What is wrong with the MDMA available today?

[rorymullan]

Pills where always better in the past. In the early 00's the older ravers dreamed of the pills of the 90's. Today the MDMA of the 00's is the holy grail of MDMA.

The magic wears off as the experience becomes normalised. Same as any other drug.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

Pills where always better in the past. In the early 00's the older ravers dreamed of the pills of the 90's. Today the MDMA of the 00's is the holy grail of MDMA.

The magic wears off as the experience becomes normalised. Same as any other drug.

Although there is a lot of truth in what you say, it's overly simplistic I'm afraid. 'Magic' is a very subjective term and is influenced by a lot of factors - the main one being having access to good MDMA. However, the fact is that there is a lot of shit MDMA out there that couldn't provide anything close to 'magic' - or even 'good'...

 

[psy997]

Pills where always better in the past. In the early 00's the older ravers dreamed of the pills of the 90's. Today the MDMA of the 00's is the holy grail of MDMA.

The magic wears off as the experience becomes normalised. Same as any other drug.

Not true. Those of us who do find good MDMA after months or years of only Meh have no problems having magic experiences.

 

[ThreePointCircle]

Pills where always better in the past. In the early 00's the older ravers dreamed of the pills of the 90's. Today the MDMA of the 00's is the holy grail of MDMA.

The magic wears off as the experience becomes normalised. Same as any other drug.

Literally the very first post counters this. Literally the first post! I know you might not want to read 251 pages but the opening post shouldn't be too much

 

[FuckinAcidMan]

Damn. I found a source claiming they make saffrole produced mdma. It appears brown and crystally and turns to a fluffy off white powder when broken up.

I'm droolin hahah

 

[rorymullan]

Literally the very first post counters this. Literally the first post! I know you might not want to read 251 pages but the opening post shouldn't be too much

The first post doesn't counter anything. It offers an opinion, the same opinion that has always been offered.

The reason someone might find saffrole produced MDMA to be better, could just be that they go into the experience expecting saffrole produced MDMA to be better. AFAIK, both methods produce a racemic product.

I'm not saying that it is wrong, and that the MDMA available today isn't different than the MDMA produced a decade ago, but I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary and it's true that it's always been the case that the old ravers have talked about how much better MDMA was in the past. I remember it well when I was a young buck in the mid 00's.

I haven't heard the youth of today complaining.

 

[ThreePointCircle]

The first post doesn't counter anything. It offers an opinion, the same opinion that has always been offered.

The first post (and many others) are incompatible with the idea of magic wearing off (as they say there are still able to get a magic experience, only depending on the batch). Now fair enough if you don't believe what they are saying - proof is required for this to be accepted. But to just chuck out a condescending statement that doesn't logically explain what people are reporting is just plain annoying.

 

[rorymullan]

The first post (and many others) are incompatible with the idea of magic wearing off (as they say there are still able to get a magic experience, only depending on the batch). Now fair enough if you don't believe what they are saying - proof is required for this to be accepted. But to just chuck out a condescending statement that doesn't logically explain what people are reporting is just plain annoying.

I'm not being condescending

Sorry if I came across that way, not intended.

Merely pointing out that it's by no means a new opinion and has been shared by older ravers for as long as there has been older ravers, and that since the experience is entirely based on set and setting, the experience could entirely be explained by the subjective feeling going in that the saffrole MDMA will be better. That feel logical to me.

 

[ThreePointCircle]

Merely pointing out that it's by no means a new opinion and has been shared by older ravers for as long as there has been older ravers, and that since the experience is entirely based on set and setting, the experience could entirely be explained by the subjective feeling going in that the saffrole MDMA will be better. That's a pretty logical explanation

No probs, I'm sorry for being cranky. Ecstasy was so called because the euphoria was so bloody strong. I don't buy for a second the set and setting argument, simply because the difference is too massive. It also assumes that everyone complaining of meh had a bad set or setting. What I'm saying is if the experiential difference between batches is placebo then it is one hell of a massive placebo. Hey I've tried to wish it in to reality, lol, but it doesn't happen. Also, the meh experiences are remarkably consistent.

Hopefully my TLC experiments will lead to something. It looks like I'm finding more than what should be in there. I've got bigger plates on order to try and separate better. If I do, then I'll see if any of the testing services can test of the TLC scrapings.

 

[rorymullan]

No probs, I'm sorry for being cranky. Ecstasy was so called because the euphoria was so bloody strong. I don't buy for a second the set and setting argument, simply because the difference is too massive. It also assumes that everyone complaining of meh had a bad set or setting. What I'm saying is if the experiential difference between batches is placebo then it is one hell of a massive placebo. Hey I've tried to wish it in to reality, lol, but it doesn't happen. Also, the meh experiences are remarkably consistent.

Hopefully my TLC experiments will lead to something. It looks like I'm finding more than what should be in there. I've got bigger plates on order to try and separate better. If I do, then I'll see if any of the testing services can test of the TLC scrapings.

 

[user666]

Hopefully my TLC experiments will lead to something. It looks like I'm finding more than what should be in there.

In reference to @indigoaura 's hypothesis and paper, to which I referred in this post, the three di-aryl molecules are so much larger, that they should ascend slower up the TLC plate.
If her hypothesis is correct then these di-aryl compounds would be in the lowest spot on the plate and MDMA would be in one of the higher spots. Of course, this would also mean, that MDMA is a minority component in the mix.

 

[user666]

I've got bigger plates on order to try and separate better.

Did you see the TLC techniques described in this paper ?

 

[AutoTripper]

Pills where always better in the past. In the early 00's the older ravers dreamed of the pills of the 90's. Today the MDMA of the 00's is the holy grail of MDMA.

The magic wears off as the experience becomes normalised. Same as any other drug.

I have expressed this point many times. From 96 to 98 at least, pill standard average decreased.

The magical bullets were fewer and farer between. Like OG Doves, Dolphins, Elephants etc. But still around, amidst plenty lower dosed presses like 55mg not 120-170.

But it picked up in general from 2000. I got so many truly banging e's up until 2005, right on par with the best I had in the 90's, from a large subject pool from 96 to 2005 April.

 

[ThreePointCircle]

In reference to @indigoaura 's hypothesis and paper, to which I referred in this post, the three di-aryl molecules are so much larger, that they should ascend slower up the TLC plate.
If her hypothesis is correct then these di-aryl compounds would be in the lowest spot on the plate and MDMA would be in one of the higher spots. Of course, this would also mean, that MDMA is a minority component in the mix.

Can you refresh me on what the hypothesis is? Is the a particular reason why the diarl components might be the culprits?

And I hadn't considered the MDMA spot actually being the smaller one. Interesting idea. One thing was that I couldn't really determine a difference between the two spots in how they reacted to the reagents. They were both compatible is MDMA, at least as far as I could tell.

Did you see the TLC techniques described in this paper ?

I've just had a quick look. Most of it I can't do because of the equipment involved. I was curious about their mobile phase of almost 100% methanol. All the advice I've seen is not to go over 10%, otherwise the silica gets dissolved.

 

[rainey]

I don't think we have any conclusive evidence that it's due to precursors, and that doesn't match with the experiences of people in the thread. The big crackdown on safarole happened 2008/2009, people were getting meh before that and plenty of people have gotten magic since (some from sources that are very likely using PMK-G as a precursor, such as the Q-Dance pills).

yes and I don't and have never got "magic" from qdance!

 

[indigoaura]

I have not gotten my results back yet on the two samples I sent in for testing. Waiting eagerly.

I should have some new product to test out soon. Maybe in a week or two. I took the advice of several people in the thread and I am getting some pills. "Q-Dance" were not available, but I selected something that specifically mentioned euphoria, with some extra positive comments. Also, they claimed a lower overall mg dose per pill, and they charged more. That may seem counter-intuitive to many, but seemed like good signs to me.

Also will be getting some new crystal.

We'll see what each looks like with reagents and lab tests and go from there.

I am always conflicted about whether it is ok to consume something with multiple reagent tests but no lab result. So, my decision on that will determine when I can move forward.

@rorymullin I knew those ravers who talked about how the 90s pills were different. However, the guys who were "old-school" back in 2000 still rolled hard on what was going around in 2000. I saw them completely laid up with dilated pupils, rubbing on everyone in a giant cuddle puddle. So, although they did talk about how the ecstasy used to be different, they did not complain about not being able to roll. It all makes sense if they were recalling a Leuckart synth with a different set of impurities than the al hg synth popular at that time. It is entirely plausible that 90s MDMA was different from 00s MDMA, which was different from 2010s MDMA and so on and so forth, due to the impurities and ratios of impurities.

 

[user666]

Can you refresh me on what the hypothesis is? Is the a particular reason why the diarl components might be the culprits?

Just what is described in that Pifl paper, which she found.
The authors identified two di-ary synthesis byproducts*, which reduce the MDMA's effects on the noradrenergic and serotonergic systems in vitro. I remind you, that the former one is responsible for the pupil dilation and energy.
These byproducts resemble MDMA dimers, which have been mentioned in this thread several times. They might deceive hot gas-chromatography through pyrolytic disproportionation, but this has not been studied.

@indigoaura 's hypothesis is that these compounds, or other ones which have similar inhibitory properties, are responsible for the MehMDMA, which tests as just MDMA.

* They also discovered a 3^rd di-aryl synth byproduct, which is not psychoactive.

 

[user666]

One thing was that I couldn't really determine a difference between the two spots in how they reacted to the reagents. They were both compatible is MDMA, at least as far as I could tell.

Yes, reagents would not differentiate between them, but there might be a difference in their opacity to UV light because similar di-aryl compounds are known to be strong UV absorbers (some are even used in sunscreens).

I've just had a quick look. Most of it I can't do because of the equipment involved. I was curious about their mobile phase of almost 100% methanol. All the advice I've seen is not to go over 10%, otherwise the silica gets dissolved.

I never encountered anything about the silica getting dissolved (it's a pretty resilient compound!) but I remember reading somewhere, that methanol interferes with some fluorescent agents added to the silica.

 

[vecktor]

Can you refresh me on what the hypothesis is? Is the a particular reason why the diarl components might be the culprits?

And I hadn't considered the MDMA spot actually being the smaller one. Interesting idea. One thing was that I couldn't really determine a difference between the two spots in how they reacted to the reagents. They were both compatible is MDMA, at least as far as I could tell.



I've just had a quick look. Most of it I can't do because of the equipment involved. I was curious about their mobile phase of almost 100% methanol. All the advice I've seen is not to go over 10%, otherwise the silica gets dissolved.

The silica dissolving story is from flash column chromatography and it is not important to TLC. The methanol doesn't actually dissolved the silica but the large amounts of heat generated when methanol is absorbed into the silica column with nowhere for the heat to go causes spherical silica to breakdown and shed small particles that end up in the product.

 

[ThreePointCircle]

Just what is described in that Pifl paper, which she found.
The authors identified two di-ary synthesis byproducts*, which reduce the MDMA's effects on the noradrenergic and serotonergic systems in vitro. I remind you, that the former one is responsible for the pupil dilation and energy.
These byproducts resemble MDMA dimers, which have been mentioned in this thread several times. They might deceive hot gas-chromatography through pyrolytic disproportionation, but this has not been studied.

@indigoaura 's hypothesis is that these compounds, or other ones which have similar inhibitory properties, are responsible for the MehMDMA, which tests as just MDMA.

* They also discovered a 3^rd di-aryl synth byproduct, which is not psychoactive.

Holy crap, yep for some reason I didn't even read the abstract - amazing paper. Have read the abstract now and will continue with the rest of the paper.