We want our MDA/Speed/MDEA/MDMA mix pills back NOW/MDMA isn't MDMA bollocks

[Evad]

for a substance to be identified via GCMS it must have a known profile...
if an unknown substance is detected it is still listed as an unidentified substance and the GCMS peak data made available to compare with future knowledge.

 

[missing old pills]

Nice 1 evad your the first person I've not seen eye to eye with that's willing to look at this.
It's important

 

[oinkyoink]

Evad have you taken any of these pills? You just seem to be arguing MDMA is MDMA which, without user experience, is entirely subjective to this debate.

I hope I am left corrected.

 

[Evad]

This year I have only taken blue facebook pills which were as good as any med-high med dose MDMA pills I have ever had. Also had some clear crystal which was spot on and some crushed crystal which was pretty weak/underwhelming.

without user experience, is entirely subjective to this debate.

that's the thing though it is not subjective at all it is absolute.

 

[oinkyoink]

No, it is subjective, as adulterated 140s prove. Please stop trolling.

 

[Evad]

are you slow? if the 140s are adulterated that means they contain a substance that is not MDMA, it doesn't stop the MDMA in them from being MDMA. MOP you are a class act compared to this new one .

 

[missing old pills]

This year I have only taken blue facebook pills which were as good as any med-high med dose MDMA pills I have ever had. Also had some clear crystal which was spot on and some crushed crystal which was pretty weak/underwhelming.



that's the thing though it is not subjective at all it is absolute.

If I had something that was a good I would be slagging off the doubters too!
I unfortunatly have not been so lucky and looking at those test regulations now it so easy to blag them

 

[missing old pills]

are you slow? if the 140s are adulterated that means they contain a substance that is not MDMA, it doesn't stop the MDMA in them from being MDMA. MOP you are a class act compared to this new one .

I do not dispute that now but the test results would show ratio 1 if the pill or crystal had 1mg in or 1000mg!

 

[anistropic]

If I had something that was a good I would be slagging off the doubters too!
I unfortunatly have not been so lucky and looking at those test regulations now it so easy to blag them

take my word for it, you can slag the doubters too, there is good stuff about

 

[MDMAhead]

if an unknown substance is detected it is still listed as an unidentified substance

LOL, what good is that?

 

[missing old pills]

take my word for it, you can slag the doubters too, there is good stuff about

I know mate that would explain the passion in the debate.
No other explaination! Until it hits my CNS I'm gonna be upset though!

 

[Evad]

I do not dispute that now but the test results would show ratio 1 if the pill or crystal had 1mg in or 1000mg!

yep, as long as there's no other actives in there, this is where subjective effects have to be used to judge the dose ratio and the advantage of pillreports/the pill thread here come into play. I would ideally prefer a service available which could provide dosage for UK pills (we used to have one via BL unofficially years ago) but due to legal issues etc it hasn't proven easy to find one.

LOL, what good is that?

you missed off the second half of my sentence

and the GCMS peak data made available to compare with future knowledge.

as soon as a profile becomes available for the previously unknown substance it can be identified by looking at the peak data. GCMS is standard lab technology , same used worldwide, the same reason DDL have unknown substance results is the same reason the police/customs etc do.

 

[missing old pills]

Evad! I can't believe it! We've agreed at last
Hey this bl is pretty fucking good after all lol

 

[MDMAhead]

as soon as a profile becomes available for the previously unknown substance it can be identified by looking at the peak data.

LOL, and what good is that? If I submit a crystal sample to DDL and pay them $120 to test it, I'd be pretty pissed off if all they did was to tell me that they didn't know what was in it; hand me a mass spectrometry graph, and tell me that someone might be able to interpret the graph 10 years in the future

 

[oinkyoink]

@ Evad.

I'll explain this in a way that even you can not misunderstand me.

It is estimated that between 2.5 and 5 million pills of 'ecstasy' are taken in the UK every month. We know the most prominent ones, I can only assume, through websites such as PR. People have VERY mixed reports of the 'same' press on both PR and BL. That came down to an argument of poorly synthed MDxx or possibly the addition of adulterants. The police report confirm the addition of and unidentified substance in the 140s.

With hundreds of different batches of the 'same' press obviously being made to support the upper-limit 5 million pills we consume per month, any one of these batches could also contain a similar contaminant. Marquis would not identify this. Only 2 or 3 of a possible (estimated) 35 million pills have been lab tested. There are still huge variations in user experience. You are saying we are all wrong, and MDMA is MDMA and so our user experiences are invalid, as well as picking on more prominent people who regularly voice their opinion about this 'different' experience. They could have (albeit misguidedly) identified the 'contaminant' by chance.

You have only taken the facebooks, and were discrediting these people when they could have been dissuading people from taking pills that could have left them hospitalized.

For a senior moderator on a drug harm reduction website you are doing very little to advocate the reduction of harm.

 

[Evad]

You again have missed what I said entirely and then attempted to patronise me unsuccessfully . I am not talking about pills, I'm talking about MDMA, the chemical molecule. I am not commenting on recent batches of pills I am just saying that the final product in the production of MDMA does not vary regardless of synthesis route and that if pills really are completely different it is due to adulterants/different contents not MDMA changing. Pills and MDMA are not synonymous. I have changed the title of this thread from "We want our MDMA back NOW" which is maybe what is confusing you?

I have never said expereince is invalid or that pills always contain MDMA, sorry if you have misunderstood me.

You have only taken the facebooks, and were discrediting these people when they could have been dissuading people from taking pills that could have left them hospitalized.

again it is you who have misunderstood, where have I done this? Learn to read before you go making such ridiculous accusations.

LOL, and what good is that? If I submit a crystal sample to DDL and pay them $120 to test it, I'd be pretty pissed off if all they did was to tell me that they didn't know what was in it; hand me a mass spectrometry graph, and tell me that someone might be able to interpret the graph 10 years in the future

you could give the same to a dutch lab that quantifies results and instead get "XXmg of unknown substance" as your response. As I have said, GCMS is a global standard in testing, it's a folly of the method not the lab and the method is one of the best we have.

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/gcms.html

MS analysis is highly reliable if the instrument is of sufficient resolution and the technician's interpretation of the results is competent. While some factors rarely affect MS analysis, some factors are absolutely essential for the use of reliable MS evidence. In all cases a technician must process a standard sample containing a verified composition identical to the presumed contents of the collected specimen. This standard sample must be processed under identical conditions, both before and after processing the collected specimen . Any identification based on output from the collected specimen that does not match the standard sample is inconclusive.

for there to be no unknown substances there would have to be known data for every substance that exists and could possibly exist

 

[anistropic]

LOL, and what good is that? If I submit a crystal sample to DDL and pay them $120 to test it, I'd be pretty pissed off if all they did was to tell me that they didn't know what was in it; hand me a mass spectrometry graph, and tell me that someone might be able to interpret the graph 10 years in the future

lol, did you pay $40 to get a pill tested just to make a cock out of yourself on here?
didn't realise it cost money till there now

 

[missing old pills]

You again have missed what I said entirely and then attempted to patronise me unsuccessfully . I am not talking about pills, I'm talking about MDMA, the chemical molecule. I am not commenting on recent batches of pills I am just saying that the final product in the production of MDMA does not vary regardless of synthesis route and that if pills really are completely different it is due to adulterants/different contents not MDMA changing. Pills and MDMA are not synonymous. I have changed the title of this thread from "We want our MDMA back NOW" which is maybe what is confusing you?

I have never said expereince is invalid or that pills always contain MDMA, sorry if you have misunderstood me.



again it is you who have misunderstood, where have I done this? Learn to read before you go making such ridiculous accusations.

I must jump in here. I made some wild assumptions due to my frustrations with my experences which then developed into quite a bit of banter! I was rude he was rude back.
I listened to advice and then based my arguments on science and facts.
I am now happy with the status quo and just frustrated with the authorities as THEY are the main reason we have trouble with harm reduction.
I just hope everyone will be safe this Xmas.
I've seen too much shit in the past

 

[oinkyoink]

This whole debate was started because MOP acted as public speaker for many by bringing this debate from PR to BL.

He voiced the opinions of many that these pills 'are not quite right' and residually the argument was blamed on poorly synthesised MDxx.

The debate of MDMA vs MDMA happened.

You, Evad, were his main opponent.

Imagine a new drug user checked BL to 'see whats good' and sees a senior moderator slagging off accusations of others claiming that this new stuff isn't MDMA? He would trust you and take it.

With your 'superior' knowledge and experience you should've thought, 'Hey, I know these guys thinking MDMA is not MDMA are wrong, but what are the chances there actually IS something dodgy in these pills which would explain the mixed reception?'

That is your DUTY as a senior moderator. To moderate debates like this to ensure they are indeed possibly reducing harm.

I am not trying to patronise you I am merely a humble, inexperienced greenlighter asking you to do your job, and avoid comments such as:

"you are commited to bullshit mate, if there's one thing i can't knock it's your commitment."

A comment aimed at a person who was possibly the first to identify a substance - through SUBJECTIVE experience - that may potentially be harmful.

 

[MDMAhead]

you could give the same to a dutch lab that quantifies results and instead get "XXmg of unknown substance" as your response. As I have said, GCMS is a global standard in testing, it's a folly of the method not the lab and the method is one of the best we have.

I've not seen anyone in the Dutch section of Pillreports say that they've taken a pill to be lab-tested, and that the lab have told them they are unable to identify the contents. Of course, this could be because the Dutch testing-labs have reference data for substances for which DDL do not have reference data.

Also, GCMS is not used by all testing-labs around the world (although it is used by DDL). The Swiss testing-lab ('Streetwork') uses HPLC to separate substances (rather than GC), and I think the Dutch testing-labs may also use HPLC, which potentially means they can detect substances which DDL can't.