Levomethamphetamine

The strongest support is in the first post itself — the comments mostly add qualified anecdotes, not new evidence.

Claim: “Yes, levomethamphetamine can get you high.”

1. In the OP — high-dose equivalence, from peer-reviewed literature

From Human Pharmacology of the methamphetamine stereoisomers (doi:10.1016/j.clpt.2006.06.013), quoted in the OP:

“At high doses, l-methamphetamine intoxication is similar to that of d-methamphetamine, but the psychodynamic effects are shorter-lived and less desired by abusers.”

“The pharmacokinetics of the methamphetamine enantiomers are similar, but there are substantial pharmacodynamic differences between the isomers.”

This is the only direct, sourced statement that l-meth can produce a d-meth-like intoxication — with the dose and desirability caveats built in.

2. In the OP — classified as a CNS stimulant, extractable

Second quoted source:

“Levomethamphetamine is less potent than dextromethamphetamine as a CNS stimulant. … Extraction of levomethamphetamine from the Vicks® Inhaler is possible.”

Less potent ≠ inactive. This frames it as same class, lower potency.

3. In the OP — amphetamine-like properties

First quoted source (doi:10.1177/106002808802200308):

“Levo-desoxyephedrine, also known as levo-methamphetamine, the main active ingredient in Vicks Inhalers, is known to have amphetamine-like properties. Stereotypic behavior is consistent with behavior that follows the use of amphetamine.”

Weakest of the three OP quotes — AlkaliActivated correctly notes in the thread that stereotypic/jitter behavior in mice would also be positive for any adrenergic drug.

4. In comments — the only mechanistic rebuttal

Winter_Cast (2024-02-09, reply to AlkaliActivated’s claim that l-meth “lacks” dopaminergic/serotonergic activity):

“L meth is a TAAR1 agonist, therefore causing a spike in dopamine and serotonin. This is one of the most retarded comments I’ve ever read. L meth can get you high, but it will not feel as good as d meth, obviously.”

No source is given in the comment, but it’s the only comment that directly answers the thread’s main objection on mechanism.

5. In comments — first-hand reports, both heavily qualified

levmetamfetamine (score 15, the highest-scored supporter):

“I agree! I tried it out of curiosity… Yes, it did stimulate me. It was incredibly physically stimulating and made me bounce off walls, but only for 30-45 minutes or so, and then I was left exhausted.”
He adds he finds pseudoephedrine “both more recreational and functional” and l-meth not worth it.

ebolaRETURNS (score 3):

“The binding affinities are similar to phentermine. So yeah, you’ll be altered, but it won’t be that fun. I would place it as significantly less rewarding than propylhexedrine but easier on the body… Yes, I’ve taken extractions from both types of inhalers.”

PURPLXHVYXS_ is the only unqualified one, and it’s bare assertion: “Gets me high”

Indirect support

The OTC counterargument — SOwED: “If it could get you high in any meaningful sense, it wouldn’t be sold as an OTC drug” — is undercut in-thread by levmetamfetamine and mqduck (DXM, pseudoephedrine as OTC highs), and SOwED himself later concedes: “DXM is a pretty solid counterexample.” That removes a dismissal, it doesn’t prove l-meth itself.

Bottom line: Support rests on 1) the Mendelson et al. high-dose similarity quote in the OP, 2) its classification as a less-potent CNS stimulant there, and 3) Winter_Cast’s TAAR1 claim. Every first-hand supporter in the comments concedes the same limits the OP source does: short, mainly physical, less rewarding / less desired than d-meth.