What is wrong with the MDMA available today?

[Itsgoneundertheboa]

things like "straight to black" marquis test results and more egocentric, more mongy experiences is exactly what you'd expect when you got pills that contain huge doses. if you have ever tested pure mdma with marquis you know that the colours depend on the concentration as well as that everything between purple and black is possible; and if you've ever taken a too large dose of mdma 10 years ago you know that you'll be perfectly content sitting confusedly on a couch and will not be the social butterfly who'll dance and talk all night when you overshoot your dosage.

that people take absurd amounts proves nothing. they've always done that. before i ever took any party drug i knew people who'd do upwards of 10 pills every weekend. also internet forums (especially those not so focused on harm reduction) were full of people taking such high doses.

no pupil dilation or getting good effects from another batch are strange, but only anecdotes of uncertain validity and reproducibility. there's a reason that the requirements for clinical studies (at least for those ranked highly on the levels of evidence scale) are as rigorous as they are. i'll need much better data until i'll start questioning common chemistry knowledge.

Very valid but lost a little re black being high dose?

When reagent testing a pill or powder usually you can't maintain the amount exactly. In addition the standard binder levels of a pill usually run around approx 40 - 90 %?

So why do some pills irrelevant of the sample size never flash purple and go straight black, whereas some do and even stay purple? Theoretically if I take a smaller sample of the black and tested it should go purple because the dose isn't so high? Or if I take a larger sample of the purple it should then go black?

I get that its distribution based binder to pill but irrelevant you put more in to the marquis the dose increase the colour SHOULD change by your theory. I've actually tested all this out and I can tell you a black result never is anything but black, irrelevant of sample size and a purple likewise, although purple Colouration can be lost to the eye due to depth of the Marquis, a simple tilt to thin it down and you see it is actually purple.

If you think about it what you say counteracts. You are actually stating that there are differences in MDMA, you see black test as a high dose or an MDMA with a Specific effects profile - you are actually aware of what is going on but you haven't yet realised this could denote different product types, maybe because chemistry is trying to tell you it doesn't compute.

Again I've tested the theory high dose black by as stated taking varying amounts and seeing what happens, this was done for pills and powders. IE take a known GCMS tested pill with MDMA quantity listed. Crush up weigh out to the ratio ingest and observe.

 

[Itsgoneundertheboa]

1. Unless you scrape off a piece of the exact pill you are going to take, you can't be sure based on GCMS of a pill that looks the same.

Hell, if I wanted to make a shit ton of money, I would make a small number of the pressed logo with high dose, and send it in to be tested myself then press the rest of the batch of pills with a much lower dose.

2. Your $15 test kit can't tell you a pill is pure anything, all it can do is identify the presence of some things. And marquis will return
the same response for all MDXX, as well as x-APBs.

You can actually know that your pill is the same as one you send for GCMS. Simple.

Take all pills you have crush incorporate.

Send off some of the powder to GCMS bingo you have combined result of all the pills you have of that press.

It doesn't give you a net per pill but usually the super pills are well publicised as to range of MD. I would only ever source a known, new press anyway as it takes some guess work out and gives a much safer and aware starting point.

Also I find that by crushing pills and referencing to dose etc. It's a much better way of controlling the dose to get a theoretical sweet spot rather than trusting the presser they made a dose that suits you. Often I see people taking a high dose pill at 200 + mg by halves wonder why it's not very strong and then drop the other half to put themselves in a very different place.

Crushing anyway also increases effectiveness and onset. I've had some enteric coated pills which take an hour and a half to come on. Presumably because of the hard pack of the pressing and enteric coat. Crush said pill and onset is 30 - 45 minutes.

 

[terarc]

With regards to pupil size I'm pretty sure as you use MDMA more your pupils will become less dilated. Again, I've always, bar one, used the same batch which at first would have my pupils like saucers but when using more frequently would not even dilate that much

 

[Black]

Theoretically if I take a smaller sample of the black and tested it should go purple because the dose isn't so high? Or if I take a larger sample of the purple it should then go black?

that's exactly what i ment. any purple looks black if you take enough. when you tried taking less, did you only use less material or did you actually dilute your sample with some inert powder (lactose, talcum or whatever is a common filler)? if you did the former, then that could influence the colour you see (local higher concentrations or something...), but if you did the latter, then it should be identical to mdma from 10 years ago and the only possibility i see is that your pills/mdma have a different chemical composition, likely to the point of not being mdma at all. this would definitely go beyond a different enantiomer ratio (enantiomers react identically to marquis reagent) and would pretty much certainly be detected by gc/ms (or hplc/ms).
if what you're saying is indeed true, i now understand the reason why shugenja made those threads about 5-methyl-mda/... even if i come to the conclusion that the positional isomers would be distinguished easily by those running the analytics.

 

[Itsgoneundertheboa]

that's exactly what i meant. any purple looks black if you take enough. when you tried taking less, did you only use less material or did you actually dilute your sample with some inert powder (lactose, talcum or whatever is a common filler)? if you did the former, then that could influence the colour you see (local higher concentrations or something...), but if you did the latter, then it should be identical to mdma from 10 years ago and the only possibility i see is that your pills/mdma have a different chemical composition, likely to the point of not being mdma at all. this would definitely go beyond a different enantiomer ratio (enantiomers react identically to marquis reagent) and would pretty much certainly be detected by gc/ms (or hplc/ms).
if what you're saying is indeed true, i now understand the reason why shugenja made those threads about 5-methyl-mda/... even if i come to the conclusion that the positional isomers would be distinguished easily by those running the analytics.

The information was there in the post Black.

But I will embellish and state again;

I have indeed done experiments with sample sizes and reagent. I actually used analytical scales calibrated and accurate to 0.1 mg. purple stays purple black stays black. No matter how much or little you change the variants. I've been saying this for quite some time. Why does a GCMS tested sample MDMA differ on reagent tests. Is it the inert or none active filler / binder or does it signify there is actually a difference in MDMA.

You youself state black means high dose.

No it doesn't if the sample size varies and it remains black.

All samples ingested of straight to black have delivered an egocentric effects profile at whatever dose above threshold.

Try it if you get a straight to black.

See if you can actually get a purple by sample reduction or marquis increase. Look for the initial reaction and time as this is the key.

Some will go black eventually after say 5 seconds but the important part is the first flash of colour.

Marquis however must be fresh. If it has begun to age darken then results can vary on timing and coloration, I believe due to its reactivity and age darkening due to atmospheric exposure. I should also point out that I have run Marquis from 3 different suppliers at the same time, fresh in shelf life etc. All gave same result for same sample and quantity, I thought maybe some marquis formulas do differ enough to give variation on colour and result - appears not the case.

But the question I've always had and keep looking for answers, let's forget for now effects profile I get all that set setting; What I want to know is why when these wonderful test centres say MDMA when we get such variance in Marquis results?? It should be a constant?

Interestingly if you look for example at Estacy test org. They went through a long period of saying black. Now they do say purple and they do tend to run marquis on a large and small drop basis. However I have grave concerns over their actual ability on the marquis

Check this one and tell me if you would call that purple!!

http://www.ecstasydata.org/view.php?id=4518&mobile=1

Or perhaps you want to go down the rabbit hole further

http://www.ecstasydata.org/view.php?id=4500&mobile=1

Wtf and it tested MDMA 1. Pigments used interfering with Marquis - maybe!

They run very regular tests and you can see clearly the huge variation in colours hues and results from samples they state as MDMA by GCMS. They do I believe run both reagent and GCMS for all samples pictured.

There are also reports of a resurgence of home testing purple tests coming through when for most of last 2 years black was prevalent.

But everyone here says no chance MDMA is the same? Really! Maybe yes it is by analytical methods we have and the data we can base our assumption on (OLD DATA points). The same ones someone would aim to replicate if they did have a new synth which delivers fantastic yields for a lot less money in a shorter time which may well have resulted in an MD light product which showed higher neurotoxicity and required higher doses in order to give the user a feeling on intoxication.

More evidence? Take a look at the prevalence of reported issues just on BL over the last 2 years, take a look at the massive increases in MDMA reported deaths globally.

EDIT - when I say MDMA I mean MDMA as in the toxicology results, not presumption by media.

 

[Kaden_Nite]

In response to Itsgoneundertheboa:

The prevalence of reported issues
-The internet becoming more and more of a place for people to share their experiences with others.
-The rise and fall and rise of MDMA's legitimacy and popularity
-The vastly increased range of other compounds being passed off as and used in conjunction with MDMA (I'm not talking about MDEA, MDA, MBDB, TMA. I'm talking ketones, piperazines, benzofurans, aminoindanes, pyros and other assorted untested shit)
-The reality that I was hearing about all of these effects 10 years ago. Ever hear of Terrible Tuesdays? It lasted a lot longer than Tuesday for some of us.

Massive increases in overdoses
-I actually couldn't find any hard statistics on this. In the US there were between 60 and 100 deaths in 2001. In the UK, it rose from 10 in 2010 when there was hardly any actual MDMA in the UK, to 50 in 2015, when the MDMA pills were stronger than ever. (If anyone can find more sources of statistics for other countries or timeframes or make any corrections to the ones I've posted, I will gladly edit my post accordingly. I'd especially like to see these toxicology reports, Itsgoneundertheboa).

-The internet becoming more and more of a place to turn what was once a fun past-time into an international pissing match of who can spread the most misinformation about 'molly' and its' purported safety profile (not realising that their moonrocks were less pure than the crushed up pingers of my day. I actually read a discussion on Facebook -the comments section of a Vice article I believe- where people were comparing MDMA to LSD in terms of how 'basically impossible' it is to overdose. They were serious too. Their comments seemed to be typical of the attitudes resonating at the time "It'd take at least a gram" one says "HA! More like 1.5 or 2.. At least" the girl replies. When I tried to say something, I was told that I wasn't getting the 'real mandy'. I'd hate to see what shape those people are in now)

-The rise of MDMA pills' purity as of late would definitely take a few people by more than surprise..

-Again, the vastly increased range of other compounds at play. An ecstasy pill may be blamed, but who knows what else was being used?

-Despite the hugs and Disney eyes of my friends, I was scared to take my first pill because of the fear campaign. The fear campaign that I effectively disproved to myself, the one that taught me overnight to make up my own mind about drugs from that point on.

The difference between purple and black results from reagent tests
-This is actually an interesting one. I'd say inert impurities and contaminants or the reagent/sample ratio, but I'm sure someone with a few different samples, a bit of chemistry knowledge and a bit of time on their hands can figure it out.



Also levo-MDMA, 2,3-MDMA, MDMA citrate, Le Junk's 1988 magical MDMA, snowflake MDMA and future MDMA. All contributing factors.

 

[Itsgoneundertheboa]

In response to Itsgoneundertheboa:

The prevalence of reported issues
-The internet becoming more and more of a place for people to share their experiences with others.
-The rise and fall and rise of MDMA's legitimacy and popularity
-The vastly increased range of other compounds being passed off as and used in conjunction with MDMA (I'm not talking about MDEA, MDA, MBDB, TMA. I'm talking ketones, piperazines, benzofurans, aminoindanes, pyros and other assorted untested shit)
-The reality that I was hearing about all of these effects 10 years ago. Ever hear of Terrible Tuesdays? It lasted a lot longer than Tuesday for some of us.

Massive increases in overdoses
-I actually couldn't find any hard statistics on this. In the US there were between 60 and 100 deaths in 2001. In the UK, it rose from 10 in 2010 when there was hardly any actual MDMA in the UK, to 50 in 2015, when the MDMA pills were stronger than ever. (If anyone can find more sources of statistics for other countries or timeframes or make any corrections to the ones I've posted, I will gladly edit my post accordingly. I'd especially like to see these toxicology reports, Itsgoneundertheboa).

-The internet becoming more and more of a place to turn what was once a fun past-time into an international pissing match of who can spread the most misinformation about 'molly' and its' purported safety profile (not realising that their moonrocks were less pure than the crushed up pingers of my day. I actually read a discussion on Facebook -the comments section of a Vice article I believe- where people were comparing MDMA to LSD in terms of how 'basically impossible' it is to overdose. They were serious too. Their comments seemed to be typical of the attitudes resonating at the time "It'd take at least a gram" one says "HA! More like 1.5 or 2.. At least" the girl replies. When I tried to say something, I was told that I wasn't getting the 'real mandy'. I'd hate to see what shape those people are in now)

-The rise of MDMA pills' purity as of late would definitely take a few people by more than surprise..

-Again, the vastly increased range of other compounds at play. An ecstasy pill may be blamed, but who knows what else was being used?

-Despite the hugs and Disney eyes of my friends, I was scared to take my first pill because of the fear campaign. The fear campaign that I effectively disproved to myself, the one that taught me overnight to make up my own mind about drugs from that point on.

The difference between purple and black results from reagent tests
-This is actually an interesting one. I'd say inert impurities and contaminants or the reagent/sample ratio, but I'm sure someone with a few different samples, a bit of chemistry knowledge and a bit of time on their hands can figure it out.



Also levo-MDMA, 2,3-MDMA, MDMA citrate, Le Junk's 1988 magical MDMA, snowflake MDMA and future MDMA. All contributing factors.

You can find those statistics in the report Biscuit has drawn everyone's attention to for some time now. Agreed could be linked to increase populace usage, availablity etc.

I'm not going to post the link again as it would be of disrespect to biscuit to think that he has spent the effort and time and it's passed everyone by..........

To be clear I follow my own hypothesis as its my own experience. I'm certainly not trying to dick size or create any form of "you shouldn't take MDMA" . It's one of the most beneficial drugs I have taken.

however I do believe that current analytical methods are way off in order to determine with any kind of accuracy what we find in our pills and powders. I see finger in the air comparisons based on prior analysis and chemistry, chemistry a science which changes daily as we understand more about the world around us.

The worst chemist is the one who believes there are no variables and everything is known.

I dropped my first pill in 1988. Agreed God knows what it was but it was amazing, I dropped for the last nearly 30 years experiences, I have had extended breaks but when I do return to MDMA the majority continue to be amazing. Throughout the whole experience yes bar the drought of 2009.

Today well I want to know more and seek answers - By use of reagent testing I have found that the quality and consistently of what I'm being told is MDMA by the seller can be Corroborated, to some degree and has made the experience safer. But it is in no way fail safe.

What I do experience now is a chalk and cheese scenario. As Le junk attested to on stating this and as others also attest.

I'm just trying to work out why with the limited resources I have to hand. I try to identify the product, whatever it maybe that gives me the best experience with the least impact on my health.

I have on a number of occasions seen tradgey, the prevalence increasing dramatically over the last 2 years even though my activity going to such events reduced. Am I looking for it? possibly, but in all the years 88 to 95 there was not one death at any event i attended, some in the region of 80,000 plus attendees.

Events now are a chemical soup I accept that times are a changing. But really all I want is to be able to identify a sample of what I want rather than waste my limited times going out having a Meh experience on supposed tested and certified MDMA, hopefully in the process give some HR to others in describing my methods and if (which I seriously doubt but live in hope) there is a way to determine type of sample based on reagent test, which remains the only fast predictive test we have available.

 

[pokepoke420]

I haven't really read anything but the first page but I have to add my 2 cents. I stopped consuming MDMA because it didn't affect me the way I had grown accustomed to. Perhaps it was from over-using it, but I just remember that Pokeballs back in the day just hit me the right way. I could take half the dose of pills I took now and have that lovey empathetic feeling. The euro pills that have flooded the scene now are all high doses of MDMA, but give me this shitty introverted feeling that OP was talking about. I don't have any connection to anyone, but I just feel fucked up for hours and weeks of recovery. It just wasn't worth it. I went a year without consuming, and I tried again with the same results. Like I said, maybe it was from all I consumed back in the day affecting me now, but MDMA just doesn't seem to be the same. Maybe it lost its novelty, maybe the theories are right. We'll never know!

 

[Jabberwocky]

The worst chemist is the one who believes there are no variables and everything is known.

No, the worst chemist is one that would argue something is wrong with Pure H2O hydrolyzed from hydrogen and oxygen because it tasted different to someone (or didn't slake their thirst) than Pure H20 created by spring water filtered through charcoal, and multiple passes of reverse osmosis and steam distillation.

After all, the precursor was different -- LOLZ

 

[Dresden]

Maybe it's not the precursors. It could be the synthetic route. Even then, think of alcohol. The active ingredient is always CH3CH2OH, but no one can deny taking a drink of beer produces different subjective user effects than a shot of whiskey or a glass of wine. Even the packaging and labeling or in the case of pills, the color and imprint impact the end user's experience. It's the same with MDMA. Saying otherwise is laughable.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Maybe it's not the precursors. It could be the synthetic route. Even then, think of alcohol. The active ingredient is always CH3CH2OH, but no one can deny taking a drink of beer produces different subjective user effects than a shot of whiskey or a glass of wine. Even the packaging and labeling or in the case of pills, the color and imprint impact the end user's experience. It's the same with MDMA. Saying otherwise is laughable.

Your attempt at analogy is laughable.

Beer, wine, and liquor have subjective effects due to concentration of alcohol and dose ( a shot = 12 oz 5% beer -- pound a beer and it is about the same as a 1.5 ounce shot of 80 proof liquor) -- it is absorbed faster when the concentration is higher, as well as the effect of carbonation.

Let a high gravity beer at 12% get flat -- the buzz will be the same as a 12% wine


Regardless of the synthesis route-- if it is actually MDMA -- the only difference would be racemic mix -- and nobody can identify a synth that poisons the enantiomeric ratio toward the r-isomer.

You propose color and imprint -- yet colors and imprints have been around since pills of E were available.

MDMA is MDMA --- there is a significant body of evidence that I have cited in this and other threads (Oxford journal, ACS, NIH) that illustrates the difficulty in resolving structural and positional isomers of MDMA

If the effects are off -- it is dose, tolerance, or different substance related.

This is honestly a waste of time,

 

[Black]

well, in beer brewing, you use hops which leaves some (easily identified) compounds with sedative properties in the beer, explaining the difference in effects.

 

[Dresden]

If you think pill makers are pressing 2,3-MDMA, then that is also laughable.

Good scientists have open minds and are open to what is, knowing that everything is possible. You do not.

If you don't know different batches of drugs have different subjective effects by now, then you know a lot less about drugs than you seem to think. Molecular structure is but one variable out of many that affect a drug's high.

 

[Jabberwocky]

If you think pill makers are pressing 2,3-MDMA, then that is also laughable.

Good scientists have open minds and are open to what is, knowing that everything is possible. You do not.

If you don't know different batches of drugs have different subjective effects by now, then you know a lot less about drugs than you seem to think. Molecular structure is but one variable out of many that affect a drug's high.

1. I already stated I don't think pill makers are pressing 2,3 MDMA -- just that it is more likelythan some BS fantastic synth.

2. No, everything is not possible; H2N will never be water

3. The only reason for subjective differences is psycho-active contaminants or dose -- you assert it is MDMA and only MDMA per GCMS -- therefore it is only dose -- or tolerance

 

[Jabberwocky]

well, in beer brewing, you use hops which leaves some (easily identified) compounds with sedative properties in the beer, explaining the difference in effects.

2-methyl-3-buten-2-ol may cause some sedative effects at the end of the night -- but it doesn't significantly change the subjective buzz -- the 7-8% alcohol in extremely hoppy IPAs is what does that.

and again -- that is a different compound from alcohol

according to the narrative --GCMS comes up clean -- only MDMA

 

[Dresden]

I said everything (as in everything that is observed) is possible, not anything is possible.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I said everything (as in everything that is observed) is possible, not anything is possible.

Ok, then please identify when a reductive amination of MDP2P (PMK) with methylamine has ever resulted in the major reaction product being anything other than MDMA. Hint -- you will never observe such a thing.

-- the GCMS and HPLC would see contaminants that were not removed by extraction and washing

 

[Dresden]

I guess I just have a partial permanent tolerance to MDMA now.

 

[adder]

Also levo-MDMA, 2,3-MDMA, MDMA citrate, Le Junk's 1988 magical MDMA, snowflake MDMA and future MDMA. All contributing factors.

(R)-(-)-MDMA or (S)-(+)-MDMA synthesis requires approach that rises the cost of production and decreases overall yield (either isomer separation or an enantioselective reaction), it makes no sense at all. All standard synthetic pathways to MDMA produce a racemic mixture with deviations from the 50:50 ratio of enantiomers being of no significance.

2,3-MDMA synthesis requires different starting materials with probably much more lab work to be done as no direct intermediates are widely available. Also, the fact that 2,3-MDMA isn't an empathogen but rather a pure stimulant makes it highly unlikely that anyone would take extra effort to produce it and try to pass it as MDMA or ecstasy.

Different salts of MDMA should give the same qualitative effects when ingested, so MDMA citrate producing different effects to MDMA hydrochloride is a myth as well.

Custom nicknames like Le Junk's, Molly, Snowflake etc. have nothing to do with the structure of the compound and its effects, either it's MDMA or it is not. One of the basic chemical laws called the law of definite composition states any given compound contains its components in a fixed ratio regardless of the method of its preparation.

Why are all those myths still alive and repeated? No idea.

 

[Jabberwocky]

(R)-(-)-MDMA or (S)-(+)-MDMA synthesis requires approach that rises the cost of production and decreases overall yield (either isomer separation or an enantioselective reaction), it makes no sense at all. All standard synthetic pathways to MDMA produce a racemic mixture with deviations from the 50:50 ratio of enantiomers being of no significance.

2,3-MDMA synthesis requires different starting materials with probably much more lab work to be done as no direct intermediates are widely available. Also, the fact that 2,3-MDMA isn't an empathogen but rather a pure stimulant makes it highly unlikely that anyone would take extra effort to produce it and try to pass it as MDMA or ecstasy.

Different salts of MDMA should give the same qualitative effects when ingested, so MDMA citrate producing different effects to MDMA hydrochloride is a myth as well.

Custom nicknames like Le Junk's, Molly, Snowflake etc. have nothing to do with the structure of the compound and its effects, either it's MDMA or it is not. One of the basic chemical laws called the law of definite composition states any given compound contains its components in a fixed ratio regardless of the method of its preparation.

Why are all those myths still alive and repeated? No idea.

Because nobody wants to admit:

1. What they took wasn't MDMA
2. The dose was small
3. They have tolerance
4. Their other meds attenuate the roll


There are structural isomers of MDMA that are not in any GCMS database, elute at the same time out of the column, and have the same mass spectra -- I have posted actual papers (american chemical society) that describe such.

However, it is more likely that copycat batches are to blame.