Anethole can also be used to produce MDMA, although the chemistry is somewhat more complex. Indeed, at the unmentionable site there's currently a "contest" for the best proposed synthetic route to MDMA starting with oil of anise or anethole.
Personally, I believe there are alternative sources of safrole currently being used. There are simply too many plant species with high levels of safrole growing all over Australia for there not to be.
One has to wonder though, if several of these plants (including anise) are used as sources for safrole, just what impurities may get through the refinement processes, and more importantly, what will these things become when base catalyzed, halogenated, oxidized and aminated?
IMO these are the real potential toxins; poisonous cocktails which need to be well researched and the individual components identified.
If recent legislation designed at restricting supplies of chemicals was intended to lessen the overall risk associated with illicit drug supply, then I think it's so far been totally ineffective. In respect to the above, inventiveness in the area of clandestine chemistry tends to create more problems for the end user and more questions relating to quality control.
So, with talk of releasing Forensic data to the public, and the growing probability of future sanctioned testing; more exact profiling of seized and submitted drugs will be necessary IMO. Ultimately this would mean a complete restructuring of analytical procedures, and involve considerably more work for an already overworked system.
We now see several psychedelic chemicals
sold as MDMA or ecstasy which are active at levels of 5mg or less. Just as users have a need to know whether such adulterants are in the pills they intend to take, they also need to be informed of other, potentially more diabolical compounds capable of destroying organ tissue or causing premature aging. So to be serious about user info, this must include quantitative levels of active and/ or toxic ingredients.
No doubt such opinions ruffle a few feathers,
but then again I've shouted loudly about other areas concerning consumer information. I find it quite ridiculous that numbers are used to represent antioxidants, flavour enhancers, preservatives etc etc used in foods!!
This might look somewhat off topic, but is it really? Why say 321 when meaning butylated hydroxyanisole or 900 to say your anti-foaming agent is dimethylpolysiloxane. What's even worse is Australia's total lack of legislation on most flavours. Many of these chemicals are synthetic and unusual compounds to say the least, but don't need to be listed at all - not even a number in many instances.
From a responsible H & S perspective, people - consumers - have a right to know this shit. Just who is protected by the withholding or encoding of such information? Bah...
Sure consumers [including drug users] will question what they discover. These questions may raise some false claims, but by in large it improves and educates society, makes business more responsible and definitely allows more people to make more informed choices...
Sat morning rant stops here... p_d