What is wrong with the MDMA available today?

[G_Chem]

Haha mdma analysis slumber party!!

I agree with the idea of possibly sending in the MDMA/MDPH sample if there?s any left... That would tell us if this is something that could be fooling large portions of the world or not.

Also note I?m not no expert on GCMS and frankly don?t know much about it but.. I looked up difference between deriviatized and non-deriviatized and it seems they do a chemical reaction to make said sample easier to analyze. Based on what I?m reading though, it?d appear to me that this technique wouldn?t make detection of something like MDPH any easier. Or am I wrong?

Really appreciate you guys asking and looking around. (Hilo and Indigo)

-GC

 

[G_Chem]

So I think I found out why MDA is non-existent in Europe and places supplied by Europe VS places in the US (like where I?ve lived) that has tons of it..

God it?s been awhile but I recall Biscuit posting up some data (from Australia confiscations?) showing reductive amination these days to be mainly PT/C hydrogenation. I was just doing some casual reading at the Hive and saw this..

(Rhodium) ??It seems like a much higher catalyst load is needed when MDA is synthesized, compared to MDMA. When MDMA is the desired product, the catalyst load is a lot less.??

This was in reference to PD/C but it likely applies all the same. What this means in layman?s terms, MDA requires a lot more expensive metal catalyst (platinum or palladium respectively) that MDMA doesn?t need nearly as much of. When we are talking kilos worth of product, it?s just not worth the cost to them even with MDA being more potent and desired by many.

My guess is that chemists over in North America use older routes, some of which are easier to produce MDA with. Maybe the ketoxime route via Al/Hg and hydroxylamine?..

Ah it?s bugged me for years trying to find that answer.. It also indicates that there is different reductive aminations being used and it?s not all platinum hydrogenation, this may help narrow in on our final answer.

I?m starting to wonder if it?s not so much about the starting precursor as it is the final amination? Questions..

-GC

 

[Biscuit]

^ I agree this could be a relevant factor. The reductive amination technique common before the change to Platinum Hydrogenation was reduction with a Borohydride.

Whilst I cannot speak for the ?user? laboratories, the fact is I have never seen MDPH or other such substances reported by a Government Forensic Laboratory in the state in Australia that I am from. I have however seen MD-P2P coming up as an impurity from time to time.

In my country at least, a person cannot be prosecuted for possessing MDMA if that person does not have MDMA, and it is not good enough to say that the GCMS machine being used is saying that a substance is MDMA even though it really is MDPH or 2,3-MDMA or whatever. However, that is not to say such a chemical is not present with the MDMA which is reported on, but I do not see it being common enough to account for our current issue.

What is interesting about MDPH though is that if when PMK-glycidate is hydrolysed different products might possibly eventuate, then it could be possible that a substance such as MDPH might be produced and still be surviving come the end of the manufacturing process?

For me, the simultaneous change from non-enantimoeric safrole produced MD-P2P precursor and sodium borohydride/cyanoborohydride reducing agent on the one hand to enantiomeric MD-P2P glycidate pre-precursor and platinum catalyst hydrogenation reducing agent on the other, during the PRECISE YEAR when MDMA commonly found in Europe/UK and Australia in particular went to shit, cannot be ignored and must surely be the source of the problem. What changes they have resulted in and why this occurs, is what for me remain the unanswered questions.

 

[Glubrahnum]

You gave shit drugs to people and they had a shit time. Baffling!

I was not the supplier - just an observer and an in-house tester. I never offered an exhaustive and professional testing service to these users. The testing centers, do.

Had you tested that MDMA for any one of the six points which you state are crucial for a complete professional analysis?

No, but I am capable of doing this in a different venue than somebody else's house party
I never offered an exhaustive testing service to these users, only an in-house immunoassay testing - which is more selective than reagent testing.

If not, I'll direct you back to the aforementioned sentiment: Shit drugs, shit party, shit time.

But you are missing the point.
Why was this drug "shit" in the first place? ...and why are so many users of the forum familiar with this "shit" experience after a certain date.
The virginity of the users dispels any debunking thru drug tolerance and the lack of Mydriasis in all these users cannot be discounted, either.

Everytime I had MDMA in groups, pupil dilation was variable from person to person. My eyes always lit up like a Ferris wheel at Christmas time, others looked almost normal. It means very little about the quality of the MDMA in my opinion.

Mydriasis is mediated by Norepinephrine and is very dose dependent. The sensitivity to Norepinephrine is not that individually variable and the drug doses were not that low ...and lately they are not low at all, if you'd noticed.
I even posted a dose vs. year graph in this thread before, which is another piece of the puzzle.
Over the years, the mortality increased with the doses, too.

 

[Glubrahnum]

I am seeing reports online that you can build a spectrometer for your smart phone. GC and Glubra...any thoughts on this? Would it work?

Yes, you can build a Raman spectrometer with a good camera, but you must be technically savvy and invest a little in a clean laser, optical filter, splitter and a diffraction grating.

See this video to see how a Raman spectrum is taken at home:
https://youtu.be/tRrOdKW06sk
or
https://youtu.be/Rjk55FZBPKk

 

[Glubrahnum]

Glubra, you did say this most recent batch went straight black right?

Yes.

Was this the MDPH batch?

Yes

I agree with the idea of possibly sending in the MDMA/MDPH sample if there?s any left... That would tell us if this is something that could be fooling large portions of the world or not.

Yes, there are 5mg left. Would it be enough for them?
Anyway, I would be ambivalent giving money to people that would not even tell me what salt it was and who do not even list the full IUPAC name of the detected compound... but if I encounter MDPH several times more - I will invest my money to send an MDPH containing sample just to see if that testing service is scamming its clients.

Also note I?m not no expert on GCMS and frankly don?t know much about it but.. I looked up difference between deriviatized and non-deriviatized and it seems they do a chemical reaction to make said sample easier to analyze.

That's right and doing a chemical reaction costs time and money so some cost-saving labs might be tempted to skip it.

Based on what I?m reading though, it?d appear to me that this technique wouldn't make detection of something like MDPH any easier. Or am I wrong?

Wrong, because some chemical reactions are selective to the position of functional groups (e.g. methyl groups), so after such reaction an isobary will react more/less and that will be detected at the GC or MS stage.

The same technique can be used to distinguish enantiomers without expensive chiral GC columns. You simply react the sample with a chiral base or acid (e.g. L-Tartaric Acid) which binds only to its chiral conjugate and then even a chirally-blind Mass Spectrometer (MS) can distinguish the enantiomer ratio because the additional mass of the L-Tartaric Acid, that has bonded, is hard to miss.

With Raman spectroscopy, detecting different enantiomers is much less involved because it only requires using polarized light and some polarizing filters like this:
https://youtu.be/FVprjCPEOHU

 

[G_Chem]

5mg would be cutting it close, I agree it?d be wise to just hang onto this one and wait to see if you find any more.. Plus you have a good point, you could be spending a lot of money for less info than you can find out yourself. The only benefit would come from knowing whether THEY can identify if or not..

Thanks for the replies though Glubra, and of course your continued dedication to the topic at hand.

And Biscuit, that makes perfect sense as cyano/borohydride reduction doesn?t seem to suffer from the same issue. Do you remember MDA vanishing after the drought too? It seems like it from what I?ve read.

-GC

 

[Hilopsilo]

5mg would be cutting it close, I agree it?d be wise to just hang onto this one and wait to see if you find any more.. Plus you have a good point, you could be spending a lot of money for less info than you can find out yourself. The only benefit would come from knowing whether THEY can identify if or not..

Thanks for the replies though Glubra, and of course your continued dedication to the topic at hand.

And Biscuit, that makes perfect sense as cyano/borohydride reduction doesn?t seem to suffer from the same issue. Do you remember MDA vanishing after the drought too? It seems like it from what I?ve read.

-GC

That to me seems like one of our main objectives at this point, it would confirm a lot. Not to mention the opportunity to inform them that they missed it, I think that'd certainly get their attention on this issue.

Agreed though 5mg isn't enough i dont think

 

[Hilopsilo]

Woah, so I was randomly browsing other forums on here, checked out the "whats in your drug stash thread" and user Ignio posted this picture of their MDMA:

Now THAT is the closest thing I've seen to what the MagicDMA I had looked like, especially the upper part that is almost transparent. Out of thousands of "listings" I've browsed, NONE look even remotely like this...

 

[G_Chem]

^^Yup that?s the type of product I aim to buy, usually like every third or fourth time I buy it?s product of this caliber.

I could post a few pics if I can figure it out, I?m not tech savvy but I?ve got a few batches that are nearly identical or close.

The nearly clear crystal with some well defined sides/edges and no smell (or maybe the faintest safrole smell upon cracking open the crystal.)

The thing is, even the above isn?t a true crystal as I?m sure most of you know. It?s a fused crystal like everything else on the market, but you can tell it?s purity because as it solidifies it still produces fairly defined sides and edges. This is what I look for when judging a batch because the really pure product will have some edges that clearly show (more often) the orthorhombic lattice formation.

Good picture though, makes me wanna look for my camera.

One final note, I?ve noticed even with apparently really pure clear, scentless batches that the rocks/crystals can form slightly different. There?s two general categories I?ve seen, one that?s more chunk like (like above) and one that?s a little rippled/rough with lots of cracks throughout. I seemingly prefer the latter but they both seem ?good.? If I get up some pictures I can better illustrate that.

-GC

 

[indigoaura]

I have never seen any product that looked even remotely like that.

 

[Hilopsilo]

At the end of the day appearance doesn't amount to much evidence of anything, but it does seem rare to find it in that form. I remember my friend showing me with the MagicDMA you can hold a piece up to your eye and see right through it.

Yeah G-Chem, its like a different crystal than the bunched up stuff that looks like a lot of smaller crystals together. I'd be willing to bet the stuff shown in that picture has no smell. The rarity of this scentless full crystal clear MDMA must mean something about how its made.

I imagine whats in the picture is quite good considering the rest of that poster's drug stash

 

[Xorkoth]

There are a great many drugs that are clear crystals when they're crystallized. Still it does indicate a relative lack of impurity, whatever it is.

 

[Goodwalt]

How does good mdma should test on marquis? Purple? If it goes straight to Black then its no good?

 

[G_Chem]

I?d argue appearance can mean something if your quite familiar with crystals. I personally have somewhat of a fascination with drugs in crystalline form and have made it a goal to see crystals most others haven?t seen.

While yes for most appearance means little I believe for those with a trained eye it can tell us something.

For instance, meth, mdma and DMT all can produce clear crystals.. But I could likely tell them apart by eye even with their various polymorphs.

But I tend to just tell others what you guys have just said as it?s better for people to rely on their reagent reactions. I could see how some may get the perception that they can judge a drug purely by eye. For anyone reading this!! ALWAYS USE REAGENTS.

Got a snow day so I?m hunting for the camera.

-GC

 

[epic11]

I had 2 batches of md, 1 based on safrole, and 1 your standard pure dutch imported. Will be running tests and getting thoughts in the coming months. Stay posted.

This safrole vs pmk dutch mass produced is the issue I BELIEVE my own personal experience. (safrole had me loved tf up with the other lacking that in a big way) However im gathering more on the issue. Ive never abused mdma, yet i notice a difference as well between batches.

 

[Hilopsilo]

I had 2 batches of md, 1 based on safrole, and 1 your standard pure dutch imported. Will be running tests and getting thoughts in the coming months. Stay posted.

This safrole vs pmk dutch mass produced is the issue I BELIEVE my own personal experience. (safrole had me loved tf up with the other lacking that in a big way) However im gathering more on the issue. Ive never abused mdma, yet i notice a difference as well between batches.

So you have access to both? Would be interesting to try a blind test somehow. As well, do they look different in their form? color, texture, etc.

I just really really want to remove any bias towards safrole simply due to it being the traditional precursor made in smaller batches as opposed to mass produced PMK stuff, I think there is definitely possibility of romanticizing safrole as the one true precursor.

 

[Bethical]

Trust me, they're completely different. My proof is simply these two samples I have right here in front of me. I have my white crystalline powder and red Supreme tabs. The red Supremes were ecstasydata lab tested as pure MDMA and were sent in by, how do I say this, someone that I know. I myself have done both and can tell you that to even try and compare the two would be insulting to the powder. Plain and simple, the red Supremes are unenjoyable and the white powder is nothing short of heavenly.

Example # 2. My neighbor, who's never done ecstasy in her life, was talked into doing the red Supremes by me when I was out of the powder. Afterwards, she said she would never do ecstasy again. She said it was nothing like I described it and it showed. She wasn't loved up, she was very introverted, she spent most of the night either puking or laying on the sofa. The next day she said she felt cracked out.

After a couple months, I was able to talk her into trying the powder with me. We were in the same exact setting as the time before. My place. This time she was in love, she was telling me things she'd never told anyone before, she couldn't stop rubbing on me, she must have told me she loved me 50 times, she said if the whole world was on this there would be no wars, we made love all night and the next day we went out to breakfast and came back home and continued making love.

They are not the same. I've been doing ecstasy since 1985 and can tell you with 1000% accuracy, they are not the same by a longshot. People keep talking about setting etc. That's the bullshit. If it's the real thing, it honestly doesn't matter where you are.

Le Junk

P.S. The difference is in the isomers.

In the example you describe, your presumptions about the quality of the respective samples going into it could have easily effected her experience and therefore her response. It's been shown over and over again that a person who subconsciously expects or wants a certain outcome from an experiment will do things that subtly influence the test subject(s) and the test parameters. That's why the gold standard in science requires controlled experiments to be double-blind.

 

[shezinphx]

They are not the same. I've been doing ecstasy since 1985 and can tell you with 1000% accuracy, they are not the same by a longshot. People keep talking about setting etc. That's the bullshit. If it's the real thing, it honestly doesn't matter where you are.

Right! It doesn't matter where you are! If the pills are good they are going to be good regardless of setting. I think a lot of people who have never experienced super pure MDMA won't get that until they actually do.

 

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

They are not the same. I've been doing ecstasy since 1985 and can tell you with 1000% accuracy, they are not the same by a longshot. People keep talking about setting etc. That's the bullshit. If it's the real thing, it honestly doesn't matter where you are.

Right! It doesn't matter where you are! If the pills are good they are going to be good regardless of setting. I think a lot of people who have never experienced super pure MDMA won't get that until they actually do.

This is the truth...