We do not have any problem discussing RC's, as long as the potential dangers are recognized and info on harm reduction is clearly available. Here are three relevant links:
wiki.dmt-nexus.me
Regarding analysing these substances, harm reduction organizations such as the one I collaborate with have legal access to reference standards and are constantly working to be up-to-date on the new trends and substances appearing on the market. But in the case that one does not have the standard itself, there are several ways to help identifying a compound. The best is of course if you do several different analysis with different methods to complement each other.
Usually NMR is the method of choice since it gives very good structural information, and is usually what is used when a completely new substance appears and needs to have it's structure described. Before analysing with NMR, the substance needs to be separated through some method like column chromatography or ion exchange, because the NMR results cannot really be 'read' if there's a bunch of substances mixed in, you wont know what peak is from what substance.
Other methods can give some structural info too, like LC-MS/MS (which separates the substance and then bombards the substance with electrons, but instead of just once like normal GC/LC-MS, it does it several successive times, and through the different fragments one can get info on the substance's structure).
Even "simple" GC/LC-MS with access to a database of spectra already can be enough in some cases, since you might not have the standard itself but the spectra may match up perfectly with something already described in the database (which may have been added by a law enforcement agency or a university/research group that had access to the standard). The identification can be done visually or can be done through automated mechanisms like using NIST library, which will search through hundreds of thousands of substances in the database and give you the best guesses with % possibility of match.
Some people/research groups might actually go through the trouble of synthesizing the suspected substance and analysing it, so that they can confirm if the suspected substance is really what they think it is.
There are other methods using X-Ray or FTIR that also give structural information, but since I never worked with them I am not sure how 'complete' the structural info they give by themselves is.
In the case of our organization, up till now it usually has either done with standards, or with access to NIST database and comparing the mass spectra of the unknown substance to the ones in NIST database. Usually when its this second case, we try to confirm through other methods (reagents, TLC, physical properties, etc) to try to diminish possibilities of being a mistaken match, and also we are honest about our limits and uncertainties when giving results.
Now we have just gotten access to LC-MS/MS, which is very good, but we're only doing th first tests, but over time we'll have more experience with that and it should help with identification. We also have the possibility of sending the substance to a university that has NMR (though the whole process of first isolating the substance, sending to the university, having them test it and getting the results, may take long so its only done if really necessary).
it seems to me very straight forward with great thought for a monkey like me..lol
