Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Zero tolerance for meth cooks kewls and other troublemakers?

Zero tolerance for meth cooks kewls and other troublemakers?

White Yeti - 4-1-2012 at 14:37

Is it a good idea to have a zero tolerance towards cooks and kewls?

As an amateur chemist, I get many chemicals from the hardware store or online because the chemicals are cheap. Purity is nice to have for my purposes, but not absolutely critical.

But as many of you have noticed, the shelves in hardware stores which used to house all the chemicals a chemist would ever want, are growing emptier and emptier every year. This trend has not slowed down, and from the looks of it, this will continue for years to come. Even websites are placing restrictions on what you can and can't buy, and I have to say that some restrictions are over the top.

There are some chemicals that are disappearing from the shelves for other reasons. Sulphuric acid drain cleaner is being phased out because it destroys PVC piping, household ammonia is being phased out for somewhat obvious reasons.

But there are many chemicals you just can't find anymore because they can be used to make bombs or k3wls can use them to harm themselves or others.

We like to blame the DEA or the hardware stores, but ultimately it's the troublemakers that deprive home scientists of chemicals they use for legitimate experimentation. After all, it's because of cooks and k3wls that we have to jump through hoops to obtain the simplest of chemicals.

Note: Administrators do a fantastic job on keeping this forum at a remarkable level, many thanks to all who are involved.

So is zero tolerance a good idea?
It's about time we focus our wrath on kewls rather than the DEA.

quicksilver - 4-1-2012 at 15:51

Both species endanger home science hobbies; I think most all agree. High energy experiments demand a great deal, yet people have to "start" somewhere.

{Now this is a tough one....} One has to deal with the "written word". Therefore all the body language and non-verbal communications are not available. Certainly simple ignorance of subject matter is a difficult thing to isolate unless we are dealing with "spoon-feeding" aspects of science that are freely available. If no indication of attempts at personal or community harm are apparent from the written query, how would we determine what is unacceptable aside from the Forum Rules? If a chemical has dual use (phosphorus for example) How would a question be isolated as a drug-manufacturing attempt? It would be important to rule out the "UTFSE response" because that's always been a viable solution.
Let's say I love the hobby concept of microscopy photography & therefore I may synthesize very small amounts of a material that could be used as an explosive device. Yet I do not include that in my question.....I'm a harmless guy. How can a written communication infer that?

Example: How would anyone know that I am smiling as I write this because I have thought along similar lines or I am frowning from concern over what I consider serious recent problems?

From an opinion standpoint this a great deal like pornography; it's tough to define but you know it when you see it. Purely from a rhetorical perspective; how and where would you draw the line?

Bot0nist - 4-1-2012 at 16:50

Whew, this is a tough one.

When I first joined here I was very intolerant of any drug related questions, to the point that I was even warned by Admin that I was out of place. I don't even support the current drug prohibitions, and really have nothing against those people who want to manufacture small amounts of CNS active compounds for themselves (even though its a stupid idea, IMO) as long as they are not putting others at risk with their wares. I was intolerant because I thought it would bring bad attention to this site, which I love like my own, and to my hobby, which is already under attack.

As far as energetics, I love doing small scale research into highly energetic materials. I have found this to be a really educational and fulfilling hobby. The idea of using energetic materials to cause deliberate loss of life or destruction of property is absolutely appalling to me, But I still don't think that I should not be allowed to discuss them or learn about them here just because some unstable people might use the info to hurt people or maim themselves. The fault lies in the perpetrator, not the information. Censoring knowledge will not stop senseless violence.

And for zero tolerance. I think a stance of zero tolerance is very rarely, if never a good policy. QS is right. How do you draw the line. Just recently I was needing help acquiring a chemical for perfectly legitimate purposes, but was scared to post about it because it is widely known as a drug precursor, and I knew that if I asked here, no matter how 'scientific" my query was, I would be labeled by my fellow members as a prospective cook.

I think we should continue with the way things are going. Scientifically versed and higher level discussions about CNS active compounds should be allowed, but pruned of "cookery," and discussions about energetics should be allowed as long as it is discussed in a safe, sane, and scientific manner (and avoiding 'practical application"). I feel that a lot of the problems with cooks and kewls have really thinned out as of late and I thoroughly enjoy and learn a lot from the vast majority of the content on SciMad. I think we should all do our best to keep an open mind and view each discussion/thread on its own merits. If I think a user has intentions of making energetics to use against people, animals, or property I will report it immediately. Likewise, if a user is asking for spoonfeeding on a controlled substance, or seems only interested in getting high or rich and has no interest in the chemistry then I will report it as well.

PS, in regards to your poll, there is a stern difference between 'energetic materials" and "bombs." In my mind, a bomb is a device employing energetic materials for the sole purpose of hurting people and/or destroying property. Any discussion of "bombs" should be removed promptly.

White Yeti - 4-1-2012 at 17:01

Quote: Originally posted by quicksilver

Purely from a rhetorical perspective; how and where would you draw the line?

Recently, it seems like some users have asked if certain syntheses will yield a drug or a precursor to a drug rather than asking how to make it. Now, this is just my personal opinion, and many people might disagree, but I think that these people know that blatantly asking an obviously suspicious question about how to make drug precursors (or certain explosives) is not going to get them anywhere.

It seems that these questions are disguised as "would this reaction pathway work?" rather than "how do you make....?".

Where would you draw the line, well that's up to personal interpretation. But when you ask:
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=18385
His intentions are a little suspicious to say the least. Notice that the OP did not in any way shape or form say that he was not interested in actually making the compound.

Personally, if I were to post something like that, I would at least say that I wanted to know solely out of curiosity, and that I had no intention of actually trying out the synthesis.

gutter_ca - 4-1-2012 at 17:27

Why, in the last year, have there been so many new members (registered within six months) that want to make changes to how the forum is run? It's not your forum.

entropy51 - 4-1-2012 at 18:06

Entropy will sit this one out. Been there, done that.

https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=12...

Ozone - 4-1-2012 at 18:27

Zero-tolerance policies are crutches that support (the lazy and/or gutless) those who would like to avoid having to make tough choices that might be held against them (while sounding "official" or acting in some "sanctioned" manner).

Pitiful... This would be especially so on a site that professes free-thought and scientific profundity.

Always author your laws to allow exception and take the time required to consider each case individually. For example, consider the case of a new (k3wl) member making an unattractive first post vs. a habitual, incorrigible "problem child": One should get a "slap-on-the-wrist/ego-->given-correct-direction", the other should have the "door-hit-their-ass-on-the-way-out."

I'd keep it the same,

O3

[Edited on 5-1-2012 by Ozone]

Polverone - 4-1-2012 at 19:18

We already chase off the people asking for spoonfeeding and "recipes" for common black market drugs. Getting any stricter would involve ostracizing an increasing range of interesting chemistry that lacks obvious black market incentives.

The DEA reported over 11000 drug lab seizures in 2010. The vast majority of these labs are tiny low-skill operations using over the counter decongestant pills as feedstock to make methamphetamine. We don't even have 11000 registered members here. Getting less tolerant here is spitting into the ocean as far as changing the condition of society or government regulations, and it has a significant downside of discouraging participation and encouraging a witch hunt mentality.

As far as the specific post you objected to, asking about 3,4-MD-Phenmetrazine, I think it perfectly illustrates why getting stricter here is unnecessary:

1) The proposed synthetic scheme already relied on DEA-listed chemicals (piperonal, nitroethane). There is no new threat to chemical availability in the proposed synthesis.

2) The proposed synthetic scheme is unworkable, so obviously it has not been tried.

3) The proposed product's activity was unknown and likely overestimated by the original reaction-scheme writer, so obviously it has not been tried.

4) Combining 2 and 3, it is apparent that the writer is dabbling in somewhat misinformed paper chemistry and pharmacology.

5) Why dabble in paper pharmacology at all, if the writer's goal is criminal profit? There are already drugs with established market demand and comparable or simpler syntheses. It seems to me that the writer must be more curious about chemistry and pharmacology than in making a quick dollar if he writes about this obscure compound. I think that discouraging such curiosity makes Sciencemadness poorer and the larger world no better off.

neptunium - 4-1-2012 at 19:45

Quote: Originally posted by Bot0nist

. Censoring knowledge will not stop senseless violence.

.

could not have put it a better way!!

i collect elements of the periodic table and i like the chemical challenges of isolating and creating different chemicals and re-testing analytical processes.
I have seen my hobby going downhill eversince the 90's and at a steeper rate since 9/11...
and i understand the reason of a crackdown.

but i think there is a dumbing down of people going on as well, science and math score in the US are at its lowest point since the 30's ! education does not allowed , encourage, or promote science enough (in my view)
TV programming are lame ,stupid, uninteresting, low and down right retarded..

so what do we have left as home scientist?
i have my books , and this forum. thats it.

i dont know ANYONE in my area who cares about astronomy ,physics and chemistry like i do.

i may be a bit naive but i voted NO .
i beleive someone who doesnt care about the science can be easily spoted .and i wouldnt hesitate to report him or her .

Sedit - 4-1-2012 at 19:50

Those who vote to not talk about drugs should never take any medication, not even aspirin because all those horrible drugs that is keeping your entire family alive and healthy spawned from people sitting around talking about drugs. The dumbing down of the population is what caused you to click the first option.

neptunium - 4-1-2012 at 19:55

read the question in the green frame
No ! keep it as it is is what i meant

[Edited on 5-1-2012 by neptunium]

hkparker - 4-1-2012 at 20:04

I totally agree with Bot0nist here. I don't like to see threads in which I can tell the end goal is to make drugs for use and when I was new here almost reported threads before I knew some of this talk was acceptable. But many of us are using these compounds for legitimate purpose and it is not worth it to sacrifice our discussion when in reality it will not prevent anyone from making bad choices. I think we do a good job to discourage those asking for recipes, so I vote to keep it as is.

entropy51 - 4-1-2012 at 20:46

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone

We already chase off the people asking for spoonfeeding and "recipes" for common black market drugs.

Not to mention that Science Madness performs a valuable public service. By attracting the undesirable element we provide a focal point for the DEA to collect IP addresses of those that need attention. You did know that the government scoops up all the internet traffic and filters out the nuggets of information that serves its purposes, didn't you?

https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying

Neil - 4-1-2012 at 21:09

yeti, last i checked your youtube description it was so cloak and dagger it made you sound like a k3wl. Before you worry about SM going down hill, spend a day or two reading through detritus. there has always been a influx of K3wls and wanna be breaking bad meth heads. The K3wls ether grow up, get booted/flamed or vanish after discussing how much AP they were going to shove down the pants. I have issues with the discussion of some of the stuff that is discussed but I will happily fight to maintain the status quo because once you start censoring yourself you might as well shove a pound of AP down your pants and take up base jumping.

wrath should not be focused on K3wls or the DEA. it should be focused on that which empowers both - ignorance. science madness is so seductive because it is one of the true bastions of free speach and free knowledge. fuck ignorance, go SM. take a gander at member online some time and look at how many guests are constantly reading it. I think the lines drawn by the admins are perfectly reasonable, education is endorsed stupid is flamed.

Neil - 4-1-2012 at 21:11

Quote: Originally posted by entropy51

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone

We already chase off the people asking for spoonfeeding and "recipes" for common black market drugs.

not to mention swedish authorities after our darling Xanax went out of his way to get arrested... and likely many other countries. just keep your nose clean and your eyes open.

AndersHoveland - 4-1-2012 at 22:01

I think making pharmacologically active substances as a hobby to ingest, smoke, or inject into ones body is a terrible idea. But despite having difficulty understanding why people do this, I have come to develop a degree of respect for some of them who truely have an interest in chemistry. I have very ambiguous feelings about "The Hive" and Rhodium's Archives. On the one hand, I strongly object to the end purpose, but on the other hand, one has to appreciate the improvised organic chemistry.

Perhaps learning about other peoples views can help us widen our own understandings, and be just a little more open-minded about things we might otherwise not have given any positive consideration to.

[Edited on 5-1-2012 by AndersHoveland]

Polverone - 4-1-2012 at 22:03

Quote: Originally posted by entropy51

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone

We already chase off the people asking for spoonfeeding and "recipes" for common black market drugs.

The internet traffic dragnet is the reason that this site is also accessible via https. Of course, I don't know how many people would know enough about the internet to choose the secure protocol but not know enough to find common drug information via search engine instead of forum questions.

turd - 5-1-2012 at 00:20

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti

We like to blame the DEA or the hardware stores, but ultimately it's the troublemakers that deprive home scientists of chemicals they use for legitimate experimentation. After all, it's because of cooks and k3wls that we have to jump through hoops to obtain the simplest of chemicals.

Actually, ultimately it's because of obedient people like YOU. You can't really fault the DEA - it's a cancerous institution that does everything to stay in power. Kind of a state in a state and a huge shame for a constitutional democracy. And there will always be irresponsible people hurting themselves. But people like YOU who are OK with installing a nanny/police state are the root of the problem. You get what you deserve.

Quote:

The internet traffic dragnet is the reason that this site is also accessible via https.

Of course https doesn't help against time based traffic analysis. But this should not be the topic of this thread. In any case, the good cooks will prevail.

hkparker - 5-1-2012 at 02:34

Quote: Originally posted by turd

Of course https doesn't help against time based traffic analysis

Time to go darknet

? I've played a bit inside of TOR and i2p, I'd say moving there would REALLY filter people out

Just kidding of course. Like you said, not the topic of the thread.

We won't be able to stop cooks by being more strict. But the point isn't always to stop cooks, but also to not bring that kind of attention to SM. We don't really wanna be known as a drug/bomb forum. I think our current method of handling things is a good balance of discouraging kewls and druggies while not censoring our conversations.

I also have to say I agree with turd that we should not put up with the DEA in the first place, as the U.S. is really slipping in the democracy/freedom department.

Pulverulescent - 5-1-2012 at 02:42

WTF! How can an 18 post thread just pop up like this, overnight?
I had to check the opener for the date, thinking it was a continuing old thread.
Oh yeah, fuck the DEA and fuck prohibition!
And that's something that can't be said often enough!

P

Arthur Dent - 5-1-2012 at 05:00

As many have mentioned, the mods on SciMad are doing an excellent job. I would have less patience probably, but that's just me. I always enjoy to go in the detritus folder to see the latest batch of deranged "scientists" in there! LOL

Most impontantly, weeding out the obvious twits, who are usually quite easy to spot, is a priority. It's also a question of attitude. There is a level of diplomacy and protocol that must be respected and some hot-headed nitwits with a pyrophoric personality and a post count of 2 or 3 tend to ignite and get confrontational at the slightest bit of criticism. Sorry but no one here needs to put up with that crap.

Patience with the young ones in need of guidance, many here might have had a first few akward posts before they got a hang of things 'round here. We need not adapt to anyone, they have to adapt to our community! Now please don't take this comment out of contect, I simply mean by this that a "good" new member will feel it's way around and get to know how people tick around here and use the search engine before posting.

We all remember this "PHDchemist" who was either an excellent and crafted troll, or a dangerously disturbed individual, that's the kind of people that I direct most of my wrath at. They waste our time, they attract unneeded attention to this forum and they have no concept of protocol or respect. People who get into trouble right after their very few posts could be put in a "probation area" where their subsequent posts need to be approved by mods. That would quickly weed out the drivel, but sadly, would probably mean more work for the already busy mods...

My dad always said be polite, be nice to people, have a good heart and you can accomplish anything. That should be the motto for new members here at SciMad.

Robert

Pulverulescent - 5-1-2012 at 06:42

Quote:

Most impontantly, weeding out the obvious twits, who are usually quite easy to spot, is a priority.

Yes, but problems easily arise when someone, unfamiliar with English, makes what appears to be a daft post.
They may then misunderstand the responses to the post, get upset, and start shooting from the hip, creating a spiral of negative feedback!
The thread is then detritused, or worse, the poster is banned . . .
But, of course, the patience we show them depends on the particular mood we're in at the time.
I remember (vaguely now) the intolerance and stupidity of Rogue Science!
I was banned indefinitely on my first post - no reason given!

[edit] Quite how Mega deduced I was a pretentious prick from two short sentences will ever remain a mystery?

P

[Edited on 5-1-2012 by Pulverulescent]

Neil - 5-1-2012 at 06:51

I haven't seen anyone with poor english get lambasted here, they tend to get helped. most of the non-english speakers write with better grammer then some of the newer english speakers...

gutter_ca - 5-1-2012 at 10:22

Personally, I'd rather see a crackdown on a certain member (you know who I mean) who constantly posts wildly inaccurate information and reaction schemes he seems to have pulled directly out of his ass.

Pulverulescent - 5-1-2012 at 10:48

Ah! But how severe a crackdown, that is the question?

P

Bot0nist - 5-1-2012 at 10:52

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

Lets not name names hiss

gutter_ca - 5-1-2012 at 10:59

Quote: Originally posted by Bot0nist

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

Lets not name names hiss

Hahahaha!

UnintentionalChaos - 5-1-2012 at 23:24

Quote: Originally posted by gutter_ca

Personally, I'd rather see a crackdown on a certain member (you know who I mean) who constantly posts wildly inaccurate information and reaction schemes he seems to have pulled directly out of his ass.

He was already banned once. Why we let him come back is beyond me, but his posts are more coherent and less inane (really saying something) than they formerly were.

solo - 6-1-2012 at 18:21

.......i don't agree with censorship, everyone can be taught to post correctly .....as they just want to learn....it's not for us to say what people should research ....contribute if one wishes and if it's not your cup of tea ... involve yourself in what interests you.....and live and let live......solo

AndersHoveland - 7-1-2012 at 01:44

Quote: Originally posted by Arthur Dent

We all remember this "PHDchemist" who was either an excellent and crafted troll, or a dangerously disturbed individual,

That sounds like a personal attack.

Quote: Originally posted by Arthur Dent

My dad always said be polite, be nice to people, have a good heart

Perhaps you should heed your dads advice.

I think we should try to be patient and understanding, even when certain members have poor social skills and internet etiquette (and an insecure ego).

What ? ?

Arthur Dent - 7-1-2012 at 08:17

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland

That sounds like a personal attack.

Huh? Not a personal attack at all... the kid was compltely bonkers, and contributed nothing of value except infuriating everyone. Are you defending him somehow? And why the hell would you do?

Quote:

Perhaps you should heed your dads advice.

Now now, that was uncalled for. I think I am a rather moderate member... I don't discuss about politics, religion, explosives and drugs, and I try to help anyone to the best of my knowledge and abilities. There are certain posters sadly that are well beyond help and I do not participate in their threads because I am not confrontational and would have nothing to offer.

Quote:

I think we should try to be patient and understanding, even when certain members have poor social skills and internet etiquette (and an insecure ego).

I agree partially, but there's a point where the line should be drawn, and I leave it to the moderators to draw that line. If someone has difficulties mastering the English language, I will gladly give him a hand and help him formulate his question if I can.

But I do not give a damn about people with poor social skills... if someone acts like a 4 year-old in a tantrum, I would promptly show him the door. Period.

Robert

[Edited on 7-1-2012 by Arthur Dent]

plante1999 - 7-1-2012 at 11:33

Quote: Originally posted by Arthur Dent

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland

That sounds like a personal attack.

Huh? Not a personal attack at all... the kid was compltely bonkers, and contributed nothing of value except infuriating everyone. Are you defending him somehow? And why the hell would you do?

Quote:

Perhaps you should heed your dads advice.

Quote:

I think we should try to be patient and understanding, even when certain members have poor social skills and internet etiquette (and an insecure ego).

I have the same opinion that Arthur Dent. A good example is me plante1999 who does not speak fluently english , but does make effort to write clearly wath I want to said , I am not a kewls so , I don't want to be trown out of SM....

[Edited on 7-1-2012 by plante1999]

White Yeti - 7-1-2012 at 11:44

Interesting how the subject migrated to speaking language fluently. Believe it or not, English is not my first language either; my native language is French, yet no one notices.

I didn't expect such a strong response over the course of so little time.

plante1999 - 7-1-2012 at 11:53

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti

Interesting how the subject migrated to speaking language fluently. Believe it or not, English is not my first language either; my native language is French, yet no one notices.

I didn't expect such a strong response over the course of so little time.

My native langage is also french. English is really easier to write than french.

[Edited on 8-1-2012 by plante1999]

Bot0nist - 7-1-2012 at 16:18

Yeti and Planet, you both type very fluently considering that english is not your first language. I am envious, and would love to know french. Maybe Rosetta Stone is for real?

Arthur Dent - 8-1-2012 at 05:53

Well, there seems to be a strong Canadian presence here on SciMad, lots of French-speaking confrères too! I work for an advertizing agency and part of my work is translating texts from English to French and vice versa.

(Salutations à mes amis chimistes québécois!) which means "Greetings to all my chemist friends from Quebec!"

And a big thank you to our French brothers who have contributed the likes of Curie, Lavoisier, Pasteur, Gay Lussac to the universe of chemistry... together, we will take over SciMad and rule the world Muah hah hah!

Many English-speaking people think of this Monty Python sketch when they think of the French:
(spoken with a strong French accent) I fart in your general direction... your mother was a hamster!

LOL, them Monty Python folks were purdee funny!

Robert (pronounced Row Bear)

PS: need... more... coffee...

[Edited on 8-1-2012 by Arthur Dent]

White Yeti - 8-1-2012 at 08:21

Quote: Originally posted by plante1999

My native langage is also french. English is really easier to write than french.

I agree, I can write French, but I learned all my chemistry in English, so it's easier for me to write chemistry in English. IUPAC names don't translate well between languages, unfortunately.

I haven't written French in a while, but it remains my native language. I can actually write just as well in Spanish, the language I'm taking in school.
"Tengo much sed! Quiero un café ahora mismo!" (I'm really thirsty, I want coffee right now).

Once you know one romance language fluently, all the other Latin based languages are a piece of cake.

Hexavalent - 12-1-2012 at 13:32

I was originally taught chemistry at school in Welsh (yes, I live in Wales), and I studied my home chemistry in English . . .a few words with the chem teacher and I'm now in an English class and much happier. I agree with White Yeti, IUPAC names and nomenclature doesn't translate well into other languages, and the same goes occasionally for pieces of apparatus and equipment.

bbartlog - 13-1-2012 at 08:30

German is my first language. Mind you, I grew up in the USA and started learning English at age 4, so I don't really think of it as a second language.

AirCowPeaCock - 13-1-2012 at 11:52

Personally I believe many of the illicit drugs that the public tends to look severally down on are less harmful than the drugs considered safe and sane by the people (caffeine, acetaminophen, alcohol, etc.) and most public knows nothing of their actual effects! And more importantly the prohibition does more harm to everyone than the "hardest" of drugs could do themselves. And Pulverulescent could not be more right. It is an incredibly stupid idea to make, buy, or use synthetic drugs that have not been thoroughly analyzed for impurities and potency such as with an analytical chromatograph or other very precise means for obvious reasons. The real problem is the ease it is for people of all ages to get the real hard drugs, the ones not illicit (alcohol, nicotine, DXM, Xanax, hydrocodone, etc.) and the doctors handing out amphetamines to every child without good grades, its absurd and crazy! I'm currently writing a paper for school on the effect of synthetics, the DEA, Homeland security, the media, and the public on amateur chemistry and how its viewed. When I tell people I'm an amateur chemist, or I have a "laboratory" in my basement, they immediately think I'm cooking up meth. When I say pyrotechnics is my hobby, they worry I'm a terrorist--and I'm sure I'm not the only one. On SM what really pisses me off (and I haven't been here long) is how often people come to this form make one post (their first post) about some drug/precursor synthesis, and are never heard from again. Once again I'm sure I'm not alone on that one either.

entropy51 - 13-1-2012 at 13:47

Quote: Originally posted by AirCowPeaCock

Personally I believe many of the illicit drugs that the public tends to look severally down on are less harmful than the drugs considered safe and sane by the people (caffeine, acetaminophen, alcohol, etc.) and most public knows nothing of their actual effects!

No, you can't expect the general public to have much knowledge of pharmacology.

That's the reason the we have an agency that employs hundreds of pharmacologists, toxicologists, chemists, and medical doctors. These professionals evaluate the detailed data on safety and effectiveness submitted by the drug companies and make a determination based on the scientific data as to whether the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. The agency is the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and other developed nations have similar agencies.

White Yeti - 13-1-2012 at 17:22

Quote: Originally posted by AirCowPeaCock

When I tell people I'm an amateur chemist, or I have a "laboratory" in my basement, they immediately think I'm cooking up meth. When I say pyrotechnics is my hobby, they worry I'm a terrorist--and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

When I say (and I don't say it too often) that I have a modest lab in my basement, I get suspicious looks as well. I don't experiment with pyrotechnics because explosives have a little too much attitude for my taste.

Chemistry is by far my favourite pastime and hobby. I mean what else is there? Why can't people look at us and see us as hobbyists?

How did we get to the point where home experimenters are associated with troublemakers? Granted, not all home experimenters are completely sane, but unlike cooks and kewls, we take the precautions so that no one's life aside from our own is put in harm's way.

This looks like a dying hobby, public opinion (however flawed and prejudiced) is overwhelmingly negative.

Is there any way this can be reversed? Perhaps trimming every single suspicious member is not the right way to got, but what other option is there?

entropy51 - 13-1-2012 at 20:15

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti

How did we get to the point where home experimenters are associated with troublemakers? Granted, not all home experimenters are completely sane, but unlike cooks and kewls, we take the precautions so that no one's life aside from our own is put in harm's way.

This looks like a dying hobby, public opinion (however flawed and prejudiced) is overwhelmingly negative.

Is there any way this can be reversed? Perhaps trimming every single suspicious member is not the right way to got, but what other option is there?

As someone who has been a hobby chemist for 50 years, I can tell you what I have observed.

Until the 1970's I could go to the branch of Fisher Scientific located about a mile from my house and buy anything I wanted. I took it for granted that such would always be the case.

And then Angel Dust hit. Phencyclidine. Fisher employees (!) were setting up sales of piperidine, bromobenzene, ether, magnesium and all the other ingredients. Most of the buyers were not chemists, but were working from street recipes. They ran Grignards in glass coffee pots in their kitchens, never mind the pilot light on the gas stove. One particularly memorable episode involved an ether explosion in the kitichen that literally propelled the refrigerator into the backyard.

The chemicals were rapidly traced back to Fisher.

Guess what happened the next time I walked into Fisher and tried to buy a beaker?

Fisher dried up as a source for the home chemist. Overnight. Just like that.

Because of the cooks.

End of story.

Blame chemophobia, moronic legislators, whatever. But I was there watching this happen. The correlation with illegal drug manufacture is unmistakable and only a drug cook could deny it with a straight face.

It will certainly not be reversed in my lifetime, if ever.

Making nice about the inherent chemical interest of illegal drug synthesis is not conducive to improving the image of chemistry as a hobby.

turd - 14-1-2012 at 01:34

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti

Perhaps trimming every single suspicious member is not the right way to got, but what other option is there?

You still don't understand that with this very thread you are acting like a "kewl". Had you UTFSE, like you should, you would have found a number of threads where this was discussed ad nauseum. And with the same result despite the inane bitching of always the same fixated persons. Since you're not adding anything new to this discussion, you're simply wasting time.

BTW: People who want to tell me what I can cook or not are filed under the category "very suspicious". And the ridiculously tendentious formulation of your poll questions doesn't improve that classification.

Neil - 14-1-2012 at 04:54

Quote: Originally posted by turd

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti

Perhaps trimming every single suspicious member is not the right way to got, but what other option is there?

Or he could read the forum rules which sate that bomb making and drug production are 100% not okay while the discussion of the chemical aspects of each thing are okay.

cyanureeves - 14-1-2012 at 07:06

i speak that tex-mex and we are notorious for chopping both english and spanish and direct translation of words when speaking. A texmex sells a horse and tells the buyer that the horse dont look very good.the buyer thinks the horse looks fine and takes him for a ride,the horse runs straight into a post.Down here if you speak tex-mex you're just run of the mill ,speak french and you will get laid. to ask how to do drugs here is not cool unless of course he asks in a way that he knows how chemicals are bonding and such.i like how people here first ask them to show effort in solving chemical equations and things before they dish out information. in all honesty i dont believe in any barrirers between knowledge seekers.kewls are looking for explosions and druggies are looking for a high but a kewl or druggy looking for knowledge is not wrong. mirar is to see in spanish and so is to look.

[Edited on 14-1-2012 by cyanureeves]

Pulverulescent - 14-1-2012 at 10:53

Anti-drug laws fuck up just about everybody!
But of course a lot of people profit, and some profit handsomely, from this particular set of "laws" ─ they are, of course, the drug-dealers, drug-chemists, prison admins (US), DEA operatives (US), (corrupt) cops, Big Pharma, dishonest politicians (is there any other kind?) and a, too many to mention, host of lesser scum-bags nibbling round the edges!
To make crimes out of things which are not crimes can only be seen by a thinking man as a crime in itself!
And this is a crime whose victims are literally uncountable!
The creeping chemophobia we see today would largely not exist, at all, if it weren't for drug prohibition!
What we're really seeing since 1933 is simply alcohol prohibition under a different guise!
Anyone who supports drug prohibition is either one of its beneficiaries (criminal or otherwise), a fucking moron or a liar!!!

P

AirCowPeaCock - 14-1-2012 at 11:03

Not that alot or the cooks arn't to blame too. Its sad, the umderground and the government are working together in order to stay in power--without even communicating

Vogelzang - 14-1-2012 at 11:49

We need total legalization of all drugs so that the human race can evolve as quickly as possible means to deal with drugs.

Pulverulescent - 14-1-2012 at 12:34

Quote:

Not that alot or the cooks arn't to blame too.

WTF!

Bot0nist - 14-1-2012 at 13:14

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

Anyone who supports drug prohibition is either one of its beneficiaries (criminal or otherwise), a fucking moron or a liar!!!

P

That'd make a good bumper sticker.

Pulverulescent - 14-1-2012 at 15:04

Quote:

That'd make a good bumper sticker.

Arrggghhh! You found my Achilles' heel! (

) Yes BotOnist, it's flattery! (

)
I'm entirely at your mercy, now . . . (

)

P

entropy51 - 14-1-2012 at 16:29

Quote: Originally posted by turd

BTW: People who want to tell me what I can cook or not are filed under the category "very suspicious". And the ridiculously tendentious formulation of your poll questions doesn't improve that classification.

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

Anyone who supports drug prohibition is either one of its beneficiaries (criminal or otherwise), a fucking moron or a liar!!!

P

You pillheads are certainly being defensive. This discussion is not about whether or not recreational drugs should be prohibited. You guys lost that battle around the middle of the last century.

Pulverulescent - 15-1-2012 at 03:58

Quote:

You pillheads are certainly being defensive.

So Robert, simply questioning the 'WOD' makes me a 'pillhead', does it???
OK, I smoke marijuana regularly, I've tried opium, speed, coke, 'shrooms, 'acid' and of course the good ol' booze and the bloody fags ─ of the lot, I've found marijuana to be both the nicest and the safest of the 'fun drugs'!
As for being defensive, it seems to me that you're the one being defensive here!
And what it is you're 'attempting' to defend is the utterly indefensible!!!

Quote:

This discussion is not about whether or not recreational drugs should be prohibited.

This discussion, in case it may have escaped your notice, is about whether 'meth cooks' should, or should not, be tolerated on this forum!
And since 'meth cooks', and their ilk, are a direct product of the WOD, discussion of the 'root cause' of the phenomenon does seem warranted, wouldn't you say?

Quote:

You guys lost that battle around the middle of the last century.

Battle? What battle ─ you're calling a series of (truly nasty) subterfuges, perpetrated against the American people by a bunch of insane "moral fanatics", greedy, corrupt politicians and wealthy, paranoid industrialists 'a battle'?
And you're supposedly a 'medical man', so you, of all people, should have at least some idea of how the AMA was hoodwinked and sidelined at the time of the infamous "Tax Act" by Anslinger and his dirty little cabal of co-conspirators
The battle, though, has, now, been joined, and guess what, our side is gaining ground every day, so put that in your pipe and smoke it?
And I have to say too, that your support for the WOD puzzles me; it's highly unlikely that you profit from it, in any way, and from the cogency of the posts of yours I've read, I would certainly take you to be, at least an honest man!
That leaves just one other category, asshole! (

)

P

Pulverulescent - 16-1-2012 at 01:52

So! Baby ─ do you understand me now? (

)
Dont'cha know that no one alive can always be an angel . . . (

)
I'm ju . . .
Do-doodle-oo-doodle-oo- (

)

P