Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Illicit Drugs & Amateur Chemistry - What to do?

 Pages:  1  2

12AX7 - 12-4-2007 at 19:40

Quote:
Originally posted by The_Davster
How are you to say your actions as a amateur chemist would never hurt anyone?


We were talking about suicide and inaction, but if you want to generalize to other actions, sure, most things people do have the possibility of hurting someone else in some manner.

Would you like, then, to discuss to what degree it matters that someone has been hurt? Levels of, say, negligible effect, impoliteness, rudeness, physical or permanent mental hurt, etc.?

Tim

The_Davster - 12-4-2007 at 20:06

I was continuing from about a half page back in regards to someones comment about drugs causing more car accidents. Pointing out that alot of things you do can potentially harm others but they do not necessarily need to be banned.

Found the suicide article:
http://www.thecl airefiles.com/Personal/suicide.html

[Edited on 12-4-2007 by The_Davster]

12AX7 - 12-4-2007 at 22:08

Alright. A quote helps to be specific...

uncompromisedfreedom - 13-4-2007 at 08:38

I'll state my position one more time since it's so important to me that people think about this issue and change their mind: It's wrong to jail somebody for committing an act which does no direct harm to any other. This cause is as important as any other human rights cause.

If a harm to somebody results or is at least contributed to by such an act (e.g. a person drinks and then drunkenly robs a store), it is only the act which hurt someone which should be illegal. (Also, driving under the influence of any drug, as measured by reaction tests, is illegal because it is true risky. Ah, you say, but isn't drug use in general? No, I say, it's quite possible to use the currently-illicit drugs without hurting someone else, just as it is possible to use the currently licit hard drug alcohol without hurting someone else. When driving and impairment are concurrent, though, there is a high likelihood of hurting others. This is a reasonable place to draw the line for acceptable risk, and I think that can be very plainly understood. Not many people have been hurt by a neighbor who took a stroll while high; driving is not the same.)

And to the questions about is any action truly harmless, e.g. amateur chemistry: I stated earlier in this thread, if you trace all the effects which can be attributed to a given preceding action, you can give anything, e.g., as the cause of the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York -- the birth of Usama bin Laden (jail his mother?), the terrorists training in the country (ban foreigners learning flight?), etc. Just as this is absurd, so, too, is it absurd to ban drug use because some drug users may end up paying less attention to their kids, or may fall asleep instead of hearing a neighbor in distress. One reason it's absurd: many people pay less attention to their kids or fall asleep for other reasons, and many people who use drugs *do not* do those things. There is not a cause and effect relationship -- there is a multitude of other factors.

Here's another thing that causes people to spend less time with their children: amateur chemistry. Someone who spends lots of time on science, or any other endeavor, spends less time with their kids. Should we illegalize that , too? No. If they spend so little time with their kid that they endanger the child in some way, though, the obviously proper law regarding child neglect should be enforced.

Also, if they endanger their neighbors with toxic fumes, etc., an amateur chemist should be arrested -- not because of carrying out chemical reactions, but because of doing them in a way which endangers other people.

It's simple: drug use shouldn't be illegal. Why? Because it's wrong to jail people who haven't harmed anyone else. Murder and thievery are illegal whether or not someone is on drugs, and that is as it should be. Driving should be illegal when someone is on drugs (including the hard drug alcohol). As a nice perk, when drugs are legal the big pharmas (or perhaps smaller generics-pharmas will step up and specialize) will take over production which will put professional producers of drugs which are (wrongly and immorally) illicit out of business (though a few amateurs will of course dabble with amateur chemistry), and you won't have to worry about the government cramping your style just to make it difficult for people to do something which shouldn't have been illegal in the first place. Another bonus: crime and gangs will be drastically reduced over time. Don't believe that every gang will find another racket. Organized crime will never disappear, but it will shrink -- *drastically*. And the petty crimes which some drug users engage in will also be drastically reduced along with the price of drugs (opium was cheaper than alcohol for a dose in the 1800's in England. The others aren't far behind.) The medical care for users with soft tissue infections, HIV, and hepatitis, acquired from unsanitary injection practices and non-sterile drugs in addition to sex work that pays for outrageously priced (yet still unsanitary drugs!) will be reduced. With legalization users won't have to worry about acquiring life saving clean syringes or deal with the (for them) insoluble problem of how to avoid infection when the drugs which are injected aren't kept sterile. Much of this cost ends up being paid for being spread across the whole of society's taxpayers. This cost will go way down.

But that's not the main thing: we must stop *torturing* innocent people for non-crimes by tossing them in jail to rot while others engage in identical (hard drug taking, i.e. alcohol taking) actions legally outside of jail.

About the whole "producers of the (wrongly) illicit drugs ruined my access to chemicals" idea: are they the ones who passed the silly laws? Or did they not. They did not. Weren't they also put into business by other (now beyond silly and into immoral) laws which banned use of drugs and thus their production on penalty of jail?

Don't you think it's weird to blame someone other than the people who made the laws/policies that made it difficult for you to get your chemicals? BTW, even if drugs had been legal, I'm certain governments would have started getting tough about chemicals. Bombs and poisons would have easily been reason enough. Governments think that power like that -- just the ability, I mean -- are reason enough to take something away from the people that initially endowed said government with its power. Initially. Now it feeds itself with power as it strips each additional freedom from you. Sure, you wouldn't have a problem buying pseudoephedrine, but you wouldn't have all those other chemicals laying around. Doesn't it strike you as strange that the easy access to chemicals started drying up before drug labs became the massive perceived threat they are now? Know who is at the root of your problem with access to your chemicals: the government. In fact, you have a problem similar to that of drug users: the government is restricting your access to substances, which, as an adult in a supposedly free nation, you should be able to use. If you should happen to make a bomb with you chemicals, or drive while impaired, you should then be prosecuted.

Otherwise the government should give you your freedoms so that as free human beings, as God made us, we can live our lives as we wish in harmony with our neighbors.

The short-version: Legalize victimless crimes and don't get smart about what "victimless" means. I.e. if a crime occurs down the line, that's the crime, not the drug use which contributed to it (but which does not always contribute to such a crime).

And, since one (or two) of you may still be confused: Just as I reject the jailing of other crimes which hurt no one else directly (physically, economically -- and those crimes which put others at a high risk of harm like driving drunk [we know high risk when we see it -- see above]) such as drug use, I reject the jailing of those who attempt to kill themselves. Obviously. I can't imagine what sort of person would support such a law.

(Though I have been told that some places have made such an act illegal! What a laugh and a cry, almost as big a laugh and a cry as the drug laws and the people who support them!)

I'd also like to give a word of encouragement to those of you who agree with me: put a post up. There are anti-drug comments thrown in all over sciencemadness. It's clear that there is a very quiet majority on this board. Let those who keep writing these anti-drug comments on here know where you stand and that their position is untenable -- the debate is non-existent.

Regarding people who support robbing the lives of those who just want to get high on a drug other than alcohol, it's like Pink Floyd said in "Pigs (Three Different Kinds)": "You're nearly a laugh but you're really a cry."

PainKilla - 13-4-2007 at 08:56

Uncompromisedfreedom, I am very lenient as far as drug laws go but what you said is overlooking the problem of peoples’ irresponsible use of drugs.

Amateur chemistry does not take away from children because no one is compelled to go and mix chemicals together - drugs are different. Although I feel it is possible to stop using drugs by will alone, I think that for many, there is no reason to, and because of this their addictions and desires get out of hand, leading say – their children, to suffer.

"Uncompromised freedom" does not exist in the world. There will always be restrictions, and there is nothing that one does that will be uninfluential to others. What you say would work IF people were responsible, but, as it stands - they aren't. If we educate, then your ideas could be considered... but right now? No way.

Also, I feel that people have a social responsibility to uphold, but as far as blaming someone for their lack of inaction... that is going too far. I agree with The_Davster; the psychological torment would be enough for most. But actually jailing someone for inaction? That would be cruel indeed.

On a side note, since this thread is getting to be more and more philosophically inclined, I have to ask:

Where do you think society is currently headed?

As society is made up of individuals, each person's opinion is completely valid. I mean this question in the sense of:

Are we striving for a technologically superior society, so that we are free to enjoy life with little or no strife?, or Are we living solely for our happiness, enjoyment, and comfort, worrying little about anything else? or is it something else altogether?

vulture - 13-4-2007 at 13:02

Any society is bound to collapse. History will show you that.

The_Davster - 13-4-2007 at 14:28

Cycle of democracy.
http://pad39a.com/gene/cycle.html

Around the last point or nearing the end of the second last.

12AX7 - 13-4-2007 at 14:29

Quote:
Originally posted by PainKilla
Are we striving for a technologically superior society


Yes,
Quote:
so that we are free to enjoy life with little or no strife?


no,
Quote:
or Are we living solely for our happiness, enjoyment, and comfort


yes (in many cases).

"If it feels good, do it" (and its more technical equivalents, such as businesses maximizing profit) is a basic tenent of the world. If I don't do something for you, the chances are someone else will, so it's as much in my personal interest to do something for you (like sell drugs) as it is for you to recieve it. And this, therefore, quickly leads to the downfall of society through hedonistic means. The ONLY limiting reagent is, where does the money come from? Fortunately, most people have to earn their money, limiting their spendings.

When it comes to the human factor, there are of course some people wise enough not to be as utterly self-centered as the above condition, so this isn't exactly a perfect representation.

As for society, it may last a while. Britain has been going strong for the last thousand years, although through all the various battles and revolutions, it's debatable if none of those events can be called a "collapse of society". For most of that time, their society was much simpler (mostly argrarian) and slower (no internet, automobiles, etc.) than society today. The Vatican has been going for 2,000 years solid, though calling them a society isn't entirely useful (notwithstanding that religion is undeniably a factor in most cultures). On the other hand, Germany is a very young country, wrought with turmoil over the last century and a half. Ancient Greece and Rome lasted many centuries; the Egyptian empire lasted many millenia. And so far, the U.S.A. has lasted two and a third centuries, still in about the same general sort of flux that's been taking place for the last 200 years.

The previous generation always says society is decaying, but if that were true, the entire Earth would've imploded 9,950 years ago! Nay, it is that society as they knew it is 'decaying': "changing" is a better word. In some regards, the changes are for the better, and in some regards for the worse. Each generation decides for itself what is good and bad about society, and conciously or unconciously, collectively molds society into what it becomes after each generation.

Tim

quicksilver - 14-4-2007 at 05:40

QUOTE:
The short-version: Legalize victimless crimes and don't get smart about what "victimless" means. I.e. if a crime occurs down the line, that's the crime, not the drug use which contributed to it (but which does not always contribute to such a crime).

No way....you need to define "victim-less", not just use the term and thereby make it fit the dictum. Just what is a crime without a victim? Does such a thing exists? And if so why? - This is a standard discussion point in schools of jurisprudence and you should have no problem making your case.

From my perspective, I have come to re-think my position. I used to think that prostitution fit that definition. I now believe that it is no longer "victim-less" as the lifestyle of the prostitute is often the very measure of a person victimized.

When having a discourse with someone it's important to actually listen to them. Not just wait your turn to talk and then talk them to death, etc. but LISTEN and interact with those around you. The more a man listens, often times the more he learns. I'm listening: what's a "victim-less" crime?


QUOTE:
I'd also like to give a word of encouragement to those of you who agree with me: put a post up. There are anti-drug comments thrown in all over sciencemadness. It's clear that there is a very quiet majority on this board. Let those who keep writing these anti-drug comments on here know where you stand and that their position is untenable -- the debate is non-existent.

Jesus H Christ! Anti-drug, PRO-DRUG? IT'S JUST A FUCKING CHEMICAL FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!
Thinking individuals are not "anti" or "PRO" drug! The shit doesn't jump off the table and into your system. It is the behaviour of the individual that is at issue.
If you are in love with mind altering substances that's fine. If you want to intellectualize or rationalize why mind altering substances are a good thing in and of themselves...that's fine too. I actually doubt that ANYONE here wants to keep you from enjoying your chosen pastime........it's the fucking behaviour that goes along with mind alteration that is at issue. Driving, parenting, working in a dangerous environment, etc... What so damn hard to understand about that issue(s)?????

[Edited on 14-4-2007 by quicksilver]

Levi - 14-4-2007 at 16:11

Quote:
Originally posted by quicksilver
From my perspective, I have come to re-think my position. I used to think that prostitution fit that definition. I now believe that it is no longer "victim-less" as the lifestyle of the prostitute is often the very measure of a person victimized.


Oddly enough, prostitution is made into a victimizing crime after it is made illegal. What was a simple act between consenting adults before becomes an underground, dangerous activity. Prostitutes can not go to the police if they are raped or beaten because they themselves are breaking the law.

Imagine the difference in crime between two metropolises. In one city there are several police departments and an adequate number of officers on patrol. In the other city there are no officers at all. The difference in the crime rate between these two cities is the difference in the number of victims between legal and illegal prostitution.

The_Davster - 14-4-2007 at 17:07

Victimless crimes exist due to a potential percieved threat that a nonvictimless crime down the road might occur. Such legislation is simply saying "we can't trust some people to be responsible, so everyone looses their right".

It is no different from locking everyone in jail at birth because they might end up murderers.

Jeeze, people regulate or ban chemicals, fireworks, guns etc, all things that can be used by the majority of the population with responsibility, but a few morons wreck it for the rest.

Quicksilver;
".it's the fucking behaviour that goes along with mind alteration that is at issue. Driving, parenting, working in a dangerous environment, etc... What so damn hard to understand about that issue(s)"
We have those issues with alcohol as well, drink and drive, go to jail, and employers have rules against being wasted on the job. Alcohol is still legal, and things seem to be working fine.
To be honest I am not exactly sure what you are arquing here?

joeflsts - 14-4-2007 at 17:49

Quote:
Originally posted by The_Davster
Victimless crimes exist due to a potential percieved threat that a nonvictimless crime down the road might occur. Such legislation is simply saying "we can't trust some people to be responsible, so everyone looses their right".

It is no different from locking everyone in jail at birth because they might end up murderers.

Jeeze, people regulate or ban chemicals, fireworks, guns etc, all things that can be used by the majority of the population with responsibility, but a few morons wreck it for the rest.

Quicksilver;
".it's the fucking behaviour that goes along with mind alteration that is at issue. Driving, parenting, working in a dangerous environment, etc... What so damn hard to understand about that issue(s)"
We have those issues with alcohol as well, drink and drive, go to jail, and employers have rules against being wasted on the job. Alcohol is still legal, and things seem to be working fine.
To be honest I am not exactly sure what you are arquing here?


Send all the lawyers to the South Pole and we'd be the free nation our founding fathers intended.

Joe

quicksilver - 15-4-2007 at 06:13

My point was that there is little need to look at the object (a chemical, a gun, drugs in general) etc. as those are THINGS. It's the behaviour of the individual WITH those things that is always at issue. Thus my point about the drug "jumping off the table" and into someone's body...:D

When politicians try to score points and get votes, they engage in something called "objectification" from a sociologist's perspective. That being, making and "object" responsible for a behaviour. We see this a lot in weekly news magazines with titles like "Gun Violence" (or "drug"-something). It's not the gun, per se' that does the violence. It just as well could be a knife --- someone PICKS UP THE GUN. A person does the deed. The object is content to stay an object. A rock remains a rock until some picks it up to throw it, etc. The drug is a chemical compound but when ingested in the social context that a person finds themselves; complications may arise if certain circumstances are met, etc, etc. This is done ("objectification"), some believe, because it is easier to deal with objects than people. And they are certainly safer to "blame" or shame or demand action taken.

The_Davster - 15-4-2007 at 10:02

Ah, yeah, that is exactly what happens these days. Completly agree.
Pity people can't see what I call 'the moron factor' and they blame objects instead of the moron? Really what has shifted cultures away from personal responsibility and to this objectification? I am inclined to blame the equali-nazis, who rant about everyone being the same, and if everyone is exactly the same, noone can be responsible for their actions, it has to be societies fault. After all, if everyones equal, and someone can't handle some responsibility, noone can.

More importantly, what can one do to shift an entire culture away from the lowest common denominator moronic thinking?

I actually know, or rather, am related to, a person who gets offended at my use of the word moron...she simply states there are no such things as morons...just 'differently challenged people'. Sigh.

12AX7 - 15-4-2007 at 10:29

Quote:
Originally posted by The_Davster
I actually know, or rather, am related to, a person who gets offended at my use of the word moron...she simply states there are no such things as morons...just 'differently challenged people'. Sigh.


Ouch, a self-referential statement!

quicksilver - 16-4-2007 at 06:48

QUOTE:
Originally posted by The_Davster
I actually know, or rather, am related to, a person who gets offended at my use of the word moron...she simply states there are no such things as morons...just 'differently challenged people'. Sigh.

-=-=-=-=-=-EXCELLENT EXAMPLE=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= :(

And THAT gentlemen is the gist of the problem; dealing with people who want to level the field to the LOWEST common denominator. It ruins EDUCATION, which may be only path a youngster from a dysfunctional environment has to rise above the sick bullshit he must wade through everyday and become a productive member of society.

The CHALLENGE as I see it is to meet that the type of thinking each time it occurs with an intellectual response that demands that the person espousing it re-think their conceptions of the productiveness of that point of view. Most people espousing that perspective are wed to that idea as being "fair" when it is exactly opposite. It undermines the desire to excel and places the person who is above average in deed or word in a position to "dumb down" their actions to fit within the context of the majority.

I was once told that the expression "dumb" was not "PC" because it references those who are hearing impaired to be referred to as stupid.

I challenged that concept immediately and said that a reference to "dumb" was never meant to refer to those with hearing or speech impairment as stupid but that the lack of communication as stupid. And those who have that impairment often do a damn good job of communicating, albeit in a differing manner.

"Just the same," I was told, I didn't show a "sensitivity" to those who had a "challenge". I was told to continually use the term "challenged".
When I am forced to constantly censor myself because someone believes I am being insensitive it is usually a person trying to re-direct the focus of the discussion! My point here is that such a technique in any discussion is generally used to silence a salient point.

When the thrust of the classroom discourse is directed at the lowest common denominator we end up with a classroom full of bored kids and the one who is at the lowest level is never the one who should be the determinate of the learning. Learning is ALWAYS a challenge; that's why it's called LEARNING.

COMMUNICATION & TEACHING SHOULD NOT BE AN EFFORT AT PLACATING PERCEIVED HURT FEELINGS. If it is, we end up with the students "feelings" directing the lesson plan.

[Edited on 16-4-2007 by quicksilver]

obsessed_chemist - 17-4-2007 at 07:24

I think most of the chemists on this forum share similar sentiments regarding their concern over the government's heavy-handed approach in dealing with drugs, chemicals, home-experimentation, etc. However, I find it annoying that people like tupence_hapeny are only here to get help with synthesizing ecstasy-precursors and the like. Every single damn post is regarding sassafras or piperonal or something. I don't have a problem with amateur chemists being somewhat curious about drugs as well, but I do have a problem with drug-cooks who exploit science-forums to help them in their quests.

Based on his posts, this guy doesn't have much interest in chemistry as a whole, and that I find somewhat offensive, to say the least. This is the kind of person that has made it difficult to pursue my hobby with peace-of-mind.

[Edited on 4/17/2007 by obsessed_chemist]

vulture - 17-4-2007 at 12:06

Quote:

Based on his posts, this guy doesn't have much interest in chemistry as a whole, and that I find somewhat offensive, to say the least. This is the kind of person that has made it difficult to pursue my hobby with peace-of-mind.


So you think that people making explosives are making it easier? Illegal is illegal, whatever your perspective may be.

obsessed_chemist - 17-4-2007 at 15:22

Quote:
Originally posted by vultureSo you think that people making explosives are making it easier? Illegal is illegal, whatever your perspective may be.


I'll admit you've made me reconsider this a bit...

Well, I don't think it should be illegal to make either drugs or explosives. As I said, most of us here share similar sentiments regarding such things, seeing that we're mostly open-minded, logical people.

The reality, unfortunately, is that it is illegal to make either, but drugs get the majority of attention. I would just hate to see this forum go the direction of, say, the Hive or Synthetikal. I mean, why the hell can't these mdma-making questions be answered at one of those kinds of forums (if any do in fact still exist)?

continued....

roamingnome - 17-4-2007 at 15:41

Why do you place imaginary demerits on particular arrangements of atoms, obsessed_chemist?

J. Org. Chem. 63, 7795-7804 (1998)

In this classic example, the scientists wanted to use the dreaded molecular arrangement known as “meth” as a simple building block to a more complex molecule. They were actual professionals that were bound by the “law”

Lets face it, we think that we are above the law, because it is flawed fundamentally and as long as were not “bad” we make what we want with what we can get our hands on :D

things like mdma questions go to detrius becuase they are figured out 10 fold.... no soup for you...

obsessed_chemist - 17-4-2007 at 17:44

^ In that case, I have no problem with tupence posting mdma-related questions/suggestions, as long as Polverone is cool with it.

I just like reading through these forums a lot. I don't take this privilege of gaining knowledge and sharing with like-mided individuals for granted. I want to be able to continue doing so. I just kind of felt like our privilege is threatened a bit when people sign up to legitimate science forums to ask only questions related to obtaining OTC schedual I precursors.

It made me a bit nervous when tupence dumped all those ecstasy-related posts all at once after joining the forum. Like I said, I'd hate to see this forum go the way of the Hive, or Synthetikal. Then again, those sites were dedicated mostly to rogue clandestine drug making, so maybe I AM overreacting. Sorry everyone.

roamingnome - 18-4-2007 at 09:10

I was just pulling your leg by the way.
Im on your page in that I would hate for this forum or any other outlet for free-communication to be shut down because of too many senseless drug postings by tupence-hapeny, hahah just kidding tup

I appreciate the responsibility of the moderators to keep us knuckleheads in line

Polverone - 19-4-2007 at 17:32

I'm probably closing the barn door after the horse is gone, but this thread seems to have generated considerable animosity and not a lot of changed minds. It will be closed like the VT shooting thread. A general reminder: personally attacking other members is not acceptable, regardless of how you see their moral and/or legal standing.
 Pages:  1  2