• 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?

mooka

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
30
Not necessarily.
The cut or contaminant can be very very potent. This way, a low proportion e.g. 1:100000 of a high potency contaminant would make it very hard to detect while still allowing it to exert its effect on the nervous system.

This is not far fetched, there are substances which are pharmacologically active at the nanogram range - for example some of the new synthetic opioids among many other potent drugs.

I'd bet a pure racemic 3,4-MDMA HCl mixed with one of these very potent sedating contaminants in the proportion 1:100000 would be pretty Meh and almost impossible to detect and separate.
Wrong.
The whole point of re-X is to purify the main substance from impurities, so a contaminant that would be active in the nanograms range would never find its way to the crystallized product but it would stay in the mother liquor. In this case the re-X was done 3 times.
If instead the contaminant/cut is present in quantities enough to recrystallize along with the main product it would: (A) be detected by GC and (B) increase the threshold dosage. Both possibilities are false in this case.

So this leave us with only one possible outcome: the MEH product is an active isomer.
My bet is that MEH is 2,3-MDMA or one of this table:
 
Last edited:

sekio

Moderator: N&PD
Staff member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,515
Location
streets of simcity
GC is perfectly able of separating positional isomers of MDMA. So is crystallization - different isomers don't all just lump together into a crystal.
And, you can quite easily do setups like 2D-GC to further enhance the seperatory power.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that there is some compound that is active in the low microgram doses that has eluded detection and characterization so far. There are also only so many possible reactions that can occur when synthesizing MDMA, many of which are well characterized. So the impurity would be limited in its possible structures - how you'd get from safrole to a fentanyl analogue I don't know. Not to mention, a good chemist will purify the intermediate products during synthesis anyway...

a contaminant that would be active in the nanograms range would never find its way to the crystallized product
You'd hope so, but crystallization is not a perfect operation. Sure you might be able to purify 75% to the high 90s, but getting 99.999% would need multiple recrystallizations.

I'm still unconvinced that the MDMA is the issue here. I would bet some good money on a double blind test showing there's no difference. You guys are treading and retreading the same ground, over and over.

To actually contribute something to this "discussion" though: has anyone tried dissolving the "MehDMA" in water before administering it? One (admittedly unlikely) possible explanation is there is another crystal polymorph of MDMA that simply doesn't dissolve in gastric fluids as rapidly, and pre-dissolving it removes this variable (no crystal structure in solution). For the longest time I've always plugged MDMA, maybe this is why I never find it meh?
 
Last edited:

F.U.B.A.R.

Moderator: BDD, OD, EADD, LAVA
Staff member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
18,353
Location
UK
To actually contribute something to this "discussion" though: has anyone tried dissolving the "MehDMA" in water before administering it? One (admittedly unlikely) possible explanation is there is another crystal polymorph of MDMA that simply doesn't dissolve in gastric fluids as rapidly, and pre-dissolving it removes this variable (no crystal structure in solution). For the longest time I've always plugged MDMA, maybe this is why I never find it meh?


Yes, I always dissolve it in water first these days and can confirm it doesn't make meh any less meh...
 

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,872
GC is perfectly able of separating positional isomers of MDMA. So is crystallization - different isomers don't all just lump together into a crystal.
And, you can quite easily do setups like 2D-GC to further enhance the seperatory power.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that there is some compound that is active in the low microgram doses that has eluded detection and characterization so far. There are also only so many possible reactions that can occur when synthesizing MDMA, many of which are well characterized. So the impurity would be limited in its possible structures - how you'd get from safrole to a fentanyl analogue I don't know. Not to mention, a good chemist will purify the intermediate products during synthesis anyway...


You'd hope so, but crystallization is not a perfect operation. Sure you might be able to purify 75% to the high 90s, but getting 99.999% would need multiple recrystallizations.

I'm still unconvinced that the MDMA is the issue here. I would bet some good money on a double blind test showing there's no difference. You guys are treading and retreading the same ground, over and over.

To actually contribute something to this "discussion" though: has anyone tried dissolving the "MehDMA" in water before administering it? One (admittedly unlikely) possible explanation is there is another crystal polymorph of MDMA that simply doesn't dissolve in gastric fluids as rapidly, and pre-dissolving it removes this variable (no crystal structure in solution). For the longest time I've always plugged MDMA, maybe this is why I never find it meh?

When I first joined this discussion years back I initially presented the idea of polymorphism, and it’s still a possibility but I got the impression that while there is polymorphs and they do possibly vary in pharmacology that the changes in effect might not be exactly what’s seen with this particular phenomenon.

So far there seems to be 2-4 polymorphs, two of which can be defined easily. Anhydrous MDMA forms orthorhombic crystals whereas a hydrated polymorph forms parallelogram/diamond shaped crystals.

We know based on pharmaceutical research that polymorphs can alter pharmacological function, so entirely possible it’s happening here too. Just not enough research in this field.

Anyone wanting to read some great information regarding the subject hunt down my earlier posts probably from 2017 or so.

-GC
 

mooka

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
30
GC is perfectly able of separating positional isomers of MDMA. So is crystallization - different isomers don't all just lump together into a crystal.
And, you can quite easily do setups like 2D-GC to further enhance the seperatory power.

Not at all, GC can separate between substances with different molecular weights but can't for instance differentiate between a 2,3-whatever from a 3,4-another. In fact if you read the paper I posted in the previous page https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00915, the amount of effort to differentiate between 2, 3, and 4MMC, and 2,3-mda/mdma with their relative 3,4-compund is admirable, they even had to customise and modify their instrumentation to be able to achieve that. It is not simple when you have to compare the same compound rearranged in a different way, the game here is at very high levels.
That's why this thread after 4 years is still here.

This paragraph is particularly interesting:

MDMA-Type Isomer Differentiation with Infrared IonSpectroscopy.
Another, different, class of isomeric com-pounds that have a bicyclic ring structure connected at
different positions, the MDMA- and MDA-type drugs, were also investigated. The 3,4-isomers of both MDMA (known as“ecstasy”) and MDA are frequently occurring stimulants that
are controlled substances in The Netherlands. However, their 2,3-isomers are both NPS that are not controlled and are
nearly indistinguishable from their corresponding 3,4-isomers on the basis of GC-MS, being the method of choice in most
forensic laboratories.11 Using IRIS, however, clearly distinctive IR spectra for each isomer could be generated which enables
simple identification of these NPS from their controlledcounterparts, as presented inFigure 3(see Figure S3for a comparison to computationally predicted IR spectra) (Note. NPS=Non Prohibited Substances).


This is why I strongly tend to believe that the precursor used is 2,3-MDP2P glycidate, it is legal, it goes thru customs and in the event of LEO operations there still a hard time for the law to prove that it is a illegal precursor/substance, furthermore it is practically indistinguishable from its more active relative MDMA on a street an up levels.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that there is some compound that is active in the low microgram doses that has eluded detection and characterization so far. There are also only so many possible reactions that can occur when synthesizing MDMA, many of which are well characterized. So the impurity would be limited in its possible structures - how you'd get from safrole to a fentanyl analogue I don't know. Not to mention, a good chemist will purify the intermediate products during synthesis anyway...
Exactly! why you want to add such a substance with extreme dosage dangers, cost, and for what? to make your own product half as potent so you can sell more??? nah I don't buy it at all sounds like a street myth.

You'd hope so, but crystallization is not a perfect operation. Sure you might be able to purify 75% to the high 90s, but getting 99.999% would need multiple recrystallizations.
Still for the quantities involved in the hypothetical contaminant if the active is in nanograms it won't crystallize along with the main product, we're talking about that .001% of cut, it is fervid imagination IMO. It will stay in that part of the product discarded when going to 75 to high 90's as you said.
Also re-crystallization is a standard procedure in refining pharmaceuticals.

I'm still unconvinced that the MDMA is the issue here. I would bet some good money on a double blind test showing there's no difference. You guys are treading and retreading the same ground, over and over.
Again.. wrong... I'm in my 50's, I used MDMA from 1995 to around 2002, several times a year, commercial tabs in the 90's and pure mdma later, produced locally by a small lab.
I can explain with a pic the differences from Magic and Meh


To actually contribute something to this "discussion" though: has anyone tried dissolving the "MehDMA" in water before administering it? One (admittedly unlikely) possible explanation is there is another crystal polymorph of MDMA that simply doesn't dissolve in gastric fluids as rapidly, and pre-dissolving it removes this variable (no crystal structure in solution). For the longest time I've always plugged MDMA, maybe this is why I never find it meh?
Polymorphism affects substances solubility only in very particular cases, and not MDMA which is always soluble in water.

Unfortunately if my hypothesis is correct we'll never see again mass produced Magic MDMA.

(edit: typo's)
 

indigoaura

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
1,375
@mooka Your visual representation is the bomb! Love it!

MAPS discovered new polymorphs and discussed it in their Spring bulletin:

Drugs Data added 2-3 MDMA to their catalogue of tested substances, but they did not identify it in their previously submitted samples. They were in the process of trying to obtain more reference samples of isobaric derivatives, but could not find a lot of them.

There is a difference between whether GCMS is capable of differentiating and whether the machines are set up with the appropriate settings/sensitivity levels to properly differentiate. I know I have mentioned this before, but Energy Data openly admitted that they do not typically run their analysis to identify synthesis byproducts, and if I wanted that level of analysis they would have to change the settings on the machine.
 

G_Chem

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,872
Not at all, GC can separate between substances with different molecular weights but can't for instance differentiate between a 2,3-whatever from a 3,4-another. In fact if you read the paper I posted in the previous page https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00915, the amount of effort to differentiate between 2, 3, and 4MMC, and 2,3-mda/mdma with their relative 3,4-compund is admirable, they even had to customise and modify their instrumentation to be able to achieve that. It is not simple when you have to compare the same compound rearranged in a different way, the game here is at very high levels.
That's why this thread after 4 years is still here.

This paragraph is particularly interesting:

MDMA-Type Isomer Differentiation with Infrared IonSpectroscopy.
Another, different, class of isomeric com-pounds that have a bicyclic ring structure connected at
different positions, the MDMA- and MDA-type drugs, were also investigated. The 3,4-isomers of both MDMA (known as“ecstasy”) and MDA are frequently occurring stimulants that
are controlled substances in The Netherlands. However, their 2,3-isomers are both NPS that are not controlled and are
nearly indistinguishable from their corresponding 3,4-isomers on the basis of GC-MS, being the method of choice in most
forensic laboratories.11 Using IRIS, however, clearly distinctive IR spectra for each isomer could be generated which enables
simple identification of these NPS from their controlledcounterparts, as presented inFigure 3(see Figure S3for a comparison to computationally predicted IR spectra) (Note. NPS=Non Prohibited Substances).


This is why I strongly tend to believe that the precursor used is 2,3-MDP2P glycidate, it is legal, it goes thru customs and in the event of LEO operations there still a hard time for the law to prove that it is a illegal precursor/substance, furthermore it is practically indistinguishable from its more active relative MDMA on a street an up levels.


Exactly! why you want to add such a substance with extreme dosage dangers, cost, and for what? to make your own product half as potent so you can sell more??? nah I don't buy it at all sounds like a street myth.


Still for the quantities involved in the hypothetical contaminant if the active is in nanograms it won't crystallize along with the main product, we're talking about that .001% of cut, it is fervid imagination IMO. It will stay in that part of the product discarded when going to 75 to high 90's as you said.
Also re-crystallization is a standard procedure in refining pharmaceuticals.


Again.. wrong... I'm in my 50's, I used MDMA from 1995 to around 2002, several times a year, commercial tabs in the 90's and pure mdma later, produced locally by a small lab.
I can explain with a pic the differences from Magic and Meh



Polymorphism affects substances solubility only in very particular cases, and not MDMA which is always soluble in water.

Unfortunately if my hypothesis is correct we'll never see again mass produced Magic MDMA.

(edit: typo's)

Polymorphs can effect more than solubility, as is demonstrated well in this research article (which has been posted in this thread many times before I may add).


Also I completely agree with sekio, re-X isn’t as selective as you’d think and more of last step purification step.

IMO careful fractional vacuum distillation of the freebase multiple times, followed by multiple recrystallizations is the only way to prove if your theory is correct.

It is possible I suppose given the fact Glubra-something-or-another who used to post here said he analyzed some batches (1-2?) that were 2,3-PMK glycidate. That said something about his posts still leave me with skepticism... May never truly know if he was bullshitting or there really was weird batches of crap floating around..

-GC
 

Negi

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2015
Messages
239
When reading the paper @mooka linked I noticed that the lead author worked at the Forensic Laboratory of the Dutch National Police. So I shot them an email asking if they had seen or heard of mixed positional isomers in street MDMA samples.

Subject: Regarding your research on the detection of positional isomers

Hello Mr Kranenburg,

I have recently read your scientific paper "Mass-Spectrometry-Based Identification of Synthetic Drug Isomers Using Infrared Ion Spectroscopy" and found it to be quite interesting, especially in regards to the analysis of street samples. I was further intrigued when I saw that you work at the Forensic Laboratory of the Dutch National Police. Recently within some harm reduction circles there has been some speculation about a change in illicit MDMA, possibly caused by a mixture of different positional isomers of MDMA within a single sample. Are you aware of the detection of different positional isomers of MDMA within seized or purchased street samples, or any research that touches on this area?

Regards, [Name]

They replied very promptly:

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

Hello [Name],

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

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

Kind regards,

Ruben

The attached paper was this one: https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.109900
 

mooka

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
30
Polymorphs can effect more than solubility, as is demonstrated well in this research article (which has been posted in this thread many times before I may add).


Also I completely agree with sekio, re-X isn’t as selective as you’d think and more of last step purification step.

IMO careful fractional vacuum distillation of the freebase multiple times, followed by multiple recrystallizations is the only way to prove if your theory is correct.

It is possible I suppose given the fact Glubra-something-or-another who used to post here said he analyzed some batches (1-2?) that were 2,3-PMK glycidate. That said something about his posts still leave me with skepticism... May never truly know if he was bullshitting or there really was weird batches of crap floating around..

-GC
I think we can rule out polymorphism since makes no difference ingesting solid or dissolved meh.
Also: polymorphism influences mostly physical behavior of the substances, ranging from stability, faster dissolution, compressibility etc. and only in few cases faster absorption in GIT or higher therapeutic efficiency. It was never an issue with MDMA, not a mention anywhere as far I know.

When reading the paper @mooka linked I noticed that the lead author worked at the Forensic Laboratory of the Dutch National Police. So I shot them an email asking if they had seen or heard of mixed positional isomers in street MDMA samples.



They replied very promptly:



The attached paper was this one: https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.109900
So back to square one?
 

SelectiveSpeeding

Greenlighter
Joined
Feb 9, 2019
Messages
6
I would like to point out that for those of us in the USA, Drug Detection Laboratories thru Erowid's DrugsData program is the only confirmatory source the general public has access to, as I'm sure most of you know. They have stated in the past that their process cannot distinguish between 2, 3, or 4-fluoroamphetamines or any similarly ring substituted chemicals commonly sold as RCs. It's called GC/MS on the web page, but I would have to guess that it's more specifically GC-EI-MS since that's what the specs of the Agilent 5973 state, which is the machine they have. Thtat would mean that any 2,3-MDMA would look the same as 3,4-MDMA unless a secondary type of analysis was used or a specialized process like the one Negi noted was in place but I have not seen any indication of that from DDL.

With that in mind, I have seen in the last 4-5 years a ton of this exact material that's described in this thread. It appears to elicit an effect of the correct duration, mildly stimulating though crippled in it's ability to release 5-HT or provide the missing 'magic'. Tests properly with all reagents, and leaves you wondering what else could be wrong after going in the same circles this thread has. Then I considered the info in the first paragraph while I stumbled across this after having seen it years ago: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095113/

Pharmacologically, this explains a crippled MDMA that looks good analytically in all ways normally used to confirm this substance. I think more attention should be given to the 2,3-MDMA theory. Seems plausible that some shady chinese vendor would ship 2,3-MDP2P glycidate and not 3,4-MDP2P glycidate. They're notorious for mislabeling things. Hell, they do it on purpose to skate by customs all the time.
 

mooka

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
30
ffs no one is making 2-3 mdma. you cant even get 2,3 from the starting chemicals.
why not? if you have 2,3-MDP2P you'll obtain 2,3-mdma, quite likely with any of the know routes, after all you are modifying the part of the molecule with weaker bonds, it unaffects the 3,4-methylenedioxy bridge.

Quoting the initial paragraph of the above document:

"Background and purpose: Illegal ‘ecstasy’ tablets frequently contain 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-like compounds of unknown pharmacological activity. Since monoamine transporters are one of the primary targets of MDMA action in the brain, a number of MDMA analogues have been tested for their ability to inhibit [3 H]noradrenaline uptake into rat PC12 cells expressing the noradrenaline transporter (NET) and [3 H]5-HT uptake into HEK293 cells stably transfected with the 5-HT transporter (SERT). Experimental approach: Concentration–response curves for the following compounds at both NET and SERT were determined under saturating substrate conditions: 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyamphetamine (HMA), 4-hydroxy-3-methoxymethamphetamine (HMMA), 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-hydroxyamphetamine (MDOH), 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenylethylamine (2CB), 3,4-dimethoxymethamphetamine (DMMA), 3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl-2-butanamine (BDB), 3,4-methylenedioxyphenylN-methyl-2-butanamine (MBDB) and 2,3-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (2,3-MDMA). Key results: 2,3-MDMA was significantly less potent than MDMA at SERT, but equipotent with MDMA at NET. 2CB and BDB were both significantly less potent than MDMA at NET, but equipotent with MDMA at SERT. MBDB, DMMA, MDOH and the MDMA metabolites HMA and HMMA, were all significantly less potent than MDMA at both NET and SERT. Conclusions and implications: This study provides an important insight into the structural requirements of MDMA analogue affinity at both NET and SERT. It is anticipated that these results will facilitate understanding of the likely pharmacological actions of structural analogues of MDMA. "

I would like to point out that for those of us in the USA, Drug Detection Laboratories thru Erowid's DrugsData program is the only confirmatory source the general public has access to, as I'm sure most of you know. They have stated in the past that their process cannot distinguish between 2, 3, or 4-fluoroamphetamines or any similarly ring substituted chemicals commonly sold as RCs. It's called GC/MS on the web page, but I would have to guess that it's more specifically GC-EI-MS since that's what the specs of the Agilent 5973 state, which is the machine they have. Thtat would mean that any 2,3-MDMA would look the same as 3,4-MDMA unless a secondary type of analysis was used or a specialized process like the one Negi noted was in place but I have not seen any indication of that from DDL.

With that in mind, I have seen in the last 4-5 years a ton of this exact material that's described in this thread. It appears to elicit an effect of the correct duration, mildly stimulating though crippled in it's ability to release 5-HT or provide the missing 'magic'. Tests properly with all reagents, and leaves you wondering what else could be wrong after going in the same circles this thread has. Then I considered the info in the first paragraph while I stumbled across this after having seen it years ago: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095113/

Pharmacologically, this explains a crippled MDMA that looks good analytically in all ways normally used to confirm this substance. I think more attention should be given to the 2,3-MDMA theory. Seems plausible that some shady chinese vendor would ship 2,3-MDP2P glycidate and not 3,4-MDP2P glycidate. They're notorious for mislabeling things. Hell, they do it on purpose to skate by customs all the time.
Thank you very much for your contribution.

I'd love to see a tested both MEH and MAGIC on a academic or forensic level like the study posted by SelectiveSpeeding. I'm sure something would come up... possible no one has access to a small quantity of magic here??
 

Negi

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2015
Messages
239
I think more attention should be given to the 2,3-MDMA theory. Seems plausible that some shady chinese vendor would ship 2,3-MDP2P glycidate and not 3,4-MDP2P glycidate. They're notorious for mislabeling things. Hell, they do it on purpose to skate by customs all the time.
The 2,3-MDMA theory is very hard to support given the knowledge that the Dutch police lab is aware of it, has protocols in place to detect it, and has still never seen it. They are going to be testing a vast range of samples, from those taken directly from the reaction vessels of seized labs, all the way to down to the finished product that was intercepted as it was being mailed out of the country. If 2,3-MDMA really is the problem, "mehDMA" is the isolated problem of a few American producers bamboozled by their chemical supplier and the solution for everyone would be to hop on a DNM and order directly from the largest Dutch vendor they can find.
 

user666

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
247
Wrong.
The whole point of re-X is to purify the main substance from impurities, so a contaminant that would be active in the nanograms range would never find its way to the crystallized product but it would stay in the mother liquor. In this case the re-X was done 3 times
But recrystallization is not an ideal process.
Neither is trituration ...especially when solubilities are very similar.

Also, there are substances which crystallize together very well despite being composed of different molecules.
For example, just look at the common cut of Methamphetamine which is known as Isopropylbenzylamine. It forms LARGER crystals with Methamphetamine than Methamphetamine alone !

BTW: The equivalent MD compound would be the N-(1,3-Benzodioxol-5-ylmethyl)-2-propanamine.
 
Last edited:

user666

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 13, 2020
Messages
247
why not? if you have 2,3-MDP2P you'll obtain 2,3-mdma, quite likely with any of the know routes, after all you are modifying the part of the molecule with weaker bonds, it unaffects the 3,4-methylenedioxy bridge.
Indeed someone in this tread had detected the glycidate of 2,3-MDP2P before, but I just searched all the posts here and the 2,3-MDMA has never been seen.
 
Last edited:

indigoaura

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
1,375
why not? if you have 2,3-MDP2P you'll obtain 2,3-mdma, quite likely with any of the know routes, after all you are modifying the part of the molecule with weaker bonds, it unaffects the 3,4-methylenedioxy bridge.

Quoting the initial paragraph of the above document:




Thank you very much for your contribution.

I'd love to see a tested both MEH and MAGIC on a academic or forensic level like the study posted by SelectiveSpeeding. I'm sure something would come up... possible no one has access to a small quantity of magic here??

There are contributors here who have access to magic, and I have meh. The problem is that we have nowhere to send the samples. Drugs Data was, at first, indicating they would assist me and provide more detailed information on my samples, but they have been largely non-communicative for a long time now.
 

SelectiveSpeeding

Greenlighter
Joined
Feb 9, 2019
Messages
6
The 2,3-MDMA theory is very hard to support given the knowledge that the Dutch police lab is aware of it, has protocols in place to detect it, and has still never seen it. They are going to be testing a vast range of samples, from those taken directly from the reaction vessels of seized labs, all the way to down to the finished product that was intercepted as it was being mailed out of the country. If 2,3-MDMA really is the problem, "mehDMA" is the isolated problem of a few American producers bamboozled by their chemical supplier and the solution for everyone would be to hop on a DNM and order directly from the largest Dutch vendor they can find.
Yeah I thought about that, and I do know that they're generally more apt to do what they can with regard to publicizing any info about novel substances, or oddities in widely distributed commercial psychoactives which weighs in against this theory significantly. I'm sure that the material I'm talking about is the same, cheap bulk substance coming from dutch labs. It's all I've seen here in the region of the US I'm in for years now.




@SelectiveSpeeding One of my meh samples did show trace amounts of MBDB present - https://www.drugsdata.org/view.php?id=8547

That's pretty odd. Every piece of info I've read regarding MDMA analogues seems to suggest that MBDB hasn't been made on a large scale for years, though "trace" amounts doesn't really suggest that necessarily. I'm not quite versed in chemistry enough to know if it can appear as a route-specific impurity in synthesizing MDMA. While we're on the topic of DrugsData- I've noticed that they've been posting some questionable results at times throughout the last year. Check this one out . MBDB, yes, and it's primary amine BDB sticking to the well known PiHKAL-inspired nomenclature are both well known. I really can't see how someone with keen knowledge and the punctuality you'd expect from forensic toxicologists writes "MDB"...
 
Top