• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators: andyturbo | BlueBull | scatterday
  • Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

What is wrong with the MDMA available today?

Le Junk

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 8, 2004
Messages
2,271
Location
IndiaNOplace, Indianer
So what about the MDMA I've taken which I know for a fact was made from safrole, and which was GC/MS tested as being solely MDMA HCl of high purity, but was disappointing in the same way you describe? And what about the fact that I and many others have had 'classic good old' MDMA experiences, and 'shitty modern' MDMA experiences from the exact same batch?

Sorry but the thread really amounts to nothing more than speculation and nostalgia from what I can tell.
terarc,

I would think that you were right with one HUGE exception. I have the same MDMA crystalline powder that I've always had since the late 80's and the experiences I get from that are the same as they've always been since the late 80's. So now what?

And how do you know the stuff you were taking was made from Safrole? Unless you personally have access to GC/MS testing, there's no way you would know that for sure. Ecstasydata does not publish results of Safrole or not.

In addition, the Safrole argument is only one possibility. Isomers could still play a role regardless of synthesis. Regardless, I have proof positive right in front of me that the stuff sold as pure MDMA today is night and day to old school. Sorry.

Le Junk
 

Neithman

Bluelighter
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
352
well you live in north america,the worst country to take mdma,its insanely overpriced in the Us and quality is horrible most of the time.You probably got counterfeit Teslas,as they are popular in the us,because some vendors imported them in large quantities from the netherlands.
Middle europe is basically flooded with cheap,high quality mdma from holland and you dont even need to have very good connections to get TRUE 200mg+ pills,because there so many 200 mg presses from hollands(gold bars,dominos,supermans,party flocks,buggatis,androids,+-s etc etc )
Also it is common knowledge that many pills from the 90s was actually mdma+mda which is not like pure mdma.
Pure mdma is more sedating and mongy but still incredibly euphoric but not that good for raves because it misses the push mda has.
I prefer mda for raves much more than mdma because you really go HARD on pure mda
So you cant complain about the quality of MDMA(well you can,because the quality you get in us is shitty,like 20-30%) when you actually took a mixture of two drugs back then
 

Dracarys

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
273
I once spoke to a 'manufacturer'. He told me that adding all kinds of stuff (mostly caffeïne and amfetamine-like stimulants) is sort of standard practice these days, and that from a commercial perspective it would actually not make sense, not to add something like caffeïne, wich is cheap, legal and unmonitored. But even a substance like caffeïne adds to side-effects like dehydration.
When MDMA and MDEA where still legal, the opposite was true, and it wouldn't have made sense, economically to sell impure stuff, because it would have been inferior to all the other legal stuff out there.

In the nineties there was an abundance of legal MDEA, and most of the MDMA people bought was actually MDEA. But pure MDEA is almost as good as MDMA. A little more speedy though.
 

Le Junk

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 8, 2004
Messages
2,271
Location
IndiaNOplace, Indianer
well you live in north america,the worst country to take mdma,its insanely overpriced in the Us and quality is horrible most of the time.You probably got counterfeit Teslas,as they are popular in the us,because some vendors imported them in large quantities from the netherlands.
Middle europe is basically flooded with cheap,high quality mdma from holland and you dont even need to have very good connections to get TRUE 200mg+ pills,because there so many 200 mg presses from hollands(gold bars,dominos,supermans,party flocks,buggatis,androids,+-s etc etc )
Also it is common knowledge that many pills from the 90s was actually mdma+mda which is not like pure mdma.
Pure mdma is more sedating and mongy but still incredibly euphoric but not that good for raves because it misses the push mda has.
I prefer mda for raves much more than mdma because you really go HARD on pure mda
So you cant complain about the quality of MDMA(well you can,because the quality you get in us is shitty,like 20-30%) when you actually took a mixture of two drugs back then
Well I certainly appreciate your input and opinions as to my past experiences, but you're wrong on pretty much everything my friend. One, I didn't get counterfeit Tesla's. I'm the one that sent the Tesla sample into ecstasydata. So yes, they're pure MDMA and yes, they suck. I would suspect like most MDMA today. In addition, the reason why current samples of pure TRUE MDMA, as you put it, have such high mg.s is due to the fact they're made thru a different synthesis than in the past. Since they now favor the R isomer over the S isomer, they need to increase the amount of mg.s to make up for them sucking so bad. And as far as common knowledge that the pills in the 90's were a mix of MDMA and MDA, I would have no idea since I didn't consume them. Since I've always had the same connection for outstanding quality MDMA crystalline powder since the late '80's, I've never had any use for street pills. However, the legal MDMA pills I did in the mid-80's were just MDMA only and had the same exact buzz as my bleach white crystalline powder. So, as far as my past is concerned, I've only done MDMA only. The old school MDMA (which I still have access to today) and is outstanding and the new school MDMA (Teslas, Snapchats, etc) that suck. And by suck, I mean lethargic, non-euphoric and non-sexual with a crackhead comedown and MDA hangover the following day. Party.
 

Neithman

Bluelighter
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
352
Well I certainly appreciate your input and opinions as to my past experiences, but you're wrong on pretty much everything my friend. One, I didn't get counterfeit Tesla's. I'm the one that sent the Tesla sample into ecstasydata. So yes, they're pure MDMA and yes, they suck. I would suspect like most MDMA today. In addition, the reason why current samples of pure TRUE MDMA, as you put it, have such high mg.s is due to the fact they're made thru a different synthesis than in the past. Since they now favor the R isomer over the S isomer, they need to increase the amount of mg.s to make up for them sucking so bad. And as far as common knowledge that the pills in the 90's were a mix of MDMA and MDA, I would have no idea since I didn't consume them. Since I've always had the same connection for outstanding quality MDMA crystalline powder since the late '80's, I've never had any use for street pills. However, the legal MDMA pills I did in the mid-80's were just MDMA only and had the same exact buzz as my bleach white crystalline powder. So, as far as my past is concerned, I've only done MDMA only. The old school MDMA (which I still have access to today) and is outstanding and the new school MDMA (Teslas, Snapchats, etc) that suck. And by suck, I mean lethargic, non-euphoric and non-sexual with a crackhead comedown and MDA hangover the following day. Party.
how do you know they favor the r isomer nowadays?As far as my chemistry knowledge goes i know that isomer specific synthesis is more costly and more difficult to make so i cant think why they would bother with that,exspecially when its known that the s isomer produces more desireable effects
Maybe your tolerance has just grown over the years,because you build tolerance to mdma,even if you only take it twice a year
 

Itsgoneundertheboa

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Messages
808
Location
deep down
how do you know they favor the r isomer nowadays?As far as my chemistry knowledge goes i know that isomer specific synthesis is more costly and more difficult to make so i cant think why they would bother with that,exspecially when its known that the s isomer produces more desireable effects
Maybe your tolerance has just grown over the years,because you build tolerance to mdma,even if you only take it twice a year
You are correct re isomer in theory. By traditional methods both the S and R will be produced in equal amount so by the original synthesis you get 50/50.

There are two theories
1. The labs originally were performing chiral to favour S. Because it gave a better product. 80 - 90s MDMA manufacture was centred towards a niche market and production was far easier than today (watched ingredients better LE understanding etc has led to more clandestine manufacture which will always favour the fastest possible turnaround big bucks approach).

2. The move to faster manufacture new methods, precursors etc. IE one pot reaction and the new catalyst packages have introduced far more stereoselective end result. Now R is in a much higher ratio than the original 50/50

3. A bit of both

One point Le Junk has made and I also make is that direct comparison test (forgetting totally anecdotal rose tinted glasses MD was better back then debates) repeated and also confirmed by others doing the same (including noobs to MD) highlight the effect of MDMA varies even when product has been GC / MS verified and the purity theoretically the same. IE no other active ingredients.

What Le Junk is ACTUALLY saying;

He has two samples VERIFIED by GC / MS.

On ingestion one is as he would expect from his experiences the other is a different high. Yes it's a personal experience, yes MD high differs but he is saying the two highs HE experiences TODAY are different. Set setting tolerance et al.

Having repeated and having continually gained the effect he seeks from one sample he can only conclude the other sample is of a differing manufacture method because it does not deliver to expectation.

So it kind of blows apart this tolerance set and setting debate.

I also confirm along with many others who have run similar experiments including new to MD participants blind tests that they report the same.

There are many variants of MD and the variation of high some MD gives NOW not just historically.

As Le Junk says good stuff is still around but the Dutch super pills result in a more Lethargic and introverted result with a much shorter plateau.

If Le junk had not experienced anything else he would be in the don't be silly camp. He would be rolling balls on fire pills and loving it because he had no memory to compare against his other experiences.

There is one flaw in Le Junks science approach and that is dose. Dose appears to be not controlled in his experiments.

However if the test lab result gave an mg content of the Tesla he could weigh the Tesla gross crush the pill up finely;

A) these days it is common to have large crystal chunks in pills as a marketing ploy. Crushing to powder remove potential variance.

B) crushed because this will mitigate the potential difference between a tightly packed pill with an enteric coating against a powder which will be more readily broken down and absorbed IE there has to be no variation in samples taken.

Then weigh out the desired dose gross / net to directly compare against that of the other powder sample.

Failing mg result a direct dose comparison can not be done and results again move into the realm of anecdotal.

However the Tesla could again be crushed up and then a gradual increase of dose starting at say 100 mg of the powder which would probably equate to 50 mg. Dutch pills have a 50/50 ratio filler to MD, you can check by seeing results from a lot of labs who weigh total weight and then content. Then over the course of a few months gradually increase dose. He may well find that it is simply the dose but from personal experiment I have found that there is still very distinct differences even at much lower dose and that the threshold dose appears much higher on the Dutch pills tested. IE on the experience I seek it takes much less; around 60 - 70 mg to be getting threshold effects and my preference is 130 - 150 mg per experience. On these Dutch its upward of 100 mg threshold and moving into realms I would of thought (and Shulgin) stupid at 200 to 250 mg per experience.

Again if you do want to refer to history pills never were in the + 200 mg. usually 80 - 130 mg were a very good pill in the 90s. I also find the same today when the MD is what I would call the Shulgin experience.
 
Last edited:

Dracarys

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
273
[MENTION=145156]LeJunk[/MENTION]. What's yout opinion about MDEA? Many of the same labs that produced MDMA in the 80's, shifted towards MDEA production, after MDMA got banned. Their MDEA probably had the same isomer ratio as that of good quality MDMA, because it where the same people making it.
Opinion on MDEA varies hugely i noticed. Some people found it virtually the same as MDMA, others found it inferior to MDMA, and yet others like myself found it different but not nessecarily inferior to MDMA.
I think that most people who claim to have had real MDMA in the 90's, probably had just realy good quality MDEA.
 

Itsgoneundertheboa

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Messages
808
Location
deep down
[MENTION=145156]LeJunk[/MENTION]. What's yout opinion about MDEA? Many of the same labs that produced MDMA in the 80's, shifted towards MDEA production, after MDMA got banned. Their MDEA probably had the same isomer ratio as that of good quality MDMA, because it where the same people making it.
Opinion on MDEA varies hugely i noticed. Some people found it virtually the same as MDMA, others found it inferior to MDMA, and yet others like myself found it different but not nessecarily inferior to MDMA.
I think that most people who claim to have had real MDMA in the 90's, probably had just realy good quality MDEA.
Agree MDEA was noticeably different. Lower energy more a sit experience some empathy but not as strong as MDMA and shorter. Feeling a little drunk. Still nice but different. Possibly comparable to super pill high from a Dutch press.

There was a study done via ecstacy data some testing by Nick Saunders that actually analysed pills, albeit a bit late on from the "golden age" and you are correct MDEA featured highly

http://www.ecstasy.org/testing/

Ive personally evaluated a theory and I agree that a lot of people who thought they were taking MDMA were taking MDEA. MDA was always easier to spot aka Snowballs from govt labs in Eastern Europe.

But let's not lose sight of what Le Junk and I also want to know. Why 2 samples of supposed verified MDMA are so different ?
 

One Thousand Words

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
16,504
Location
☼ .←
Around twelve months ago I stumbled upon an 8ball of MDMA during a mix up with a Coke connect. I am a rave child of the 90's and have also noticed a big difference in the effects of MDMA, especially since the early 2000's (around the time of the saffrole crack down).

I instantly noticed the difference. The old familiar aniseed smell was the first thing as well as a far greater empathetic experience. My partner who doesn't use, and is also my designated driver commented on how it must be good because I was noticeably more chatty and high.

I scooted back to my source to see if I could grab more but unfortunately it was all gone. I since found out it was a small boutique batch manufactured by someone, who I'm safe to assume got their hands on a small amount of saffrole oil for an old school cook. I still have access to plenty of imported Dutch pills that are currently doing the rounds here, and while they are strong, there is a huge difference in my nights compared to this 8 ball.

I've bundled up the last half gram for a rainy day and for now I'll pass my time with the imports that are going around, which are at least a vast improvement of many of the shit pills that were being passed off as ecstasy 4-5 years ago. Hopefully some clever types will discover that a market exists for savvy connosouirs of saffrole MDMA and make the effort more often. Personally I'd pay the extra premium for such a product again.
 

consumer

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
7,777
Location
Shitcunt being a shitcunt out the front of FUBARs
Around twelve months ago I stumbled upon an 8ball of MDMA during a mix up with a Coke connect. I am a rave child of the 90's and have also noticed a big difference in the effects of MDMA, especially since the early 2000's (around the time of the saffrole crack down).

I instantly noticed the difference. The old familiar aniseed smell was the first thing as well as a far greater empathetic experience. My partner who doesn't use, and is also my designated driver commented on how it must be good because I was noticeably more chatty and high.

I scooted back to my source to see if I could grab more but unfortunately it was all gone. I since found out it was a small boutique batch manufactured by someone, who I'm safe to assume got their hands on a small amount of saffrole oil for an old school cook. I still have access to plenty of imported Dutch pills that are currently doing the rounds here, and while they are strong, there is a huge difference in my nights compared to this 8 ball.

I've bundled up the last half gram for a rainy day and for now I'll pass my time with the imports that are going around, which are at least a vast improvement of many of the shit pills that were being passed off as ecstasy 4-5 years ago. Hopefully some clever types will discover that a market exists for savvy connosouirs of saffrole MDMA and make the effort more often. Personally I'd pay the extra premium for such a product again.
There are batches made in Australia from safrole extracted from camphor laurel trees. I think these batches only circulate in certain areas / scenes of which i wont elaborate on.
 
Last edited:

Dresden

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
3,220
You just have to chew up the new pills. Nothing's wrong with them.
 

Le Junk

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 8, 2004
Messages
2,271
Location
IndiaNOplace, Indianer
You just have to chew up the new pills. Nothing's wrong with them.
Incorrect. I chewed the pills up my friend. There's definitely something wrong with them, trust me.

I guess I should have prefaced my original post with you must have done ecstasy pre-2000 to be able to answer about the difference or not. For example, if you have nothing to compare to todays high dose Dutch pills, you probably just assume you're doing excellent quality. Unfortunately, this couldn't be farther from the truth.

And in answer to dracarys question about MDEA VS. MDMA, I did have the chance to try some MDEA in the mid-90's. I found the experience to be quite lethargic, semi non-euphoric, semi-sexual, kinda drunk feeling like Itsgoneundertheboa said. Basically, not good compared to high quality MDMA.
 

Biscuit

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 27, 1999
Messages
1,660
I am privy to the results of hundreds of lab test results of "ecstasy" pills seized in Western Australia from about 1998 to 2005. Of the pills which contained an MDXX substance, virtually all of them contained MDMA, with some MDA and almost no MDEA. MDMA and MDA combos did occasionally crop up, but it was a rarity. The most common other substance found in the MDXX pills was caffeine, which may well have assisted people to have a less mongy high. I note it seems quite rare to find caffeine included in MDMA pills these days.

The dosages of MDMA in the pills varied significantly, from about 40mg up to 153mg - being the mighty yellow panda. Most pills would have been in the 70 to 120mg range. Anything over 120mg was rare. Many of the pills which had been tested I had also consumed myself in my glory days of MDMA use and dance parties. The results I came across of the pills which I considered to be good ones accorded entirely with my experience. Anything dosed at 100-120mg was a guaranteed awesome experience, as it should always be with that amount of good quality and no doubt racemic MDMA.

As I said in another thread, all that is required is for a forensic chemist to test the isomer ratio of a few selected pills and powders and it will become quickly apparent whether the theory is correct or not. Such testing can be done and is routinely done for certain purposes connected with drug investigations; it is just that it is not generally necessary when determining what substances are contained in a pill and in what quantities.

I personally do not believe that in the "old days", the production of the S isomer was favoured. In what way was this done? All the earlier processes are known to have produced racemic MDMA and studies in the 90s confirmed that users actually preferred the racemate to pure S isomer, even though it was accepted the pure S was far more potent than pure R and obviously slightly more potent than the racemic mix. Therefore, I cannot see why producers would have bothered trying to separate the two isomers post production, a complex and difficult process for any substance.

Regardless of whether the above is correct or not, I am another who believes that there are MDMA production methods currently being employed, most likely by those individuals producing the "superdosed", gimmicky pills which have flooded the market for the past 3-4 years, which do produce the R isomer entirely or at least favour the R isomer over the S.

There is no question that racemic MDMA can and should still be made if people could be bothered; whether MD-P2P (aka PMK; the true precursor for racemic MDMA) is made via safrole, piperonal or even PMK-glycidate (MD-P2P being an achiral compound unlike the glycidate; and which, once properly extracted and purified, would still produce racemic MDMA via typical reductive amination processes), it simply doesn't matter. It is, at the end of the day, obviously about money and keeping the costs of MDMA production low. Yes, the shortages of safrole and piperonal are obviously contributing factors, but where there is a will there is a way and this new precursor didn't have to mean the end of quality MDMA as we know it. There is no reason that I can see, other than money, why the mega labs couldn't put it right again.
 
Last edited:

Dresden

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
3,220
MDE was semi-common at raves in the early to mid 1990s until it too (along with MDA and MDMA) was banned in the Nederlands. I took it once in 1996, and found it to be wholly smacky and enjoyable but not as a dance drug. Also, it only lasted me 1.5 hours. But, to answer your question LeJunk, I started taking MDMA in 1996 or 1997 and ate hundreds of pressed and powdered MDMA samples before 2000, so your new qualification doesn't exclude me from this discussion in the least. Also, there is nearly zero percent chance that the new pills are enantiomerically pure, either as R or S. A simple analog, hand held polarimeter reading of a sample or 100 of this new MDMA would settle that issue for good if we got wind of it. MDMA is best when left as a racemate, and that is also the form you get when you react PMK with MeNH2 in a reductive amination.

The new presses I've been getting are still enjoyable, but only a fraction as good as the good pills I got in the 90s. However, I chalk this up to my brain's biochemistry and/or morphology having been changed by the drug. Perhaps you should too, LeJunk, except you claim to be able to still get the fire MDMA now too. That might just be a placebo thing buttressed by years of taking that other old skool stuff, I dunno. I suppose there could be an intrinsic though latent property of the new MDMA's having been synthesized by its newfound synthesis from PLEASE DO NOT SHARE THIS IF YOU KNOW IT instead of the natural product, safrole--which is extracted from the Sassafras' tree's root bark harvested at the right time of the year, but that is just speculation as of this point.

Biscuit, would you mind not sharing with the internet the new precursor's identity? I would like to enjoy my rolls for a longer period of time before said precursor inevitably gets banned. Talking about relatively secret new precursors like that on a public drug bullentin board frequented by law enforcement is just stupid. Besides, chemistry discussion is supposed to be verboten anywhere on bluelight. Thanks, man.
 
Last edited:

Dracarys

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
273
It could also be that different salt forms have different effects. I don't see why all of a sudden, manufacturers would start producing a different salt forms, but it could be an explanation. Impurities could also explain differences in quality. The impurities hypothesis is more plausible even, when you think that different chemicals are being used today. When your product is 98% pure, you can still ingest several milligrams of some toxic. That can definately affect your experience. Compare psilocybe cyanescens with p.cubensis. Just some minor toxins, wholy different experience (cyanescens being far superior).
 

some dude

Greenlighter
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
30
I might be off base, but it just seems like Le Junk gets good powder, and the pills he got are not good. Hence the shitty roll. There are fake pills, and I wasn't sure if you tested your pills, or just relied on test results from a similar looking pill that was not from your batch.

You could get another batch of the same pills from a different source, and they could be legit and the bomb. right?
 

Brenner

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
136
I might be off base, but it just seems like Le Junk gets good powder, and the pills he got are not good. Hence the shitty roll. There are fake pills, and I wasn't sure if you tested your pills, or just relied on test results from a similar looking pill that was not from your batch.

You could get another batch of the same pills from a different source, and they could be legit and the bomb. right?
Nope Le Junk is correct, the MDMA experience these days is VERY different. I've had both the recent stuff and a saved 90's pill. 90's pill blew the recent stuff away by miles, lasted longer, much much better experience.
 
Top