Update: How to tell fake/cut meth from the real thing. Bad news, guys.

Breaking news, everyone. I can definitively state that the cutting agent that's been used in meth lately forms cocrystals with the real thing. This effect is not rare or exotic, it's quite common for substances that have very similar crystal structures and molecular sizes. This is bad news. It means that it might not be possible to separate them using recrystallization. To put it in layman's terms, if this bullshit filler was a supervillain, this is like learning that he can't be harmed by bullets. Sure, he may not be totally invincible, but you just lost your most reliable, go-to weapon that you'd typically use against him. I also learned that the Marquis test for methamphetamine stops working after leaving it exposed to the air for too long, even though the test will continue to work for other substances. (Almost certainly because of moisture absorption) The Marquis test possibly cannot be used on this filler, then, whether because of the cocrystallization, or because it has a similar reaction. I didn't have a pure enough sample of the real stuff to test, once I controlled for Marquis test moisture, so I was unable to make detailed observations.

The good news though, is that the other tests I previously described do still work, for the most part. Dissolving in an alcohol/water mixture and then evaporating in a shallow dish will leave behind big, flat, prismatic crystals if it's fake or heavily cut. Small crusty crystals if it's real. The alcohol mixture that worked best was 90% isopropanol, which is available in most drugstores, and is what I used almost exclusively. Other mixtures will evaporate at different rates, changing the properties of the solvent as it evaporates.

This doesn't happen with 90% isopropanol, because it has an azeotrope with water at 85%, and at 90%, it will evaporate consistently as the azeotrope, with enough extra alcohol to form an azeotrope with any water that condenses into the mixture from the air. Higher concentrations don't dissolve either substance nearly as well. Lower concentrations, like 70%, will evaporate at the 85% azeotrope until there's only water left, depositing crystals differently at every point. The crystal structures would still look much different for real and fake drugs, but it's much more pronounced when using 90% isopropanol. The next best thing is actually just recrystallizing from water, because this fake stuff forms crystals so easily that the solution will actually lock itself under a layer of crystal, preventing itself from evaporating more. This is mostly only a problem if you need it all to evaporate so you can do more tests on it, like I did. Suffice to say, that is not something that the real stuff does when it's poured into a dish 5 mm deep.

The other test that should still work, is the melting point test. Methamphetamine hydrochloride has a melting point around 175˚C, and if it's cut with something having similar properties, that melting point will be lower and less pronounced. This is most likely the cause of the reported "crackback" effect, combined with a softer, less ordered crystalline structure.

If the filler really is isopropylbenzylamine, or any benzylamine, then the benzyl group should be removable as toluene by lithium aluminum hydride, when the mixture's free base is dissolved in ether. Isopropylamine would account for the remainder, and would be extremely simple to separate from methamphetamine, which would be unchanged. I may attempt this at some point, but haven't yet.

TL;DR: The Marquis test alone cannot detect whatever the filler is in meth lately. However, it can be detected by its ability to form huge crystals much more quickly than real drugs, as well as by its effect on the melting point of the mixture. As of yet, I know of no reliable way to separate the two, since they apparently form cocrystals. In any case, you should continue to assume that massive crystals mean massive turds in your drugs, especially if they're very clear and have smooth, flat faces.


Comments


[36 Points] showercurtainsss:

Fuck. Knowledge bomb. Thanks brother. Who's crys is cut with this stuff, or suspected to be cut?


[19 Points] None:

[deleted]


[13 Points] AnEvilKangaroo:

damn informative posts - thank you HeisenbergSpecial.


[4 Points] SIN_org_pl:

Hey guys, we are a Polish harm reduction project and will chip in with 2 cents on reagent testing:)

As OP says, reagent tests might not be enough to detect fillers, however they can tell you reliably if the drug of choice would be absent in the sample. It is, however, a rule of thumb, that the more reagents you use the more likely you are to spot the adulterant react with any of the available reagents.

Here you can check out a flowchart of our speed test https://shop.sin.org.pl/product/amphetamine-test-kit/?lang=en

The standard test for Amphetamine / Methamphetamine consist of the Marquis reagent https://shop.sin.org.pl/product/marquis-reagent/?lang=en and Mecke reagent https://shop.sin.org.pl/product/mecke-reagent/?lang=en (for both reagents you will find color sorted booklets on our website).

The reagents are available on our clearnet site, ebay, Hansa and Alphabay, but if you are simply interested in the fliers feel free to check them out on our site or at the awesome Reddit wiki here - https://www.reddit.com/r/ReagentTesting/wiki/color-spectrum

Cheers


[3 Points] chemistrythr:

This was reported in DEA Microgram bulletin as early as 2008. (N-isopropylbenzylamine as meth mimic)


[3 Points] SloppyJoeLieberman:

I don't use meth but this is still pretty fascinating. Sucks to hear that it seems to be so prevelant. Thanks for the information!


[2 Points] kemolytics:

The most common co-crystalized cutting agent methylsulfonylmethane is removed via sublimation of the MSM. From most reports that I have read the benzylamine cuts do not easily co-crystalize with MA.


[2 Points] whatisopsec:

Is there evidence of cuts in this manner from the cartel? Or is this a problem that starts in US?


[1 Points] roob2u268:

Great information but definitely bad news. I'd love to know about the cocrystalization!! Thanks for the post!


[1 Points] abCepheus:

Even if they form cocrystals, shouldn't it still be possible to perform at least a partial purification by taking advantage of the bullshit's faster crystal development? I mean it'd be a bit of a labor intensive manual process but, if nothing else, going through and picking the tiny shards off of the giant ones should yield an improvement, right? How much genuine product do you suppose you'd lose if you tossed just the giant crystals?


[-3 Points] RIP_Meth_9000:

The METH Must Flow!!!!! And before you spend YOUR hard earned $$$$ on crystal, you hit up 9000 to see who has the best product!!!! Hint....Its flowing out of Canada....Bhahaahahaaaaa!!!!


[-21 Points] Charlie-Luciano:

I didnt know tweakers had a brain left.