Welcome to TheDEA.org: The definitive guide to the drug MDMA (Molly, ecstasy) since 2003.
Ask TheDEA: Is molly different these days because of a new way of making it?
Probably not. In recent years MDMA synthesis has shifted from using safrole and other traditional precursors as their starting material. A chemical called PMK glycidate became popular as the starting material since it wasn’t regulated by law enforcement. This has led some people to speculate that MDMA made with this new method might have a different balance of isomers. Isomers are slightly different forms of the MDMA molecule, much the way a right and left shoe are almost identical, but mirror images of each other. One isomer called S(+) is a powerful dopamine releaser and could be thought of as the euphoric ‘fire’ of MDMA. The other isomer, R(-), is mostly a serotonin releaser and could be thought of as the warmth and empathy of the MDMA high. MDMA sold on the streets is “racemic”; an equal mix of both isomers. Chemists end up with a mix of the two isomers because the synthesis process isn’t selective; whether a given molecule will be created as one isomer or the other is random.
The traditional precursor (PMK, also called MDP2P) doesn’t come in isomers; there’s only one form, which gets randomized to either S(+) MDMA or R(-) MDMA during the synthesis process. PMK glycidate (the starting material for the currently most popular method) has a bias; each molecule starts out as one isomer or another. This has led some people to wonder if this couldn’t result in batches of MDMA that were (for instance) all or mostly just one isomer or the other.
However, the process for turning PMK glycidate into MDMA starts by breaking down the glycidate, turning it back into plain PMK (MDP2P), which eliminates any bias towards one isomer or the other (by eliminating what chemists call the chiral center.)
As a result, the end product is still randomly formed, giving a 50:50 mix of both MDMA isomers.
Which seems like it would solve the debate, but there is one potential catch: The new method might in some cases introduce new contaminants that could, in theory, affect the high. But, that shouldn’t be even a theoretical issue if the drug is properly purified during production.
Most cases of ‘weak molly’ are probably due to drugs that have been cut with other powders to make more money, or they could be entirely different drugs (such as the various ‘research chemicals’, drugs that the government hasn’t gotten around to outlawing yet.) If you have a suspicious pill, there are excellent home testing kits, and you can even send it in to a lab for professional analysis through EcstasyData.org
Lab testing of ‘molly’, ‘ecstasy’, and MDMA powders and pills generally suggests that the MDMA supply these days is more trustworthy, purer, and stronger than ever before, but of course caution is always a good idea.
US Drug Enforcement Agency 1% effective (1/2/06)
Over at the other DEA, they hoisted champagne this New Year’s in celebration of their most successful year yet of hunting down drug-trade profits. According to Administrator Karen Tandy in remarks on C-SPAN, “up to” $1.9 billion in drugs, cash, cars, etc. were seized over the past year, representing about 3% of the total annual wealth produced by the US drug trade. (The most recent White House estimate I can find puts the total trade at about $65 billion a year.) When only drug seizures were counted, the total haul for the year was $477 million; well below 1% of the entire drug market. Tandy hailed this record level of seizures as proof that the drug war was working.
Roaring success is all a matter of perspective, it seems. 1% effective. You just can’t make these things up. If the Emperor has any clothes on, it’s no more than a G-string.
(Though perhaps the bigger lesson is ‘if you have a question, make an effort to properly research the answer. I had a question (how effective is the DEA?) I found the answer. And now it’s a part of the DEA Wikipedia page. And it’s never going away. Mwahahahah….)
The Mystery of 'Meth Mouth'
Long-term use of meth can take a heavy toll on a person, of course, but few examples of meth wear-and-tear are as graphic as the sort of severe tooth deterioration seen here. (Photo from TeethPictures.org.)
Usually the mainstream ‘authorities’ will tell you that this happens because of all the horrible, toxic chemicals used to make meth, like drain clog removers. The real story is a bit more complicated, so hold down your lunch and let’s talk tooth science!
Bacteria like to live on our teeth, since they get fed whenever we eat. In order to make sure they can (literally) stick around in the mouth the bacteria turn sugar into the sticky stuff we know as plaque. The metabolism of the bacteria creates a lot of acid as a waste product.
The outer layer of a tooth (the white part we see) is enamel. The enamel is mostly a crystal of calcium phosphate, which acid can slowly eat away. Our body’s main defense against this damage is saliva, which helps to wash away the acid being produced by bacteria before it can do too much damage. That’s why sugar-free gum can actually help prevent tooth decay: Chewing gum increases saliva production. Our main behavioral defense is brushing our teeth, since brushing can remove most of the bacteria and plaque that have built up during the day.
Heavy meth use is a sort of perfect storm for tooth destruction. It reduces saliva production (part of a water-conserving stress response that also contributes to hyponatremia deaths among ecstasy users), making it easier for acid levels to build up. People on a binge tend to have lousy nutrition (sugary drinks like soda seem to be particularly popular), and personal hygiene tends to be neglected (so the bacterial population isn’t being held in check by brushing.) Heavy meth users tend not to visit a dentist, either for regular checkups (or even when there clearly is deterioration.) As a result, the bacteria are free to run wild, creating a lot of acid to break down the user’s teeth.
‘Meth mouth’ can happen no matter how you get the drug into your system, although smoking probably makes things even worse, since the meth itself contains some acid. (The acid acts like tiny magnets, holding the meth molecules together into crystals. If you removed the acid, you would have methamphetamine freebase, which is an oily liquid; a bit hard to transport and sell.)
Stimulants like meth (and ecstasy, for that matter) also tend to cause bruxism (clenching and grinding your teeth.) This can wear down enamel by itself, can create grooves in your teeth that make a great hiding place for bacteria to grow in, and in severe cases can even crack the enamel (after all, it’s a crystal.)
If you’re going to use meth (or any other drug), I think the best advice is to be very careful about the frequency of use creeping up over time. Addiction doesn’t simply leap into existence over-night. Nobody gets addicted from one dose. Instead, you get hooked a little bit at a time, slowly and subtly enough that you usually don’t even notice it’s happening until it’s too late.
The only entirely safe drug use is not to use. If you do use, safer drug use means limiting dosages and the frequency of use. Pay attention to how often you use, how much you take, and whether you’re getting cravings to use. If your usage (or side effects) creep upwards over time, take a break for several months. If that seems like too much of a sacrifice, that’s all the more reason to be afraid of where things might be going.
Merck Pharmaceuticals digs the lost history of MDMA (Ecstasy) out of their archives (8/23/06)
It’s become conventional wisdom among a lot of people that MDMA was originally developed as an appetite suppressant. There was never any evidence to support such claims, but that hasn’t stopped them from popping up in even respectable research journals. Perhaps taking a new interest in what may become a commercially valuable drug, Merck, the company that first created MDMA in 1912, has gone through their own records to find out what exactly they did create the substance for.
Nobody knew MDMA was a psychoactive drug at first. Instead, they created what would eventually become ‘ecstasy’ as an insignificant intermediate chemical used to manufacture other, potentially useful medications to control bleeding.
In 1927, a Merck researcher rediscovered MDMA, noting that it had a structural similarity to adrenaline. Animal experiments were performed, but the details have been lost beyond some notes that MDMA was somewhat toxic and promoted muscle contraction, etc. His investigation was apparently brief, noting that the chemicals needed to produce MDMA were expensive and it’s potential use as a stimulant was intriguing but unproven.
In 1952 MDMA appeared again at Merck in the form of a brief note that flies exposed to the substance became unconscious, then died.
In 1959, an investigation into MDMA’s potential use as a stimulant was again undertaken, but the details have been lost. The first human tests may have occurred in 1959 or shortly thereafter. Thirteen years later, MDMA was discovered being sold as a drug in Chicago.
See: What is Molly? The history of MDMA.
Depressed, Anxious Children More Likely To Try 'Ecstasy' (1/1/06)
Reporting on the results of a study of 1580 Dutch children over a 14 year period, researchers have found that depression or anxiety problems during childhood doubled the likelihood that a child would eventually try ‘ecstasy’. This result is consistent with earlier findings that psychological problems in general increased the likelihood of ‘ecstasy’ use later in life.
This correlation between childhood emotional problems and drug use is not in of itself new, although detailed data of the connection between specific problems and ‘ecstasy’ use is. Given that emotionally troubled people are also at greater risk of drug addiction, childhood mental health intervention may prove to be an invaluable tool for combating drug abuse and addiction later in life.
Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Use of Psychedelic Tea (Ayahuasca) (2/21/06)
In an 8-0 ruling led by the conservative new Chief Justice Roberts, the US Supreme Court has struck down government efforts to prevent the religious group O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal (UDV) from importing and using ayahuasca (‘huasca’), a hallucinogenic tea containing N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT, a Schedule 1 drug.)
The use of ayahuasca for shamanic practices and healing rituals dates back thousands of years in South America. The UDV church was founded in Brazil, combining Christian teachings with the shamanic traditions of the rain forest’s native peoples. There are about 130 members in the US (although the church has a far larger presence in Brazil.)
The group came under fire when customs intercepted a shipment of the sacramental tea (apparently 14 previous shipments of the drug-laced liquid had gone unnoticed.) Faced with the loss of their central religious sacrament and threats of arrest, the Church sued the US government, claiming that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (a law passed in 1993 primarily to protect the rights of peyote using Native American tribes) exempted them from the Controlled Substances Act (which outlaws DMT.) The government countered that there was a compelling interest (as required by the RFR Act) to stop the use of ayahuasca to 1. Protect the health of Church members; 2. Prevent diversion of the tea to the black market; and 3. To uphold international (UN) drug control treaties. The court ruled that the government had failed to make a convincing argument on any of these grounds, upholding the decision of a lower court that the Church had the right to practice their religion by using ayahuasca.
While certainly a triumph for the UDV, this ruling may also pave the way for other religious groups who use psychoactive drugs as part of their practices (such as the Rastafarians, who use marijuana, albeit in a less ritualized manner than the UDV uses ayahuasca.)
The curious case of the missing 'date rape drug' victims (9/15/05)
Lurid tales of drinks spiked with incapacitating drugs have long been a press favorite, whipping up public hysteria over drugs like GHB and Rohypnol, in spite of such cases paling in numbers compared to alcohol-facilitated rapes. British researchers, however, have recently thrown some doubt on the scale of the problem in the form of a study of the toxicology results from over a thousand people who believed that they had been drugged in order to make them vulnerable to sexual assault. (These are people so sure that they had been drugged that they went to the police and were drug tested.)
Of the 1,014 alleged drugging victims, only 2% (21 people) tested positive for a drug that they had not knowingly taken. The data has it’s limitations; because some drugs are rapidly broken down and eliminated, all of the common sedatives could only be conclusively eliminated in a third of the cases. Still, the research paints a very surprising picture: The vast majority of people who believe they have been drugged (‘spiked drinks’ and the like) were simply victims of their own excessive drug and alcohol use. None the less, if you believe you may have been drugged without your knowledge, don’t wait to go to the police or a hospital; the longer you wait, the more likely the evidence is to be lost.
Pre-publication copy of article (without data tables.) (Sorry, haven’t been able to get a PDF of the published form.)