[FullMtlAlcoholc]

As with many illegal street drugs, there is no standard definition of Ecstasy. It's whatever a drug dealer decides to sell you and/or call it It is certainly not bad journalism to call it that. That's what MDMA pills were known as in the late 90's/ early 2000's.

Also, call me an old timer, but I refuse to call it Molly

[m0th87]

> It's whatever a drug dealer decides to sell you and/or call it

That's the point. Ecstacy does not have a precise definition. MDMA does. Given this is a trial, it should be labeled what it is.

[spatulon]

OK, I have friends of friends who say they take 'MDMA' on a Saturday night out. Is it really pure MDMA, or is it just what we would have called Ecstasy in the past?

[CoryG89]

MDMA (or Molly) usually comes as a cloudy off white crystal or crystalline powder (if broken up).

Ecstasy comes as a pressed pill (presumably containing some MDMA, with the possibility of other drugs/adulterants and fillers).

The only way to know if they were taking pure MDMA in either case is to test it:

Potentially NSFW: https://dancesafe.org/product/complete-set-of-all-8-testing-...

[soundwave106]

To be honest, the only way to truly know if one is taking pure MDMA is to run a fairly expensive test (along the lines of GCMS, NMR, or many of the other qualitative analysis).

Reagent tests ala what Dancesafe sells are great harm reduction, if the pill fails the test, the pill certainly has 0% MDMA. However, they will not be able to identify that you are taking pure MDMA. I imagine any MDMA+other substance mixture will flag positive. In addition there are probably a few non-MDMA substances that will false-positive that reagent test.

There's an organization out there (https://www.ecstasydata.org/) that does GCMS analysis of pills, the data on what they find (in terms of ratio of substances) is public. So if you want a bit of a sampling of what type of things get sold as "molly" / "ecstasy" you can look there.

[CoryG89]

Absolutely. I did not mean to imply that the results are lab grade quality.

To clarify, by "pure MDMA", I did not mean that the substance is 100℅ pure MDMA, but rather that it does not contain other active adulterants.

With reagent tests you can be reasonably sure that a given pill does or does not (most likely) contain only MDMA and (most likely) contain no other (common) adulterants.

If you want to be sure on the actual amount of MDMA and be absolutely certain it contains nothing else, then you absolutely need a lab test.

[tibbon]

Agreed- I've known people to send off samples for GCMS and have a pretty good idea then of what they've got in their hands. It costs money, but if you're worried about safety it is possible.

(GCMS doesn't actually cost much to run, places just charge a lot for it.)

[FullMtlAlcoholc]

You're better off just having a reliable supplier who cares about your health because that means continued business for him.

[CoryG89]

This is incredibly naive. You are much better off testing any substance you put into your body. Whether you test it yourself, or can confirm that a trusted party has tested it.

What if your reliable supplier was sold cyanide from an unreliable supplier? Better one of you is wise enough to test it.

[GavinMcG]

They may be wrong, technically, and that's fine. A journalist should get it right.

[EasyTiger_]

I have friends of friends, who have friends (who I NEVER speak to btw) who say that Ecstacy is never just pure MDMA.

[CoryG89]

True in the sense that pure MDMA cannot be pressed into a solid tablet alone. It needs to be mixed with fillers/binders to be pressed into a pill and stick together.

However, you can find Ecstasy pills that contain nothing but MDMA and inactive fillers/binders.

[3131s]

Where I'm from those old definitions hold true. Molly is MDMA, ecstasy is MDMA and methamphetamine pressed into pill form. If I bought it back in the day and it tested as anything else, I would've gotten my money back.

[etatoby]

You'd get your money back from street pushers. Really.

[jamiecurle]

Anecdotal, but back when I used to use drugs recreationally all of the dealers I used actually placed a very strong emphasis on customer service. Maybe this person has a similar relationship with their supplier. Not all drug deals are conducted from street pushers.

[psyc]

I'm annoyed by the Hollywood depiction implied by this comment. In my version of "back in the day", all the "street pushers" were some of my closest friends, not grumpy thugs.

[mnx]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't usually buy drugs like that literally on the street. It's not unthinkable to have an ongoing relation with a dealer enough to be able to return something that doesn't meet your expectations, if you are an important enough client. Not saying it's common, but I think possible.

[3131s]

Was not buying from street dealers, and yes I would.

[FullMtlAlcoholc]

If you're dealing with a dealer a bit more upscale than a street pusher, he will have a money back guarantee. It's in his interest since his reputation is everything.

[CoryG89]

I agree that it makes sense for a journalist in the sense that many people do not know what MDMA is, but they have heard of Ecstasy. However, Ecstasy does have negative connotations that pure MDMA does not. The risk of unknown adulterants is probably the biggest danger in taking illicitly obtained Ecstasy tablets. This danger is completely mitigated with pharmaceutical grade MDMA.

If you don't like Molly. Please just call it MDMA. Not Ecstasy.

[legacynl]

> That's what MDMA pills were known as in the late 90's/ early 2000's.

That means there IS a definition of Ecstacy, the meaning hasn't changed. There are just lots of bad pills in circulation. That's why you should always check pillreports.net before using any untested stuff.