Only substances with at least one chiral centre (keeping it simple for now...) have S and R isomers. Mescaline has no chiral centre - it is optically inactive, achiral. It has only one form - the S and R designations cannot be applied here (other than in the case of salts formed with chiral acids - like the malate - but that's still not the mescaline itself being chiral). [While not applicable to mescaline, there are possibilities in chromatography for distinguishing enantiomers through the use of a chiral stationary phase. In NMR, it would be a matter of using a chiral shift reagent, like some europium or gadolinium complex with strongly chiral ligands, perhaps.]So trying to better understand this and reading and hearing different new things just adding to my confusion... I assume all drugs have S and R isomers? Does NMR and HPLC distinguish between these minor differences? iso-mescaline may be different but are S-(-)Mescaline and R-(-)Mescaline detected thru these tests?
I saw some of these actually cause different different effects. Even S and R Methamphetamine.
I have zero understanding on this but maybe someone here has more insight... ALSO recently heard a portion of trouts talk and he mentioned how in the past a drug was obscuring the detection via lab tests of I think 2cb or 2ce by using vitamin E. It is possible that this can happen with mescaline hiding other compounds since I've not seen them show the other alkaloids but again I have ZERO understanding on this.
Besides HCL possibly being different hydration causing different solubility properties can it also be the different isomers or something else? Maybe too hard to know without labwork.
The bulk of the 2C phenethylamines are also achiral, with the exception of ones with a chiral substituent somewhere else in the molecule, like 2C-T-17. It's the alpha-methyl group that, in a sense, makes the amphetamines chiral in comparison with phenethylamines.
Which talk of @Keeper Trout was it? It would be helpful to find the exact reference regarding this obscuration effect. Spectroscopic effects are not the same as chromatographic ones, or co-crystallisation phenomena, for that matter.
It's neither isomers, nor enantiomers, nor isotopes at play here. I'd say we're looking at an unexpected derivative which formed, a surprisingly insoluble salt, or some other bulk impurity. I'm still leaning towards the urea/carbamate hypothesis, with the analogy in the tryptamines. Carbonate formation from atmospheric gases is a gentler process than direct carbonation, and we can see that mescaline has a remarkable affinity for CO2, which may well be reflected in its ability to form condensation products.
Replication of your methods and the ensuing results, followed by a proper laboratory analysis of the insoluble material, becomes imperative for getting to the bottom of this little mystery.