What is wrong with the MDMA available today?

[cryptix420]

Man, haters gonna hate I guess. Why all the skepticism?

A close friend of mine is a biochemist, and knows the person performing the synthesis. This isn't some kid slinging molly.

Regardless, I'll report back after trying - potentially on the Solstice.

 

[G_Chem]

While I agree the lower price you quoted is def too low for good quality (unless buying a half z to a z) I’d also say the higher price is too high. (I saw before edit.)

That seems even higher when looking at supposed closeness to the source.. You’d think being two steps away from the chemist would get you a tad better prices but maybe I’m just lucky. Or the chemist is a greedy turd..

Basically I’m calling BS, but that said I’m still interested to hear your results .

-GC

 

[indigoaura]

Man, haters gonna hate I guess. Why all the skepticism?

A close friend of mine is a biochemist, and knows the person performing the synthesis. This isn't some kid slinging molly.

Regardless, I'll report back after trying - potentially on the Solstice.

Very curious to know what your experience is.

 

[cryptix420]

Well, goodness, I'm in the midst of it right now...the keyboard is velvet. Yes?

Seriously though, this is some fire stuff.

@G_Chem - To be honest, the low end prices are something I quoting from Dream Market a while back.

And as for the expensive stuff being too expensive....I can say without hesitation that after trying it, I'd pay the extra for this sort of experience every time.

It's good to remember that simply knowing the person who makes your drugs won't necessarily make the starting materials any cheaper or less risky to purchase (sassafras root bark and safrole are monitored pretty tightly by the govt. (if I understand correctly).

We all like to be valued for our hard work, yes?

 

[indigoaura]

And as for the expensive stuff being too expensive....I can say without hesitation that after trying it, I'd pay the extra for this sort of experience every time.

That's the thing, right there. I'm not the 18 year old making minimum wage anymore. I would gladly, gladly pay a premium for quality, reliable, product.

 

[G_Chem]

Well, goodness, I'm in the midst of it right now...the keyboard is velvet. Yes?

Seriously though, this is some fire stuff.

@G_Chem - To be honest, the low end prices are something I quoting from Dream Market a while back.

And as for the expensive stuff being too expensive....I can say without hesitation that after trying it, I'd pay the extra for this sort of experience every time.

It's good to remember that simply knowing the person who makes your drugs won't necessarily make the starting materials any cheaper or less risky to purchase (sassafras root bark and safrole are monitored pretty tightly by the govt. (if I understand correctly).

We all like to be valued for our hard work, yes?

Fair enough.. Yea everyone’s different and I could see a niche chemist charging that much if they feel their time, effort and product are worth it.

Safrole is def not easy to get these days, that’s for sure. Especially for niche chemists just looking to make a bit for personal and friends. Larger (but still small compared to the Dutch operations) manufacturers have an easier time as they can make connections with essential oil suppliers and divert some their way. Not so easy for someone just looking to grab a liter here n there.

You may have said already, but what does the product look like? Can you get any details on the synthesis? (It’s ok to speak generally about routes so long as we don’t get specific enough for it to be any use to anyone reading. Aka just the names of the routes.)

-GC

 

[cryptix420]

I'll have to get back to you on that, regarding synthesis. My friend wasn't aware I have a MG scale and so unfortunately she had already diluted it in water so I couldn't see what it looked like. Next time I'll make sure to get the raw crystals.

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

Its a fucking shame sass is not the main precoursor (sp?) anymore.

I def. notice a diff in MDMA from say 2012 and today. The new whatever ehyl/methyl-recipe has killed alot of what MDMA used to induce, atleast in my case.

 

[Negi]

The new whatever ehyl/methyl-recipe has killed alot of what MDMA used to induce, atleast in my case.

Could you be more specific about what has changed about the experience for you? Has it been consistent, or have you found some batches of MDMA that feel the same as the old stuff for you?

 

[Negi]

I would actually say that 2,3-MDMA is the possible cause we have the most evidence against. Remember I emailed the author of that paper (since he works at the Forensic Laboratory of the Dutch National Police as his day job). He was pretty direct about the fact that nobody had seen any 2,3-MDMA.

Subject: RE: Regarding your research on the detection of positional isomers

Hello [Name],

Thank you for your e-mail.
I am aware of the potential risk of forensic laboratories to encounter a novel, yet uncontrolled, positional isomer of MDMA and we've put additional QC checks in place to detect this and prevent a false positive identifications.
However, from both my own experience and trend reports (e.g. UNODC, EMCDDA reports) and the NPS Early Warning website https://www.unodc.org/LSS/Home/NPS we don't have any signs that MDMA positional isomers actually do appear on the street markets in a vast amount.
I know that 2,3-MDMA exists; but I've never encountered this in a case sample until now. I've studied this compound as this one might have near-similar MS fragmentation and pose a risk for a false positive. We've found that retention time and GC-MS match still can give a first clue and additional analysis by GC-VUV can clearly distinguish them (see paper enclosed). For other positional isomers with variations near the amine moiety we can expect major fragmentation differences in MS, thus they can clearly be differentiated.

So, no, I am not aware of MDMA positional isomers in street samples (at least not in The Netherlands). We do encounter designer drugs and mixtures thereof in a single sample, although these are mainly other groups of substances, such as the cathinones or fluorinated (meth)amphetamines.

Kind regards,

Ruben

If you look at his published research, he has four papers about detecting drug isomers using different methods (he even uses 2,3-MDMA and 3,4-MDMA as a specific test case in two of them). I'm pretty sure he's doing a PhD thesis on the topic. If he is saying that the Dutch police lab is looking in the right places but has never seen any isomers, I'm willing to take that at face value.

 

[G_Chem]

Hi everyone

I've been researching quite a bit lately, read Pihkal and other documentation in search of clues, I am very confident that we can give an answer to this riddle that we've been dragging around for what? 3 years now?
But first things first: I'd like to run over the various hypothesis that have been set out to cross the ones that, for one reason or another cannot be true.
A scientific approach is the only way, we are way past hypothesis, we have all the data we need to cross what can and what can't be.

“A molecule is a molecule is a molecule”

Regardless of the synthesis route the pharmacology of a chemical compound stays the same.​

What we know:

1. Different synthesis methods are used now than were used in the past
   
2. Different synthesis methods produce different synthesis byproducts
   
3. Some synthesis byproducts are capable of altering monoamine transporter activity
   
4. Interference in monoamine transporter activity can dampen the MDMA experience

Any of these statements are in fact true, but no one can explain the differences between Magic & Meh for the following reasons:

1. Current and past known methods all give proper product. These are all well known.
   
2. This is true especially with older mass production routes (Leuckart), from mid 80's to early 2000's, we know that those byproducts would colour and enhance certain aspects of the MDMA experience, whose who where lucky enough to try both tablets in the club/rave scene and small lab production from independent sources could tell the differences, tablets where more stimulant while mdma is a more calm and intimate experience.
   
3. True (?), but there's no reports anywhere of such compounds, and those aren't found by pill test services.
   
4. True (?), #3 answer applies here as well.

So the above statements doesn't solve the issue, we can exclude those once for all.
That leave us with the following:

1. Isomers ratio: Extremely unlikely, an uneven D-L isomer ratio would mean either that labs are throwing away a big part of the production or that the synth route produces a preferred isomer, meaning that the synth becomes much more difficult and longer. A drug lab nightmare in fact.
   
2. Dimers, trimers etc.: Any GC/MS would detect those.
   
3. Polymorphism: Irrelevant, users haven't found any differences on ingesting solid/dissolved material from the same batch.
   
4. Undetected contaminants chemically similar to synthetic opioids like Fentanyl: Simply not possible, opioids routes and precursors are completely different, also deadly drug overdoses from MDMA would become frequent and immediately reported on mainstream media (TV, Etc.).
   
5. Undetected (other not opioids) contaminants that would compete with MDMA at the same receptors: Two different possibilities here, If the contaminant(s) are present in the microgram range being extremely potent to go undetected (see also #4) then few re-crystallizations would be enough to purify the product and obtain a pure, magic MDMA. If the contaminant instead is not potent enough to be active in the microgram range then would show as impurity in any standard GC/MS testing.
   
6. Isobaries: Here is where we need to look. I have a very good candidate for the Meh but I'll come back on this later.

Back to PIHKAL: The 17 most significant, active chemicals

2C-B: 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine, bromomescaline, CBr
2C-D: 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylphenethylamine, LE-25
2C-T-2: 2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethylthiophenethylamine
2C-T-7: 2,5-dimethoxy-4-propylthiophenethylamine
DOB: 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromoamphetamine
DOI: 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine
DOM: 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methyamphetamine, STP
M: 3,4,5-trimethoxyphenthylamine, Mescaline
MDA: 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine
MDE: N-ethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine
MDMA: N-methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine
MDOH: N-hydroxy-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine
MEM: 2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethoxyamphetamine
Methyl-J: N-methyl-1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-butanamine, MBDB, Eden
MMDA: 3-methoxy-4,5-methylenedioxyamphetamine
TMA: 3,4,5-trimethoxyamphetamine
TMA-2: 2,4,5-trimethoxyamphetamine
TMA-6: 2,4,6-trimethoxyamphetamine

Check the chemicals above, what do they have all in common? Yes, exactly, the position four.

“The position 4 is where the magic happens” - Alexander Shulgin

I am firmly convinced that what is currently sold as 3,4-MDMA is actually 2,3-MDMA. ​

• It test as MDMA in any home/street/festival substance test.​
• It test as MDMA in any substance testing organisation like drugsdata etc.​
• It tests like MDMA in most forensic analysis, unless more accurate testing are needed (and it is in any case enough to prosecute, no one will try to check if is 2,3-M or 3,4-M, LEO is happy anyway, why look further).​
• It is much more difficult to differentiate from its more active isomer, you need specially sensitive instruments, not easily available and again, you really need to look for it, so why bother unless needed?​
• It slowly killed the last bit of counterculture, namely the Club/Rave/EDM Festivals, no more uncontrolled gatherings of young people. Governments and LEO are very happy!​
• You can say no 2,3 material has been found, Wrong! No one has been looking for it. No one is searching for an answer, apart a bunch of junkies from a drug forum .​

I bet that when 2,3-MDMA will be made illegal MDMA will virtually disappear until new routes/precursors will be found. This could be good because it will possibly make available tests to distinguish the 2,3 from the 3,4.



Comparative potencies of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) analogues as inhibitors of [3H]noradrenaline and[3H]5-HT transport in mammalian cell lines

British Journal of Pharmacology (2007) 152, 1121–1130; doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0707473; published online 24 September 2007

Background and purpose:
Illegal ‘ecstasy’ tablets frequently contain 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-like compounds of unknown pharmacological activity. Since monoamine transporters are one of the primary targets of MDMA action in the brain, a number of MDMA analogues have been tested for their ability to inhibit [3H]noradrenaline uptake into rat PC12 cells expressing the noradrenaline transporter (NET) and [3H]5-HT uptake into HEK293 cells stably transfected with the 5-HT transporter (SERT).

Experimental approach:
Concentration–response curves for the following compounds at both NET and SERT were determined under saturating substrate conditions: 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyamphetamine (HMA), 4-hydroxy-3-methoxymethamphetamine (HMMA), 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-hydroxyamphetamine (MDOH), 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenylethylamine (2CB), 3,4-dimethoxymethamphetamine (DMMA), 3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl-2-butanamine (BDB), 3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl-N-methyl-2-butanamine (MBDB) and 2,3-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (2,3-MDMA).

Key results:
2,3-MDMA was significantly less potent than MDMA at SERT, but equipotent with MDMA at NET. 2CB and BDB were both significantly less potent than MDMA at NET, but equipotent with MDMA at SERT. MBDB, DMMA, MDOH and the MDMA metabolites HMA and HMMA, were all significantly less potent than MDMA at both NET and SERT. (note: This explain a lot, why meh brings you nearly there.. but not where you want to be)

Conclusions and implications:
This study provides an important insight into the structural requirements of MDMA analogue affinity at both NET and SERT. It is anticipated that these results will facilitate understanding of the likely pharmacological actions of structural analogues of MDMA.

Personal note: if ain't got position 4, it doesn't magic!

Mass-Spectrometry-Based Identification of Synthetic Drug Isomers Using Infrared Ion Spectroscopy
Ruben F. Kranenburg,*,† Fred A. M. G. van Geenen,† Giel Berden, Jos Oomens, Jonathan Martens, and Arian C. van Asten
Anal. Chem. 2020.92:7282-7288

ABSTRACT:
Infrared ion spectroscopy (IRIS), a mass-spectrometry-based technique exploiting resonant infrared multiple photon dissociation (IRMPD), has been applied for the identification of novel psychoactive substances (NPS). Identification of the precise isomeric forms of NPS is of significant forensic relevance since legal controls are dependent on even minor molecular differences such as a single ring-substituent position.

Using three isomers of fluoroamphetamine and two ring-isomers of both MDA and MDMA, we demonstrate the ability of IRIS to distinguish closely related NPS. Computationally predicted infrared (IR) spectra are shown to correspond with experimental spectra and could explain the molecular origins of their distinctive IR absorption bands. IRIS was then used to investigate a confiscated street sample containing two unknown substances. One substance could easily be identified by comparison to the IR spectra of reference standards. For the other substance, however, this approach proved inconclusive due to incomplete mass spectral databases as well as a lack of available reference compounds, two common analytical limitations resulting from the rapid development of NPS. Most excitingly, the second unknown substance could nevertheless be identified by using computationally predicted IR spectra of several potential candidate structures instead of their experimental reference spectra.


Infrared Ion Spectroscopy.
IRIS measurements were performed using a modified Bruker (Bremen, Germany) AmaZon ion trap mass spectrometer. The modifications to the mass spectrometer and full details of the experimental setup are reported elsewhere.In short, two windows were placed above the ring electrode in the vacuum housing of the ion trap, and 3 mm holes were drilled in both the top and bottom of the ring electrode to guide the laser beam through the ion trap. Two mirror mounts were installed below the ring electrode to guide the laser beam out of the vacuum housing.
The infrared laser light, generated by the FELIX free-electron laser,31,32 can interact with the trapped and mass-selected ion cloud inside the mass spectrometer to enable wave number specific IRMPD experiments. Extensive hardware and software modifications are further implemented to fully integrate the operation of the mass spectrometer with the wavelength tuning of the laser.

Note: so ain't easy to differentiate isn't it?

MDMA-Type Isomer Differentiation with Infrared Ion Spectroscopy. Another, different, class of isomeric compounds that have a bicyclic ring structure connected at different positions, the MDMA- and MDA-type drugs, were also investigated.
The 3,4-isomers of both MDMA (known as “ecstasy”) and MDA are frequently occurring stimulants that are controlled substances in The Netherlands. However, their 2,3-isomers are both NPS that are not controlled and are nearly indistinguishable from their corresponding 3,4-isomers on the basis of GC-MS, being the method of choice in most forensic laboratories.
Using IRIS, however, clearly distinctive IR spectra for each isomer could be generated which enables simple identification of these NPS from their controlled counterparts, as presented in Figure 3 (see Figure S3 for a comparison to computationally predicted IR spectra).

ir.spectra.gif

Distinguishing drug isomers in the forensic laboratory: GC–VUV in addition to GC–MS for orthogonal selectivity and the use of library match scores as a new source of information.
Ruben F. Kranenburga,b,*, Alan R. García-Cicourelb, Corina Kukurinb,
Hans-Gerd Janssenb,c, Peter J. Schoenmakersb, Arian C. van Astenb.
R.F. Kranenburg et al. / Forensic Science International 302 (2019) 109900

A B S T R A C T
Currently, forensic drug experts are facing chemical identification challenges with the increasing number of new isomeric forms of psychoactive substances occurring in case samples. Very similar mass spectra for these substances could easily result in misidentification using the regular GC–MS screening methods in combination with colorimetric testing in forensic laboratories. Building on recent work from other groups, this study demonstrates that GC–VUV is a powerful technique for drug isomer differentiation, showing reproducible and discriminating spectra for aromatic ring-isomers. MS and VUV show complementary selectivity as VUV spectra are ring-position specific whereas MS spectra are characteristic for the amine moieties of the molecule. VUV spectra are very reproducible showing less than 0.1m deviation in library match scores and therefore small spectral differences suffice to confidently distinguish isomers. In comparison, MS match scores gave over 10m deviation and showed significant overlap in match score ranges for several isomers. This poses a risk for false positive identifications when assigning compounds based on retention time and GC–MS mass spectrum. A strategy was developed, based on Kernel Density Estimations of match scores, to construct Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and estimate likelihood ratios (LR values) with respect to the chemical differentiation of drug related isomers. This approach, and the added value of GC–VUV is demonstrated with the chemical analysis of several samples from drug case work from the Amsterdam area involving both compounds listed in Dutch drug legislation (3,4-MDMA; 3,4-MDA; 4-MMC; 4-MEC and 4-FA) as well as their unlisted and thus uncontrolled isomers (2,3-MDMA; 2,3-MDA; 2- and 3-MMC; 2- and 3-MEC and 2- and 3-FA).

Few snippets from the above documentation, as you can see in this image the spectra for the various isomers is very similar, even with more accurate instrumentation.


That brings to lots of false positives, namely 2,3 test as 3,4 and vice-versa, but when nearly all the substance is 2,3 and you don't have the right tools... you guess the answer.


More accurate results shows when matching with a correct reference spectrum.


So it is quite clear that current forensic analysis is not able to recognize single ring-substituent position in everyday's activity.

What to do next? Let's talk about it.

(edits: typos and extra notes)

I’m sorry but you’ve just started to skim the surface. As @Negi said, GCMS can determine between the two so that wouldn’t be it. There’s many other articles which state the opposite which have been posted before.

If you’d continue your research, such as digging through Hive posts, you’ll see your wrong in other areas of the post as well.

People have found a difference between polymorphs although some reading between the lines must be done since many back in the Hive days weren’t aware of them. Go back through the first thread and you’ll find posts I’ve put up with quotes from many chemists speaking of differences in effects between recrystallization methods which can only be explained by polymorphism.

Even Strike claimed there was a difference in effects with certain re-X methods for MDMA.

A dimer is more likely to be missed by GCMS than 2,3. Pretty sure we have articles up (in the last thread....) that show a dimer would be missed.

Also again if you search the Hive you’ll see posts even back then of people making product which is lackluster despite everything seeming to be done perfectly. Certain routes give more consistently lackluster product, whereas others are more reliable. This can’t be explained by 2,3-MDMA theory, and if you look at which routes more often give poor product at the Hive you’ll see those routes are the ones most often used today. (All this info is again, in the last thread..)

I suggest people that want to come in hereclike they got the answer to re-read this whole thread cuz there’s more info in it than you could ever imagine..

If 2,3-MDMA is a problem it isn’t widespread, certainly not enough to be the culprit to this issue.

-GC

 

[Negi]

Might as well pull over some of the relevant data for the various theories we had found in the old thread.

Regarding isomer ratios:

From someone's PHD thesis.
Batch five was seized in 2006, batch 45 in 2011.

 

[foolsgold25]

They changed the precursor from Safrole to PMK. I think this is the most likely reason for the mdma we have now. No pupil dilation, lack of that slow “coming up” feeling to then peaking and loving everyone around you. Overstimulation. Feeling of tiredness and wanting to sit down. All of these things didn’t happen to me prior to 2009 from my experience.

I am hoping there’s a chemist somewhere plotting the release of a load of old school pills into the clubs for after this corona shit is over haha

 

[Deleted member 521610]

PMK mdma was around in mass production since early 2000's. and its pretty funny since all the pmk mdma i have done from holland has always induced complete pupil dilation 30-45 min intense rush oneness and peace with the entire universe and unstoppable urge to tell everybody you love them and message every single one of your friends.

David nichols synthesies the pharma grade mdma for maps why has no one emailed him because he would laugh his ass off and tell them they fried there brains and become what is commonly known as E-tard.

 

[indigoaura]

@mooka

Drugs Data bought samples of 2,3 MDMA and added it to their database based on emails that I sent them. They then ran all of their previously tested MDMA against the new data for 2,3 MDMA to see if it might be the culprit. It was not. This theory was specifically tested by Drugs Data and proven to be false. I will go back through my email and try to find what they said and quote it here.

Also, in your post, you copied one of my posts word for word, but you did not separate it out or indicate who the original writer was. My original post is here: https://www.bluelight.org/xf/threads/non-euphoric-mdma.895810/post-15045452

I'm glad my summary was helpful to you in formulating your post, but, maybe give me cred for my summary? I know that prob seems egotistical, but it takes time and effort to write these long posts, and it bugs me to see my words (word for word) getting mixed up with someone else's commentary. In the academic world, we call that plagiarism.

Also, I have it in writing from Energy Control that in order to detect synthesis byproducts they have to change the settings on their machine. They are not reporting synthesis byproducts in their lab results. So, you cannot say with certainty that synthesis byproducts are not being found by testing companies, because the testing companies are not trying to report them. Based on published research, every sample has synthesis byproducts present in some quantity, because that is how they can trace the product back to the original lab/manufacturer. This is reported extensively in police reports.

 

[indigoaura]

Subject: [DrugsData #198631]: DrugsData Contact: isobaric molecules and analytical complexities ​ Date: Tuesday, 14 Jan 2020 10:38​ From: ​ To: ​

Greetings. We've made a tiny bit of progress. Last week we got a certified standard for 2,3-MDMA. 2,3-MDMA has been run against all our previous MDMA identifications and does not match anything we've had submitted to us. I just ordered the following and expect to run them next week: 1. N-methyl Homarylamine. Cayman 22239 2. Homarylamine. Cayman 21351 3. 2-MeOMC. Cayman 9001186 4. Methedrone. (4-MeOMC) Cayman 10529 5. 3-MeOMC. Cayman 9001187. 6. BDB Cayman 14213. The rest of the list is not yet identified fully and they may or may not be available through any certified source. But we're working on it. I'll send you the "full list" and how we've identified each of them. Currently it's all just hand written squiggles on paper ;] earth

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

Could you be more specific about what has changed about the experience for you? Has it been consistent, or have you found some batches of MDMA that feel the same as the old stuff for you?

Yeah, of course.

It's consistently been more speedy, shorter duration, less "I-FUCKING-LOVE-THE-WORLD". The only stuff I've found that felt the same as "old-school" MDMA was a vendor actually selling off his last sass-batch.
People say a molecule is a molecule and no matter what stages of chemistry-sorcery brought is there and what precoursors are used, the product remains the same. I'm not a chemist, but I've rolled more times than I can count and this new MDMA-formula is different.
I'm not the only one, everyone in my krew who drops MD has also noticed the diff the last few years.

I dropped 300mg yesterday. What. A. Fucking. Bummer.

And yes, I test my shit since I usually buy 15g+

 

[Higherfocus420]

it's probably you not the md it will never be like back in the day as high frequent doses cause down regulation of your receptors

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

it's probably you not the md it will never be like back in the day as high frequent doses cause down regulation of your receptors

I've certainly taken that into consideration, but seeing as I dose between 150-300mg with months inbetween AND have friends who dose 100-150mg, never more, saying the same thing, I don't think it's coincidence, but the chemistry.

But fuck do I know?
I might have fucked MDMA for myself, but I'm having a hard time dismissing how many people notice a diff.

 

[indigoaura]

it's probably you not the md it will never be like back in the day as high frequent doses cause down regulation of your receptors

Please check out the first post and the summary of the original thread, thanks! This explanation does not fit for a variety of reasons.