Sciencemadness Discussion Board - The rights of individuals to buy chemicals.

The rights of individuals to buy chemicals.

I am a fish - 5-3-2004 at 02:51

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

"The restrictions that prevent private individuals from buying laboratory chemicals are an unjust infringement on their personal freedom."

chemoleo - 5-3-2004 at 07:32

It's a tough point. I would love to have some Pu, U or such. Let's say someone sold it in 10 g amounts, legally. How about then this somebody bought 1300 such batches, over various buyers? This would in total be 13 kg, the critical mass for a nuke.
Now do you still think, everyone should be able to buy Pu OTC?

How about buying TNT or PETN OTC. Sure it would be cool for a few interested ones, but the DANGER of deadly abuse would by far OUTWEIGH the danger caused by personal freedom infringements. This is especially the case with Pu, U235 etc.

Then... drug precursors. This one is more debatable I guess, one could argue that everyone should be free to use drugs as much as they like - and if it interferes with their job etc well then they get fired.
But for drug precursors to become freely available, FIRST the laws have to change, the drugs have to be made legal, and then you can think about legalising the precursors.

How about things such as normal inorganic chemicals, salts, etc? Or organic ones? Yeah I agree they should be buyable anywhere

I am a fish - 5-3-2004 at 07:49

Ok, perhaps making fissile materials available OTC would be a bad idea. However, I see no reason to ban the sale of depleted uranium (especially when you consider that large quantities of it are spread liberally across Iraq and Afghanistan).

Individuals have no real rights......(an aside)

Hermes_Trismegistus - 5-3-2004 at 10:10

except those given to them by those idividuals in positions of power.

and those individuals in power have power because most individuals really don't care enough to take it away from them, if they did, they too would be in power.

Nooo....things will be as they are, various governments will always be able to restrict just so many things, if they try to pass too many laws, there will be general civil disobedience and the gov't will then lose the illusion of control that allows them to enforce any laws.

it's a fine line that all gov'ts walk between what they can do to control the populace and what the populace will put up with, without revolt.

one other interesting fact is that the only way a restrictive gov't can exist and be stable is to be situated near a more liberal country/city/state.

That way the more adventurous citizens can leave (or feel that they can leave) to do what they want.

For example, Canada and the U.S. is in such a situation.

Liberal attitudes and slack laws towards Drugs in Canada

Liberal attitudes towards Guns and other weapons in the U.S.

There is an unofficial but huge trade between those two countries.

for example, the canadian gov't estimates that more than ten BILLION dollars worth of pot is EXPORTED from our westernmost province alone.

From a province with a population of only five million people.......that's alot of pot. It is, in fact, about a kilo of dope for every man woman and child in the province. And those are the conservative government figures!

And it is well known in Canada, if you are a gun nut, Arizona is the place to go and buy a "camp".

Look at the European Union, kept reasonabley clean by concentrating the "problem" of "rowdiness" in Amsterdam, Paris and varioius city's in Spain.

Releif valves for government control. Total control will always fail, look at the Soviet Union, the most stifling gov't fostered the largest black market on the planet.

No matter what government policies dictate, the policies will always be in place to appease the "moral majority" and feed their secret dark desires.

the gov't laws will not make purchasing chemicals a "right" but they will never make it completely "wrong" either.

They'll just make you work a little for your "rights and freedoms"
(or travel)

Mumbles - 5-3-2004 at 15:40

While there are some things I'd like to be able to buy, I wouldn't trust myself with everything. Being able to walk to the store and buy everything takes half the fun out of it. It's nice having a chip on my shoulder knowing that I can make so many more chemicals that anyone else in the school. In a way, it makes me feel superior that I can make the nitric acid I use for nitrations rather than having to buy it and risk some things.

There's no skill in buying a liter of Acetic Anhydride. It may be more convienient, but no skill. Personally I'd rather make it that buy it. It would make my final goal of whatever compound I would need it for that much more rewarding.

IgnorantlyIntelligent - 5-3-2004 at 20:44

I dissagree. If anyone could buy any chemical there would be more and more kids burning or blowing off their hands. And yes we(the intelligent and responsible) must suffer because of the ignorant. If you really need something that badley you can make it or go to further lengths to get it. If I could buy nitric acid and nitromethane readily from the hardware store it would be nice though

yes, it pisses me off!

Magpie - 5-3-2004 at 22:01

I do resent that I cannot just call up Aldrich or Fisher and order what I want.

There are lots of ways to cause mayhem abusing readilly obtainable items such as knives, chains, baseball bats, rocks, etc. Also many dangerous chemicals are legal to buy such as gasoline and pesticides. But high demand by the public keeps those easy to buy. So, really governments just restrict what is convenient for them to restrict.

Since it is easy to put paraldeyde or phosphorous on a restricted list and the public will not complain, they do it.

IgnorantlyIntelligent - 6-3-2004 at 08:02

Yes, they keep the chemicals that are in high demand on the list because a country can not funtuion without it. You can't blow up a building or daycare with gasoline can you. However, Any bomber who wishes to bomb a target WILL do so. I know how to obtain ANY chemical I want and could make just about any HE or explosive device(shaped charge, claymore, etc.) known with the help of you all of course. With that in mind, why not just sell all chemicals at Heaven hardwre store down the street? Anyone who has a use for nitric acid or 50% hydrogen peroxide hopefully knows how not to kill him/her/other self/people with it. Anyone can get any chemical, its just over priced to limit the buyers to industry and bombers and not small children

It makes me wonder.

Hermes_Trismegistus - 6-3-2004 at 11:10

I know too many people with just enough knowledge to hurt themselves (which is their own business) or other people (which isn't)

I might say that I think only people like me should be able to do have access to whatever chemical's they want, because I consider myself to be mature and responsible.
BUT
But even then I wonder, I'm be thirty in a few more years, and I haven't always been as levelheaded as I am now.

If I had been carrying a loaded handgun on my person since the age of 21 (the age of majority in most places), can I honestly say that I would never have shot anyone, or threatened someone?

In all honesty ,I'm not sure I can say that I would always have been adult.

There are times I have been so angry I just wasn't right in the head. There have been times when I have been jealous, felt betrayed, felt wronged, and generally felt at odds with the world. Normal feelings that come and go.

If however, I had great destructive power at my fingertips, either in the form of a firearm, or deadly poisons, or powerful explosives, great misfortune could have resulted.

I am overall, benefitting from the restrictions on some basic chemicals. And to some extent they work.

I don't worry about drinking the water that comes out of my faucet. Even though it might not be that hard for someone with a grudge against humanity might climb up the town's water tower and dump a bag of something nasty in.

I don't worry about being in public places where large groups of people congregate. Even though someone might have wheeled in a garbage bin filled with C-4 and ball bearings.

No, I don't really worry, because it would require a great deal of work to do it, and that weeds out most people.

The measure of expense weeds out the very poor.

The great risk of personal injury weeds out the cowardly.

The knowledge required weeds out the stupid

And finally, the difficulty of procuring the basic chemicals, necessitates cunning, resoucefullness, discretion and patience. And that generally weeds out the vast majority of lunatics.

It still remains that the possiblity of doing evil is real, but far more unlikely to be successfully executed by the kind of people capable of performing the task from a logistics point of view.

to paraphrase, the people who could......won't.

The people who would.........can't.

IgnorantlyIntelligent - 7-3-2004 at 19:44

Anger. That brings up a good point. Anger can and will envelope everyone sometime or another in their lives, some more than others. I can recall a time I would have squeezed the trigger or pulled the pin out of the deepest of mortal anger and hatred and riped their flesh into the dark nothingness that plagues their soul. It is nice not having to worry about a trash can full of RDX/ball bearings but I dont think it is due to the inability for one to aquire the materials needed as it is reasonably harder for someone in Israel to aquire these materials than here in the US yet more incidents occur there(far more) Our society is controled by law and religion. Always have I hated the mindless sheeple that roam monotonously over this world unil now when I see their importance as the other type of person is us, the educated, free willed individuals that have minds of our own and although are responsible enough to stand the torment of this world without retaliation, could do so with huge reprocusion.

Just a worthy note

Turel - 8-3-2004 at 04:39

It is not only ignorant or uninformed people who get hurt. Some of the smartest chemists in history have been marred during their experiments. Likewise, I personally know quite a few smart individuals who have made either a careless mistake, or had an unfortunate mishap outside their control. And then there are those people you just don't understand.......they use no form of personal protection whatsoever, consistently expose themselves to severe danger, and they always turn out fine. Very strange.

Just that I noticed several people target uninformed and ignorant people as the ones hurting themselves. Even informed people get hurt, and do so every day, so these implementations are in effect because of everyone, not because of a few. True no one here might blow up their house in an accident, and get on the news, so we don't see that. But at some point or another, someone will get burned, either thermally or chemically or both, or marred with shrapnel, or be the victim of one of their own explosive devices during a misfire. Shit happens, informed or not.

Someday when I have a son, many people will consider me crazy. I will teach him the ins and outs of explosive chemistry, and teach him the correct way. I wish many more people would adopt this philosophy. Protecting onesself does not equate to abstinence. Abstain from life, and much more dire fates await you: old age regret and being an overbearing parent.

Protect yourself, and your children, whichever be more applicable at this point in your life, but EXPOSE them/yourself. You cannot run from every danger. I will take notice in my son's interests, and someday just as my dad noticed me, I will notice him hollowing out fireworks for powders, making blowguns, playing with ether, etc. I will notice, and more importantly, act.

Will I point my finger and raise my voice? Of course not, this won't stop him from doing the things he is curious about. What it will do is make him afraid to ask me anything for fear of reprimand, and it will make him hide his hobby from me. This is a danger in of itself. My dad was no chemist, but he was a chemical warfare and improvised munitions instructor in the military, so he knew how to make a few bombs and gases.

Imgine my surprise when my dad came home early (on purpose) and caught me making a pipe bomb in the garage. I was 12 or so at the time. But he didn't yell at me; instead he made me take it apart. Then he made me tell him exactly what I was doing, and why. I couldn't finish any single sentence without him interrupting and asking another question, or telling me that I could do it a better way. I never made that pipe bomb that day. But I talked to my dad for a few hours about what I was doing, and he never yelled at me. He was angry I was doing it in his garage, with all the solvents on the wall, while I was home alone and inexperienced. He got his point across, and I never did it there again.

I realize not everyone's parents are as relaxed as this. But they should be. Chemical tampering is quite a common activity for a growing teenage mind, driven by curiosity and adrenaline. My parents never let me make 'anything I wanted' in the garage or backyard, but they did not stop me from doing simple things either. And more importantly, they did not stop me from hnging out with other friends with similar interests, even though they knew I was going to go do what they would not let me do in our garage.

And most importantly, my dad showed me I could ask him about stuff. I didn't have to hide it from him. I think the best thing I learned from this is one key to being a good parent. And personally, though I don't have children now, I cannot wait until I come home from the lab early someday, and find a curious 12-13 year old boy hollowing out fireworks in the garage, as strange as that sounds. It will be a moment of nostalgia for me, that's for sure.

Sorry for the long rant, but it instantly came to mind when I read this topic. This mentality of 'protection through government imposed abstinence' must be eradicated. Sure, impose regultions that make it next to impossible for a wacko to acquire these materials, but don't take the easiest way out and simply make them off limits to everyone. That is one of the biggest anti-freedoms in this country: the votes of a few can remove the rights of the whole. And it is done everyday. What a shame for a country that prides itself on it's freedom.

This mentality must go, or we will be living in 1984 in under 20 years. And I tell you something, NO ONE will have a right to complain when it happens, because it is the PEOPLE who vote theirs and other's rights away, every chance they get. What is more important to you? Security or freedom? You must make the choice, our future's depend on it.

-T

IgnorantlyIntelligent - 8-3-2004 at 17:14

Yes but being ignorant isn't the same as being iresponsible just as being intelligent isn't the same as being responsible. There are many very smart people that I wouldn't trust with a match and there are some dumb people I trust very much.

the rights of individuals to buy equipment

Magpie - 12-5-2004 at 19:50

This is a variant on I_am_a_fish's original question, but just as relevant.

Today my spirits were in need of a lift so I decided to buy some glassware. This is in breaking with a longstanding promise to myself not to buy chemicals and equipment until I have a proper lab in which to use them.

My first attempt was to buy a set of glass beakers from Fisher Scientific. They said they could not sell to me, as an individual, glass beakers, but could sell me plastic beakers. I ridiculed the salesman but it had little effect. I explained that I could buy 20 gallons of gasoline at my local service station which is potentially much more of a risk to society than glass beakers - still no effect. I then said I will go to the secondary suppliers and ebay. He said he would like my business and could sell me some kinds of equipment but not other kinds.

Do any of you have comments or experiences to share on equipment purchase attempts? I know the big guys will not sell an individual chemicals, not even NaCl.

Zinc - 13-7-2006 at 04:02

I think that anyone should be able to do what ever he wishes as long as it does not endarge other people. I would allow selling explosive OTC. If someone buys or makes even 1000 kg of explosives and detonates it somewhere where it would not hurt anyone it would be OK but if someone buyes or makes only 10 g of explosive and hurts intentionally someone with it he shuld be imidiently sentenced to life or electric chair.

woelen - 13-7-2006 at 05:55

At the moment it is difficult but not impossible to find chemicals of all kinds. I think that is good. I must not think of a situation where everybody can buy chemicals of all kinds at any drugstore or hardware store without any questions. That would lead to many k3wl-accidents.

The situation as it is now is good, but things should not become more difficult. The current situation is such, that most kewls will be stopped, simply because they cannot satisfy their instand B0mZ and 5m0K3 desire, while the serious chemistry hobbyist is willing to put effort in searching for chemicals. Also, forums like this are good to give tips and build up a network of people who can help each other. The situation now still is such that the persisting people can get their hands on most chemicals they want, but indeed it requires quite some effort. Exactly that witholds kewls from their nasty and stupid things and I really think it should remain so.

So, I agree with the original statement that individuals should be allowed to purchase chemicals, but with the added remark, that finding a source of these chemicals should not be so easy that a 5 minute search gives you all the answers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, we should not idealize the situation of "the good old times" too much. With the internet and (still) many online suppliers available, the ability to form a network of informed and knowledgeable people, we have more opportunities than we ever had before. Indeed, 50 years ago one could buy KClO3, KNO3, a few transition metal salts and a fair bunch of organics like CHCl3, CHCl=CCl2, CCl4, which now cannot be found anymore easily. But what about the really nifty stuff like lanthanides, compounds like iridium salts, ruthenium salts, stuff like KIO4, all kinds of phenolic derivatives, nitrites and many many more? The local drugstore did not have them and also could not order them, because there was no domestic use for them. Now, I have found many very special chemicals through eBay (Se, Te, lanthanides) and other rare metal salts through raw photography suppliers. Not a single chem I have is from an official chemical supply house.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Something which concerns me much more is the social climate towards chemistry hobbyists (and amateur scientists in general). At best you are the somewhat weird geek who likes to surround him(her?)self with poisonous fumes, smelly liquids and weird apparatus, at worst you are seen as a threat for the neighbourhood, being able to cause severe accidents, which your neighbours are afraid of. It should become time that the society has a more positive attitude towards science in general and especially towards (amateur)chemistry.

IrC - 13-7-2006 at 08:28

"At the moment it is difficult but not impossible to find chemicals of all kinds. I think that is good. I must not think of a situation where everybody can buy chemicals of all kinds at any drugstore or hardware store without any questions. That would lead to many k3wl-accidents."

I find this opinion hard to believe. I think you should all spend some time looking into old news archives, and comparing old catalogs of what could be bought by anyone (even dynamite) over the counter around the turn of the century. Look at the lists of chemicals provided in children's chemistry sets in the 40's and 50's. Compare the two. Does the ability to buy anything on the planet have any relation to the almost complete lack of any so called "kewl accidents"? Really, go search for yourself. Also, look at soceital mindsets towrds science at the time.

THERE WERE NO NERDS FROM 1870 TO 1970!

Science was looked upon as the hope for the future and all children were encouraged to learn science. Going into the 80's, we see the sudden onset of private chemical cookers of drugs which caused great harm, but even at this time any form of terrorism was based upon military explosives and devices provided to terrorists by one or another rogue government.

Seriously, little to no home made destruction in the hundred years from 1890 to 1990.

Yet, already the 80's had seen the draconian demise of not only our ability to buy labratory supplies and chemicals, but also the demise of the public view of amateur science and scientists. Every single bit of this can be traced to governmental (LEO) propaganda aimed at anyone making anything outside of the realm of government controlled science somehow all related to criminal activity, and all of it was related to the government's war on drugs. Even during the 80's, homebuilt terror was not a global issue worthy of any real time in the news. Homemade drugs were.

Good god, that kid has a chemistry set he MUST BE MAKING DRUGS! or, NO GOOD CAN COME FROM A KID PRACTICING SCIENCE!

In 1984 I went to a certain chemical supply house (white building) in a certain downtown city. I went there to get only a few acids and formaldehyde, for a mineral test kit I was building as I was geting ready to go out into the mountains for a few months to do some prospecting.

The walls were loaded with row upon row of organic chemicals, and every single one of them were for one drug recipe or another. Yet, they had zero of any of the normal items we mad scientists might need. I asked the guy if he had a list or catalog. Answer, "no". I then proceeded to tell him that all I saw were supplies devoted exclusively to drug manufacture and nothing else (I did not have the internet nor any lists of recipes but I did know enough of chemistry to guess the use of many items like gallon jugs of pyradine but not even one chemical used for any "normal" experiments).

So I said "what the hell kind of crap lab supply was he running when I could find nothing needed for real science, seeing as how the sign outside clearly stated labratory science and chemical supplies". He did not have an answer for that but did walk out and look at my car as I drove away (I remember this as I thought "what the hell is your problem guy" but did not think about it further until days after an incident to take place a couple more weeks down the road).

2 weeks later this surfer looking dude showed up at my house and spent some time trying to talk me into going in with him to make 20,000 dollars worth of "crack", and how he was fresh in from california. While I had gone through the 60's I did not know what this "crack" was but I did not let on to him the fact. Talk about stupidity, I at this point did not connect the two incidents and never gave thought to the fact that the building was a police setup to trap drug makers, and that they wrote down my plates, got my address, and sent out a detective trying to talk me into making drugs. This guy came up to me, mentioning the name of someone I had known in the past (who had been in jail for drug sales, I can only assume the guy I knew had mentioned my name as someone with a lab full of chemicals in his efforts to make himself look better?).

After a while I was getting pissed so I told him he must be crazy to think I was going to risk my freedom making him drugs for 20 grand when I was working on patents which might be worth a lot more than that.

Possibly the guy was taken aback by the idea that I never came off either anti drugs or pro drugs, rather just anti getting busted for stupidity. I don't think he knew how to take that. But he did start trying to talk me into giving him recipes for other drugs, even trying to get me to look for an old Mr Natural comic from an old 60's headshop which may have had recipes in it (this stemming from a mention by me that I had not even seen drug recipes since the 60's and then it was an old Mr Natural comic).

While I do not want to sound like a complete idiot here, I shit you not I never gave thought during this whole conversation to the fact that this was a cop who was after failing to get me to make drugs was trying a last ditch attempt to nail me in entrapment for conspiracy! Really, I lie not, I had not been into this drug making scene so I did not connect everything until I spent days thinking about the whole incident. It was my thinking that the guy must have looked up my address from my plates at the cop trap/chemical house that I slowly realized what had really been going on. Failing to get me to directly commit crimes, they tried to nail me on conspiracy charges for something as lame and stupid as an old recipe in a head shop comic book which talked about how to make hash out of stems and seeds.

Let that be a lesson to you all, hopefully I will not now be thought of as possibly the dumbest member of SCM! Hey, at least I never blew off my fingers being kewl. Ok, so I did almost blow all of me up once in the 70's being kewl but I grew up, I think?

Bottom line is I think the war on drugs has now turned into a global war on science, that is any science not conducted under governmental control and supervision. I think we should be able to buy chemicals but I would not be against some kind of control for certain items like Pu providing we can pass some kind or another of tests for knowledge, use, purpose, and so on, mind you this only for the real problem items. To make glassware illegal while still selling kitchen supplies is beyond the pale of ignorance. Then again, does anyone know anyone in government who is not beyond the pale in ignorance?

woelen - 13-7-2006 at 11:59

Quote:

I find this opinion hard to believe. I think you should all spend some time looking into old news archives, and comparing old catalogs of what could be bought by anyone (even dynamite) over the counter around the turn of the century. Look at the lists of chemicals provided in children's chemistry sets in the 40's and 50's. Compare the two. Does the ability to buy anything on the planet have any relation to the almost complete lack of any so called "kewl accidents"? Really, go search for yourself. Also, look at soceital mindsets towrds science at the time.

With the long story after this remark, you tell exactly what I want to tell. Society has changed. Indeed, 50 years ago, with KClO3 available in every small town, there were hardly any accidents. But I'm very sure, if that would be the case nowadays, we would have hundreds of injuries due to chemical abuse in every large city and tens of injuries in every midsize town, every year!

Society has changed. People want kicks, fast, violent, NOW!
Making BOMZ is one possible way of violent kicking. Many young people are bored to death, they really don't know what to do and that causes a lot of grieve. That is why they need those kicks. Chems are not easily available, they have to put a lot of effort in that type of kicks, so they have other kicks (e.g. fighting at soccer games, hefty parties, drugs, sex, ....). Also, when you do not want or need to participate in those groups, then you are the nerd, and you are out.

So, that is why I think it is good that chemicals are hard to obtain. I'm a very passionate chemistry hobbyist, and still I'm saying this, because of young people, damaging themselves (and also our hobby). On the other hand, chemicals are hard to obtain, but not impossible. Have a look at my site at the list of chems I have: http://woelen.scheikunde.net/science/chem/exps/exppatt.cgi?l... . And this list is not even complete (it needs to be updated again, quite a lot have been added

). Not a single chem is from official supply houses, so one can indeed still obtain almost every chemical (s)he wants.

Some chemicals, to my opinion may be absolutely forbidden. Things like plutonium, nerve gasses, and highly specialized drugs or precursors for drugs indeed are good to be forbidden. With a specialized precursor I do not mean iodine, phosphorous or hydrogen iodide. These have also many other applications.

chromium - 13-7-2006 at 12:21

I am not so sure about number of accidents nowadays and in the past.

In older days people belived that they are responsible for their safety and if somebody hurt himself then he did not go to police or to press to sue others. He just thought "I was not carefull enough" and others agreed with him. So in older days there surely were accidents but these were not looked at as we look at them today.

I am not so sure that today would be many accidents if chemicals were again available from pharmacies to everyone. There is lot of dangerous chemicals on supermarkets in the city where i live, such as AN fertilizer, battery acid, calcium carbide, acetone, potassium permanganate and many others but kewls and other fools rarely buy any of these. I do not know why. Maybe it is too complicated for them if they have to read some book or plan their "experiment" longer than half an hour.

[Edited on 13-7-2006 by chromium]

Polverone - 13-7-2006 at 21:46

In older issues of the Journal of Chemical Education you occasionally come across stories about injuries. I have one noted in particular here: "J. Chem. Ed. 1956 508 chem accidents involving minors." I wrote this note to myself a couple of years ago and I'm not at the library now, so I can't localize it better, but people certainly were injured in the old days. I can't remember it all that well, but I think its safety lessons could be summarized as "just because you can mix an oxidizer with something doesn't mean you should mix an oxidizer with something." There are comparitively few serious chemistry accidents that do not involve fires and/or explosions. Even acknowledging the risk, I don't think risks should be outlawed, only well-documented. Swimming pools have killed more children than potassium chlorate ever will, but few people would seriously suggest that private swimming pools should be legislated into oblivion.

I don't think it's completely necessary or desirable to return to the days of Uncle Tungsten, when an unescorted 12 year old could buy potassium cyanide or nitric acid. I would be quite happy if we simply returned to the days when adults could buy ordinary laboratory chemicals as easily as research institutions buy them. I support additional controls for highly radioactive or highly toxic materials, but access should be a matter of training and education, not financial means or institutional prestige (corporate/academic/government customers shouldn't be priviliged above their demonstrated knowledge, and private citizens shouldn't be turned away in spite of demonstrated knowledge).

[Edited on 7-14-2006 by Polverone]

S.C. Wack - 14-7-2006 at 01:34

Not mentioned so much here is the litigiousness of modern society. This more than anything else seems to be a reason for restrictions to individuals, but I haven't tried to buy liability insurance for a retail chemical operation, so I'm kind of asstalking. Anyone in the know?

pantone159 - 14-7-2006 at 09:26

I think that liability/fear of lawsuits has to be the biggest reason (at least in the USA) for the difficulty in getting chemicals.

As far as I know, there are very few laws against individuals owning chemicals, other than drugs themselves. Even here in Texas, which has the most draconian anti-chemistry laws I've heard of, the only chemicals outlawed are the DEA List I chemicals (thankfully excepting P), with malonic acid being the only one I really care about. (Don't think about getting an erlenmeyer flask, though

)

I do kind of like the idea of having some test to prove you know chemistry/safety, and if you can pass then you can freely get normal reagents. Don't know if it could actually work, though.

chromium - 14-7-2006 at 11:16

Quite a few of chemical and glassware supplyers do not want to sell to individuals although they know very well that this is not forbidden. They just do not want to do it because they fear bad attention from press or possible lawsuits.

They also do not want to waste their time for customers who will never buy as much as big institutions do.

At least some smaller supply houses are not able to fill every order at once and they will make errors sometimes and have to replace particular items. Also they may be unable to sell some items that customer found from catalogue and then they try to find alternatives. This all is not too much burden if customer pays $$ $$$ -s but they do not want all this for every single person who buys for 100$ per year. Why to do it if you can as well sell to big boys only and get the same money with much less work?

It's sad but this is how it works.

[Edited on 14-7-2006 by chromium]

IrC - 14-7-2006 at 13:13

"As far as I know, there are very few laws against individuals owning chemicals"

Go read the thread somewhere around here where I talked about my walmart story. It is not always a certain chemical, but combinations of 2 or more extremely common items which they use to create charges and reasons for validating searches. If you have H2SO4 in the garage (anyone have a parked car out there?), cotton balls in the bathroom, aluminum foil in the kitchen, not to mention any cold medicine in the bathroom medicine cabinet in effect you are in posession of enough precursors to warrant charges and many, many times just exactly this scenario has played out. Usually ending up in no jail time unless some real drug was found, but quite often resulting in the "arrest" of your money and property.

There are a very large number of stories where the scenario I just described has played out in real world. The draconian mindset of LEO and the media, and therefore the public at large, has created an intolerable situation for most if not all amateur scientists in the US today. I have been told this by officers, and have read many accounts of real world cases which verify my words here. Many times the person was subject to a vendetta for one reason or another, often from someone who they knew who existed in the darker areas of life and gave a name of someone they knew or knew of during a time of duress. Usually when they are in trouble and are coming up with ways to get out of or lessen said trouble.

Read my above post. The person I mentioned who I said may have dropped my name even though I was not into crimes of any sort, two years after this incident caused me to be raided which turned out to be a big nothing for all involved (except me, nothing for them to find or do, but the stress level I endured was great). It was this incident which prompted me to mention him in the 1984 incident, something which at the time was not thought of but years later looking back seems to be a good theory. This was a person I did not know myself who was a relative of a very good friend, a "very black sheep" in his family.

To clarify this understand that my good friend was always talking about my huge laboratory and various madsci escapades to his family. Now with this thought picture a scenario where this "black sheep" is being grilled and pressed for names and offered lesser charges. He did not know anyone making drugs but he remembered stories of my big chemical lab so he gives my name as someone they can look at. I do not know if this was the case as we never spoke but they did not know I existed due to any actions on my part and my being in the limelight had to come from somewhere right?

This is possibly the best reason I can use to explain how very carefully you should pick your friends and how much more important this is as to picking acquaintances. They are the most dangerous people you will ever know, especially true in light of current political trends in soceity.

In any case once you are known about or looked at for any reason no matter how trivial, suddenly you are in a position that for safetys sake you must start thinking about future possibilities. Examples are not having a dozen or so items which together can be made into a strong circumstancial case even though you have no one illegal item nor are you involved in anything wrong. In short the innocent fall prey every day to circumstances which snowball over time, usually because LEO is always looking for new sources of revenue under their out of control powers to confiscate where law and justice don't mean a damn thing to them at all.

Today they expand such powers under the guise of emminent domain, again nothing but a money making tool which has nothing to do with either law or justice.

I guess however, that is another story.

Fleaker - 15-7-2006 at 15:27

That's horrible IrC and all the more so because it's the sad state of affairs we have to endure. Talk about "loose lips sink ships" :\

In my opinion, as long as the desires of killing, maiming, and extorting exist, then I think some chemicals should not be available for public use. More or less, I'm in agreement with what chemoleo said in his post. If people need a certain chemical and have legitimate use of it, then they should write a proposal to get it. If the proposal seemed authentic and in earnest, then the person should have authorization for purchase and posession. This wouldn't include every mundane hazardous material (i.e. nitric and sulfuric acid) but would be relegated to things that do have a sinister purpose and aren't normally used i.e. radioactive isoptopes that are x-ray and gamma emitters, or perhaps certain highly toxic materials (i.e. organo-phosphorus compounds).

I would say that most of us (certainly not all) here at sciencemadness are interested in chemistry for the sake of a hobby and of expanding our own personal knowledge of it while improving our understanding. It would be convenient to buy phosphorus halides or acetic anhydride for that particular reaction that still incites curiousity--but a minority of people misused and abused the old system and ruined it for the rest of us who aren't in it for profit, but rather for a sort of personal glory and satisfaction. I think the punishment for those crimes should be deterrent enough in most circumstances (i.e. large-scale explosives manufacturing, or drug production).

It is almost pointless to regulate these items today; it only makes it harder on us amateur chemists not some methamphetamine-cook who already has tens of thousands of dollars stashed from pre-ban and can afford to do blackmarket purchases. I do agree that it impredes the amateur drug makers to a degree, but it won't stop determination and it won't stop them from going store to store buying matches and materials. That's what a prison sentence is for. (Granted no prison sentence will discourage a terrorist who wants only mayhem and counts his own life as forfeit to the cause.) Those type of people are in it for the money and the greed will eventually get them. It will, however, stop us honest folk from acquiring what we need.

I put that I moderately agree with the statement that "The restrictions that prevent private individuals from buying laboratory chemicals are an unjust infringement on their personal freedom" because in many ways they are an infringement, and an unnecessary hassle. However, these restrictions force us to learn and use more chemistry to produce our reagents. It makes us better chemists and gives us an appreciation of the processes and techniques that were used hundreds of years ago. For the most part, anyone who can make their own hydrazine, or distill his own perchloric acid and not kill himself probably knows what he's doing and is a responsible person.

I think Polverone captured it:
"I don't think it's completely necessary or desirable to return to the days of Uncle Tungsten, when an unescorted 12 year old could buy potassium cyanide or nitric acid. I would be quite happy if we simply returned to the days when adults could buy ordinary laboratory chemicals as easily as research institutions buy them. I support additional controls for highly radioactive or highly toxic materials, but access should be a matter of training and education, not financial means or institutional prestige (corporate/academic/government customers shouldn't be priviliged above their demonstrated knowledge, and private citizens shouldn't be turned away in spite of demonstrated knowledge)."

Once again, I'll return to the basis of it: a small minority ruins it for the well-intentioned majority. When a small group abuses a situation or loophole to their advantage, and it's subsequently closed, the majority loses as well. I don't need to list examples like Oklahoma City (applies to chemistry and pyrotechnics), or in the case of firearms abuse, the people who own small armouries and get into a shooting match with the FBI and BATF. Such events create fear, which in turn leads to public outcry, and for a change, the politicians want to listen to the people--more voter confidence and security for them in elections because they can say they've "banned dangerous materials". As someone aptly pointed out, how many of the general public would care about the banning of phosphorus? Most don't even know how to spell it, let alone dream of ever posessing it.

What's happening today is the cumulative result of a variety of factors, namely terrorism and illegal drug manufacture. Is it effective in preventing the two? I frankly believe that there is no definitive answer to it. With porous borders (Canada) terrorists could smuggle explosives, and drug couriers: drugs (as seen recently on the news). I guess what it boils down to is if the cure is worse than the cause and if the means truly justify the ends. As far as us amateur chemists and other scientific enthusiasts are concerned, it's a resounding "No!".

joe69cool - 29-11-2006 at 17:09

Clearly the issue of restrictions upon the rights of individuals to have access chemicals is a complicated one. Though, I often have political differences with those who govern our United States, but I still support the current policy of placing some restrictions upon an individual's right to access of chemicals. I think all mature adults of sound mind can accept that fact that explosives shouldn't be allowed into the hands of all. There must be regulation! An individual, in other words, must prove themself worthy and capable of handling their materials responsibibly. I do not believe that other non-explosive chemicals should be treated any differently. While I don't nessicarily believe that one should be required to apply for a home chemistry permit, one still should prove to society that he or she is capable of being safe. How does one accomplish this? By being a productive member of society. Those who stay on the right side of the law in other situations, are likely to do the same in a laboratory context. Like guns and motor vehicles, chemistry labs can be dangerous, but they can also be great fun to the responsible. Unlike guns and motor vehicles, chemistry takes a lifetime to master and even then only a small mar is made. Therefore I would be hesitant to allow individuals with no formal scientific education to have their own labs, though I would not neccisarily be apposed. Such a matter would require individual consideration. In short I support the current system. While it is difficult at times to find suppliers or specific chemicals, I think we ought to tolerate these inconviences for it is they that maintain the integrety of the system. And while some chemicals maybe "listed" whatever that means, I think such classifications are designed to discourage those who would do ill, rather than preventing honest chemists and hobbiests from their scientific pursuits.

[Edited on 30-11-2006 by joe69cool]

Ozone - 29-11-2006 at 20:43

Ah, the "good-old-days" (harp playing in background)...

When I was child (I mean 6), I was able to go to the drugstore and purchase KNO3, S8, hell, even 500mL cans of ethyl ether. My Grandmother used to bring me there. I had a *very* comprehensive collection of chemicals, and that which was not provided by the "old school" Chemcraft set was provided by either my Father (who is a Chemist) or my God-Father who is a Chemical Engineer. Either way, I had open access to, at age 6, what people cannot receive today at any age (unless they are a representative of an institution bearing it's umbrella of lawyers and established accounts).

I have 10 fingers and have regrown my eyebrows; hair fell out, but everything is all good. At any rate, I believe that this environment led me to be a Chemist (I'm after the Ph.D, now).

It strikes me, in a visceral way, how the only science that kids today are under liability to observe is the manufacture of *goop*. Silly putty is nice, but if these are the influences that will make our next generation of Chemists, I suppose that it is no wonder that we will be soon licensing the most modern scientific technologies from countries such as Korea, Japan, India and China...

What the hell happened to the *concept* of personal responsibility, nevermind, "balls" in North America (this is not sexist, it is merely a colloquialism for "standing up for yourself".)?

Best wishes to all,

O3

DerAlte - 27-5-2007 at 13:09

I believe there must be some restrictions. Although as a teen ager in the 1950's I was allowed to purchase almost anything bar Class 1 poisons, I just do not trust the ignorance & stupidity of youth (and those who should have grown up) today. I had the benefit of paternal advice on things like chlorate, white phosphorous (oh yes, I had that too - and Na, k, metals, 2 liters of conc (fuming) nitric, sulphuric and hydrochloric acidds - all reagent grade). Of course it dodn't stop me doing a few foolish things.

The problem arises because of the prevalent lack of decent education. The stupid can read, just, and use the internet where all sorts of misinformation abounds. The drug business is very big business and idiots use the stuff, becoming addicted and act as pushers to satisfy their habits. Set yourself up with a meths lab and become rich, if you don't blow yourself up. The street price for amphetamines represents astronomical profits. The more you rstrict drugs, the more the profit.

To get a gun you need a background check in most states. Likewise, in some areas you may have to sign a waiver to get chemicals. Although this is inadequate to fully control criminal activity. at least it helps.

We cannot control the lunacy of the McVeighs and Islamic terrorists (Don't forget so-called Christian terrorists like Rudolph). However, every effort must be made to make it damn difficult for them to achieve their twisted designs.

As a strict libertarian I agree some sort of control is necessary. Anarchy is worse than some order in society. These days I console myself with the idea that a knowledgable and clever chemist can make almost anything he wants. It is the laws relating to possession that really irk me - this is purely being assumed guilty of intent and cannot be logically proven. This applies to all glassware and tools used.

The USA is in the hands of idiots on the left and right who promulgate these policies. Logic has no place in politics, only money and power do.
Nietze's Wille zur Macht. The founding fathers would have a fit if they knew what had happened to the liberties they fought for.

Rant, etc.

DerAlte

Organikum - 27-5-2007 at 16:29

Quote:

Originally posted by DerAlte
....
As a strict libertarian I agree some sort of control is necessary. Anarchy is worse than some order in society.
....

DerAlte

Thats the problem with you "libertarians" you should better become librarians because then you would know that Anarchy by definition is exactly this, order in society without goverment.

Vive la anarchy!

DeAdFX - 27-5-2007 at 16:38

Quote:

Originally posted by DerAlte

We cannot control the lunacy of the McVeighs and Islamic terrorists (Don't forget so-called Christian terrorists like Rudolph). However, every effort must be made to make it damn difficult for them to achieve their twisted designs.

DerAlte

Not necessarily correct. The US could go back to do the days of isolationism. The US would greatly improve(get the fuck out you illegals) if it focused on itself more. There are only three places in the world I care about North America, Central America and South America. I don't fucking care about some god damn islamic tyrant who is killing his people or some god damn jackass who blew up a mosque. I don't care about holocausts or gulags as long as they aren't here in America. Americans should only concern themselves with Americans.

Thank you very fucking much nazis + jews + japanese. Because of that little bump in history the US thinks it has moral high grounds and can involve itself in everyfucking event that occurs around the world.

The_Davster - 27-5-2007 at 20:51

My knee-jerk reaction here is;
The rights of individuals to buy and own chemicals...
Shall not be infringed

But even I acknowledge that some control is necessary, not as much as these days, mainly fissile isotopes and potent poisons should be controlled.
The way I see it, there are two types of home scientists, those doing new research, and those trying to make existing compounds from common household products. Both in my opinion are noble. One does not care where their reagents come from, if it gets them to what they want, wheras the other loves improvising from what is available.(Giving the systems of controll a nice middle finger)

I completly agree that a sudden lack of control over chemicals would cause lots of accidents, however in the past people had acccess to whatever they wanted, without major incidents occuring. If that were to sudenly become the situation today lots of people would be hurt, not just good old darwinism type hurt, but innocent people getting hurt. Somewhere along the way people lost responsibility for their actions, landing us in todays situation of excess controlls and realm of big brother and the nanny state. I cannot in all honesty see a shift backwards without some major paradigm shift in society occuring. Things will get worse, untill the systems of control collapse into themselves.

Like I alluded to, I would enjoy being able to do more advanced type research, I have only 'discovered' a couple new routes to known compounds, but due to the overregulation I cannot do this in more of an advanced manner. I do think a return to the systems in 'Uncle Tungsten' would be great for science in general, but such a change cannot be thrust on a society which feeds off being regulated, without unintended consequences. Any change must be gradual. Such a system back then was sufficient, and people were not living in fear because their neigbours could own white phosphorus and cyanide and such things.

"Bottom line is I think the war on drugs has now turned into a global war on science, that is any science not conducted under governmental control and supervision. I think we should be able to buy chemicals but I would not be against some kind of control for certain items like Pu providing we can pass some kind or another of tests for knowledge, use, purpose, and so on, mind you this only for the real problem items. To make glassware illegal while still selling kitchen supplies is beyond the pale of ignorance. Then again, does anyone know anyone in government who is not beyond the pale in ignorance?"

"I would be quite happy if we simply returned to the days when adults could buy ordinary laboratory chemicals as easily as research institutions buy them. I support additional controls for highly radioactive or highly toxic materials, but access should be a matter of training and education, not financial means or institutional prestige (corporate/academic/government customers shouldn't be priviliged above their demonstrated knowledge, and private citizens shouldn't be turned away in spite of demonstrated knowledge)."

Above quotes are good representations of what I think.

PS: Org: Whatever happened to you thinking anarchy had too many rules

Tsk Tsk

DerAlte - 27-5-2007 at 22:19

In spades, gentlemen, in spades! Especailly the last three. I know this is not the place to be political, but sometimes one's beaker boileth over! I freely admit to being an old fart, and old farts are conservative, yes? I was a conservative in the old country. They betrayed me. I came here 42 years ago because the USA seemed to have gotten over the McCarthy nonsense and returned to some semblance of what the originators intended - freedom.

True, we had race riots here then - I was living near Newark then - and Vietnam was at its height with Johnson the cowboy at the reins. To my mind Nixon was the best president I have seen, but - from afar - I had liked IKe and respected JFK. Forget Nixon's temporary aberration of Watergate, look at the big picture. If you do that, then you will see that Reagan was a real nice guy, a good B actor but a puppet in the hands of his advisors.

Clinton may have been a lecher but his years were good ones. Bush I was a bit wimpy but correct with his Gulf war. Forget the rest. Carter has been more effctive out of office (not saying much), Ford (who?) a draftee. I refuse to say anything about Bush II - I plead the fifth.

I do not agree that anarchy - meaning no rule - is the same as libertarian. All I ask is let me do my thing, don't bug me and I certainly won't bug you. I'll make a point of it. Take your religion and don't try to bug me with nonsense. It's your right to believe. Abortion involves the right of any woman to own her own body. It's no business of mine - you, madam, have to live with it. You want to own a gun? Prove you're worthy first. (I shot rifles in the old country at age fourteen, machine guns and mortars too. It was called the Rotc. The army wanted officers. We had fun.)

Polital correctness will be the death of what the US stands for. Europe is about finished unless it sees the light. That's why I came here and stayed here, It's worse everywhere else. but the old spirit seems to be vanishing. It's now a crime to be an individualist.

Ranting again.

DerAlte

Rosco Bodine - 28-5-2007 at 01:14

Dittos

And furthermore .....

Political correctness is *baby talk* attempted to be made the only "acceptable" and polite language for adults . And the methods for its imposition are the misdirected and misapplied "child psychology" of control freaks who need to grow up themselves . The controllers have their own idea and their own standard for what is right speech and right thought . And others conforming to their idea of what is "right" is in their estimation superior to genuine free speech and free thought . Because it is their personal conviction it is better to be "nice" and use sugary euphemisms or keep silent to avoid any controversy which arises with telling it like it is , or calling it what it is .....about anything or anyone .

Political correctness stands for nothing but stifling free expression , under the pretext of enforced tolerance
and sensitivity . It really stands for nothing but itself
and its architects views being imposed as the lowest common denominator and standard . Applied to a game
of hardball , it transforms into a game of softball which always ends in a tie , or no score is kept , since there would be an inequity about the proposition where the outcome would produce a "loser" , as that would be
insensitive . But that's okay because distinguishing
between a winner and a loser is discrimination and
discrimination has a negative connotation ....right?

So we can't call a sightless person "blind" ....
no that might be interpreted as being insensitive ,
so we shall call the blind "visually challenged" .

And the unhearing can't be called "deaf" .....
no that also might be hurtful
(as if they could hear it anyway)

......
soooo we shall elevate their status and call
the deaf "hearing impaired" .

And it goes on down the list to complete absurdity ,
where reality itself is redefined in order not to
seem "insensitive" by plainly stating what is so ,
because calling a spade a spade is unfashionable .

There is a huge controversy in the US right now because
the baby talking tiny *minority* politically correct crowd can't be honest about the status of millions of border jumping illegal aliens , who are assigned a class designation of assorted euphemisms like
"undocumented immigrants" or
"out of status guest workers" or similar absolute nonsense which is complete denial of what is the reality
of what they are .

"Political Correctness" seems to be an affliction mainly for the "intellectuals" who are attempting implementation
of their own ideas at social engineering and invention
of a new vocabulary which is the ebonics of the ivory towers where they live ....while 98% of the population
of remaining "ordinary people" simply roll their eyes at
the agenda and lingo of political correctness , and regard it as a sophomoric scam which could only have been conceived and perpetrated by those who think they are smarter than the rest of us even as they prove they don't know shit from shinola .

You hear the subscribers to PC using all the PC terminology .....especially in the media , and it's almost as if they really are convinced this junk they are talking is
the new language of the educated and sophisticated in pursuit of success , while normal people just shake their heads in dismay and recognize the blind leading the blind about that idiotic proposition , awaiting the red meat
of a sensible word of plain talk which might make itself heard above the din so much "academic" hogwash .

On the firearms worthiness ......

Started shooting .410 shotguns on the range at age six , hunting quail with my dad and grandfather a couple of years later , a son of a gun and an instinct shooter is what I am

. You ever had your dad lay the unloaded gun on the ground at your feet along with a cartridge and
a soup can ? He tells you pick up the can and throw it as
hard as you can , and while it is in flight you pick up the
gun and load it and shoot the can before it hits the ground .....and when you can do five in a row without a miss .....then you are old enough to go hunting with the men .

Years later ....

Practice shooting for me was on the ROTC ranges on saturday mornings .

G.i.B. - 28-5-2007 at 08:05

Don't you just love political correctness ! I once heard someone refer to slaves as temporary unpaid production workers. It's the same as with buying chemicals, you have to draw the line somewhere. Just a shame that some politicians use these lines for their own political gain, and we have to pay the price.

DerAlte - 28-5-2007 at 08:23

Rosco, you're on the ball! There's still hope, judging by some of the comments in this thread. Ive never hunted, but if I did I'd only hunt what I could eat - or vermin. I have fished and eaten.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde (?), noted queer, bless him, but one of the wittiest writer:- Political Correctness is the last resort of the scoundrel - and the first resort of the politician.

I am not a senior citizen, I am an old fart. Call a spade a spade, not an agricultural implement.

I should adopt a new commandment: DerAlte, thou shalt not rant. Sorry!

Regards,

DerAlte

vulture - 28-5-2007 at 13:54

Political correctness...

Doesn't that just scream oxymoron? Why does nobody notice??

quicksilver - 31-5-2007 at 07:14

I have my own reaction to PC-speak..... I simply refuse to participate! And when some effort is made to make me submit - I digress immediately and address the person attempting to bully my speech and thoughts. Generally, they NEVER expect someone to ask why they are attempting to make someone conform. They are usually shocked to hear that they are being repressive. Often they are taken aback by the idea that they are acting intolerant. But I don't back down.

My reasoning is that the whole PC Bullying issue is very restrictive to open, healthy communication. When someone has to continually think about "offending" some concept in their speech pattern they rarely speak from the heart. That type of self-censorship is unhealthy at it's core because it is essentially dishonest.

franklyn - 8-4-2012 at 09:57

"A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,"
" The right's existence is all the reason he needs."

Read more: www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/05/federal-judge-rules-mary...

.

neptunium - 8-4-2012 at 10:41

i would prefer a free society where every one is responsible for their own actions. utopia? yes but not far out.
why not being able to purchase plutonium 244 at the local drug store? poison your self and its your fault you should've read the label! poison your wife and you go to jail! simple as that!
The govt wants to impoe rules and regulations because they are smarter than the people?
drinking and driving is bad and should be enforced no doubt ! but nothing is done against a tired driver who will never even touch the brakes if traffic has stopped ahead of him/her...but the cops is suppose to know better? bullshit!

same for chemicals dont know what you doing? want to do harm? go to jail or lose an arm or kill yourself! free country comes with responsabilities and education!

why should a hot cup of cofee says "caution hot liquid" and not a warning label on mercury chloride for sale to the general public?

its all about control people .
i dont think anybody who watches big rich texas and the bad girls club or jersye shore will ever worry about buying nitro benzen...so i think outside the few kids here and there dicking arround with TATP and losing a hand ,we should be fine .

there isnt much interest in science and chemistry anyway

peach - 8-4-2012 at 16:18

Quote:

"The restrictions that prevent private individuals from buying laboratory chemicals are an unjust infringement on their personal freedom."

"Buying enriched plutonium is my right."
"Buying water and oxygen is not my right."

It's neither one or the other. Hence my choice, alongside one other person it seems.

neptunium - 8-4-2012 at 20:01

as long as you let people buy Pu244 i do not see the point of regulations ,
as i said before freedom is a responsability !
if you dont know what you doing with it then dont buy it or kill yourself
i am confortable with either one

peach - 9-4-2012 at 03:44

One can only be responsible for their actions if they understand what the real world consequences of those may be. The only way for that to happen is to put regulations in place that protect them for some period of time (until they demonstrate otherwise) prior to them accidentally harming themselves or someone else whilst they learn. E.g. no one needs plutonium to learn a lot about nuclear physics, which can then be applied to the former. I have a basic grasp of electronics and the mains, but I still don't want to have to check every electrical appliance I buy to make sure it's not going to roast me at a later date. Similarly, I doubt the majority of the people want to have to research everything they buy off the shelf to make sure it's not going to explode or give them cancer in the space of one day.

GreenD - 9-4-2012 at 09:14

there is always a bad egg...

and bad eggs want freedom too.

Mailinmypocket - 9-4-2012 at 13:30

If everyone was responsible and knew the impacts of their use of the said chemicals, then yes.

If everybody was interested in exploring chemistry, following basic safety and disposal rules and not venturing into illegal or questionable areas (I know energetics are questionnable to some but many members here are extremely skilled in the subject, and I would personally have no problem living next door to them knowing their hobby and skill level) then it would be great. The problem is that some like to explore energetics in a dangerous way without knowledge on the subject, in search of an explosion and a "whoa dude!" moment, then you have the serious home experimenter who is sold arsenic trioxide and decides to make compounds and gases but doesnt follow disposal and safety rules...

My point I guess is that there are many irresponsible people and some up to no good with chemistry, that if everyone was given free access to any reagent they wanted, things wouldnt be very good. Lots more toxins down drains, lots more pollution going down drains, liability issues for the supplier etc

Its a tough issue and definitely annoying for the chemistry newcomer who gets denied chemicals from almost all companies though. I have been using the same supplier for chemicals for the last 3 years and I have gained their trust and they will now sell me almost anything, no questions asked. I am not a business etc.

I think building up a reliable reputation with a supplier might be the answer but then that becomes hard to control. Is the person buying this for themselves or another person? Have they not bought from us in a long time because something bad happened? etc..

I think control is good because not everyone can handle a full spectrum of reagents responsibly and it is these people who "ruin" it for the real amateur chemists.

[Edited on 9-4-2012 by Mailinmypocket]

gregxy - 10-4-2012 at 10:20

I think the state has a duty to stop one person from hurting another. The state also has a duty to make sure that people are accurately informed and can understand the risks involved in products/activities they purchase/undertake, particularly ones sold for profit. Beyond that its up to the individual.

Applying these rules, for example, a person would be able to make drugs for their own personal use, but not sell them, and not drive a car under the influence. (There is an assumption here that if you are smart enough to make the drug you can understand the risks of using it.)

Energetics continue to be problematic since they don't have many uses to the common man other than making an impressive BOOM or trying to hurt someone, but limiting quantities to less than 10g might make sense.

vmelkon - 19-4-2012 at 08:16

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie

I do resent that I cannot just call up Aldrich or Fisher and order what I want.

There are lots of ways to cause mayhem abusing readilly obtainable items such as knives, chains, baseball bats, rocks, etc. Also many dangerous chemicals are legal to buy such as gasoline and pesticides. But high demand by the public keeps those easy to buy. So, really governments just restrict what is convenient for them to restrict.

Since it is easy to put paraldeyde or phosphorous on a restricted list and the public will not complain, they do it.

I agree with Magpie.

It is all a matter of convenience.

They had banned ethanol (in the 1930's I think) but they finally find out that a lot of people want it and they can't do much about that so the law was removed.

Imagine if 50% of people became marijuana users? Are they going to put 50% of people in jail?

I wish a lot more people did home chemistry.

[Edited on 19-4-2012 by vmelkon]

Eddygp - 29-4-2012 at 09:07

Interesting, actually... It should be somehow regulated, but not nearly as strange as it is now.

Pyro - 30-4-2012 at 17:00

i'm not saying you can't kill loads of people with chemicals, but its a lot harder and you need a lot more knowledge.
i like the quote

[Edited on 1-5-2012 by Pyro]

Pyro - 30-4-2012 at 19:00

ok,
wasnt my intention.
i am for the ability to buy whatever chemical you want.

Blame eco-terrorists for our plight.

franklyn - 1-5-2012 at 09:27

www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-usa-security-cleveland...

.

Polverone - 3-5-2012 at 08:43

Gun chat from this year's resurrection of this thread went to Detritus. Here's why: https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=83...

Layvian - 3-5-2012 at 10:45

In my opinion is that it is not ok to take those rights away. However, I think just allowing anyone to obtain whatever resource they need could be dangerous(Obviously).

There are two problems here:

1: You have safty aware individuals who know the precautions that need to be taken, and need or want access to certain chemicals.

and finally;

2: You have the immature joy rider, who skips into the incomming traffic that is chemisty(aka: Unsafe Dabblers).

What I would say is rather then allowing every chemical to be avaliable without a license to "purchase" them, rather there are readily avaliable complexes that are avaliable that we already use everyday. If someone is experienced enough with chemisty, it doesn't matter what someone labels something as, they are able to procure the chemical they need.

Does this take a lot of time and refining and sometimes money? Yes, however the equaliant for someone who is not well educated in chemistry would be easily put off by the tedious nature of trying to refine a chemical to the desired form.

I guess what I am trying to say is; Yes, it would suck not being able to "purchase" the chemicals, but if there is a will there is a way. That is the nice thing about knowing chemistry.

[Edited on 3-5-2012 by Layvian]

Migratory - 3-5-2012 at 18:08

I think we can all agree that nuclear materials need to be regulated. However, I get the impression that this thread is aimed more at conventional chemicals.

Consider the DEA's list of restricted or monitored chemicals on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEA_list_of_chemicals

List one does not worry me overmuch. While elemental Iodine or Phosphorus don't seem worthy of restriction, they are not required for too many experiments and a good chemist can make them if necessary. So while I think some items on list one are unwarranted and aught to be removed, I don't see it as a direct threat to home chemistry.

List two contains much more basic chemicals, like acetone and hydrochloric and sulfuric acid. While these chemicals are not regulated so closely as the chemicals on list one, it is concerning to me that the DEA considers use of such basic chemicals, which can be used for an immeasurably broad range of science, to be suspicious.