Take a little MAO-B inhibitor: feel your neurons being protected. Get a bright outlook on live. Protect your limited supply of dopaminergic receptors.
I am not sure if this is true for MAO-B selective inhibitors, but generally taking MAO-blockers and amphetamine kind stimulants was told to be a not so good idea if I remember it right.
The problem is: People wont take "a little" but heaps and they wont take l-meth but heaps of d-meth in addition. From a darwinistic point of view this might be not so bad at all, its just it makes such a bad press ya know?
Patent US6495529 (http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=US6495529&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD)
The method of claim 1 wherein said (-)-pseudoephedrine is not readily converted to (S)-methamphetamine
The key words readily converted imply to Ibee that by some means another route may exist to convert this concoction into (R)meth.
Yes Or No?
Also, if the patent is held by one company, is it reasonable to assume that other producers are not utilizing the method?
This may be the only saving grace in all this, but if (-)-pseudo's introduction is seen as a way of limiting the conversion of the product at the consumer level, it's well within the jurisdiction of the FDA to mandate it's inclusion at the manufacturer level and force all pfed makers into compliance.
I still don't see any documentation anywhere that points to what forces formulation changes across the board on all strengths, makes and models!
These gaaks are non-existant one day and a week later...BANG....everything sux!
Yeah....there's more to it than what is being disclosed to consumers!