salt could have two MDMA-H+ molecules per one mole of tartrate. This has no more of an effect on what you would end up taking than changing to an HBr or any other salt. The resulting salt will be 72% MDMA. (This was obtained by dividing the mass contributed by the 2 MDMA molecules, 386.5, by the total molar mass of the salt, 537.37). If you take a 100mg dose of this salt, you end up with 72mg of MDMA. So, if anything, mass-for-mass, this salt would be LESS potent than the HCl salt. Perhaps it absorbs faster or slower and gives a more or less intense come-up, but that is the limit of the effect that the salt can have.

I am not sure if the bond with tartrate is two MDMA molecules per mole. If this is correct then the statement is true. The force of the tartrate might not be based on the concentration of MDMA mass vs acid mass but might be because the acid contains two bonds of MDMA molecule. I would speculate but maybe this makes for a more intense buzz. It may have a massive impact on body absorption speed. If this is the case then the statement might infact be true.

The acids themselves have no effect on which isomer is produced - the identity of the stereoisomer is determined solely at the time of the creation of the stereocenter. In MDMA's case, during the reductive amination. All of the common (and economically viable) methods of reductively aminating MDMA are not stereospecific, i.e. they produce a 50/50 mix of each enantiomer. Using a chiral acid like tartaric acid for making the salt will produce a 50/50 mixture of two salts: one with the R-MDMA and one with the S-MDMA and they will no longer be enantiomers. Thus they may then have different solubilities and be separable by crystallization methods. To get high purity in this way will likely take repeated crystallization cycles.

This is a really nice explaination :)

More importantly, though, if the final product is delivered as a single enantiomer, it means that the other enantiomer, 50% of the mass or product produced, is being thrown away. Anyone who believes that is or was ever happening on a large scale is insane. Furthermore, Shulgin's reports of dosing with pure enantiomers do not indicate that there is any benefit to separating the enantiomers.

The theories being thrown around for defqons etc were more like 75/25 ratios. If you made your mixes like this you could have pills more loaded with S and some more loaded with R. Could this be the difference between a defqon and a q dance. Sharing the weighted isomers like this no product would be wasted.

Shulgin states that the isomers on there own are kinda edgey but possibley added with some racemic mix you could make more custom pills?

I accept it might just be easier to add speed but it still doesnt account for why defqons are dancey and are just MDMA only.

Before the post I made earlier, I went to read 3 journal articles investigating the efficacy and safety of Adderall XR, since that is a well-known example of a drug sold as mixed salts, to see what was said about the salts. The salts were not mentioned whatsoever in any of the studies, except in referring to the drug as MAS (mixed amphetamine salts). The only things that they measured were plasma concentrations of d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine, because those are the only things that mattered. The only reference whatsoever to the salts were from the manufacturer, who claimed that the mixture of salts made the effects smoother (with softer highs and lows), which would be a result of absorption rate.

Then, there is also this, from the Wikipedia entries on generic drugs and on bioequivalence:

After reading this

http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/clinical_pharmacology/pharmacokinetics/drug_absorption.html

I do agree with you salts clearly affect the absorption speed but would this be enough to make one MDMA pill feel different to another? Would the salt type effect the buzz in any way?

According to these theories the answer is only absorption speed but in reality does anything else change? Some claim it does.

Unfortunately I have never tried a phosphate, acetate or citrate so dont really know. I wonder how easy it would be to strip back some MDMA HCL and re salt it?

Find me one example of a pharmaceutical drug that has one effect as one salt, and a distinctly different effect as another salt, and I'll get off your back.

At this point I accept I dont know one.

The simplest and most reasonable explanation for all of the differences in subjective experience, the one which doesn't violate numerous other experimental results and models, the one that adheres to Occam's Razor, to use Folley's effective phrasing, is that subjective experiences are, indeed, subjective. Going into an experience after reading someone else's account of it being different and special and thus expecting something different and special may very well lead to an experience that seems different and special to you. Set, setting, expectations, and the individual partaking all play very dramatic roles in the subjective experience of any psychoactive drug. To paraphrase Shulgin, a psychadelic experience does not come just from the drug, it comes from the synergy of the user's mind and the effects of the drug. Two people can take the same drug and have very different experiences. One person can take the same drug on two different occasions and have very different experiences. That's all this is, that and a healthy dose of the confirmation bias.

Setting, placebo, hot girl dishes out blow job in bathrooms etc etc yes all these things add to the pill experience but some pills are kick ass, some pills are mellow, some are edgey, some are trippy a lot of it is in the chemistry not just the experience.

^ thanks for the well-considered post.

Yeah I enjoyed it too nice one scure ;)

i would just add that if something "could be..." then it also "could not be..." which makes "could be..." a pretty low-weight debate technique.

Agreed but with the lack of proper analysis data from ecstasydata streetworx etc the speculation continues. Hence why we are on page 24 of this endless debate :D
 
Unfortunately I have never tried a phosphate, acetate or citrate so dont really know.

Neither has anyone else on this board dude :\

Which makes discussing them rather pointless.. some pills have certain characteristics, sure. That was especially true back in the 90s when most pills weren't even pure MDMA but a mix of MDxx substances... but that's more of a "MDMA is not always MDMA" matter rather than a "MDMA is different from MDMA" one.




I really don't think there is enough information out there to come to a conclusive answer, we would need a lot more analyzation of the impurities and isomer differences (if there are any, I'm doubtful) to come up with any theory that can hold water.
 
Neither has anyone else on this board dude

Not on this board but on other boards people have and people describe a different buzz.

I've only tried the HCL and acetate so far but acetate was longer lasting but a bit more mellow compared to HCL (on a mg/mg base).

advice too they sell mdma tartrate as a twice potent stuff than hcl salt...

Topic: MDx.tartrate? Anyone tried this? Is it really 2x as potent as MDx.hcl? i dont know about the tartrate, but its a fact that the citrate is.i have seen reference by producers that the tartrate is 2x as potent as the HCl, but not an actual reference in a scientific journal...

a lot of drugs are delivered on different salts to obtain extended release or a more smother high.

If I recall correctly in order to produce a neutral tartrate salt of MDMA it would require two MDMA cations to one Tartrate anion. So in theory you should have a product that is twice the potency relative to molar mass.

In terms of PK/PD, bio-availability, and effects I have no idea if the tartrate salt of MDMA yields any appreciable differences relative to the HCl salt, I suspect there are..

me and neilpatrickharriss both tried the citrate it was mdma II citrate
the onset is slower but when it peaks it last 3 hours and the comdown is subtle and no hangover.
lasts longer and is more hallucinogenic like mda quite different that street xtc.

I have heard the same types of qualitative reports that the citrate and tartrate salts are more hallucinogenic, may take longer for effects to be experienced, yield a calmer comedown and are devoid of any type of hangover.

This is not surprising to me, I know its hard to grasp since the active molecule is still MDMA however many factors are playing a part in this.



Which makes discussing them rather pointless..

You've been discussing it for 22 pages why change now?

some pills have certain characteristics, sure. That was especially true back in the 90s when most pills weren't even pure MDMA but a mix of MDxx substances... but that's more of a "MDMA is not always MDMA" matter rather than a "MDMA is different from MDMA" one.

Many of the pills in the 90s were just pure MDMA. Not all of them coctails.

Personally I think there is a lot of MDMA around that is different from other MDMA.

I also do not beleive that impurities left over from synths have no effect on the high. I have read numerous reports from chemists where they leave the MDMA powder brown as users say it has a better buzz. Not sure if that would be my choice but the point is the impurities do make a difference.


I really don't think there is enough information out there to come to a conclusive answer, we would need a lot more analyzation of the impurities and isomer differences (if there are any, I'm doubtful) to come up with any theory that can hold water.

I have seen enough now to firmly beleive there are a lot of alternative salts out there. Primarily acetates and citrates those are the ones most spoken about. I do agree because of ease of mark up / cavilier techniques HCL is the most common form.

In regards to isomers its a more novel idea and difficult to prove if there is such a thing as an isomer weighted pill. I dont know if there is a technique out there to pull off such a thing. The one fact we do know is it is possible and as a result cannot be totally ruled out. I do accept it is unlikely.
 
Not on this board but on other boards people have and people describe a different buzz.
which as we've learned, could be the result of ingesting a different salt but is just as likely to be caused by other factors.

you imply that a specific salt equals a specific experience. i've taken two doses of identical mdma powder on different occasions and had completely different - both quantitatively and qualitatively - experiences...

i've not seen any evidence to suggest that there are "a lot of alternative salts" out there. define "a lot"?

alasdair
 
Top