> the brown powder which is typically considered less likely to be adulterated This is a very common misconception. Just because MDMA is sold in powder form do

> the brown powder which is typically considered less likely to be adulterated This is a very common misconception. Just because MDMA is sold in powder form does not make it less likely to be adulterated, and color is a misleading (and easily manipulated) heuristic. You can test for the presence of hypothesized adulterants, though most people unfortunately don't, and tests will fail to detect heterogeneous adulterants or adulterants in small quantities. Furthermore, reagants test for the presence of specific hypothesized adulterants; they cannot test for the absence. The only way to be 100% sure is to use a mass spectrometer, and very few people will have access to use a mass spectrometer for testing street drugs outside of law enforcement (who emphatically cannot be trusted for these purposes[0]). That leaves clinicians, researchers, and a small number of groups who perform drug testing services for recreational users. From those, we have a pretty good sense that unadulterated MDMA is quite rare[1], which means that comparing subjective experiences of recreational (street) drug use to subjective experiences of pharmaceutical drug use is methodologically fraught. > You can’t just look at the structures or names and assume that fully explains the effects. I did not say that it fully explains the effects. However, it does provide some information. And in this particular case, the differences are dramatically overstated, due to the massive difference in set, setting, dosage, and chemical composition (possible adulterants). My point is that you can't compare your subjective experience of these two drugs to draw the conclusion you're drawing, because there are many different confounding variables that would each explain the difference in effect you're describing, let alone in combination. Again, I do agree that MDMA should not be used as a treatment for ADHD. I'm just pointing out the problem in drawing this conclusion based on subjective personal (and presumably recreational) experiences with the drug. [0] Law enforcement routinely lies about and misrepresents facts around drugs, for various purposes. It's most commonly seen with regards to fentanyl, but by and large you can't trust LEO claims about tests performed on any drugs seized without independent means of corroboration. [1] That doesn't mean that the adulterated versions are necessarily harmful, but it does provide an additional wrinkle when using it to draw inferences about hypothetical clinical use (which would not have any adulterants).