What is wrong with the MDMA available today? - v2

[Rectify]

new2drugs,

Then the cocaine high kills the mdma high.

shugenja,

I mean something like this:

1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-(1-pyrrolidinyl)propane

There are several possible matches. You could have no oxo group, for example, to see what happens. I'm happy you are happy, but 25 to 30 mg of MDA or MDMA or MDE is not enough to get off. Again, I am happy you are happy, and I am not always right.

 

[Jabberwocky]

What happens if you do those two?

Lots of vasoconstriction and other cardiovascular issues.

 

[unodelacosa]

I don't have any strong feelings about all this, and frankly don't care as much. But there's a world of difference between the meh and the real, I had both on the same night recently ('meh' first, other 4-5 hours later) and I could tell right away. It's been like that many times.
I'd definitely say that there's strong variance in rolls and that tolerance plays a huge part, but the mdma that everyone's talking about here is really levels beyond in bad. Unmistakable.

That's fine. I've never argued the fact that there is shit being called "MDMA" in the various black markets that produces a lackluster response distinguishable from a typical MDMA experience. I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm saying that this shit either is not MDMA or it contains a significant impurity that fucks up the experience. What you're calling "mehDMA" is probably not entirely MDMA, in other words. This thread started w/the assumption Energy Control Spain is a trustworthy source of full GC-MS data. We now know it is not.

What happens if you do those two?

It causes anxiety, and tachycardia is always hard on the heart, especially as it is caused by multiple sources here – both drugs are adrenergic.

In my experiences mixing the two, I'm quite suddenly no longer rolling; I'm just geeked on coke and mad that my roll quit so suddenly. As the coke wears off, my roll comes back but only at a fraction of whatever intensity I had going previous to the blow. Save it for the comedown if your goal is to keep partying. Otherwise stash the coke until the next time you go out to a bar. Cocaine is a bar scene drug, after all, and for good reason.

So, given that cocaine acts as a reuptake inhibitor of serotonin (plus dopamine and adrenaline), and given that MDMA acts as a serotonin releasing agent, the former will inhibit the effects of the latter. Coke doesn't mix with empathogens, psychedelics, or other stimulants. Though still unhealthy and bad for the heart, cocaine is enjoyable with (only one at a time!) benzos, opiates, alcohol, or GHB.

To be clear though, it's not super dangerous if you mix MDMA and coke; it's just pointless and wasteful in my opinion. If you do it though anyway, just remember to experiment with small doses, be reasonable about things and don't "chase" any highs especially with increasing amounts. MDMA eventually inhibits its own effects, for example, which is why the window to re-dose MDMA is not open for very long. Trust me though, save yourself the disappointment and don't waste your drugs.

 

[unodelacosa]

It's like this: water—as in H₂O—is always and can only be H₂O. Yet, there are many different bottled water companies, and their products taste distinct from one another. E.g.: Dasani tastes one way, Aquafina tastes another, and Evian is different still.

The reason is: "water" contains more than just pure H₂O. There is almost always at least some minuscule degree of salinity, plus—unless distilled—there are pH-affecting minerals, too.

The initialism "MDMA" has become shorthand for the longer chemical name. It's equal to "ecstasy", "molly", "mandy", etc. It is now more of a colloquialism and has lost some of its utility to delineate from street drug impurities and diluents. But in chemistry terms, this is short for dl-3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine hydrochloride, of course, and this is a very specific call. I'll omit the IUPAC name for brevity.

What goes into an unregulated, contraband "e-pill" very often has more than MDMA.HCl as an active ingredient. What this is exactly varies and there are some excellent, articulate and well reasoned, educated guesses made throughout this very long thread. A few of them have real merit. But who knows?

The point I'm making is: the same way H₂O is but one thing, the precise chemical, MDMA, can only be what it is, and this is not any different than it ever was in the past.

Bottom line is: the question is ambiguous; and the answer, untenable. At the heart of the problem is the absence of regulation, the lack of common knowledge on the topic, and … superstition. To paraphrase Bertrand Russel: the ignorant tend to be cocksure while the intelligent are smart enough to question themselves.

 

[Jabberwocky]

new2drugs,

Then the cocaine high kills the mdma high.

shugenja,

I mean something like this:

1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-(1-pyrrolidinyl)propane

There are several possible matches. You could have no oxo group, for example, to see what happens. I'm happy you are happy, but 25 to 30 mg of MDA or MDMA or MDE is not enough to get off. Again, I am happy you are happy, and I am not always right.

I never said a full blown-up roll.

However, my physiology is such that I get major euphoria and horniness from SSRI's at normal doses.

So yeah, 25-30 mg of sass or 5/6-APB DEFINITELY elevates me. It's above the threshold dose for regular people anyway.

I've probably been rolling before you were born. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[crazyhairman]

That is another example of the unintended side effects of the global war on drugs,. Precursor chemicals in the us. And abroad became increasingly difficult to obtain. Crack downs led to life sentences of several of the best European and us chemists along with the dismantling of respectful trafficking organizations.

At the time, and to this day the demand never diminished , however supply interruptions caused an influx in adulterates, research chemicals, or total fake product to take it's place. This coupled with the internet age produced a perfect storm by the time I graduated highschool in 2007, 3 out of 5 extacey pills was adulterated in the USA (worst year on record). Research chemicals became safer to produce and distribute due to scheduling of substances in the us. MDMA and it's components were scheduled 1 while more dangerous compounds were lighter sentence or legal all together.

New Zealand's rock artist ( no idea his name lol) lost his best friend to meth in the 90s. Ever since he used his chemistry background to try to synthesize a chemical offshoot of methamphetamine, seeking to make the drug innocence safer to the end user. That basically opened up a Pandora's box of analogs like bath salts and a literal treasure trove of non-scheduled technically legal compounds that were strikingly similar to already established highly illegal substances.

So again perfect Storm effect of law enforcement crackdowns chemists being put in jail for basically 20 to 40 years. Coupled with the age of internet and the ability to ship packages worldwide. Supply and demand. And it's never really fully recovered from the '90s I don't think it ever will I think those days are gone. We don't even get legitimate pharmaceuticals on the streets anymore it's all fentanyl

There's other factors that people with chemistry backgrounds will be able to answer but it's always a culmination of things. My background is not in law enforcement it's just a hobby

 

[SpiralusSancti]

Sorry, I know I'm nitpicking a bit here with this, but… this is not pharmaceutical-grade purity. Quoting Palmetto:

> "A pharmaceutical grade product is a substance that the FDA has approved for human or animal consumption that meets stringent purity standards. The FDA’s Office of Pharmaceutical Quality is the office that labels drugs as pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical grade. The OPQ’s goal is to boost pharmaceutical quality globally to ensure everyone has the best version of a drug. They do so by putting all drugs through rigorous testing and inspections to ensure they meet the FDA’s high standards."​

Beyond the FDA approval part and looking past multi-phase animal and human trials, you need analytics of course, and I believe you would need to do some purification techniques beyond just acetone rinses and two-solvent recrystallizations. Chromatography comes to mind.

Over 99,98 or over 99,99% pure is pharmaceutical grade substance, exact % is almost always >99,98% or >99,99%, no need for magical FDA blessing to call something pharmaceutical quality you know, maybe you didn’t know but we have pharma grade substances out of FDA jurisdiction too. Same as lab grade is usually >99,998%, analytical grade even more and food grade can be far below pharma grade as long as there’s not anything toxic beside substance in question unlike industrial grade where substance needs to be just pure enough to do what it’s intended to do.

So believe it or not, more than once, more than once I ingested drugs that where pharma grade without FDA approval and more than once people ingested pills be it prescription or otc that turned out to be toxic industrial grade stuff passing FDA approval because it was probably to big batch tu flush it or something like that.

And fun thing to know, certain underground LSD chemist made LSD that tested more pure than 100%, meaning he made it more pure than analytical samples made so far. What grade was that, holly blessed white light familia grade?

 

[Delmonte421]

LSD that tested more pure than 100%

wow they have things that can have a purity higher then 100%?

 

[SpiralusSancti]

No, that sample tested as above 100% purity as it was of higher purity than reference material.

 

[unodelacosa]

I never said every day of the week. I said 2 yeah, 3 or 4 days a week, every week.

I know you're talking about a very low dose, but that frequency would worry me, personally. Would you say this dose is more recreational or something you do for the SSRI properties to be more functional in day-to-day life?

But yeah I like 5/6-APB and their n-methyl counterparts – highly enjoyable drugs. I too am a fan, and I also usually prefer MDA to MDMA, but a large-ish dose MDMA once in a while can be a very special thing.

 

[Delmonte421]

No, that sample tested as above 100% purity as it was of higher purity than reference material.

wait do they used a chemical instrument and it said that it was above 100% pure? do you understand what you're saying?
Look up how an HPLC works and tell me if someone can be more then 99% pure with what sigma certainty

 

[crazyhairman]

Look up Australia 2008 operation,. They managed to take down an international drug ring that effectively cut off the flow of MDMA pills to the entire country. It was a massive operation. At the time there were maybe 5 to 10 young people dying annually from MDMA overdoses in Australia every year. In the years following this operation , the number of young people dying from club drugs exploded due to adulterates and substances like ketamine and other amphetamines that simply filled the void. The demand for ecstasy had not diminished however the quality of your average Street pill along with the logistical constraints made for another perfect Storm.

One can see parallels in the emergence of fentanyl and the issues that that has caused. Fact of the matter was at the time fentanyl is a schedule two substance whereas heroin is a schedule 1 substance.
To produce heroin you need thousands upon thousands of poppies to then produce into heroin and then traffic thousands of miles to your market just like Cocaine. However with fentanyl you can cook up a recipe pretty much anywhere synthetics are here to stay because of the global economics. In short it's cheaper and faster to cook up meth than it is to traffic cocaine. In my area it was teenagers with access to the internet buying compounds that mimic the effects of MDMA or LSD but if you were caught possessing some of these compounds it was nothing illegal at the time. Y'all remember that fake weed that K2 that never really fully disappeared same thing the s*** was basically legal SO gas stations were selling it it became more profitable and safer to sell dangerous bunk product and that's just what everybody did.

I know the chemistry has changed over the years as well but again that's not my expertise I can't break it down and explain it Mimi small brain

 

[SpiralusSancti]

Actually I have read that here on BL more than once and told by a friend who read it in a book about bust of big LSD manufacturers, not sure was it Owsley and co. or who.

But this is how I understood it. From erowid:

" In the usual analysis of LSD (such as done at PharmChem Foundation) one chromatographs an extract of the suspected drug, observes the resulting separation under UV light, and then sprays the plate with some color-generating agent such as paradimethylaminobenzaldehyde (PDAB). If there are impurities present that fluoresce (such as lysergic acid or iso-LSD) and that have mobility in the chromatographic separation, they will be seen. If impurities are present that have the intact indole-2-hydrogen atom, they will give blue to purple colors with PDAB.

Both tests require, of course, that there are amounts present sufficient to be seen. But if the impurity does not fluoresce (as is known to occur with lumi-LSD or any of the photoaddition products) or will not react with PDAB (as would be found with 2-substituted impurities such as 2-oxo-ergots), then they (the impurities) would remain invisible. It is completely possible that an LSD sample could be grossly contaminated with impurities and, if they did not give any response to one of these two tests, it is highly likely that their presence would never even be suspected."

So I would guess that certain sample had less of some unknown invisible impurities than reference sample, that's all.

I'm NOT saying HPLC can test anything as above 100% but some older methods of estamating purity could have produced result implicating that reference sample was in fact less pure than thought before.

While melting point test was usual in determining substance it was not unusual at all that melting point in literature was corrected more than once over years or even decades as production methods improved and higher purity samples were produced.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I know you're talking about a very low dose, but that frequency would worry me, personally. Would you say this dose is more recreational or something you do for the SSRI properties to be more functional in day-to-day life?

But yeah I like 5/6-APB and their n-methyl counterparts – highly enjoyable drugs. I too am a fan, and I also usually prefer MDA to MDMA, but a large-ish dose MDMA once in a while can be a very special thing.

Back in my prime 1998 to 2001, it was regular doses or even multiple doses of MDMA per day, two, three or four days a week. There was a stretch where it was EVERY WEEK for about a year and a half.

Then I backed off.

Then I took a long break, just for personal reasons.

About 10 years ago I started back up. Not to the degree as before.

Now it's once a week or once every two weeks.

There was phase six or seven years ago where it was daily for about a month and a half. That was the low dose.

Never lost the magic.

It's still there today.

Like I said, freak of nature.

 

[unodelacosa]

No, that sample tested as above 100% purity as it was of higher purity than reference material.

Some sloppy-ass reference material they're working with then… I wonder what year you're referencing.

Also, regardless of nomenclature, rinses and recrystallizations alone might not achieve these high purity levels. You mentioned seized LSD that was super-pure, and I had previously mentioned chromatography. LSD is purified via liquid phase chromatography, among other things, so it doesn't surprise me L.E. seized such high-purity contraband. My main point was and still is that it's a bold claim tossing that term "pharmaceutical-grade" out all willy nilly without stepping up the purification techniques.

To me, pharmaceutical-grade means it was produced for the pharmaceutical industry and approved by any relevant overseeing body, but I can see your point, and perhaps my definition is too narrow. After all, purity is purity. Let's ask ChatGPT to see what it thinks…

> What do people mean when they say pharmaceutical purity?​

'When people say "pharmaceutical purity," they usually mean that a substance has been manufactured to meet the standards of purity, composition, and potency set by pharmaceutical regulatory agencies. In other words, the substance has been produced in a manner that adheres to strict quality control standards and is considered fit for medical or therapeutic use. The term "pharmaceutical purity" is often used to describe drugs or chemicals that are intended for use in a clinical setting and meet the standards set by regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Medicines Agency (EMA). It implies that the substance is of a higher quality and purity than other forms of the same substance that may not meet these standards.'​

​

I don't know though. I think your definition is more accurate from a descriptivist angle, no bullshit. In other words, that's how the term is used regardless of prescriptivist definitions.

 

[SpiralusSancti]

Well I didn't mention important thing, what I call pharma grade was lab tested and was same purity as what would be required if it was sold trough some pharma company, no mater if only acid-base, washing and recrystallization were used, it was enough. Most medicine is not purified in a way LSD needs to be purified.

As depending on substance, to get pharma grade purity sometimes as a last step it's enough to just distill well made synth, sometimes recrystallisation can be last step and sometimes as with LSD liquid phase chromatography is necessary to separate iso-LSD and unredacted stuff. Though if you wouldn't mind wasting stuff you can turn to LSD high purity might be obtained without it, more of a reason for LSD liquid phase chromatography is more or less necessary is that it is o fragile and while purifying with other means you'll be almost always purifying it and degrading it at the same. But in theory you could use high boiling point solvent in a very cold space filed with inert gas and recrystallise LSD over and over until getting desired purity but in practice that would be far too time consuming and impractical.

 

[Delmonte421]

Some sloppy-ass reference material they're working with then… I wonder what year you're referencing.

Also, regardless of nomenclature, rinses and recrystallizations alone might not achieve these high purity levels. You mentioned seized LSD that was super-pure, and I had previously mentioned chromatography. LSD is purified via liquid phase chromatography, among other things, so it doesn't surprise me L.E. seized such high-purity contraband. My main point was and still is that it's a bold claim tossing that term "pharmaceutical-grade" out all willy nilly without stepping up the purification techniques.

To me, pharmaceutical-grade means it was produced for the pharmaceutical industry and approved by any relevant overseeing body, but I can see your point, and perhaps my definition is too narrow. After all, purity is purity. Let's ask ChatGPT to see what it thinks…

> What do people mean when they say pharmaceutical purity?​

'When people say "pharmaceutical purity," they usually mean that a substance has been manufactured to meet the standards of purity, composition, and potency set by pharmaceutical regulatory agencies. In other words, the substance has been produced in a manner that adheres to strict quality control standards and is considered fit for medical or therapeutic use. The term "pharmaceutical purity" is often used to describe drugs or chemicals that are intended for use in a clinical setting and meet the standards set by regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Medicines Agency (EMA). It implies that the substance is of a higher quality and purity than other forms of the same substance that may not meet these standards.'​

​

I don't know though. I think your definition is more accurate from a descriptivist angle, no bullshit. In other words, that's how the term is used regardless of prescriptivist definitions.

It was produced in a cGMP facility

 

[JackARoe]

Last silly question. MDMA seems to becoming legal in ways. Let's assume we have full legalization and the pharm companies produce it. Do you all think this conversation would even be had if we had pharmaceutical and regulated MDMA? Uno said one of the main issues was unregulation. So if it was I wonder if the medical community could produce MDMA that without a doubt will give the same glorious experience to everyone every time (not including tolerance).

I wonder if the medical or pharm field will figure this out after leagalization. Something like "we found an impurity that alters the experience and it is common!!" lol

 

[SpiralusSancti]

Well concerning that many people swear that some generic medicine is just not as good as some specific brand, presuming normal form will be pills (therefore speed of absorption and some other things will vary slightly plus some possibly useful additives will be in them) and think of power of placebo and commercials I'm pretty sure some would still swear brand A has more genuine magic than brand B.

 

[MountainTrails]

I wonder if the medical community could produce MDMA that without a doubt will give the same glorious experience to everyone every time (not including tolerance).

I don't believe so. I think natural genetic variance of neuroreceptors and neurotransmitter balances/levels takes that out of play. If someone came up with something that hit everyone's button, it wouldn't be MDMA, but a novel compound.