37 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
37 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
|
From: cooper@hacktic.nl (cooper)
|
||
|
|
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
|
||
|
|
Subject: Dutch analysis of Ecstasy(Re: FWD : Analysis of current `extasy')
|
||
|
|
Date: 3 Feb 1994 12:17:22 +0100
|
||
|
|
Message-ID: <2iqmggINNnam@xs4all.hacktic.nl>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
[Excellent analysis of Australian sample of MDEA deleted]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
In a recent visit to the Dutch Drugsadviesbureau (Drugs-advice-bureau) I
|
||
|
|
was allowed to look into their unpublished samples analysis lists. It was
|
||
|
|
for me at least an eye-opener. Several hundreds of street samples were listed
|
||
|
|
with exact contents, along with shape, size and other markers by which to
|
||
|
|
identify the samples. Basically, there were 4 categories:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1) It was what it was sold as.
|
||
|
|
2) There were impurities
|
||
|
|
3) It was a ripp-off
|
||
|
|
4) It was pure stuff, but of a different kind that it was sold as.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Most samples (>75%) fell into categories 1 & 4. That includes MDMA being
|
||
|
|
sold as MDEA, or vice versa, or MDA being sold as MDMA, or just MDMA being
|
||
|
|
sold as MDMA. Category 2 only listed impurities being caffeine and a single
|
||
|
|
case of MDA being mixed in with MDMA. (MDA being the impurity).
|
||
|
|
The ripp-offs in category 3 where about 50/50 distributed between pure filler
|
||
|
|
and caffeine (up to 250 whopping mg.) So their conclusion was that allthough
|
||
|
|
you shouldn't risk being sold caffeine as MDMA, the quality is generally OK,
|
||
|
|
if you don't mind a little caffeine (40 mg. or so ) added to your MD[ME]A.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Dosages didn't vary that much lowest I saw was 75 mg. MDMA, highest 165.
|
||
|
|
MDEA lowest 110, highest 150. So that's for the Dutch market. Anyone got
|
||
|
|
info for other countries?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
--Cooper
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|