The irony of this is that the quest for crystal size is usually spawned out of desire of a better product, when in the case of MDMA, the cost of the crystal size may be an unpleasant surprise for the user.
That d-meth shown above is highly pure and highly valuable. l-meth would be worthless unless one were making OTC respiratory inhalers. The l- has a bit of a body load, but is not generally considered a psychoactive contaminant. Thus, the cooks and bikers of days past, and their racemic product derived from P2P, have been outdone by the shake and bake tweakers producing nearly pure d- from psuedoephedrine. Without resolution, P2P derivatives cannot be more than 50% pure with respect to the psychoactive d-.
That other 50% was not a problem because it had no psychoactive effect. It might as well have been any other cut.
MDMA is different. Both enantiomers are psychoactive but with different profiles.
MDMA is also chiral. One enantiomer is significantly more potent but excreted significantly faster than the other.
MDMA is also highly dose dependent, in both effect and duration.
We still don't understand the intricacies of each compound, so they can't simply be adjusted with a potency factor. There exists a distinct possibility of differing effect profiles due to differing receptor affinities of each stereospecific compound.
By resolving the compound to facilitate better crystallization, you are fundamentally changing the nature of the experience, either towards higher potency and shorter duration, or lower potency and longer duration, per mg pure MDMA.
This isn't a problem for an educated explorer sampling his own with low initial doses and working his way up.
This is a highly irresponsible thing to do for your stated goal of "bag appeal" alone. Any user who isn't a chemist probably has no clue of the basic concept of chirality, let alone MDMA specific concerns. They're going to select an intensity and a duration, then consume a given mass, based on dosing instructions or history assuming the racemic form.
If a user were used to your formulation of the less potent stereoisomer, what happens when the other half of the batch makes it into circulation? Now you have someone dosing the more potent stereoisomer as though it were the less potent.
Even if the stereospecific formulations were measured into gelcaps, letting them spread would be highly irresponsible as users might end up eyeballing it or uncapping it to take a mass-based dose using the racemate as a guide, not knowing the product is not racemic.
For all intents and purposes, stereospecific formulations should be considered entirely different substances, analogous to analogs.
This discussion seems to have veered close to a rule violation, but it needs to be said in the interest of harm reduction.
If anyone has any good information on stereospecific doses, it would be much appreciated.
,and of course easy treament than puffy hydrochloride,but the consistency it´s not like crystal,It is more like if you were doing chocolate fused in thin sheets. The form in the one that breaks is very similar to this, and not so much to the form in the one that breaks the crystal that it is possible to find in the street, very similar to big chunks of crystallized Nacl.