The only reason to test something to find out whats in it is to find out whats in it . If the test doesnt show whats in it it doesnt show whats in it = Its a total waste of time and money ........ PLUS ...... its dangerous because it gives users a false sense of security .

The reagent tests as you say leave blind spots ...... even if one uses every single one on a sample wich would be expensive and take a lot of the sample substance = they dont show what is in a sample they only show if a sample contains a certain chemical or group of chemicals .

SO ........ for instance ........ a test might show a chemical comes from a certain group . BUT ...... theoreticly ........ some of the chemicals in that group might be active in miligram range and some in microgram range = a BIG difference and that difference could be deadly .

Then the test showed that result but didnt show that the active drug in the sample was another drug from a different group . It also didnt show the cyanide in the sample and it didnt show all the cuts .

= Those tests are between useless and downright dangerous .


" What would you want the cannabis tested for when you send it to a lab? "

For exactly the same reasons one would test other substances . If someone gives it to someone or sells it to someone they dont know what has been done with it before . Someone might have sprayed crap grass with a chemical or there could be a toxic cut or there could be weed killer on it .

do not test the cannabis , taste it , smoke it , eat it

let cannabis test you

Which sample was ever found with cyanide?

I think it's easier to talk specific examples instead of non-existent or unlikely hypothetical examples. No test in the world tests for everything

That's sort of like going to the hospital because you feel sick, and asking for them to blood test for every existing and extinct disease in the world. They won't do that, even the most professional hospital. They will first look at symptoms, at prevalence of different diseases , etc.

Sometimes a simple test may be enough for what you are looking for (like a pregnancy test), which will already reduce the probabilities... but of course maybe you think you are pregnant but you actually a weird new uncatalogued disease with very similar symptoms. And maybe the pregnancy test doesn't differentiate the disease. But that would be a rare case and wouldn't mean pregnancy tests are useless. They are useful for their particular application, for a large number of people, if you are aware of limitations..

It's the same with drugs. When harm reduction work is done, what you need to do is reduce the most dangerous possibilities which you know can happen. So you have to look at what substances are most commonly used as adulterants, and this can help you avoid some main dangers. You cannot test for everything simply because that's impossible. You could conceive of any number of synthetic substances that shows exactly the same as a wanted substance in even the most expensive tests, and yet are way more dangerous. But if you look at number of deaths and hospitalizations, you generally see a handful of substances which are causing the problems and that we can avoid by doing some simple cheap tests.

I have access to international testing statistics, and other people can watch out for harm reduction groups' twitter feeds and results from ecstasydata.org to see most common adulterants and be aware of trends in adulteration (for example there are some superman shaped pills going around which have high levels of PMMA, please be careful people! )

Say for example LSD. LSD is either LSD, or an NBOME related substance, or a DO(x) substance, or bromodragonfly (nearly inexistant these days). With simple ehrlich reagent, all of these can be eliminated. That is incredibly useful. Sure they don't test for a hypothetical unknown novel totally toxic ergot-based substance that reacts exactly the same, in that case you'd be screwed, but what are the odds, and what is the alternative you are offering (not taking at all, or taking it but not using any reagent) ?

With MDMA, things get a bit more complicated, since MDMA's reactions usually mask PMA/PMMA's reactions, and those are the more dangerous adulterants. So in that case yes it's important to recognize that limitation and not give people false sense of security of marquis turned black.

With synthetic cannabinoids, I'm not sure if by now we have indication on which ones are more or less dangerous. Some can be differentiated with different reagents, I can check out the list.

Again, TLC can def help.

As for cannabis, it depends a lot where you are from. There are specialized tests for fertilizers/pesticides/heavy metals, but generally what you will find is more regarding THC/CBD ratios. Or also terpenes, some people might be interested in the info but it's not very useful so you'd usually have to get some specialized testing for that. It's all possible though.

In the few places where cannabis may be sold laced with synthetic cannabinoids (if this ever happens), I think TLC or sending to the people I linked before would be the best bet.

Ok, so back in the 60's LSD was essentially an "RC". No one knew what it was really so. So yes we don't no long term effects of these substances but that hasn't stopped people in the past.

Like I said, the main problem with these synthetic cannibinoids is that most of them are full agonists an have a high affinity for your cannabinoid receptors. This can be dangerous or deadly if to much is taken. The other thing is, unless getting a known chemical with tests you have no idea what your taking.

Smoking this fake spice stuff is stupid at best, deadly at worst.

In a two week period two of my friends went to the hospital after smoking synthetic cannabinoids.
They are disguised as innocent herbs, but the "herb" is just some inactive thing that gets sprayed with a cocktail of chemicals.
So if you are ever tempted to smoke these things, just imagine someone in a lab wearing a gas mask holding some kind of spraying device and covering fake herbs in chemicals.

Which sample was ever found with cyanide?

The one in my " for example " - " theoretical " example . Its there to make the point more clear . The worst i have seen was a report of lead dust in a sample .


" No test in the world tests for everything "

That aplys to both sorts of test . When we test we want the best , most reliable FULL results so we go for the best we have ........ like courts and drug testing labs do . Colour tests have massive holes in them ...... and when we use those tests we dont know if .... and if what is in the hole = It isnt worth doing except for what they are specificly sold for = for example concerned people ........ police and parents can test substances to see if they have " illegal " content . Other than that i see no use .


" I think it's easier to talk specific examples instead of non-existent or unlikely hypothetical examples.

OK . In western europe there has been very much outdoor grass that is said to come from serbia . There have been newspaper reports and TV documentrys about it . Its fact . Some of the grass was tested and was show to have pesticide on it . Sometimes i have had outdoor grass thatmade me sneeze a lot . Was it the pesticide ?

We also see grass that has been poluted with commercial products to make it weigh more . One name was Brix or bricks ? Sometimes there is so much on it that the grass snaps , crackles and pops when its heated .

Next ...... since the secret of washing grass got out about 15 years ago its been used to cut hash . That means that the best quality powders are washed in cold water and the fat is then mixed with the third quality powder . In that fat there is a little of the good powder = Joe public gets something that has much more fat in it ......... and thinks " Hey WOW !!!!! ...... top quality resin " and pays MUCH more for it . The hit he is getting is to a large part from the fat that is plastering his lungs = poison , poison gasses and lack of oxygen . Their lungs get " glued " up = again lack of oxygen = They think that they are high .

Now thats gone a step further and " they ' are putting other fats in = fat that doesnt come from the cannabis plant . What is it ? I have no idea . I have seen / extracted at least two sorts and they were tasteless .

That " hash " with the extra fat in it is the equivalent of smokeing candles . One of the main causes of death in the middle ages was breathing in the fumes fom candles and oil lamps .


Would colour tests help ? To detect pesticides ? To identify added weight fillers ? What about othe things that have been found in commercial " hash " from shredded plastic to old LPs ?

Or would it have to go to a profi lab ?


You say pregnancy test . EXACTLY . Thats a yes or no question . The same as colour tests . It doesnt show what sex the baby is or its weigh or its blood group . Colour tests just show if a chemical or chemical group is present . That shows nothing about the " safety " or aceptability of the other contents = It does nothing to help drug harm prevention .

" what is the alternative you are offering "

I am not offering an altenative . I am trying to make clear that those tests are VERY limited and that people can get a false sense of security by useing them . Thats why drug test organisations , governments and courts dont use them ...... and why profi labs offer the tests .

The original poster asked a question and was told to test things . Colour tests are only usefull in rare situations

I'm also trying to give a new member a bit of suport . He came and asked a question and was answered . I am trying to put those answers in perspective .

AND ...... how would colour tests have helped the original poster ? Would they tell him what the product was ? What other active chemical/s are in it ?

Could a normal user do those colour tests ? Without training and help ? What do they cost ? How many tests and samples would one need to provide just the results that the posible tests could show ?

How many of us have used colour tests ? Lab tests ? How often ?

= We should be carefull what we take . Do some research on it and think about and plan for posible consequencys . But not go over the top and not get a guilt complex and comit ritual suicide .



@ Acid

Acid didnt do us any harm so that means that " research chemicals " are safe ?

GOD. I gave you a very specific example of when reagent tests can certainly do much for harm reduction: LSD vs nbomes/dox/bromodragonfly. You say we should be ' careful with what we take' . I'd say it's way more careful for someone taking LSD to reagent test using ehrlich than to not test at all, and this has nothing to do with 'guilt complex'.

You are still entitled to your opinion of course. Personally I feel reagents are definitely lacking, which is why I've been working on TLC. But I don't think reagents are completely useless, I think you probably say that from a place of having very little experience with reagents, and I think if you look at it carefully you see there are definitely clear exmaples where it can be useful. They are most definitely use by different international harm reduction organizations, while being conscious of their limits. Some organizations have access to other techniques and instruments but others don't and still make good use of just the reagents .

As for the synthetic cannabinoids, to be honest I have not researched much in this area. I know certain synthetic cannabinoids can be differentiated with different reagents, but I'm not sure if any of those cannabinoids is specifically less or more risky than others so I'm not sure how much the reagents would help appart from simply curiosity's sake. Personally I think harm reduction in this case would most likely be switching to cannabis instead of synthetic cannabinoids, but there are other contextual factors and preferences that need to be taken into account.

As for cannabis, GOD, do you have any source regarding your claims of "cold water wash" (what does that even do, cannabinoids are not soluble in water, makes no sense to me) and of 'oil' added to cannabinoids? I have looked plenty and didn't find much. In terms of oil the only publication I found mentions a couple of samples with some pine resin in Charras samples in italy. Certainly not as widespread as some people claim.

Also when you talk about 'western europe' , that is an innacurate generalization. Many of the main consuming countries in western europe like Spain and Netherlands do not smoke serbian weed, there is a local growing culture. In any case, what test from Serbian weed showed what pesticide in what amounts? Source please. Same for 'commercial hash made of broken LPs', got any source for that claim?

And as for your last question regarding safety of LSD vs research chemicals, I think obviously LSD being safe doesn't make other RCs safe. Several research chemicals are way more toxic than acid (including the ones present to substitute acid). But it may also be that other RCs are even safer than acid (not the nbomes/DOx/bromodragonfly, though).... It's a case by case thing.