What is wrong with the MDMA available today? - v2

[unodelacosa]

Is it possible that what’s wrong with the mdma available today

There is nothing wrong with the MDMA available today. If you're not rolling after taking what was sold to you as "MDMA" and you're certain you're not taking any medication that would interfere with MDMA's effects, then what you have is not, in fact, MDMA. That's what I hate about the title of this thread. It front-loads the idea that something is actually wrong with MDMA, and that's virtually impossible without said "MDMA' actually being another compound or a mixture of compounds. If you understand organic chemistry, this should be obvious, as everyone on here who can speak knowledgeably about chemistry/biochem will attest. And btw, I mean "you" generically here, not you you @helpingout

 

[helpingout]

Without a

There is nothing wrong with the MDMA available today. If you're not rolling after taking what was sold to you as "MDMA" and you're certain you're not taking any medication that would interfere with MDMA's effects, then what you have is not, in fact, MDMA. That's what I hate about the title of this thread. It front-loads the idea that something is actually wrong with MDMA, and that's virtually impossible without said "MDMA' actually being another compound or a mixture of compounds. If you understand organic chemistry, this should be obvious, as everyone on here who can speak knowledgeably about chemistry/biochem will attest. And btw, I mean "you" generically here, not you you @helpingout

doubt. I think the question is posed so that the answer to it is in terms of what is wrong.

I personally haven’t found mdma to be any less magical. I never really liked it though. I had one really great experience with it but for the most part have just been kinda meh with it. It’s just not an experience I prefer. But it’s hella cool for sure. I just watched a veritasium video on polymorphs and thought maybe that might explain the bias posed in the question driving this thread. I think mdma is awesome it’s just not really my preference what with having to not take zyprexa for four days in order to get three day cleanse of zyprexa from system before I can dose and then finally being able to get back on zyprexa day four. It’s just not worth the change in my stability or my brain. But I have enjoyed it historically.

 

[KattyKorner]

Imo, this is all just the typical drug related nonsense that pops up over time, a combo of things.

One, drugs can affect you differently in different stage of life. When I was in my very early 20's and using psychedelics, it was all good. Later 20's I got crushing, painful headaches every time so I stopped using them. Cannabinoids used to not make me that anxious, and now they kind of give me that same psychedelic headache and anxiety. Yes, my blood pressure is fine, I've checked religiously and am on medication for such.

Two, the chemistry doesnt change. If one goes through mdp2p, it will be roughly 50/50 of each enantiomer. Shulgin going through mdp2p will be the same as someone going through mdp2p today. The big labs in the Netherlands go through mdp2p. Basically, the chemistry isnt different, they all result in the same thing.

This just feels like people who say the drugs were better back in the day. It's a mix of nostalgia and changing neurochemistry, not anything due to real chemistry.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

There is nothing wrong with the MDMA available today. If you're not rolling after taking what was sold to you as "MDMA" and you're certain you're not taking any medication that would interfere with MDMA's effects, then what you have is not, in fact, MDMA.

That doesnt explain ~85 mg can feel better then a ~100/ 120 mg in equivalent doses both tested. Two presses going at the same time. With only MDMA as active ingredient. This was way before the meh period existed.

Does MDMA today don t have good and less good batches, been at least 25 + for me

 

[KattyKorner]

That doesnt explain ~85 mg can feel better then a ~100/ 120 mg in equivalent doses both tested. Two presses going at the same time. With only MDMA as active ingredient. This was way before the meh period existed.

Does MDMA today don t have good and less good batches, been at least 25 + for me

Mdma is clandestinely produced. Purity is an issue. A pressed pill could have impure mdma, or more pure mdma. Could be misrepresented dosage so the producers make more money.

Dont know what to tell you besides the chemistry doesnt change. It can be more cut, but that's not the fault of mdma. It can be impure, again, not the fault of mdma.

What is more likely; that something about the production of mdma has changed, despite the fact that it's been made pretty much the same way for decades now, from mdp2p through various routes to get there, or that it is anything else?

 

[Didgital]

What is more likely; that something about the production of mdma has changed,

Production methods have also been discussed ad nauseum. The precursors have changed, but they all still go thru MDP2P which is achiral meaning MDP2P made from glycidate is exact same as MDP2P from safrole.

 

[KattyKorner]

Production methods have also been discussed ad nauseum. The precursors have changed, but they all still go thru MDP2P which is achiral meaning MDP2P made from glycidate is exact same as MDP2P from safrole.

Exactly, thank you. The most likely thing is that it is not the chemistry that is at issue. It's either changing neurochemistry, or adulterated MDMA, or something else, but it's not MDMA.

This is becoming the new "LSD has strychnine" myth, if that makes sense.

 

[Didgital]

I wanted to point that there is a similar "What is wrong with Methamphetamine today" sort of thread, but theirs actually has merit, because for a long while pseudoephedrine was very available, and the birch reduction would give pure D-Meth (I assume that's the same as R just different nomenclature?)

The MDxx equivalent precursors to pseudoephedrine or even ephedrine have never been easily available, so historically MDMA has always been produced commercially as a racemate.

I'm not as well versed as I could be, but afaik enantiospecific synthesis of MDMA don't really exist and if they do, they are not commonly employed.

err I did find this patent, but a quick glance tells me that these synthetic methods are way more difficult and expensive so again, I highly doubt they are or have ever been commonly employed.

US20240010628A1 - Methods of manufacture of r-mdma - Google Patents

A method of manufacturing R-MDMA by forming a Grignard reagent from 5-bromobenzodioxole, treating the Grignard reagent with S-propylene oxide to form chirally pure alcohol 1, activating the alcohol as mesylate 2, converting to chirally pure azide 3, reducing the azide to amine 4, protecting the...

patents.google.com

 

[Esperighanto]

Is it possible that what’s wrong with the mdma available today is some kind of polymorph problem

There has been some academic research on whether or not polymorphs can affect pharmacokinetics, and while nothing's been found yet, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily impossible either. My guess would be no, I think that the majority of people in this thread who suspect that MDMA is different nowadays are actually just experiencing it in a different way since our neurochemistry and neurotypology shifts continuously over the course of our lives.

 

[KattyKorner]

There has been some academic research on whether or not polymorphs can affect pharmacokinetics, and while nothing's been found yet, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily impossible either. My guess would be no, I think that the majority of people in this thread who suspect that MDMA is different nowadays are actually just experiencing it in a different way since our neurochemistry and neurotypology shifts continuously over the course of our lives.

Yeah, it's possible, but not probable at all.

Mdma has been made the same way for a long time. That part hasnt changed, so it's unlikely to be polymorphs.

 

[unodelacosa]

I wanted to point that there is a similar "What is wrong with Methamphetamine today" sort of thread, but theirs actually has merit,

It does not. Same exact principles apply. It's just much harder to argue with superstitious tweekers.

because for a long while pseudoephedrine was very available, and the birch reduction would give pure D-Meth

Not quite. The Birch Reduction with ammonia and lithium reduces (pseudo)/ephedrine to methamphetamine at ~92% conversion yield. But then the workup needs to remove any traces of ammonia, lithium, free HCl, other impurities and solvents. However, this is still remarkably pure and the reaction is stereospecific, outputting only d-isomer methamphetamine as you pointed out.

(I assume that's the same as R just different nomenclature?)

Actually, it's the S enantiomer. Quick clarification on the naming:

• d-/l- (dextro/levo) refers to the direction a compound rotates polarized light experimentally
• R/S refers to the molecule's actual 3D spatial configuration according to CIP stereochemistry rules

They're related but not interchangeable. For some drugs, the dextrorotatory isomer happens to be the R isomer as well (in Latin, dextro means "right" and rectus means "correct/right" ), but not always. You have to know the specific molecule.

For methamphetamine specifically:

• d-methamphetamine = (S)-methamphetamine
• l-methamphetamine = (R)-methamphetamine

So when people talk about old pseudoephedrine meth being "d-meth," they’re talking about the potent psychoactive (S)-enantiomer.

The MDxx equivalent precursors to pseudoephedrine or even ephedrine have never been easily available, so historically MDMA has always been produced commercially as a racemate.

That would be 3,4-methylenedioxy-β-hydroxy-amphetamine, which as far as I know is not naturally occurring the way 3,4-methylenedioxyallylbenzene (Safrole) exists in nature.

I'm not as well versed as I could be, but afaik enantiospecific synthesis of MDMA don't really exist and if they do, they are not commonly employed.

Oh that definitely exists via techniques like enantiomeric shielding. However, stereospecific routes are fairly sophisticated, and as you pointed out: uncommon in clandestine labs. It's interesting to note though that stereospecificity is rampant throughout nature. It seems that Mother Nature does not care for racemates…

err I did find this patent, but a quick glance tells me that these synthetic methods are way more difficult and expensive so again, I highly doubt they are or have ever been commonly employed.

Yeah that's right. Also, looking at the data from LE seizures, they don't report encountering hardly anything other than racemic mixtures. So I would say it's fairly safe to rule that possibility out… In other words: yeah I agree

 

[Didgital]

So when people talk about old pseudoephedrine meth being "d-meth," they’re talking about the potent psychoactive (S)-enantiomer.

I honestly do get a bit confused on certain D/L d/l R/S nomenclature.
But something that stuck out to me in one of Hamilton's podcasts where they talk about making 200kg a week of MDA, and converting some of that into S(+)MDA, but the interviewee wasn't too chemically trained and so he kept saying right handed molecules. So after a bit of reading, R/S do not indicate optical rotation that is the (+ or -). For whatever reason I was thinking all R isomers rotate right (dextro) but apparently that is not true. At least in terms of psychedelics and entheogens, it seems the dextro (right handed) isomer is always the more hallucinogenic one. R(+)DOM or S(+)MDA for example.


It's highly recommended.

 

[unodelacosa]

I honestly do get a bit confused on certain D/L d/l R/S nomenclature.
But something that stuck out to me in one of Hamilton's podcasts where they talk about making 200kg a week of MDA, and converting some of that into S(+)MDA, but the interviewee wasn't too chemically trained and so he kept saying right handed molecules. So after a bit of reading, R/S do not indicate optical rotation that is the (+ or -). For whatever reason I was thinking all R isomers rotate right (dextro) but apparently that is not true.

Yeah I listened to that podcast a while back. Really interesting story. I've always liked MDA more than MDMA, personally, and everything about his story made a lot of sense to me. So it is a little confusing; lemme see if I can clarify it a bit for you. There are three separate, mostly unrelated nomenclatures here:

1. R/S = absolute 3D arrangement (Cahn–Ingold–Prelog rules)
2. D/L = historical stereochemical relationship to glyceraldehyde
3. (+)/(–) or d/l = actual measured optical rotation of polarized light

R/S and (+)/(–) describe completely different things. R/S tells you the spatial arrangement of substituents around a chiral center using CIP priority rules. (+)/(–) tells you which direction the molecule rotates plane-polarized light in an experiment. This is also denoted using lowercase letters, "d" and "l". Those properties are independent. You cannot predict optical rotation from R/S alone. The only way to know optical rotation is to measure it experimentally.

At least in terms of psychedelics and entheogens, it seems the dextro (right handed) isomer is always the more hallucinogenic one. R(+)DOM or S(+)MDA for example.

It's true that in several psychoactive amphetamines and entactogens, the more potent CNS-active enantiomer often happens to be the dextrorotatory one, but that's coincidence within those families, not a universal stereochemical rule.

R/S is like a molecular coordinate system. Meanwhile (+)/(–) is a physical behavior measured in the lab. They correlate sometimes but one does not determine the other.

 

[unodelacosa]

That doesnt explain ~85 mg can feel better then a ~100/ 120 mg in equivalent doses both tested. Two presses going at the same time. With only MDMA as active ingredient. This was way before the meh period existed.

The more I learn about reality, the less sure I am about anything. My perceptions of things are certainly not 100% accurate. Belief leads to different perceptual realities that are very real for each observer even though two experiences might be contrary to one another, and no one is lying. When I reflect on these things, it occurs to me how much each of us can get locked into our own views of the events in our lives. It can be virtually impossible to clear our preconceived notions. I imagine this drives much of the "debate" in this thread regarding so-called MehDMA. Perhaps we manifest these things. Some of us, for whatever reason, believe that MDMA today sucks no matter how much incontrovertible scientific evidence is presented against this argument. Other people are only swayed by compelling scientific evidence based on experimental data with consistent, repeatable results, tested by several labs.

So to me, the "meh period" has always existed, but has never been dominant in the market. Just gotta watch out for bunk pills is all…

Does MDMA today don t have good and less good batches, been at least 25 + for me

Not the MDMA I can get here on the east coast of the U.S., NYC metropolitan area, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Staten, from the Battery to the top of Manhattan… IIRC you're in the U.K., and I'd say that's one geographic area that has seemingly had piss poor suppliers of Mandy and all E pressies up until very recently. It would check out if you've had ~a couple dozen duds living in the U.K. Occam's razor tells me this is the most likely explanation coupled with the power of placebo.

 

[Section813]

I know you guys know your chemistry and I'm probably not that advanced. That being said I've been doing mdxx for over 30 years and I strongly assure you that most of what is around today just is not the same. For a while I was convinced that people changed. The vibe and the scene are definitely much different. Is that because people are different or the drugs are different? Maybe a little of both? Are our brains different from constant phone use and the instant gratification and dopamine flood? I ask myself these questions but then every once in a while I get a batch that gives me that old feeling and then that resets my entire thought process and I'm back to square one again. Currently I'm back to believing that there's something to the precursor theory. Back in the aughts when bk-mdma first hit the scene it had that magic too. When I do get a "good" batch these days (I'm aware of how corny that sounds) it's almost always the "coca-cola" dark crystals. The "champagne" never gets me there. So is it the precursor? Or as some have theorized and I think might have some merit there were active impurities in the old cooks. These days with the increased difficulty in obtaining any precursor whether it's safrole or pmk you have to be much more precise. I can only theorize as to the "why" I can only tell you that it never got better than the mid 90s speckled wafers. Not even close. I wish I had a time machine. I'd go back to the Hazy Dayz parties of the mid 90s in Dallas. Oh the blessed cuddle puddles of 20-30 kids on the floor in a shitty warehouse. The bathroom stalls covered in yak. Lol. Anyway just some thoughts from an old head. Y'all be careful out there and enjoy your youth.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

IIRC you're in the U.K., and I'd say that's one geographic area that has seemingly had piss poor suppliers of Mandy and all E pressies up until very recently. It would check out if you've had ~a couple dozen duds living in the U.K. Occam's razor tells me this is the most likely explanation coupled with the power of placebo.

Not UK near though, Netherlands the metropolis of MDMA. So the market was pretty consistent.

 

[helpingout]

What if mdma isn’t the same today because counterfeiting other chemicals as mdma, smurfing, let’s say, has become more common, and batches of mdma made for distribution and sale have become less common. This would be the best answer to the threads question. What’s wrong with the mdma today is that the product being sold as mdma, is not mdma. Coupled with mdma production and distribution networks being less prominent have led to the mdma that reaches market being drowned out in a sea of counterfeits and profit grabs. This would mean that actual mdma is still good while most of what is being sold as mdma can also be the answer to what is wrong with mdma.

Smurfing. Smurfing is what’s wrong with the mdma available today.

 

[unodelacosa]

I strongly assure you that most of what is around today just is not the same.

Hey there, O.G. I was also raving hard in the 90s, cuddle puddles and such while rolling. However, you might be making a mistake assuming you know how "most" MDMA is today. I doubt you're traveling the globe taking samples of MDMA and putting them to advanced analytics. Are your conclusions based on your local dealers' street ecstasy? It's easy to overvalue our own subjective beliefs. It's cool you have ~30 years experience like me, but saying MDMA "just is not the same", while a valid opinion, does not reveal anything.

For a while I was convinced that people changed.

Sound logic; stick with that. MDMA is the same compound it was in the 1980s. Just like caffeine is still the same compound it was in the past. Does it still affect you the same way it did when you first drank a caffeinated beverage? Probably not. Does this mean something is wrong with today's caffeine?

Sure, active byproduct impurities can play a roll in things, but obviously this is limited since we both know that the coca-cola-colored (C³) molly will have people rolling face. However 3,4-methylenedioxy-n-methylamphetamine is clearly described and laid out in the Merck manual, and that's not open to interpretation. People, on the other hand, change throughout their lives, as does society/culture, and we're all a little bit different from one another individually, with different metabolisms, enzyme profiles, digestive systems, blood types, personalities, expectations, drug use experience, &c.

The vibe and the scene are definitely much different. Is that because people are different or the drugs are different?

How would it be possible for the drugs to be different? Are you asking if the drugs are less pure? That could be a possibility, but I still have yet to see compelling evidence that this just boils down to purity. And in actuality, the world is a big place and MDMA isn't that hard to manufacture, even clandestinely; it is not a complex molecule and its chemical proximity to serotonin, dopamine, and adrenaline (all simple molecules) is what makes it active in the first place. Chances are: there are many labs all over the world producing MDMA, from small artisanal batches, to large-scale orders with tableting punch machines. Without regulation, the possibilities of dilution, deliberate bunk pills, various substituents, impurities, unconverted precursors & such are vast enough to render these conjectures mostly moot.

When and if you (or anyone) purchase MDMA, pay attention to its reputation and observe others on it first if you can. Look for the classic signs they're rolling; see how it makes them feel and what their behavior is. Test the product out with a reagent test kit. Wait at least 5 hours after eating your last meal so you're nearly on an empty stomach and ingest the MDMA at the proper dose all at once; do not pussyfoot into it. Dive into the pool, in other words, don't tip-toe into the shallow end, call it swimming, and then ask what's wrong with today's pools.

Are our brains different from constant phone use and the instant gratification and dopamine flood?

Sure, maybe a little bit, but I doubt it's anything significant enough such that it would entirely change the pharmaceutical action of a psychotropic compound. Show me another instance of this happening in history and maybe I'd be more willing to give this theory some more credit.

I ask myself these questions but then every once in a while I get a batch that gives me that old feeling and then that resets my entire thought process and I'm back to square one again.

What? So then if you know the real shit is out there… why are you… sigh… Forgive me, I've been on this thread arguing this shit for years now. Can you see how this statement contradicts what you just said?

Currently I'm back to believing that there's something to the precursor theory.

You're right to question the synthesis, and there could be validity to the theory that some Chinese PMK might've been 3,4-dimethoxyphenyl-2-propanone instead of real PMK: 3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl-2-propanone (MDP-2-P). But we have no way of knowing this now, nor at what volume, due to the clandestine nature of it and the fact that this happened in the past, if at all. I've found nothing but MDMA for many years now, after a spell of some RC imposters circa 2013. Regardless it's all just conjecture at this point, but to believe MDMA is no longer around is inaccurate.

Back in the aughts when bk-mdma first hit the scene it had that magic too.

I've never been a big fan of methylone, but to each their methyl own (ya see what I did there? lol)

When I do get a "good" batch these days (I'm aware of how corny that sounds) it's almost always the "coca-cola" dark crystals.

Better than Pepsi-colored, lol. But for reals, you can wash a lot of that discoloration out with ice cold, anhydrous acetone, you know.

The "champagne" never gets me there. So is it the precursor?

First ask: is this MDMA? It doesn't matter what some dealer calls it. Verify whether it's actual 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine. The precursor only matters to the manufacturer. To the user, assuming it's what it's represented as, only the end product, its purity, and the quantity taken matter.

Or as some have theorized and I think might have some merit there were active impurities in the old cooks.

And you think one of those impurities is somehow better than MDMA, or at least improves it? Generally speaking impurities don't improve a substance. Listen, I used to manufacture MDMA and I've talked about it throughout this thread. We can identify the synthetic routes by looking at trace byproducts, so we know the syntheses that clandestine chemists are using. None of the impurities that have been identified and isolated have significant activity, particularly in the small percentage of the total product that they represent. We've theorized on this thread that MDDMA and MDTMA could potentially blockade MDMA's activity of traveling up the serotonin transporter, but then this is what MDMA does to itself eventually: blockades its own action. This is why subsequent doses have such diminishing returns, but the initial 4-hr. roll still happens before the inhibiting action begins.

These days with the increased difficulty in obtaining any precursor whether it's safrole or pmk you have to be much more precise.

Please realize that safrole is in fact a precursor to PMK. Any chemist who makes their MDMA starting from Safrole first converts the Safrole to PMK (aka MDP-2-P) after isomerizing it. And what do you mean by "much more precise"? More precise than what? The level of precision does not change. If anything, being able to purchase PMK, assuming it's real PMK, cuts out a large portion of the synthesis, but precision is still needed in isolating the end product. Where did you get the idea that it requires a different level of precision?

I can only theorize as to the "why" I can only tell you that it never got better than the mid 90s speckled wafers. Not even close.

Yeah you're talking about "disco biscuits" (not the band). Those had whopping doses of MDMA and/or MDA. You're also talking about real raves and not these pussied out, watered-down, corporate-sponsored events the kids call "raves" these days, unaware of the civil disobedience and illegal warehouse parties that fueled the early days of the rave scene. Set and setting, my friend…

I wish I had a time machine. I'd go back to the Hazy Dayz parties of the mid 90s in Dallas.

Yeah I know about those. I was going to parties in NOVA, D.C. and Baltimore at the time. Scott Henry's Buzzlife productions in Nations nightclub overlooking the capitol building in Washington. Lots of amazing nights. There was a raid there in '96 and the TV show Cops filmed it; shit was wild.

Oh the blessed cuddle puddles of 20-30 kids on the floor in a shitty warehouse. The bathroom stalls covered in yak. Lol. Anyway just some thoughts from an old head. Y'all be careful out there and enjoy your youth.

Youth is wasted on the young, isn't it? No one's fault bc the young don't, and can't, know to appreciate it owing to the fact that we don't fully know what we have until it's gone. Texas' involvement with MDMA has always been a peculiar thing to me considering how conservative and anti-drug TX is. But until the late 80s, MDMA was legal to purchase in TX from any bar who happened to sell it from what I've heard. I understand, in the right bar, you could order it like a drink and the bartender would bring you a wafer and a glass of water. We never had it that good on the East Coast…

Hey but thanks for the trip down memory lane. I wish there were an easy answer to this question, but as I've said before, it's most likely a combination of things giving the illusion of being a single solitary phenomenon.

 

[unodelacosa]

What if mdma isn’t the same today because counterfeiting other chemicals as mdma, smurfing, let’s say, has become more common, and batches of mdma made for distribution and sale have become less common. This would be the best answer to the threads question. What’s wrong with the mdma today is that the product being sold as mdma, is not mdma. Coupled with mdma production and distribution networks being less prominent have led to the mdma that reaches market being drowned out in a sea of counterfeits and profit grabs. This would mean that actual mdma is still good while most of what is being sold as mdma can also be the answer to what is wrong with mdma.

Smurfing. Smurfing is what’s wrong with the mdma available today.

So at this point, the argument becomes semantics. So it's like:

> "What is wrong with today's MDMA?"

Nothing, of course. Or perhaps that many people don't know where to find it, evidently.

> "What is wrong with today's MDMA markets?"

In certain areas, imposter MDMA has seemingly flooded the market and all but replaced actual MDMA in those markets. On the bright side, I think this has fueled people's interest in newer drugs like 2C-B, 3-MMC, and 4-MMC, so it's nice to see some diverse, novel interests in these compounds, particularly 2C-B minus the fact that its presence in the market spurred the arrival of that bullshit Columbian "Tusibi" garbage.

Not UK near though, Netherlands the metropolis of MDMA. So the market was pretty consistent.

Yeah idk then without trying the actual substance in question. If you're ever in New York City with enough time to roll, hit me up and I will meet you, show you a few cool places, and we could perhaps get to the bottom of this mystery for you personally at least, or leave with us both confused, but either way, it would be a fun time I'm pretty sure

 

[helpingout]

So at this point, the argument becomes semantics. So it's like:

> "What is wrong with today's MDMA?"

Nothing, of course. Or perhaps that many people don't know where to find it, evidently.

> "What is wrong with today's MDMA markets?"

In certain areas, imposter MDMA has seemingly flooded the market and all but replaced actual MDMA in those markets. On the bright side, I think this has fueled people's interest in newer drugs like 2C-B, 3-MMC, and 4-MMC, so it's nice to see some diverse, novel interests in these compounds, particularly 2C-B minus the fact that its presence in the market spurred the arrival of that bullshit Columbian "Tusibi" garbage.


Yeah idk then without trying the actual substance in question. If you're ever in New York City with enough time to roll, hit me up and I will meet you, show you a few cool places, and we could perhaps get to the bottom of this mystery for you personally at least, or leave with us both confused, but either way, it would be a fun time I'm pretty sure

Yeah. Agreed. Semantics. Which tracks with the length of the thread and the duration of arguments made. I think the simplest answer is the best answer and also the most likely explanation is often the simplest one.

Nothings wrong with mdma and where there is mdma that feels off, its probably other chemicals smurfing as mdma by low level dealers who aren’t part of traditional production and distribution networks.