improvement to iso-ketone via peracetic method

[wacko_reaco]

Firstly let me begin by saying that if you were running a factory making this shit any improvement that cut down processing time without hindering yeilds, quality or costs negatively would be pursued. What i am about to disclose may rankle some people here because it is not exactly in keeping with good laboratory practise, but who cares, it is good factory practise and good process practise to save resources.

Start with sassafras, stir this in a stainless pot on a heating plate, add 10%by weight KOH dissolved in MeOH or EthOH (normally a 20% solution). Heat whilst stirring well until the solvent has boiled off and the temperature has risen to over 200C, turn the heat off and continue to stir until the solution of gunk is cool. If you cannot do this outside or in a fume ghood i suggest a flask with a distillation condenser attached as the sassafras fumes are quite strong.
Let the pot settle for a few hours then decant the mix off the top, there should be a large chunk of black gunk in the bottom, leave this. Place your medium brown mixture into a vessel and add 10times its volume in DCM. Now wash the solution with water twice.
The resultant  brown isoafrole can be now processed via peracetic without consequence. I have performed it three times and found the only variation is that a clear fraction comes over before the ketone in the distillation that never did previously, it however is about 2% of the ketone fraction.
This method will most likely also work with the performic if that is your game.
So there is one vacuum distillation saved, now the process only requires two (or one if you don't distill your freebase)
That is all
wacka wacka wacka

[Rhodium]

I wouldn't reccommend doing this.

What is your yield with this variation, compared with a standard run with distilled isosafrole? Do you fractionately distill your MDP2P, and have you tested it with TLC to identify possible contaminants?

[wacko_reaco]

That is a legimate question, yes the ketone was frac distilled, my yeilds were a couple of percentage points down (52% normally-50% with this method)  on normal but that should have been expected given my stated observations.
Rhodium has never tried this method and suggests you don't try it: I have tried it successfully three times and suggest you do, and i know the correct use of a semi-colon. But hey if a useless several hour vac distil is your idea of a good time then knock yourself out, hell triple vac distill all your solvents.
The purity question is irrelevant as there are two further vac distils post this step and all the common reactions have the co-reagants in excess.
The standout feature of the per-acid methods are they are pretty bomb-proof. In fact post DCM distillation the glycol seemed no different to when the iso was vac distilled. In reality you probably destroy an equivalent fraction vac distilling than the miniscule drop in yeild that is experienced.
Please some-one else get 50g of sass and try this and then we can all shutup about it and we can all stop vac distilling the iso.
wacka wacka wacka

[Chromic]

You should be getting a 65% molar yield of ketone using the peracetic (if you fractionally distill, under vac). What is the purity like? Did you test with bisulfite to get a good idea on that?

The yield from safrole -> isosafrole is ~98% when done properly.

And most sassafras oil is only 70-90% safrole to begin with... I think anything under 95% needs purifying... and most chemists here would say my standards are low.

[Rhodium]

What I suggest will remove unreacted safrole, which when run through the peracid oxidation may yield MD-phenylacetaldehyde and/or MD-phenylpropionaldehyde, neither of which is easily separated from MDP2P through distillation. Both of them will aminate in the Al/Hg reductive amination to form the corresponding phenylalkylamines, which then will contaminate your final product.

They will be inactive at the concentrations they will appear in, but they are still undesirable contaminants in my opinion.

[wacko_reaco]

Come on rhodium, do you really think there will be fuckall reacted safrole intermediate in the final product after distilling the ketone and the freebase and re-crystalising, given the distilations are performed properly?
I have never gotten over 55% yeild with ths method even with distilled iso, don't know why, my performic yeilds where always down on expected as well. Also witht his isomerisation method there is practically no safrole forerun in the distillation anyways.

So Rhodium, if assuming this method works you had to recommend to someone to either use this method, and re-distill the freebase or distill the iso and  not re-distil the freebase  (as almost every fucker here does) what would you say. I predict you would asert the former would be a more desirable.
I must again state here that this is production logic and methodology over lab methodology. If you have run these rxns many time then you are a production chemist and should start behaving like one.
Lastly i have posted here many times, both under this name and under 'startinout', i always tend to state my assumptions carefully and not profess success until is it confirmed. i do not post for ego massaging, but rather to help out. Someone try it quickly (preferrably with the performic) and confirm my results for everyone else.

wacka wacka wacka

[Rhodium]

Come on rhodium, do you really think there will be fuckall reacted safrole intermediate in the final product after distilling the ketone and the freebase and re-crystalising, given the distilations are performed properly?

The freebase distillation won't change things much, as the boiling point difference between the possible amines is negligible, recrystallization of the hydrochloride salt afterwards will however be effective, provided that it is performed correctly, and doesn't constitute "crashing out" the crystals.  You did not mention performing both a freebase distillation followed by recrystallization to compensate for the skipped isosafrole distillation.

I have never gotten over 55% yeild with this method even with distilled iso

Overall yield of MDMA.HCl, or the performic oxidation? If the latter, then you really need to review your procedure to find out where the other 15-20% went, as you should at least get 65-70% yield in that step.

Also with this isomerisation method there is practically no safrole forerun in the distillation anyways.

Not usually, but how would you know that will be the case during your next run if you don't distill the isosafrole to confirm complete isomerization? Some unexpected quirk might one day leave 25% of your safrole unreacted, which you then unknowingly will plug into the performic oxidation and propagate all the way to the hydrochloride salt. A single recrystallization will not remove THAT much impurities.

So Rhodium, if assuming this method works you had to recommend to someone to either use this method, and re-distill the freebase or distill the iso and  not re-distil the freebase  (as almost every fucker here does) what would you say.

I'd say that bad lab practice is better than really bad lab practice, so yes - failure to purify the final product is worse than not doing it with one of the intermediates.

I must again state here that this is production logic and methodology over lab methodology. If you have run these rxns many time then you are a production chemist and should start behaving like one.

Yes, certainly, but in the role of a production chemist you should then switch to another form of quality control to ascertain purity, such as running a TLC on your crude isosafrole before oxidizing it (production chemists usually analyze each batch with GC/MS to verify purity, but for hobbyists TLC is a fully ok substitute - it is not only dirt cheap, it is also way faster than a GC/MS).

i do not post for ego massaging, but rather to help out. Someone try it quickly (preferrably with the performic) and confirm my results for everyone else.

I do not doubt that your method will have an appearance that differs little from the proper procedure, as in the yield not being lessened by a noticeable amount, or the appearance of the final product being different. What I worry about is mostly the things that you don't see with the naked eye, such as the purity level of your final product.

If you do analyze your product after each run, and find it to be indistinguishable from runs made according to proper protocol, then there is no reason whatsoever for you not to take shortcuts like this.

However, suggesting others to take shortcuts without at the same time provide any kind of proof that it makes no difference, or suggest how they can ascertain the purity of their product despite skipping a purification step is something that I will never tolerate here without contesting it.

[Chromic]

Recommending to others to take shortcuts before they are able to confidentally take the shortcuts themselves, is a HUGE MISTAKE. The worst thing that I've seen in many good writeups is where quick, easy tests of the intermediates are not taken on each and every step.

It is also very important to recommend these check-points in each reaction, so newbees can tell where they are making the mistakes.

[Osmium]

> This method will most likely also work with the performic
> if that is your game.

I assume you meant distilling the formic acid out from the glycol?
I did that once, many years ago since the vacuum available to me at that time was really shitty. Resulting yield: 0%
There is a reason why everyone says to do it under strong vacuum and T preferrably kept below 40°C.

Or were you talking about using the crude ketone for the amination reaction?
I did that once too, when I made my first batch and didn't have any vacuum available, and since the batch size was so small. The resulting stuff was dirty and wouldn't clean up, although it produced the desired effects.

> So there is one vacuum distillation saved, now the process
> only requires two (or one if you don't distill your freebase)

Production chemists who obviously make more than a few grams by definition should NOT take such shortcuts. While nobody gives a shit if you fry your own brain with your own candy, this stuff is meant to end up with unknown consumers, most of which are probably stupid kiddies who shouldn't do any drugs in the first place.
While your clients usually deserve to be fucked since they rarely want to pay the desired price and will try everything to get the stuff cheaper to maximise their own profits it is still unethical towards the end user to save time and produce dirty shit.

When someone is into production they should learn how to multitask. There's no reason whatsoever why distillations need a babysitter most of the time. Especially distillations like sassafras require not much attention at all once the forerun is out, the temp has stabilised and the safrole is coming over. All you need to do is checking it every 5-10 minutes or even less when doing really big amounts. One person can easily start a performic reaction and perform some time-consuming extractions, clean lab glass and maybe even recycle some solvents.
Once people have gained the required confidence in their abilities to do so and the knowledge of how long each step will usually take they can get quite some work done each day.
If I tried to do some big scale work I'd rather do it right and use big lab glass, long ass columns and slow unattended distillation etc. Sure, it would take me a week to distill 50 liter sassafras from the 5L flask requiring to run constantly, but since every other step would be performed the same way and in parallel those distillations wouldn't slow everything down by much. Just have a 'production line', e.g a big long U-shaped table with each step being done in its own area, with everything needed in place.
The glass and pumps etc. are an expensive one time investment, but I still like it better than rigging some old oil barrels to process the same 50 liters of sassy all at once. I'd rather maximise my yields AND purity (usually exclusive either/or) by being able to recycle and keep foreruns etc apart to be processed separately, optimise my reaction conditions and be able to shift production slightly in case some equipment fails, than doing it all with improvised reaction containers one step after the other.

I'm not fat just horizontally disproportionate.

[scram]

"Both of them will aminate in the Al/Hg reductive amination to form the corresponding phenylalkylamines, which then will contaminate your final product."
...ahh, this must the famous inactive 'mystery powder' obtained on 3 occassions due to not distilling.

Does anyone have the denity of the aldehyde?

[wacko_reaco]

All points taken, i assumed everyone was performing the tests anyways.
My tests are
1-after the isomerisation take a small representative sample to heavy boiling, then turn off the heat, the tempertaure at which all boilning ceases should be above 242C otherwise there is significant safrole contamination
2--ketone, we all know how that is tested
3-freebase, i don't test the freebase once distilled, the distillation temperature and conditions are indication enough for me, the recrystallisation i only ever perform to stop browning in the final product but if you think it removes the primary amine imputies then all the more.
The point about making things too simple for all is interesting as these reactions simply don't work if you fuckup a step, which in my book is the best safeguard of all.  At the end of the day maybe this post was irresponsible, i had always thought there was some conspiaracy here to keep things more complicated than they need to be, but my perhaps it is justified, i guess i always assumed people wouldn't try this crap without an education.
Finally if you perform a known reaction on any scale over and over again you are a production chemist, regardless if you are doing 100mg, 1000kg or 100g.

Now can everyone chill the fuck out, we are working together
wacka wacka wacka

[Rhodium]

i assumed everyone was performing the tests anyways

i had always thought there was some conspiaracy here to keep things more complicated than they need to be

i always assumed people wouldn't try this crap without an education

Unfortunately, none of these assumptions are true at all, just trust the elderbees. We are here to help you!

[placebo]

I just wanted to say I like Rhod's and Osmium's posts and their responsibility and integrity.
Remember... people are going to eat this shit, there is no length you should not go to for 100% purity. It is the half-stepping, short-cutting mother fuckers who bring the attention on this industry. Belt up or get out!!
Intelligence is not the recall of knowledge, but the ability to use it. (Rainman was a retard)

[wacko_reaco]

that is it is a valid process improvement in my book, but hell you are all still probably vacuum distilling your sassafras oil, think about the planet, don't use energy you don't need to (that was a joke for all those americans who don't understand sarcasm)
wacka wacka wacka

[hellman]

Good work, wack,

Getting closer!
This is a great timesaver, I believe that the only issue preventing this method having unparralelled mind numbing success, is the different purity levels of the starting sasafrass material,.

-but this CAN BE OVER COME BY FREEZING THE SASS!

It is an interesting argument, what rhodium is trying to say, and wacko,
I see both sides,
but what kind of slides the scales into the favourable region in the pro {no iso distilation} is the time saving, and that means less chance of legal proceedings,
We are the ones that supply this, we are the ones taking the risk, to play outside the game,.
therefore I am all for it,

- i am sure there will be more e, for the consumer and the manufacturer, when methods like this are tested thoroughly, logically speaking that is,.

This is great, this has huge significance,


hellman


- al new sideproducts, can be removed, so don't be anal,.
jems that come like this, are always, brownnosed by the higher community,
expect this, that's how you know you are on to something,.

But extraordinary breakthroughs, do need extraodinary proof, keep that in mind.

[Osmium]

> - al new sideproducts, can be removed, so don't be anal,.

Yes, the thought of a bunch of lazy, shortcut taking wannabee chemists trying to clean up a off-coloured, sticky and fragrant product mixture containing 50 components really appeals to me.

Care to share your wonder cleanup procedure?

> jems that come like this, are always, brownnosed by the higher community,

What's so special about doing a rushed, poorly performed, half-assed job?

> expect this, that's how you know you are on to something,.

May you develop ulcers from the phenolic toilet disinfectant-like impurities.
Hint: maximise your yield so you can buy the new stereo by omitting the cleanup steps. You will see, you might end up with 10% more yield. Never mind if it has the consistency of chewing gum and colour of dog vomit.

> But extraordinary breakthroughs, do need extraodinary
> proof, keep that in mind.

Extraordinary my ass! Can't wait to read more about your sloppy "improvements" and "breakthroughs" in clandestine chemistry. You guys make me all giddy inside. It's so exciting to witness history to be made!

[Protium]

Polymerization is not a good thing  

[yellium]

Os: You shouldn't be so negative to those good-meaning bees.
Just because you happen to be a good chemist is no reason to
speak badly about other clandestine chemists, who have more limited
resources (in terms of glassware, chemicals, and intellect). After all,
these guys do all the best they can, and isn't that what it's all about?

Plus, every idea, how stupid it may be, might be helpful to other bees.
There's no need to downplay other helpful bees, especially since they are
so willing to invest so much of their copious free time in typing in al
this so-called 'nonsense'. It might be nonsense to you and me, but if even
one bee is enlightened, who are we to condemn those bees?

Plus, saying bad things about stupid ideas of other beas is considered
37143 behaviour, which is seriously frowned upon among grownups. Instead,
you should give positive, constructive comments.

Another thing I noticed in your reply is that you tend to insert a lot of
very subjective value judgements, which might be considered as personal
judgements. You should refrain from that, and instead use more neutral, or
preferably politically correct terms for that.


So, for instance, you shouldn't say


'Yes, the thought of a bunch of lazy, shortcut taking wannabee chemists
trying to clean up a off-coloured, sticky and fragrant product mixture
containing 50 components really appeals to me'


but instead you might consider replying
            
   
'Well! That is a very good idea! I have given your suggestions much thought
and did a few trials in my own lab. Of course, I wasted a lot of valuable
precursors on your unclear suggestions, but that shouldn't matter. And that
the end product contained more contaminants than the usual route followed
doesn't matter also: it is about intentions, and the users will surely
appreciate that while this product might be more unclean than the product made
earlier, it does contain more good intentions than before. So, actually, it
is a BETTER product!!. Anyway, I have to clean up the lab now; I hope to hear
from you soon.'

   
Note that the second reply is much longer, thus giving your opponent more
attention, and a longer time for the message to sink in. For completeness,
add some incomprehensible raving and spelling typo's to approach them more
at their intellectual level.
   
   
   
And now I'm off to bang the heads of a few lusers against the wall.

[X_Stacy]

It is great when a fellow bee finds a shortcut that clandestine chemists who don't have access to fancy lab equipment can use. But when you are talking about distribution, especially concerning MDMA, you really need to consider how the shortcut affects the product. I know this is like the fifth post in this thread with the same message, but I don't think it can be stressed enough:
The contaminents found in crude MDMA can really fuck you up, NOT IN THE GOOD WAY!
If you want Parkinson's, then just test your crude unpurified product after every batch.
Not to say that the shortcuts aren't viable, just that YOU REALLY NEED TO TEST YOUR FINAL PRODUCT before distributing the info to the hundreds of non-chemists and beginning chemists that will try it.
It's only an unethical business because of ignorance.  

[Triton]

So what contaminents would make it through ketone distillation, an A/B extraction followed by distillation of the freebase?

[yellium]

You seem to think that if you work with clean chemicals at one point, you'll end up automagically with clean chemicals at the rest of the synthesis route too.  Unfortunately, chemistry doesn't work that way.

Example: say, you would like to pool three 25 ml fractions of distilled freebase. You do this by throwing the fractions in a new, bigger flask, flushing the three smaller flasks with DCM, throw the DCM+freebase in the bigger flask and rotavap the DCM off. Now, if you're in a hurry, and put the waterbath of the rotavap just a little too high, you'll end up with freebase with a slightly yellowish/brown color.

Similar things can happen when you acidify your freebase. Slopppy technique can ruin even the purest chemicals.

[Chromic]

Say  a distillation removes 90% of the contaminents, the A/B 50%, the recrystallization 75%... none of those #s will ever be exactly 100%. What you end up with, is still a product that has impurities... and it will have more impurities if what you tried to clean up was more impure.

I, personally, wouldn't worry too much about amine-like impurities that are substancially similar to MDMA if I was just taking them done over a short-term basis. Then again, I bet the same logic could have me eating my own feces. Point is, you're probably right but "probably" is not good enough logic to endanger the rest of society.

[placebo]

It's like sex, we are competing for quality, not who finishes first!!!
Take your shortcuts to www.prematureejaculators.com.

[Triton]

Now I get it.

Couldn't quite grasp it until placebo pointed out something I could relate to.

Thanks guys.

[hellman]

[Protium]

Hellman, do you ever find yourself periodically peeking through your blinds?

[hellman]

-----Hellman, do you ever find yourself periodically peeking through your blinds?



Protium
....only until it hurts too much, but i guess it depends on what you meant,
-the blinds of paranoia,...?
Well no, I am not paranoid, in a relative construct kind of way, less than you , most probably,.

but if it means what i believe in, then i yes i purposly look through the blinds,. I don't mean to hurt anyone, people hurt themselves, you know that, things close to the bone always hurt us,.
We don't want to accept, that's our problem, why can't i say the things i want to say, when they are true,
Why is it so unfair that we have to be like this, i think you need to spend a week with me, and unwind a little, respect is one thing, shit, osmium's great, but who says he's right, for that token who says i'm right,
Look E can be made WITHOUT distillaton, in pure quantity,
- the truth is often aggressivly painful for some people, and that's life,. end of story, the sooner you accept, the more like me you become, -smile-
( i could of said the more free you become, but you know..)

 maybee all this aggression is that we are turning something rudamenatlly fucking basic,(labware) into what it shouldn't be,. think about it, you are being ruled by an association with what has been told to you that is the best, what you should do and what you shouldn't, glass heat resistant tubing, for fuks sake,.

I have told you kids about limits,-enough said,.
in hindsight, WHO GIVES A FUCK

-who am i to say that, we are not perfect,
there are others to do that for us,.

you guys are a crack up,

- i have a gift for you all soon, i can share a little with you know,
There is a man, i am not sure who, that doesn't matter, the fact is he was a production chemist,.
He made a high efficency, less mechanocal waste for 1 to 100 ,ml experiments that is made otc,.

I'm trying to get it to you, one day iam sure,.


- yeh, stick to the labware, smile

joking!
- keep moderating me guys, at least i know some cares,.


Aren't you tired of all this, huh?  

[abacus]

Why don't you people try to help those bees that are struggling with problems, rather than spout your self important bullshit. 

Fuck me, too many people talk through there arses around here

Abacus

[Protium]

Look E can be made WITHOUT distillaton, in pure quantity.

Your yeilds are liable to suck and your product will be impure.  There is no excuse for poor lab technique.  As for your iso-safrole, you will have substantial yeilds lost to polymerization.  You know the tar in your flask..... it's not a good thing.....  that tar could have been mdma.  The unreacted safrole will not epoxidize but along the road a plethora of side reactions will occur and your product will be of poor quality and quantity.  Running the procedures without distillations is ludacris.  Any hillbilly in his kitchen could do that in a frying pan, and such discourse should be directed to methinfo or a similar forum.

Quality before quantity, and day of the week.  Anything less would bee un-hive-like.

[wacko_reaco]

Man,
I guess none of you have ever worked in a chemical plant before, or a pilot plant, (or a MacDonalds Kitchen), fuck i think you would be thinking twice if you think all your safe consumer products go through unneccessary purification.
My thesis is that the reaction to ketone works for my source of sass without any vac distilling steps. The second part to my thesis is that vac distilling the ketone, a/b after the al/hg, vac distilling the free-base and re-crystallising the crystals results in a very pure product.
One of you should look up some theory on these purification methods and stop with the hyberbole. you gyus are sounding like bush on iraq, the hilarous thing is most of you who are disin me for not dislling my sass or iso probably gass straight after the toluene extraction ala MM, or even if you do you probably do not re-crystallise.
The third part of my thesis is that is you are going to leave out a purification step, don't leave out the ones at the end, leave out the ones at the start.

[hellman]

no,.

you have it around the wrong way,my friend,
we are doing the helping, the others and you are doing the fighting,
..... loook haaaaarrrrder .
more chemistry, i agree


...it's only self important crap, if you don't agree with me, otherwise you would be laughing

[baalchemist]

If one carefully chooses the reactions for each of the necessary steps and UNDERSTANDS what each reaction produces(product & by-products) using their specific technique & methods, it most certainly can be done without distilling. As a matter of fact, Scwam already did that 2-3 years ago and caught alot of BS for it at the time, I personally thought it was quite an accomplishment for a chem-hack. Some methods when executed properly, produce very little in the way of by-products that can't be washed away or even has become an inert substance during a reaction & will not react in the proceeding reaction. There are many factors one must take into account for that to happen, 'selection & solubility properties' of the solvents that are chosen for extracting ones reactants from a given route, or its use in an A/B workup of a reaction product, and cant forget about filtering media. There are quite a few methods that produce tons of by-products even with optimal technique, and then there are those that dont. It comes down to ones ability to understand and educate themselves properly on their own specific 'hows & whys', its definately not a game of uncertainty for idiots. Then there's a question of morality involved, that is ones own choosing regardless of what anyone else has to say about it. Unfortunately it seems most are'nt willing to go the extra mile it takes to gain the degree of understanding & skills that proper chemistry requires. Its those types that put the publics health in jeopardy with their 'brown colored E-caps' or that 'orange crank w/reddish tint', or is it the fault of those that aquire this crap from the cooks & peddle it, or is it the 'dumbass consumer' that dont know what the fuck he's buying and really dont care just as long as its a 'drug'?  I'm neither 'for or against' a route of this nature that doesnt distill, because Baal has his own preferences that are of "optimizaions & high purities' of each compound and distilling is a part of that protocol regardless. I personally dont think that lack of accessability to proper 'lab materials & such' is a viable incentive or excuse to produce copius amounts of 'designer dope' containing a bunch of un-tested 'unknowns' and pass it off on the un-suspecting. Carcinogenic unknowns can certainly help that 'hump' to start a growing quicker, just like youve always wanted to have. Remember this; "Theres no such thing as an educated guess, there's just an un-educated guessor". Anyhow best 'o luck on the quest.

[scram]

Please Ladies and Gentlemen hold back your applause...(audience settles down). Thank you for the introduction and inviting me here my brother & fellow bee, Baalchemist. In additon, Swim wishes he could annom. send batch samples of his stuff for GS/MC to determine its purity. But doesn't see how this could be done w/o providing too much personal info to a lab.

[hellman]

Thank God chemistry is finite, absolute and logical,.
If you look at it like that, anything can be achieved,
It's not magic kids,

that's all i'm gonna say

ever get the feeling that these righteous doodes are some  soft long arm of law enforcement in collaboration with a marketing department for Pyrex?

Think about it again,
every step you do that lets the eye of sauron see what your up to, you will get caught faster, the more you use what THEY want you to,.

The-Hive is and has always been about the safety for bees,

Thankyou for your post Wacko,.


- this is highly off topic, i apologise

[hellman]

Placebo:
It's like sex, we are competing for quality, not who finishes first,!;

That's so funny,.
- it's the girls that want us to think that,.
When you masterbate, do you make allowances for you hand?,..
-smile
It's an instinctually driven case of the end justifies the means,(well it should be) but  in a pc world,were we carefully(most of time) balance our mind & genetic influences, yes, the means(in this case length) does justify the end?..hmm   -smile
No wonder so many of us are broke all the time,.

Want to come, must wait,,,must wait

note, I don't agree a damn bit with what i just said,I just don't buy into the whole pressure on coming thing,.
You come when you come, karma sutric sex, only leads to excessive amounts of semen discharge, irritable skin, and longer gaps between orgasming  due to physical pain,
Sex or wanking as a bottom line uses energy, and at the end of the day, that's gonna cost you cash,.
Philosphically speaking, you want to take the least path of resistance(with anything) and come when you want,.
Overengaging with too much thought, is just gonna bring you down


this is an expensive lifestyle, getting off these days, does cost eventual monetary loss, you want to get it over with, before you eventually wind up in a shelter,.

i didn't say it was a perfect world

hellman laboratories