Factors That Make Each MDMA Batch and Experience Unique

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
787
http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/Articleimage/2000/AN/a908091k/a908091k-f7.gif

This ones from 2000 and is connected with information and ref in one of my posts above. Looking at the anhydrous vs hydrated polymorph of MDMA we see obvious differences in peaks and troughs between the graphs.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253648864/figure/fig7/AS:[email protected]/Figure-4-Raman-spectra-of-MDMA-butylone-isomers-and-'doves'.png

2014.

So was that Raman spec from the Dutch mongy MDMA? Or just one found on the internet like these?

Also I don't know much about md-p2p glycidate, but I wonder if the reaction conditions in certain reductive aminations could allow for someone to just throw it in.

Honestly after thinking about it I believe it is possible for a one pot to be doable, I'm going to look around about this but pretty sure the al/hg reduction and probably others can be made acidic with similar yields. They could be adding HCl to the reduction mixture. I could see that being highly attractive way to go. Just buy this powder easily over the internet and in one relatively easy step you've got yourself some MDMA.

Also yes I'd like to see a pic of that product Glubra when ya can. Get as good of shot as possible and any obvious crystals. Sounds impure for sure, by how much it's hard to say.

Edit- Found a study where they analyzed seized ecstasy in Ireland via Raman spectroscopy, published in 2003. Looking at the three major peaks in one graph of multiple tablets it appears they resemble the MDMA "hydrate" seen in the other graph above. This is interesting and once again shows a polymorph (hydrate) in an ecstasy sample. Anyone from Ireland take ecstasy in the early 2000's? Lol

Holy shit holy shit guys... So actually found the full ref I listed above and oh my god found some more awesome info I'm so damn giddy..

They show the variation in their graph (first one above from 2000) above of MDMA anhydrous to hydrated MDMA. And also say this as well...

""The second parameter which was measured in the spectra is related to the degree of hydration of the MDMA present. We have previously found evidence for two differently hydrated forms of MDMA which form under different crystallisation conditions.""

""However, we also found that two of the bags contained only cellulose-based tablets, these had a very broad range of drug/excipient ratios and contained MDMA with hydration intermediate between that of the sorbitol tablets and the final bag of tablets, which were glucose-based. The tablets in this final bag had a very different degree of hydration from any of the others and appeared to have been carefully manufactured, since their MDMA/glucose ratios spanned a very narrow range (see Fig. 6(d)) compared to those of the tablets in the other sample bags.""

By the way these were all off-white Mitsubishi's from Ireland. What we are seeing here is that there are indeed hydrated polymorphs without a doubt in seized ecstasy from a time (early 2000's) when everyone still thought the MDMA was good. Even more they go on to say one bag of tablets was seemed "carefully manufactured and very different degree of hydration." What's becoming obvious is that indeed much of the product then had hydrated polymorphs but I'm wondering if that's changed at all since then and what differences are there between them and anhydrous MDMA.

This is getting interesting...

-GC
 
Last edited:

Glubrahnum

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
230
I have to retract what I said before, it appears to match pretty well too :/ sorry guys I musta been spaced out looking at them. We at least still know there can be polymorphic variation and it can be see via Raman.
The crystalline polymorphs can definitely be discerned by Raman. I found a reference to such research here.

So was that Raman spec from the Dutch mongy MDMA? Or just one found on the internet like these?
I took this spec myself at the end of the 80s. See the caption under the spectrum.
 
Last edited:

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
787
Sorry my bad I'm tired as fuck.. And yup I just found all the evidence in the world to back up that claim too which I just edited in above

Wait (if you read before edit lol) it appears your sample is likely hydrated!! This is awesome! So my guess now is that some hydrated MDMA polymorph is what old school MDMA used to be.

-GC
 

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
787
Ok I just had to do some editing and what not. Here's the main distillation of what I've just discovered. Looking at the specs I've seen so far it appears the one from 2014 was different in that it resembles anhydrous MDMA. Many of the specs examined from earlier times like yours Glubra as well as some from 2000, and 2003 show hydrated polymorphism.

While there was anhydrous MDMA back in the day it doesn't seem as common.. (Seems reasonable as there's always been mongy pills i.e. Heroin myth, but never this many.)

It's seeming like we may get this figured out sooner over later. Just a note I've found when looking at these specs... For anhydrous; when looking at the three main peaks the far left is roughly 2/3 the height of the far right, while the center is about half. For hydrated MDMA, the far left peak is less than half of the far right peak and the center is smaller as well.

Cool cool stuff, thank you Glubra for bringing up Raman spec and LucidSDreamr for bringing up polymorphs in the other thread.

-GC
 

Cotcha Yankinov

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
2,917
For the chemistry naive, would you lovely professors care to illuminate us on the difference between anhydrous MDMA and hydrated MDMA in laymen's terms?

Does a sample of hydrated MDMA simply contain more water molecules than anhydrous MDMA? If yes, are the water molecules bonded to the MDMA in any sort of manner, if albeit very loosely?

Pharmacokinetically speaking, does this offer an explanation as to why the potencies differ? (Decreased bioavailability, alteration of metabolism, increased vulnerability to liver enzymes/stomach acid et cetera)

CY
 

LucidSDreamr

Bluelighter
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
4,834
Location
Silicodone Valley
For the chemistry naive, would you lovely professors care to illuminate us on the difference between anhydrous MDMA and hydrated MDMA in laymen's terms?

Does a sample of hydrated MDMA simply contain more water molecules than anhydrous MDMA? If yes, are the water molecules bonded to the MDMA in any sort of manner, if albeit very loosely?

Pharmacokinetically speaking, does this offer an explanation as to why the potencies differ? (Decreased bioavailability, alteration of metabolism, increased vulnerability to liver enzymes/stomach acid et cetera)

CY
anhydrous mdma contains no water molicules sandwiched within the crystal lattice. where hydrates have water molecules as "members" of the repeating crystal lattice which interact with MDMA via hydrogen bonding. Its the sort of thing you have to see images of to really understand but googles cyrstal lattice and hydrates etc and polymorphs someone with your scientific understanding should be able to understand this concept easily.


its very common with drugs where one polymorph is garbage and the commercial polymorph has an amazing PK profile.
 
Last edited:

Cotcha Yankinov

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
2,917
Interesting. Thank you for that - you guys may be interested in a quote from someone on the topic of the enigmatic variation in Ambien potency, explained possibly by polymorphic variation.

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/816959-Generic-vs-brand-name-medications-differences-in-potencies-fillers

See Serotonin2A?s quote -

?One relevant issue is that some drug salts can form polymorphic crystals, which can have different dissolution rates, solubilities, PK properties.

If you combine different excipients, different polymorphic forms, and variations in the amount of drug in single dose units (eg, brand name pills may be over-dosed, and generics underdosed), you end up with a situation where people may notice differences between brand name and generic drugs.?
 
Last edited:

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
787
Yup you said it perfect lucid. And actually here are some pictures of highly pure MDMA crystals. All would test as pure legit MDMA but they look different and likely feel different (how much so is to be determined..)

The first is a picture from another chemistry forum of a double re crystallized MDMA crystal weighing 1.64g!! Absolute beauty. This crystal is monoclinic and possibly MDMA HCl monohydrate.

https://www.thevespiary.org/rhodium/Rhodium/Vespiary/talk/images/4955-IMG277b86.jpg?topic=1021.0

Here's more of what appears to be very pure MDMA HCl monohydrate..

https://www.thevespiary.org/rhodium/Rhodium/Vespiary/talk/images/5808-67b86.jpg?topic=1021.0

And one more..

http://s19.postimage.org/mnumptwur/mdma_rhomboid_crystal_1.jpg

Whereas here's one which to me looks like the orthorhombic anhydrous MDMA crystal.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/26/a5/a5/26a5a5f19bf30cf7cb066a42993e95cd.jpg

Another picture of orthorhombic crystals (notice the hexagonal vs diamond shape.). This picture is crappy though there used to be a higher quality version up but I can't find it.

(Edit can't get link to work at the moment but we'll get it up.)

And finally here's a picture where it appears both are present. Look in the bottom left to see orthorhombic crystals (kinda hard to tell but I've seen em enough to know) while the ones up top are monoclinic and plate like..

https://m.imgur.com/WubeQNd


I've gotta say looking at those pics killed me lol. Although I've seen crystals shaped as both just very rarely do I get product with such beautiful definition.. And right now I haven't been getting any sadly :/ but it'll turn around it always does.

Next here's a copy and paste from a thread on the old hive chemistry site..

""I am recrystallizing some MDMA and I am getting some very big crystals (slow growth).
Does anyone know what mdma crystals look like?
I am getting parallelogram shaped crystals.""

""Here is what I did:
I noticed that some mdma.hcl that had been sitting around for a few months had acquired a yellowish brown color.
Yuck.
I just did not feel too good about putting that up my nose.
So---I disolved the material in the minimum amount of hot 70% ipa and let cool.
No crytals at room temp so I put the beaker in the fridge.
Still no crystals.
I put them beaker in the freezer and the next morning when I got up and checked there was some rock salt looking crystals in the bottom of the beaker which bio-assayed very very well.
The liquid that was decanted from the rock salt stuff was put in a petri plate and allowed to evaporate over 3 days.
During this time some very large crystals grew.
I washed them with ice cold acetone and they are very clear.
I should bio-assay them and I will get back with the results.""

(Based on the solvent used which contains ~30% water, and the shape of the crystals it sounds as if we are looking at the monohydrate or some other hydrate.)

""I took two of the large mdma crystals from the petri plate.
Each crystal was about 1/2"X1/4" and flat and as clear as window glass.
I proceded to crush these two crystals to produce two medium sized lines----which I did.
I have taken mdma many times but this was very different.
The high was very speedy and lacking the degree of emphatic effects usually manifested by mdma.
The high was fantastic and affected me more than any other mdma experience.
The duration was about 4 hours---but the effects still linger today----24 hours later.
During the high I remember thinking that perhaps I had inadvertenly done meth---but the one thing that came to mind was mda.
Now this leaves me wondering if a potential byproduct of methyl man's variation of the bright star synthesis is actually mda?
When my hydroxlyamine.hcl arrives then I guess I will be able to determine the answer to that.
But----what I experienced last night with the large crystals was very different from my usual mdma experience.
Another explanation is that the large crystals were very very pure mdma.
That---perhaps---is more plausible.""



Now this is interesting. Here we have an anecdote where a simple recrystallization changed the nature of the experience. He says it was fantastic but lacked empathy and was speedy, he also states it lasted a really long time. Not only do we have the effects of said very pure crystals we also have a general polymorphic profile, we know it's likely a hydrated polymorph possibly monohydrate.

With that said these effects could also simply be from highly pure MDMA. I've found the effects speedier when more pure too, but he seems to contradict himself in that it felt awesome but lacked empathy.. Impurities or lack thereof is still a great possibility.

I swear I feel I'm finding myself with even more questions than answers but at the same time we may finally be finding some information in regards to the different effects these polymorphs can have.

Next is a reference to a study where they tried to grow monohydrate crystals from 4 different solvents, starting with anhydrous mdma I assume.

They found methanol and acetone produced the monohydrate whereas dH2O and chloroform produced mixtures of anhydrous and monohydrate.

So the picture above showing both crystalline polymorphs in the same batch is actually backed up by this ref right here.

""Powder diffraction data for Methylenedioxymethamphetamine HCl Monohydrate (MDMA.HCl.h2o. Ecstasy hydrate.) Aug 2012""

Now what to make of all of this... Guess I should keep digging. I'm gonna go look at some IRL mdma crystals and see what I see.

One thing I'm noticing too is that it's actually hard to find pictures of high purity crystals of anhydrous MDMA, there seems to be a lot more orthorhombic than monoclinic crystal pics out there..

Also if anyone can actually get those pics put in this thread I'd appreciate it.

And thanks for that cotcha, it only further proves that this isn't all some made up bullshit. There's still much to be learned about chemistry.

-GC
 
Last edited:

LucidSDreamr

Bluelighter
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
4,834
Location
Silicodone Valley
beautiful crystals....i actually always opted for pressed pills though. I liked how they are easy to dose while high or on the go and you know how much you are getting in each dose
for top ups by breaking fractions of the pill off (assuming you can still do math that is) without using a scale. I also liked how they look cute with little pictures on them, i've always wanted to save one from each buy and have a collection of different presses, but then i would end up eating the last one or give it away

I liked the caption on those last set of crystals:

"You can keep your "84% pure brown sugar molly bro, the purest you can get". Let me know when you're done trying to sound smart - I'll be here with the recrystallised 99.9% MDMA shards."


the guy saying that the clear parrallelogram crystals were speedy with no empathy...he did snort which is also often attributed to a "not nice" to use trumps words, MDMA high.


anecdotally for what this is worth, i've never experienced these bad mdma highs. from any pills nor crystals.


Also, I would be interested to know to see someone do something Glubxxxx mentioned in the other thread. Dissolve some "bad" mdma in water then take and compare the high to dosing the solid. If its still the exact same high this issue might not be due to polymorphic forms.
 
Last edited:

Section813

Bluelighter
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
226
Location
Everywhere
I???ve been told that during the late 80???s and early 90???s much of the MDMA being used had been produced as the pure S-isomer from labs in India and China while it was still legal, and in VERY LARGE amounts. This would make sense as at the time it was legal and likely MUCH cheaper to produce so discarding half of the end product wasn???t the biggest deal in the world. These large batches were then used until they dried up in the early to mid 90???s.
I have only taken Organic 1 & 2 so a great deal of this is over my head. That being said I think I can shed some light on the historical aspect as I was fortunate enough to have grown up in Dallas during the 80s and 90s. According to many sources this is where "ecstasy" or "adam" as it was named in the beginning first broke free into the wild.

There was a group of psychologists and socialites in the Dallas area called the "Texas Group" that came together and worked on various projects one of them being the famous Starck club. It is also heavily rumored that the same group was responsible for the production and distribution of mdma in the 80s and 90s. I was in a position to research this in federal case files and I discovered there was a very large federal case involving an individual from the North Texas area. According to the case file he started manufacturing in the Dallas area in the 80s but was forced to take his operation to South America when ecstasy was outlawed in 1985 because he could no longer get safrole into the US easily. The case goes on to list all of the participants and provide a narrative of how he got it into the US via ports in Houston where it would make its way north. This was a huge lab making hundreds of thousands of tabs. Eventually his partner and girlfriend turned confidential informant and he remains in federal prison to this day.

As a result I highly doubt that the source of the majority of MDMA back then in the US was of Indian or Chinese origin. It is true that it was quite often procured from chemical supply houses in the early 80s but by the time it was banned production was mostly within the Americas for product being consumed in the US.

One thing all of the tabs had in common then was they all absolutely reeked of safrole on a much higher level than anything around today. I remember a time when I had 100 tabs in a sandwich baggie in my car for a short trip and my car stunk for days afterwards. To this day the first thing I do when I get some product I put it to the smell test and it has remained a good way to get a quick idea of what the product will be like. My personal opinion of this debate is active impurities as a result of inefficient synthesis from safrole. I believe using any other precursor or intermediate other than safrole will not yield the experience that was taken for granted in the 80s and 90s. Back then safrole was much easier to obtain and precise efficient syntheses were not necessary. This was reflected in the product back then with the size and weight of the pills and the large amount of unconverted precursor giving the strong odor.

So my personal opinion is that if you start from anything other than safrole you will much more likely wind up with a mongy undesirable product.

My 2 cents ....
 

Tzcatlipoca

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
150
Location
Junkieland
Heroin.
It's always made each and every MDMA experience unique and brilliant for me.
This is not harm reduction advice. More like jackass -> Don't be that guy. Or do, I'm not here to tell you what to do :)
Love,
Tez
 

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
787
@Lucid, Same here actually although I did witness someone take a Dutch press and although a supposedly high dose it didn't get him rolling. I've taken Dutch crystal that I thought was so so but everyone else was raving about it.

Around here half the product smells strongly of sass and the other half is usually scentless. Most of it seems of high quality.

Thank you for your input Section813 you may very well be right and I still think this is a strong possibility too. As I said too mdma then wasn't synthesized nearly as purely clandestinely as it is today, this may sound like a bad thing but some of those impurities in the old school MDMA were definitely pharmacologically active, proven by research. So I definitely think you may be on to something. Also interesting that they all smelled sassy, I find when good pills come around they do always have that smell. Good pills are rare around here these days compared to crystal MDMA tho.

Haha heroin makes everything brilliant til you run out or your guys out one day and then this little thing called withdrawal peaks his head in. Oh and not to mention that side effect of sudden death. I remember looking at my good friend with 3% of her brain left functioning while she lay in the hospital bed, then went to the bathroom and snorted up a few 20mg oxys to deal with the pain. Fun fun stuff..

-GC
 

indigoaura

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
491
So, first I just want to say thank you for making this post. This is something that I have tried to bring up previously, and something I have thought a lot about. I genuinely appreciate having some ideas and terms to explain the difference I have experienced with MDMA over the years. I talked about it at length before, but will post an abridged version here.

From my personal experience, what I felt from most MDMA from 2000 to 2005 was everything you talked about in regards to the S-Isomer. There was a fast, 15 minute come-up and then a 4 hour, energetic/empathetic/magical high. At that time, I had one supplier and always had pills. Many of these pills were sent to the ecstasydata lab and were tested as MDMA. I followed the "once per month" rule, but sometimes would take up to 5 in a night. Comedowns were mostly moody, emo, and short enough to deal with (1-2 days).

In 2005, I began dealing with capsules instead of pills. My old supplier had quit. These capsules was also sent to a lab and tested to be MDMA, but with an impurity from the manufacturing process (1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-propanol) (http://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB92456152.htm ).



This MDMA takes 30-45 minutes to come up. Slow, relaxed, sleepy feeling. You don't really peak from 100 mg, you need more. No way I would dance, I'd rather lay around with a blanket. It starts to wear off faster. The comedowns are totally different. Comedowns are physical with nausea, indigestion, dizziness, and malaise but little moodiness or depression. No way I could even consider taking more than 3 (and even 3 is pushing it), because the physical sickness of the comedown would be too much. Friends have said the same thing, and they have also commented on the lack of specific things like eye dilation and eye shaking.

From reading your post, it seems like there are likely two things going on. First, I may have been dealing with the S-Isomer MDMA in the early days, and now I may have an impurity that is altering my experience and making me sick on the comedown. Obviously, as a long-time participant, it is also possible I have just "lost the magic," but I don't think that is 100% responsible as several other people have had the exact same observations.

Do you have any additional thoughts on this? Have you heard of or encountered 1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-propanol before?

<edited to add> This quote really says it all, "some being more intense, euphoric, shorter acting with sharp drop off batches which may be S-isomer heavy; or less euphoria, longer smoother duration, slight trippiness, no drop off batches which may be more R-isomer heavy."

The old stuff definitely had a sharp drop off. It went from rolling to NOT in a moment. The new stuff does not have a drop off like that, it just sort of fades. "Smoother" is a good way to put it.

-IndigoAura
 
Last edited:

Biscuit

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 27, 1999
Messages
1,648
From my personal experience, what I felt from most MDMA from 2000 to 2005 was everything you talked about in regards to the S-Isomer. There was a fast, 15 minute come-up and then a 4 hour, energetic/empathetic/magical high. At that time, I had one supplier and always had pills.
Whilst this is an entirely legitimate suggestion, one cannot lose sight of the fact that Shulgin tested MDMA in racemic, pure S and pure R form and the racemic was always reported as being the one which provided the undeniable "magic" and afterglow etc of the classic MDMA experience.

I know others don't seem to think the non-50/50 R/S ratio is possible or likely. Do we know though how the appearance of this "bad" mdma corresponds in our historic mdma timeline with the introduction of PMK-glycidate being used as a starting material?
I am almost positive that the emergence of the mega dosed Dutch pills and various other batches of MDMA crystal that hasn't behaved like MDMA should, did indeed coincide with the PMK-glycidates as opposed to safrole or piperonal becoming the most common precursor used to manufacture MDMA (especially in relation to industrial sized labs). I also came across a European Drug Agency report that spoke of another change in relation to the reductive amination reagents/catalysts that also occurred around the same time. Either or indeed both of these changes is surely the source of the differences, but exactly what this difference is remains unresolved.


I have previously spoken to forensic chemists employed at a government laboratory about some of these issues and their advice is to the following effect:

(i) if they report it is MDMA then the substance is absolutely MDMA; the machines they use can, and MUST for the purposes of the law, distinguish between MDMA and any other number of closely related compounds (some scheduled, some not).

(ii) that depending on the laboratory, it is CORRECT that the quantity and purity of drugs such as methamphetamine and MDMA are QUOTED as the amount of methamphetamine or MDMA as a "freebase" - this makes perfect sense when you consider that the analytical machines which are employed to conduct illicit drug analysis, such as a Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry machine, causes the MDMA salt to ionise and separate into a molecule of methamphetamine/MDMA and a corresponding molecule/ion of whatever anion was used to make the MDMA salt and what the machine then "measures" or quantifies is the drug molecule on its own.

Therefore, for some labs, it is correct to say that the maximum purity of methamphetamine or MDMA in any given sample of methamphetamine-HCL or MDMA-HCL is 80 something percent for meth and 84% for MDMA (which can fluctuate depending on the amount of water present - I am a bit vague on this latter comment). So for a forensic laboratory using this method of reporting, where it is stated that a particular sample of MDMA powder contains "MDMA at a purity of 84%", then the actual purity of the MDMA-HCl powder or crystal analysed is close to 100%.

(iii) this situation creates further factors which must also be considered/taken into account:

(1) if the MDMA which was pressed into a pill was a different salt of MDMA, such as citrate or tartrate or phosphate, then the percentage purity of the MDMA in that sample will be generally less than it would othewise have been had the MDMA being converted into MDMA-HCl;

(2) that where any laboratory quotes the milligram quantity of MDMA in a particular pill or the purity of "MDMA" in a particular sample of MDMA crystal/powder, then it is essential for that laboratory to clarify whether these figures are based upon the amount of MDMA existing in its freebase/molecular form (with the salt anion being disregarded) or whether it is the milligram content or percentage purity of the actual MDMA-salt which has been pressed into the pill or makes up a component of a particular sample of crystal that is being quoted, and precisely what particular salt the drug is present in;

(3) if the privately funded laboratories are quoting the MDMA content in salt form, it would cause huge inconsistencies when comparing the actual quantity of MDMA across various batches. Now I tend to think that the figures which are quoted by most laboratories do not include the corresponding "salt anion" but this is not how the majority of users appear to refer to these numbers when these issues are discussed.


My personal opinion of this debate is active impurities as a result of inefficient synthesis from safrole. I believe using any other precursor or intermediate other than safrole will not yield the experience that was taken for granted in the 80s and 90s. Back then safrole was much easier to obtain and precise efficient syntheses were not necessary. This was reflected in the product back then with the size and weight of the pills and the large amount of unconverted precursor giving the strong odor.

So my personal opinion is that if you start from anything other than safrole you will much more likely wind up with a mongy undesirable product.
Finally, I agree that when the safrole smell is very noticeable and the product is otherwise seemingly well manufactured, the MDMA is almost certainly going to be of that more desired variety. However, I doubt that the presence of safrole/other impurities in the final product is the reason for this.

I believe this conclusion can be drawn because we now know that pharmaceutical grade MDMA is being given to patients in highly controlled psychotherapy session and from all reports the MDMA being consumed produces all the expected euphoria and "loved-up" feelings that the desirable MDMA should give (albeit the high being an extremely clean one). Further, given that safrole is a known carcinogen, there is no way that the pharamceutical grade samples of MDMA provided to such patients would contain materially relevant quantities of safrole, isosafrole, MD-P2P or any other impurity which might be produced during manufacture. If this is correct then it must mean that whatever effect the presence of safrole is contributing to, it must be an effect which impacts upon the manufacturing process itself and not merely due to safrole and other impurities being present in the final (illegally manufactured) product.
 
Last edited:

indigoaura

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
491
Whilst this is an entirely legitimate suggestion, one cannot lose sight of the fact that Shulgin tested MDMA in racemic, pure S and pure R form and the racemic was always reported as being the one which provided the undeniable "magic" and afterglow etc of the classic MDMA experience.
Good point. My knowledge of chemistry is limited. I am just pleased to see this issue being discussed in an objective way with actual evidence being presented that there are differences between one MDMA and another. Many times, when this topic came up in the past, the response was simply "All MDMA is the same." That has not been my observation/experience. Glad to see the concept explored further.
 

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
787
^^I agree indigo and thank you for your response as it only furthers our collection of evidence to how these batches vary and you even have effects with a batch containing a decently well known impurity. I'm busy at the moment but I'll come back later with a better response to the wonderful post above.

Biscuit I agree with almost everything in that post except for one thing. While yes there was research to see which isomer was desirable id argue those results shouldn't be looked at as conclusive. My hunch is that the participants of said study were likely psychedelic loving Californians who likely saw the overall smoother/less stimmy/slightly psychedelic profile of the racemic as superior. Now comparing that group to the standard raver who wants nothing more than to get up and dance their heart out for hours and could give two F's about smoothness of psychedelia, and I think it's safe to say isomer preference is likely subjective and we can only take so much from that one study.

But with that said after thinking more. I'm confident the possible theory of anhydrous MDMA being the culprit is wrong. I consume MDMA crystals that appear anhydrous all the time and the effects are good. In fact I've only seen monoclinic crystals like above a few times.. I still think polymorphism effects the experience but don't think it's the issue for the Dutch mong.

I'm back to thinking it's a particular impurity. This is because as you said biscuit and what I've experienced myself is that very pure MDMA still gives the desired effect just with a cleaner profile (less bodily symptoms.).

And with my own experience, the only "mongy" (more so less stimmy than tiring tho) batches I've done have been browner rock like batches as opposed to the clear/white crystal that often is around. This would point to an impurity too.. It could be some highly active impurity that negates the overall effect of MDMA.

Whatever the case I'm kinda back on the impurity bandwagon as polymorphism, while definitely changing the effects, probably doesn't enough to account for what we see the Dutch super crap..

EDIT- Indigo your impurity you listed is typically from a Piperonal synthesized MDMA batch. This would make sense as it was in the early to mid 00's this route started to become more popular. Just curious what did the MDMA in capsules look like?

I'll be back..

-GC
 
Last edited:

indigoaura

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
491
Indigo your impurity you listed is typically from a Piperonal synthesized MDMA batch. This would make sense as it was in the early to mid 00's this route started to become more popular. Just curious what did the MDMA in capsules look like?
Here is the link to the test result: https://www.ecstasydata.org/view.php?id=2644

Generally speaking, the color was off-white, but different batches would vary in color a bit.
 

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
787
Thank you so much for sharing that.. Hmm makes me wonder how pure this "newer"
product is too but even then I doubt that explains the negative symptoms you weren't feeling before.

After reading more it seems the impurity listed actually wasn't encountered much until early/mid 00's as I thought, and upon first encounter they almost mistaken it for MDA cuz it's mass spectrum is almost identical. It is also an alcohol.

This is a huge leap but the fact it's an alcohol seems to match the dizziness and other negative symptoms reported. It being so close in mass spectrum to MDA it is very possible it may have some psychoactivity as well. My guess is it competes with MDMA at certain receptor sites, although again this is quite a guesstimate..

-GC
 

indigoaura

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
491
Very interesting that it is an alcohol. I actually do not drink alcohol at all because of the negative side effects that I experience. I have actually remarked that the comedown feels like a bad hangover.
 
Top