TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Ecstasy Overdose in Ajax
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ecstasy Overdose in Ajax

quote:

Originally posted by sticky_shoes Not necessarily, most chemical suppliers do in fact supply the chemicals which they are starting materials for making MDMA. But they supply these materials in small amounts (they are aware that people who order these materials may use it to make...illegal substances...haha). Therefore as a safeguard they supply the material in 1 mg amounts. And often they are crazy ass expensive...so its not even worth making it if you intend on making a lot of them and then selling it. Therefore, people who make the pills often use the other types of amphetamines which are cheaper and readily available, and add other shit (I believe you mentioned a couple earlier...) which can be dangerous (i.e. rat poison).

I doubt that the people making E buy the chemicals for it legally.

Re: BE CAREFUL!

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Here's a video of someone G'ing out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeXd6UrpDvI --------- Be careful folks.

GHB is sickening, I have seen a couple of people do this and act this way! Visually UGLY!

Shouldn't this thread be taken over to the Ecstasy Discussion forum at Bluelight?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ecstasy Overdose in Ajax

Chemistry's my bag, baby.

quote:

Originally posted by sticky_shoes Goshness...dude!!! Of course MA and MDMA will never be the same...but I didn't say they were...But, WTF? Not a very good analogy...actually the silliest "chemistry" thing I've heard! Obviously CO2 and CO are different...in terms of their chemical scaffold...(pls. refer to your chem text!!!) Hmmm...Time for a chemistry lesson... Methamphetamine... MDMA... If you notice by their chemical structure...They share the same chemical scaffold...however...the MDMA is modified (dioxygen ring by the benzene ring)...but still a TYPE (maybe the word form would have been more appropriate) of methamphetamine... I didn't say they were the same...MA is the generic form and MDMA is the modified... But...I do admire your tenacity...muahaha....don't mess with the chemist, dude

Sorry hun, atoms are legos for grownups. They don't look the same no matter what you attatch to them.

What your arguement ignores entirely is electronegativity, which severely warps electron clouds. I don't want to get into submolecular quantum physics here, but electrons in wave form exist in shapes around their nuclei, but because they repel each other when you put multiple orbits near each other they bend away from each other. This creates some fascinating effects (see benzene, the C6H6 ring central to meth, mdma, and countless other organic compounds). The important part to realize here is that while these orbits are usually portrayed as peripherial in highschool chemistry, they are billions of times larger (and completely surrounding) their nucleus, and repel each other. In essence they form a shell which is all the area an atom occupies except a tiny spec somewhere near the middle.

Keeping it simple here, for a lot of reasons caused by proton/electron count and ratio, oxygen is considerably more electronegative than carbon. This causes the bonds around them (including the phenyl group's large and curious oscillating sigmas) to change shape and pull towards the O's. Meaning that anything anywhere near an oxygen molecule (the whole thing, but mostly left of the methyl group and leftwards) doesn't actually look the same in MDMA as it would if it were methamphetamine.

For the same reasons, your point about synthesizing MDMA being a form of synthesizing meth are complete bollocks. It is for all practical purposes impossible to turn methamphetamite directly into MDMA. You can't just glue on the OCO group wherever you want. Synthesing a chemical involves putting two ingredients in and letting them sort themselves out, and they play by their own rules. Putting CO2 and methamphetamine in a beaker results is CO2 and methamphetamine. Heating the mixture will likely decompose the meth into a few, useless compounds, and will definitely not cause the CO2 to react to it. The two chemicals require completely different reagents and conditions to create (not the least of which being pressure), and the precursors are not terribly similar.

Ok I feel better. Continue.



edit: I didn't read to the end of the thread, it appears my lecture wasn't really neccecary. But... yeah, while cooking this stuff in your basement would require some serious dodgyness, the explosion risk is low with most methods (the poison gas risk is another story) and the high polarity and shape differences between meth and MDMA change their reactivity (and thus everything about them) quite a bit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ecstasy Overdose in Ajax

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur I doubt that the people making E buy the chemicals for it legally.

grrrrrrrrr

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ecstasy Overdose in Ajax

quote:

Originally posted by LiamK Chemistry's my bag, baby. Sorry hun, atoms are legos for grownups. They don't look the same no matter what you attatch to them. What your arguement ignores entirely is electronegativity, which severely warps electron clouds. I don't want to get into submolecular quantum physics here, but electrons in wave form exist in shapes around their nuclei, but because they repel each other when you put multiple orbits near each other they bend away from each other. This creates some fascinating effects (see benzene, the C6H6 ring central to meth, mdma, and countless other organic compounds). The important part to realize here is that while these orbits are usually portrayed as peripherial in highschool chemistry, they are billions of times larger (and completely surrounding) their nucleus, and repel each other. In essence they form a shell which is all the area an atom occupies except a tiny spec somewhere near the middle. Keeping it simple here, for a lot of reasons caused by proton/electron count and ratio, oxygen is considerably more electronegative than carbon. This causes the bonds around them (including the phenyl group's large and curious oscillating sigmas) to change shape and pull towards the O's. Meaning that anything anywhere near an oxygen molecule (the whole thing, but mostly left of the methyl group and leftwards) doesn't actually look the same in MDMA as it would if it were methamphetamine. For the same reasons, your point about synthesizing MDMA being a form of synthesizing meth are complete bollocks. It is for all practical purposes impossible to turn methamphetamite directly into MDMA. You can't just glue on the OCO group wherever you want. Synthesing a chemical involves putting two ingredients in and letting them sort themselves out, and they play by their own rules. Putting CO2 and methamphetamine in a beaker results is CO2 and methamphetamine. Heating the mixture will likely decompose the meth into a few, useless compounds, and will definitely not cause the CO2 to react to it. The two chemicals require completely different reagents and conditions to create (not the least of which being pressure), and the precursors are not terribly similar. Ok I feel better. Continue. edit: I didn't read to the end of the thread, it appears my lecture wasn't really neccecary. But... yeah, while cooking this stuff in your basement would require some serious dodgyness, the explosion risk is low with most methods (the poison gas risk is another story) and the high polarity and shape differences between meth and MDMA change their reactivity (and thus everything about them) quite a bit.

Okay...I hope you feel better getting that out of your system...

Because...

You completely missed the point of my post...

Pls. re-read...and if you still don't get it...PM me...

Nowhere in my post (well the one that you quoted) did I mention about the "synthesis of MDMA being the form of synthesis of MA"...I was just simply making structural comparisons between the two...

But really, thank you for that brilliant regirgitation of the principles electronegativity and ...much appreciated...by those who actually understood it I know you were trying to put out a rationale behind your argument...but keep in mind that most of the people on this forum probably don't remember (or don't want to remember) or have no clue about most of the things you have mentioned...haha...

If this comment was directed at me alone...PM could have been more appropriate

I get the giggles when those who are not experienced talk drugs.

What we do NOT need is more scare-tactics promoted by false information and generalization; rather, we desperately require E education and the provision of honest information (particularly to today's youth), e.g. both the neg and pos aspects of the drug and its use.

Re: Re: Re: Ecstasy Overdose in Ajax

quote:

Originally posted by preppie chick bitch, please. I thought you were a fashion guru... it's all about them LV's!

LOL I hactually had a couple of those when I could manage to get them. Pretty good, I must say

Back to conversation though, I just really dislike the total lack of information when things such as these are reported. But what can you do...
Never in my right mind would I actually try to explain some of the inconsistencies to those uninformed..

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ecstasy Overdose in Ajax

quote:

Originally posted by sticky_shoes structural comparisons between the two...

Unfortunately your comparisons are not founded in scientific reality or fact.

quote:

Originally posted by sticky_shoes But really, thank you for that brilliant regirgitation of the principles electronegativity and ...much appreciated...by those who actually understood it I know you were trying to put out a rationale behind your argument...but keep in mind that most of the people on this forum probably don't remember (or don't want to remember) or have no clue about most of the things you have mentioned...haha...

Stick to making broad generalizations and appearing arrogant. You're much better at that than chemistry.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ecstasy Overdose in Ajax

Wow. Unbelievable.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ecstasy Overdose in Ajax

quote:

Originally posted by 4-play Not 'safe use' Graham, I would call that 'smart / educated use'

or as they say SAFER use.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ecstasy Overdose in Ajax

quote:

Originally posted by sticky_shoes but keep in mind that most of the people on this forum probably don't remember (or don't want to remember) or have no clue about most of the things you have mentioned...haha...

you would be surprised. very surprised.

do you really think this board is just full of sketchbags that are lucky to get up in the morning and make it out the door?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ecstasy Overdose in Ajax

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Stick to making broad generalizations and appearing arrogant. You're much better at that than chemistry.

LOL Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Seriously, stop picking on her. I liked her explanations and even LiamK said in his last post (the edited part) that she made sense. Relax with the bashing, last i checked she was allowed to have her own ideas/opinions and was allowed to post them on here. And to the other... just because she hasn't done drugs doesn't make her ignorant

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ecstasy Overdose in Ajax

quote:

Originally posted by sticky_shoes But really, thank you for that brilliant regirgitation of the principles electronegativity and ...much appreciated...by those who actually understood it I know you were trying to put out a rationale behind your argument...but keep in mind that most of the people on this forum probably don't remember (or don't want to remember) or have no clue about most of the things you have mentioned...haha...

Wow, that's pretty rude don't you think? I've met quite a few people on this board that happen to be quite intelligent.

Re: BE CAREFUL!

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Here's a video of someone G'ing out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeXd6UrpDvI --------- Be careful folks.

I don't really understand the point of that...and why would someone actually find this "fun", and why would someone actually want to do it...

Re: Re: BE CAREFUL!

quote:

Originally posted by starsearcher I don't really understand the point of that...and why would someone actually find this "fun", and why would someone actually want to do it...

Another great mistery of life?

yeah, no kidding...some people scare me.

I've heard someone say that their night isn't truly fun until they become so f'd up that they don't really know what's happening around them

Re: Re: BE CAREFUL!

quote:

Originally posted by starsearcher I don't really understand the point of that...and why would someone actually find this "fun", and why would someone actually want to do it...

I highly doubt that anyone finds G-ing out "fun", or that anyone actually makes an attempt at G-ing out.

That's like watching someone overdose on coke and saying, "I don't understand why someone would actually find this fun, or why someone would want to do it."

MDA/MDMA made from safrole.

METH made from pseudoephedrine.


very different processes.

someone correct me if i am wrong, but i don't think houses blow up from manufacturing MDMA. they do blow up from making METH.

Well sure, but even without ODing...what's the fun in being totally fucked like that...not to mention it just looks sad (or amusing to those guys in the car)

quote:

Originally posted by starsearcher Well sure, but even without ODing...what's the fun in being totally fucked like that...not to mention it just looks sad (or amusing to those guys in the car)

It's not like whenever you do G you get that fucked up, it's only when you do too much.

Re: Re: Re: BE CAREFUL!

quote:

Originally posted by The Highroller I highly doubt that anyone finds G-ing out "fun", or that anyone actually makes an attempt at G-ing out.

some of the more experienced users of G actually find the g-out part fun and do it on purpose. apperently the best rest you can get, sleep 2 hours and feel like 12. they take turns doing this while the others watch.

fucking dumb.

Re: Re: Re: Re: BE CAREFUL!

quote:

Originally posted by StereoPrincess some of the more experienced users of G actually find the g-out part fun and do it on purpose. apperently the best rest you can get, sleep 2 hours and feel like 12. they take turns doing this while the others watch.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ecstasy Overdose in Ajax

quote:

Originally posted by sticky_shoes keep in mind that most of the people on this forum probably don't remember or have no clue about most of the things...

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Stick to making broad generalizations and appearing arrogant.

quote:

Originally posted by loca Relax with the bashing, last i checked she was allowed to have her own ideas/opinions and was allowed to post them on here. And to the other... just because she hasn't done drugs doesn't make her ignorant.

FYI: Re-read the above. Arrogant != Ignorant. But I digress - enough of that.

sticky_shoes broadly generalizing and inferring that TOTA was full of fools is not only arrogant but is also absurd - there is no if, ands or buts about it. My comments are not based on her drug-use experience or lackthereof - but on her presumptive and arrogant attitude.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.