its not semantics, falsereality doesnt understand chemistry. if merely containing another molecule meant that it 'contained' the molecule, so far as that it would have any of the functions of the contained molecule, then we would be able to breath MDMA since it has 2 oxygen atoms in it, with some other things connected stuck on the sides. not as much of a difference (meth and mdma, vs O2 and mdma) but you can see the point im trying to make
perhaps a better example is comparing pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine. there is a smaller difference there than between mdma and meth, but we all know you cant get high at all off sudafed
well ur right, as i dont claim to know anything of chemisty. but i can clearly see that meth is very similar mdma, also (though i have never tried either mdma or meth) from what i have heard from users - mdma's high is like a combination of speed and a trip (correct me if thats false). so is it wrong to conclude that speedy high is from the meth molecule, and the trip is from the addition?
btw, u may not get high off sudifed but u can certainly make it into meth; unless the banning of sudifed was due to someones chemical misunderstanding
I can understand why you would assume that, but thats just not how it works. MDMA is also not very speedy or trippy if you ask me, though; I suppose I could understand why people say that as well.
though some (many) people do, just like they say it 'has in it' many random chemicals used in the production process. the speediness from mdma is very different to meth, with ecstacy its like moving feels good so you keep doing it, with speed its like theres an impulse to keep moving whether it feels good or not. and that feels successful, exciting. but the mdma molecule does stimulate dopamine pathways, its just not the same as meth.