Sciencemadness Discussion Board

The "undesirable" type of chemistry web pages

16MillionEyes - 9-9-2007 at 19:09

I know this subjected has been touched on and is of great importance to anyone doing chemistry at home. Perhaps most of us have never really seen the "roots" of all these drug chemists so it only comes to us in a more informative type of way or so it's the usual way.
Today I was browsing for some of the contents of drain opener Sulfuric acid and by pure chance I came to a site (displayed on the search engine) that talked about them in an unrelated type of way (as usual). After reading some of the article I went to the main directory to see if I could find anything of importance. As it turns out it isn't your regular chemistry-fun experiments type of site it was a drug making site. What really strike me here is that whoever wrote this page actually has some decent amount of chemistry knowledge and yet the person is doing that sort of thing. Just what drives people to actually take on chemistry to accomplish such degrading task?
Here's the site if anyone is interested to look at it but now I don't even know just how good of an idea this is to have in your "history" files.
http://designer-drug.com/pte/12.162.180.114/dcd/chemistry/in...

Sauron - 9-9-2007 at 19:41

There are many such websites. Part of the price of freedom of expression. Censorship is no answer. Just hold your nose and surf on.

woelen - 9-9-2007 at 22:35

Sometimes you even find useful information on such sites. But indeed, best is to simply ignore them and turn to something else.

But I personally think it is a pity that such sites exist. This is the kind of sites, which make home chemistry a shady activity in the eyes of many people. Unfortunately, for most people, sciencemadness is in the same line of shady sites as the one, mentioned above.

Sauron - 9-9-2007 at 23:06

I think that is a little unfair.

The powers that be on this site do shut down "drug cook" threads They are just a wee but lenient with chemical discussions in which the posters are competent and can express themselves professionally as chemists.

Furthermore not everything that is illegal in one jurisdiction is illegal in all others, and this is a global site.

And finally, there is a big difference between reading about and studying any given synthesis on the one hand and actually conducting such a preparation on the other. I study the preparation of a lot of things that I will never and would never actually undertake to make. There's nothing wrong with that.

So I disagree that SM is the moral equivalent of designer-drugs.com (or erowid or thehive etc.) The moderators have a thin line to walk between excluding drug cookery on the one hand and allowing free exchange of scientific information on the other.

We all ought to remember and consider that essentially everything on any of those drug cookery sites is IN THE LITERATURE and can be accessed at most any library. No one is proposing to restrict access to the literature of chemistry, or to start ripping out pages or censoring with a black felt marker. THAT would be a travesty. Well, what is the difference between the hard copy lit. and the cyber-lit? Nothing, that's what.

The abuse of knowledge is the fault of the people who abuse it and not inherent in the knowledge itself. Many or most drugs of abuse started out as legitimate pharmaceuticals. Heroin was a cold remedy. Cocaine a cure for morphine addiction. Many armies supplied amphetamines to soldiers in combat as recently as WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Today's legitimate pharm compound may be tomorrow's abuse drug of fashion. No one can say.

Look at Rohypnol and GBL/GBA/GABA, demonized in USA because of feminazi dogma about "date rape" but nowhere else in the world AFAIK. Thanks for nothing, Hillary.

woelen - 10-9-2007 at 02:57

My previous post might have lead to some misunderstanding. I did not say that I think that sciencemadness is the moral equivalent of drug-related forums and sites. I said that most people out there (the non-chemists, and even many chemists, affiliated with an official lab) think that sciencemadness is a shady (maybe even undesirable) website. I wish it would be otherwise.

For me, this definitiely is NOT a shady site, otherwise I would not post over here, and I would not sponsor this site. But I'm quite sure that most people, who accidently hit this site, will frown upon it, simply because it is clear from all posts, that many members of this forum have lots of very scary and evil chemicals and apparatus at home (evil and scary in the eyes of the non-informed or ill-informed).

[Edited on 10-9-07 by woelen]

Sauron - 10-9-2007 at 04:59

"Evil and scary" what? Those are loaded words. I really do not much care what the ignorant might think. I do not believe that CHEMISTS of any sort would regard possession of most chemicals and equipment as "evil and scary" and frankly, no one but chemists are in a position to have a clue.

Give me an example of an evil and scary chemical

And an evil and scary apparatus.

Is a rotavapor evil and scary?

A drying oven?

A pH meter?

A glove box?

A heating mantle?

Come on, what's evil and scary? This isn't Frankenstein's castle with a Jacob's ladder and a giant static generator and Leyden jard. (And if it were that's not chemical, they are only evil and scary because Hollywood taught people so.)

YT2095 - 10-9-2007 at 05:11

boy oh boy, you Really DO have a penchant for entirely missing the point don`t you!

evil and scary chem, look up list One stuff.
apparatus, a few test tubes and hot plate.

please RE READ: " (evil and scary in the eyes of the non-informed or ill-informed)."

Capiche?

Sauron - 10-9-2007 at 06:02

I'm not in the US so List One means nothing to me. (I know what it is and what's on it but iot has nothing to do with anything here.) The PUBLIC does not capisce List One from a hole in the ground, as you very well know.

My challenges stand.

Here's my own little list of what I think the great unwashed PUBLIC thinks is evil and scary:

Anything to do with explosives and they are unlikely to distinguish between explosives and pyrotechnics/fireworks as amply demonstrated by the case of our member who little pvc pipe "firework" has caused him so much grief

Note that I do not share this view, but I do avoid making explosives, or pyrotechnics. As long as this site is primarily an energetics materials amatuer chemistry site with an Ordnance bomb as its symbol, indistinguishable from an anarchist's bomb with a lit fuse circa 1890, then we will have a little PR problem, won't we?

Unfortunate but it's the truth.

EVERY thread about TATP and every other terrorist-linked improvised explosive is a nail in the coffin of this forum.

[Edited on 10-9-2007 by Sauron]

YT2095 - 10-9-2007 at 06:22

well, regardless of your feeling the need to "Challenge" anyone here, RE READ what Woelen said and IN CONTEXT!

then, just Maybe you`ll see what he was trying to say, instead of your spin and belligerents, and what you might Like to Think he was trying to say.

Sauron - 10-9-2007 at 06:31

I read woelen's posts carefully more than once, and I am still not convinced that even woelen knows what he was trying to say. In any case it's his obligation to write cogently if we are to understand him.

I happen to regard woelen as a friend, and I was not engaging in belligerents (or belligerance either which is what you meant to say.)

I have no need to spin-doctor anything. If woelen meant to say "The general public regards all home chemistry as evil and scary" I would have agreed with him, except that I would propose that the staement is still valid if he drops the word HOME. The public has been conditioned to regard all SCIENCE EVERYWHERE as evil and scary, which is a pity.

And if the institutional scientists think they can assuage the mob of luddites by conducting a pogrom against amatuers, then I suggest to them that THEY will be NEXT and maybe they should consider where their interests lie.

woelen - 10-9-2007 at 07:04

Please let's stop making each other angry based on a few words of mine, which do not have any importance at all :P.

What I mean is that possesion of any chemical in the eyes of the non-informed public is evil and scary. Use a 'difficult' word, e.g. talk about 'sodium sulfate' or even worse 'potassium ferrocyanide' and you'll understand what I mean. I once did an experiment with children, using iron(III)chloride and potassium ferrocyanide, making 'invisible ink' and then making it blue. The kids liked the experiment very much, but one of the parents was really scared when I told her what I used for this experiment. She was quite upset and did not want that kind of things to happen in her neighbourhood. With some explanation I could take away the fear, but it clearly demonstrated how the general public is 'informed' nowadays.

And Sauron, what do you think will happen if a non-informed person enters your lab (e.g. service personnel for your central heating system), sees a large number of glassware items, an even larger number of bottles, with skull and bone signs on them, signs of flames and so on? Good chance that such a person calls the police after he has left your house.

Sauron - 10-9-2007 at 07:42

Central heating in Bangkok? Not a good example!

However: (1) I have a registered corporation its articles of incorporation include chemical research in description of purpose. (2) I have close personal friendships with very high ranking Thai police generals as well as senior military commanders and politicians. These are outgrowths of my former business and professional life.

As a consequence your scenario is unlikely. Thailand is not the US or the UK.

Anyway, woelen, what proposal do you have to offer (if any) to ameliorate the situation you describe?

I was not at all angry about anything you said. YT often seems to be angry at my posts, and I find his replied exasperating, but I assure you that I was not angry with you.

YT2095 - 10-9-2007 at 08:20

Some numbers Mine:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron

However: (1) I have a registered corporation its articles of incorporation include chemical research in description of purpose.
(2) I have close personal friendships with very high ranking Thai police generals as well as senior military commanders and politicians. These are outgrowths of my former business and professional life.

(3)As a consequence your scenario is unlikely. Thailand is not the US or the UK.

(4)Anyway, woelen, what proposal do you have to offer (if any) to ameliorate the situation you describe?

(5)I was not at all angry about anything you said. YT often seems to be angry at my posts, and I find his replied exasperating, but I assure you that I was not angry with you.


1: good for you
2: see above
3: WE are not IN thailand you are, your point being????
4: I`m not sure he offered one, Or that was even the aim of the thread!
5: I`m not pissed with you either (nor have been), I am an advocate or Reading what was said however, and also an adherent to Context.

and considering that English is a Second language for Woelen, there is little room for your criticism(s).

[Edited on 10-9-2007 by YT2095]

Sauron - 10-9-2007 at 08:32

I am not at all convinced that this thread ever had a point.

Making an observation of the obvious (problem) and failing to suggest even a partial fix, is rather pointless, isn't it?

As t my status, woelen asked and I answered. If you have not covered your own ass, where you reside, in an appropriate manner then shame on you. (CYA is a good old Washington expression, meaning, protect yourself).

YT2095 - 10-9-2007 at 08:50

well the only question mark the OP presented was about the Motive, and Nothing (seriously Nothing) to do with "a Fix" partial or otherwise.

as for "disagreeable" then yes, not All areas of chem are agreeable to all, I don`t look in or post in the Energetics area for instance (I may have done for the Odd post here and there, but it`s not a "Haunt" for me).
I don`t know the 1`st thing about "Drugs" either, so I don`t post in that (or even know if we Have such an area here).

the point was that Drugs = Smak, Coke, Speed, etc... but never NSAIDs for instance.
Energetics = B0mz0rz and kids missing fing0rz, never a neat color comp for a garden Fountain or firework or Stars, or even the stuff that gets the ISS into Space/Orbit in the 1`st place.

that gets overlooked by the great unwashed.

quicksilver - 10-9-2007 at 10:39

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
=-snipped for brevity-=
My challenges stand.

Here's my own little list of what I think the great unwashed PUBLIC thinks is evil and scary:

Anything to do with explosives and they are unlikely to distinguish between explosives and pyrotechnics/fireworks as amply demonstrated by the case of our member who little pvc pipe "firework" has caused him so much grief

=-snipped for brevity-=

Unfortunate but it's the truth.

EVERY thread about TATP and every other terrorist-linked improvised explosive is a nail in the coffin of this forum.

[Edited on 10-9-2007 by Sauron]



IMO THAT is the object/perception/query of the OP. Does the Great Unwashed view such things in the light of present day media processed pap?

Could (or would) anyone here develop a conversation with someone who does not share a science related hobby and have them react with negativity toward energetic materials (would they even know what that term means?) or infer that any discussion of pharmacology outside a professional research setting is "drug cooking"?

I would side with the Great Unwashed rushing to judgment so damn fast that one would need to explain oneself to such a degree that it in itself would appear suspicious!

Paranoia sells media-based advertising. Paranoia is what is engendered by the phrasing and descriptives used in mass communication....Perhaps starting before the Civil War in the USA (& even earlier on the continent).



I don't believe the logo is an Ordinance Bomb however. It just looks that way due to the flames.

[Edited on 10-9-2007 by quicksilver]

S.C. Wack - 10-9-2007 at 12:30

There was a website called Rhodium? Wow, who knew.

One telling sign of how a site might be viewed by others is the sites that link to it in posts from its members, and on a links page. Links to Rhodium here, the-hive to here, RS to here, and amateur chemistry sites in other languages to here. The SM FAQ has links to the-hive, RS, WD, APC, and synthetikal. Now, do any "legitimate" chemistry sites link to here in their links section? No, they don't. This site is not mentioned despite the resources that it has on certain subjects.

woelen - 10-9-2007 at 13:01

@Sauron: Your situation is totally different than my situation and cannot be compared. I have to be careful with certain things, probably much more than you have to be. It be so. Such is life... But try to imagine how most amateur chemists are operating. No connection of high ranking, no possibilities to buy any chemical they want, not even for high prices. You really should try to imagine how the majority has to struggle with finding reagents and how limited their resources are, both in a practical sense (availability of reagents and equipment) and in a jurisdiction-sense (not having any protecting high-rank connections).
I do not think that we should offer a solution to this situation. I cannot, and most people cannot. But what is wrong with discussing this situation and trying to make such things explicit? That is my idea of what the OP of this thread intended when starting this thread.
Finally, I did not have the impression that you were angry with me, I was referring to your conversation with YT2095. But again, please stop this kind of anger, my words are not worth making another thread with hot heads and cold hearts :P .



@S.C. Wack: I strongly agree with your observation. Indeed, what we see is that the home chemistry community (on the Internet) is a fairly 'closed' community, in the sense that besides links to each other, there hardly are any links from the 'legitimate' outside world (e.g. large companies, universities) to sites inside the amateur chemistry world. This all has to do with the image of amateur science and most particularly amateur chemistry. A 'respected' multinational does not want to be associated with 'sciencemadness'.

chromium - 10-9-2007 at 13:22

Quote:
Originally posted by S.C. Wack
Now, do any "legitimate" chemistry sites link to here in their links section? No, they don't. This site is not mentioned despite the resources that it has on certain subjects.


Those legitimate chemistry sites do not link here because this sites main concern is not explaining and retelling typical schoolbooks or doing other things which are considered valuable by modern institutional and government controlled science. Home experimenting is not only considered unnecessary but also weird and possibly dangerous or evil. Main reason is not that explosives are discussed here but the idea of doing complex labstyle experiments at home without being continously controlled by government bureaucrats.

Btw there is no adult oriented home experimentation site which is linked by those "legitimate" chemistry sites.

[Edited on 10-9-2007 by chromium]

Sauron - 10-9-2007 at 20:32

So some of us feel that it is the stink from the drug cooks and their fellow travellers that make people regard this forum askance.

And others suspect that it is the very focus on energetics that causes the alleged ill repute.

It is just a matter of opinion.

The former, isn't likely to change. A quick look at current threads will show that some members are still bemoaning the passing of The Hive and Rhodium, and praying to the drug gods for their return. Meanwhile few if any of us want to see draconian censorship imposed. I think the proprietor of the forum has struck a decent balance. Blatant "cook" threads get trashed. Not so blatant ones get tolerated. We can all live with that.

It is VERY unlikely that the emphasis on energetics is going to be dropped, that is simply a non-starter.

This being the case, aren't we just sitting and wringing our hands about the subject? This seems to me to serve no useful purpose.

Woelen encountered a neighbor who was offended by his hobby, apparently she heard the word "ferricyanide" and went off. Perhaps he should have said hexacyanatoferrate instead and let her eyes glaze over? Or make up gobbledigook like hexanitriloferrate. His neighbor is unlikely to be a JACS peer reviewer or sit on the IUPAC Nomenclature Committee. What I am saying is that this was a self inflicted wound.

She probably has more evil and scary chemicals in the cabinet under her kitchen sink.

16MillionEyes - 12-9-2007 at 06:13

Well, after looking through some of the replies here, my intention of this thread wasn't to cry out a sign of awareness of an inherent 'evil' that must be stopped.
I was simply pointing out two things: first finding sites like this seems a relatively easy task even if you're not looking for them and second that I found somewhat surprising just how well informed these "cooks" are on their chemistry. Other than that I asked for opinions on just what drives regular amateur chemists to start up on drug synthesizing and nothing else.
I hope this sort of clarifies the purpose of this thread.

Sauron - 12-9-2007 at 06:51

Isn't it obvious?

1. Greed

2. More greed

3. Avarice.

The fellow who was chemist for the Aum Shin Rikkyo made their stuff because they built an $11 Million lab for him and he had better facilities than he'd had at his university.

I bet succesful drug cooks have nice labs too.

The rest want to grow up to be like that.

Consider the chemist who was making acid for the Deadheads in an abandoned missile silo. He was apparently quite competent and talented. Now he's rotting in a federal pen.

YT2095 - 12-9-2007 at 08:46

Quote:
Originally posted by __________
I asked for opinions on just what drives regular amateur chemists to start up on drug synthesizing and nothing else.
I hope this sort of clarifies the purpose of this thread.


I have No Idea, I think it`s very likely Money related as stated by sauron, but suspect that there are many other factors too, I don`t think a Good Chemist could be easily persuaded to do this without exceptional circumstances and I also suspect that each of dope dealers has their own sob story too.

I don`t think you get a person in a home Lab that thinks "What If....?" and then tries it, because they would soon be shut down or killed by gangsters quickly or recruited if they tried (territory and stuff).

I have a Drug Phobia anyway (I got Spiked once, and fear them now), so I`m prolly NOT best qualified to answer.

but I`ll bet there is no ONE single reason, but rather dozens of excuses.

woelen - 12-9-2007 at 09:50

Quote:
I asked for opinions on just what drives regular amateur chemists to start up on drug synthesizing and nothing else.
I hope this sort of clarifies the purpose of this thread.
I don't think those are regular amateur chemists. A regular amateur chemist certainly could touch upon something drug-related, but a regular amateur chemist does not synthesize drugs and nothing else.
You could make drugs for personal use (and besides be interested in chemistry in general), but then I still would not call such a person a cook. Sad if an amateur chemist goes in that direction (I know of one, who tries all kinds of things on himself), but this is quite different from someone, who makes drugs for the purpose of earning a lot of money with that.

[Edited on 12-9-07 by woelen]

Sauron - 12-9-2007 at 10:05

No matter what their motivations are/were, they (the drug cooks) bring down these draconian laws on all of our heads and brand us all with the bad name of their kind. Was not the position taken at the start of this thread that the general public and even many of our fellow chemists look askance on this forum just as they do on dedicated abuse-drug forums?

Over and over again I get the same question from friends who are not chemists: "But what are you making?" In their minds I MUST be making SOMETHING. They cannot imagine that someone would just want to wander through the carbon universe more or less at random like browsing shelves in a large and well stocked library. It's beyond their comprehension, they just assume that I must have some APPLIED goal. Nothing could be further from the truth. I go where the muse of chemistry leads and that's that.

The problem is that the public thinks each and every one os us MUST be making SOMETHING and they fill in the blanks with things they fear: drugs, explosives, maybe CW. Like the woman who went off at woelen because he mentioned ferriCYANIDE. All she heard was CYANIDE. Like woelen must be manufacturing Zyklon-B in his garage to supply to the neighborhood neo-Nazis. Hah.

[Edited on 13-9-2007 by Sauron]

quicksilver - 12-9-2007 at 16:03

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
Isn't it obvious?

1. Greed

2. More greed

3. Avarice.



I would add IGNORANCE! The comment made re: ferricyanide (sp?) is typical. The neighbor went off due to ignorance regarding what was perceived as a poison "in their own backyard" so to speak.

The point I am trying to make is that due to media influenced ignorance one is constantly attempting to explain the science under discussion and that is often looked upon as "explaining away" a truth or threat.

[The following is NOT a political reference] Al Gore's film got many people to believe that carbon emissions may be responsible for the end of the world. How many of those individuals concerned over this perceived threat did any research of their own? Of that percentage who did so, what was their motivation; scientific exercise, a search for truth or politics?

A twisted mindless media has the power today of the Inquisition of centuries past. Whats more it builds it's own momentum.

Sauron - 12-9-2007 at 19:46

It's a hard thing to fight. Let's say, impossible to fight.

Nicodem - 12-9-2007 at 23:15

Quote:
Originally posted by __________
Well, after looking through some of the replies here, my intention of this thread wasn't to cry out a sign of awareness of an inherent 'evil' that must be stopped.


Your starting of this thread was obsolete in the first place. If you would have looked around or searched the forum you would have found that the Rhodium archives are constantly refereed here as a valuable source of chemical information and that similar discussions about the ethics of psychoactives and energetic materials synthesis abound already.
Quote:
I was simply pointing out two things: first finding sites like this seems a relatively easy task even if you're not looking for them and second that I found somewhat surprising just how well informed these "cooks" are on their chemistry.


It is not true that finding sites like that is a relatively easy task! The Rhodium archive is actually the only such archive compiled with some "peer review" attitude and it still contains a number of errors and misinformation. The original site went down 3 years ago and now only mirrors like the one you found exist. It was not compiled by "cooks" but serious chemists and you seem to be new in chemistry or else you would realize that the organic synthesis of any drugs, being them psychoactive or physiologically active, involve an enormous amount of knowledge and dedication (unless you are one of those that consider the reduction of pseudoephedrine from pills like done by criminals in the USA as "synthesis"). In fact, the Rhodium archive is such a handy source of scientific information and useful organic chemistry papers that several of my colleagues read and use it to help them in their lab work or get new ideas (and they do nothing connected with drugs!). It is simply handier than go to the library. The only other so reliable sources of information for psychoactive drugs synthesis are the chemical journals itself (like the ACS, RSC, Springer, etc.). Meanwhile the famous internet forum where people interested in the chemistry of psychoactive compounds gathered, The Hive, is now down three years already.

Quote:
Other than that I asked for opinions on just what drives regular amateur chemists to start up on drug synthesizing and nothing else.
I hope this sort of clarifies the purpose of this thread.


I have been around enough to realize there is no single motivation. It mostly has to do with the cultural background. For example, it appears to me that the majority of USA members of such virtual communities are interested only in illegal psychoactive compounds having a black market value. They therefore tend to behave in line with their culture of profit making at the expense of human misery (as to why they need money is beyond me – I doubt they are starving). I might be unjust to some that make an exception, but that is just my subjective impression. On the other hand, I found there are also those who are interested due to their love for science and life in general. They are pretty easy to spot as they are mostly interested in psychedelics and have a deeper understanding of chemistry. They have the tendency of trying not to break the law unless unavoidable. They are not interested only in illegal drugs and often they develop new ones. I guess these ones fit the guidelines of ScienceMadness and amateur science perfectly. Then there is also the sad party of those who just annoyingly buzz around such sources of information trying to get an easy recipe for meth or whatever other stuff they think will make them get some money. These often represent the majority and are even easier to spot since they have a terrible disregard (or even hate) toward science, know shit about chemistry and are not interested in knowing what they are doing, generally contribute only misinformation, and they usually talk about themselves in third person calling themselves SWIM or whatever similar paranoid acronym.

Sauron - 13-9-2007 at 07:58

I remember when Rhodium was almost the only organic chemistry resource I could find online except course outlines and comp-chem. At that time it was useful, though in a fairly narrow way, if you were not specifically interested in the chemistry of abuse drugs.

Anyone can go and see how it is organized: Categories of abuse drugs. Wade through that long list and down at the bottom there are Precursors and Reagents, Chemical Data, References, Lab Technique, and a little on Microwave. Of the material present, a not insubstantial number are just copied straight out of Org.Syn., and indeed there is a link to the Org.Syn website.

Of the original work, the quality is sometimes spotty.

Compared to the resources available on SM and its library and related FTP sites and References, Rhodium is a joke. A narrow, 95% drug focused, tunnel vsioned joke. I do rather wish that The Hive would come back, just so the SWIMmers would flock back there instead of here.

@Nicodem, I do not want to bandy words with you, but I think your characterization of two kinds of rec-drug chemists is simplistic. Basically you say there are the greedy American sort and the altruistic psychedelic self-experimenters everywhere else. That is not true. The black market in drugs is global. And it is far from being entirely a matter of US criminal enterprise and US consumption. While the opiate and cocaine markets are largely big business, the amphetamine and related stimulant business if generally small timers all over the place. Relatively recently major speed labs were busted in places like Guam and Fiji. The Fijian ones I believe were not US related at all but probably Asian or Australian.

The modern opiate trade has its roots in the opium trade dominated by the English and Scottish and abetted by the East India Company, which is to say the British crown, as a matter of statecraft. The counter to the tea trade and the subversion of China. This ultimately led to the fouding of Hong Kong and two wars (the Opium Wars). We are only talking about 160 years ago. In the 20th centory the Japanese financed colonial war in Manchuria with heroin profits while the opium monopoly in Laos was a French government affair till 1954. At the present time the dominant region in the heroin business is South Asia and NATO is in Afghanistan trying to get the jihadis out of the white powder business.

The cocaine business was started by a cartel not from Columbia but from Holland made up of the largest European and American pharm companies. Once cocaine was put out of fashion the South American nations with the resource looked for a way to regain their economic clout and eventually, the two Columbian cartels sprang up, with the help of an American fugitive named Bobby Vesco and his accountant Norm Augustine, at the time in Costa Rica. AFAIK Vesco is now in Cuba. The Cuban DGI has long been involved in narcotics as a means of generating black money.

Specifically relating to small clandestine manufacture, this is hardly uniquely American. Designer drugs, stimulants, opioids, all globalized.

16MillionEyes - 13-9-2007 at 16:33

Quote:
Your starting of this thread was obsolete in the first place. If you would have looked around or searched the forum you would have found that the Rhodium archives are constantly refereed here as a valuable source of chemical information and that similar discussions about the ethics of psychoactives and energetic materials synthesis abound already.

Well, you're probably right but I didn't know. I'm fairly knew to chemistry and its web sources so "Rhodium" sounds to me as foreign as ancient Mesopotamian might sound to you. From what I gather and from what you've said I know see what you mean but understand that given the case and circumstances this is something that I'm not very familiar with and therefore finding a site like this isn't something expected.
So please forgive me if I offended you, next time I am given birth I'll make sure I am born learned.

Organikum - 13-9-2007 at 23:27

It might be interesting to mention that in the EU authorities are discussing to block access to all webpages which contain information about making explosives. Not drugs.

Moral is a double edged sword.

Sauron - 14-9-2007 at 03:36

Europeans should censure politicians more and censor websites less.

Organikum - 14-9-2007 at 05:41

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
Europeans should censure politicians more and censor websites less.

You are right. But I regard you as an politician.

Sauron - 14-9-2007 at 05:54

As iof I care how you regard me...

If you bothered to read my second post in this thread you would see that it was I and not you who was saying that censorship does not work, that the Internet is hardly the only place where such information (about whatever chemistry you choose) is available to the public, and so unless those EU authorities want to return to wearing brown shirts and burning books, the entire thing is absurd.

Furthermore, proxy anonymizers make Internet censorship totally ineffective (not that it was effective in any real sense anyway).

This thread has nothing to do with morality. The originator of this thread had some point to make (or thought he did) abour sites he regards as smarmy, and someone else (not me) commented that many people including fellow chemists regard THIS site as just as suspect as the ones already mentioned abovethread. (mainly designer-drugs.com)

I objected to that and defended Sciencemadness for its balance of permissiveness toward technically competent members while at the same time endeavoring to exclude "drug cooks" and that is the moderators and the forum proprietor rather than me, doing that.

So if you had actually read the thread, you would have seen me defending the right of members (need I mention yu are an excellent example?) who can talk abouit any chemistry topic they choose.

woelen - 14-9-2007 at 06:38

Quote:
I objected to that and defended Sciencemadness for its balance of permissiveness toward technically competent members [...]
You do not need to defend sciencemadness over here. Everyone over here agrees with you on that subject, including me. What I mentioned is not what I think, but what many people, including chemists working at official labs, think. Many of them (fortunately not all) think that sciencemadness is as suspect and undesirable as drugs-cook sites. So, if you want to defend sciencemadness, try to defend it outside of this forum.

[Edited on 14-9-07 by woelen]

Sauron - 14-9-2007 at 07:20

Yes, I know, I was just responding to Orgie's usual ad-hominem tirade against me (in the offing.)

quicksilver - 14-9-2007 at 07:34

Quote:
Originally posted by woelen
Many of them (fortunately not all) think that sciencemadness is as suspect and undesirable as drugs-cook sites.


Could you elaborate on that? Do those people believe that the attraction to a science is limited to those with "mature" motives of learning in a"pure" academic state?
Are not most people interested [as children] in chemistry for instance, for things like colour changing materials and then pyro-related youthful activities?

The "drug-cook" issue aside (as I also think it's grotesque for many reasons) for moment; don't most people get involved in science as children and have childish entertainments? And isn't that thinking (itself) a value judgment on pyrotechnic aspects of chemistry? I think it is. But then I can see the abuse in most any aspect of learning, just as any material object may also be abused. I believe what we are dealing with here is aspects of abuse; not simple discussion or learning. I certainly admit that I have a reaction to questions that involve pharmacology as I tend to think it's going to be abused. But perhaps that's my mis perception (& perhaps I need to re-think my gut reaction).

syntelman - 14-9-2007 at 11:02

This thread is by it's nature naive, simplistic and full of bullshit (excuse my language). I care not to elaborate because few of the members have clearly expressed their un-scientific view on different matters. But I must say that I am saddened to see such narrow minded thinking on a forum I had high thoughts of.

woelen - 14-9-2007 at 11:06

Yes, I can elaborate on this. But I think Sauron already worded it quite well. People think that if you have lots of chemicals at home, lots of glassware, and/or lots of (electronic) devices, that you have those things for MAKING something. Why would you otherwise have that stuff at home? Others have stuff at home, for making clothes, for making furniture, etc. etc. So, we as mad scientists have stuff at home for making things, the general public does not understand. What things can be made from chemicals and all kinds of weird electronic devices? Bombs, drugs, poisons, weapons. That scares people.

The more educated people, working in a real lab (university, research department of company) have other reasons to think sites like sciencemadness are undesirable. They think that experimenting does belong in a real lab, with all precautions on safety, disposal and procedures. They simply cannot imagine that people are playing with dangerous chemicals and devices at home, without all the protective things of a real lab. I had a fairly hefty discussion on a dutch forum of professional chemists (not chemixtry, that is the dutch/belgium equivalent of sciencemadness, somewhat more geared to pyro). Some of those chemists really went mad at me, that I have so many chemicals at home, they simply think that playing with these at home is irresponsible and undesirable behavior. Of course, they do not object to the vinegar/soda experiments, but strong oxidizers, reductors and organics should not be in a home, a garage or a shed. This all has to do with regulations.

[Edited on 14-9-07 by woelen]

syntelman - 14-9-2007 at 11:38

Sauron clearly elaborated an extremely narrow minded view on "business" not any different from the view politicians made on "bomb recipes" earlier this week when promoting world wide internet censorship. His views are the exact same, just expressed from the other side.

Not all "drug cooks" are greedy bastards. And there is a huge difference between drug USE and ABUSE. Actually I find it quite ironic as the exact same arguments that are made on drugs can be made on amateur chemistry and "pyrotechnics". Again it just shows how un-scientific scientifically inclined people can think. It's not just restricted to internet bulletin boards but the whole world of academia. And it sucks.

Polverone - 14-9-2007 at 13:14

This looks like it's about to turn into a flame war or a political discussion of the kind that has been banned here because it will inevitably trigger a flame war. Be aware that if things grow uncivil the thread will be swiftly closed.

gregxy - 14-9-2007 at 13:20

Quote:
Originally posted by __________
Well, after looking through some of the replies here, my intention of this thread wasn't to cry out a sign of awareness of an inherent 'evil' that must be stopped.
I was simply pointing out two things: first finding sites like this seems a relatively easy task even if you're not looking for them and second that I found somewhat surprising just how well informed these "cooks" are on their chemistry. Other than that I asked for opinions on just what drives regular amateur chemists to start up on drug synthesizing and nothing else.
I hope this sort of clarifies the purpose of this thread.



He probably made the site for the same reason that so many
people create websites, the thrill of publishing something and having people read it. Or maybe he is a freedom of
speech advocate. Anyway getting the information is not
the "rate limiting step" in cooking drugs for someone that
really wants to do it. Only the simplest synthesys
proceedure are going to be useful to the non professional
chemist. Look at all the "chemists" on here that can't make
picric acid from asprin.



[Edited on 14-9-2007 by gregxy]

Sauron - 14-9-2007 at 19:06

For the benefit of syntelman and anyone else who wishes to misstate my views for their own purposes:

I NEVER advocated Internet censorship of drug sites, explosives sites, or any other kinds of sites, on or off this forum. I clearly stated that IMO Internet censorship does not work and solves nothing.

I APPLAUD the forebearance and tolerance of the proprietor of this forum and the moderators toward anyone with a modicum of chemical knowledge and communication skills, and I also applaud their enthusiasm at excluding those who possess neither, but who come here just fishing for recipes.

For this I am reviled? And the revilers call me narrow minded! HAH!

@Polverone, keep up the good work.

quicksilver - 15-9-2007 at 07:23

Quote:
Originally posted by syntelman
Not all "drug cooks" are greedy bastards. And there is a huge difference between drug USE and ABUSE. Actually I find it quite ironic as the exact same arguments that are made on drugs can be made on amateur chemistry and "pyrotechnics".


Any generalization of human actions need be subject to the outcome and expectations of those actions. While great amounts of profit may be made from amphetamines, etc, etc - there is little money to be made from a rocket in one's backyard or for that matter a whole carton of rockets. Realistically, while I imagine there are drug cooks that make some drugs for their own use there is ample evidence that there are many who make a great deal of money from making drugs.

While there is certainly a difference between drug USE & ABUSE, this becomes a subjective interpretation and has little bearing on the impact drug abuse has on the lives of those who are entirely innocent of any involvement in drug use/abuse.

I certainly know that the same could be said for bombing as an example of the abuse of energetic chemistry however that line is much less subjective. The forum clearly delineates what is acceptable in-so-far as discussion of energetic materials. The question here therefore is where is that same line to drawn for pharmacological discussions?

## Drawing a line as to what's appropriate in a private discussion board is NOT censorship. The thing is private; they have a right to say what they want posted; no?

[Edited on 15-9-2007 by quicksilver]

syntelman - 15-9-2007 at 08:38

I am sorry if my intentions were unclear but they were never meant to discuss what's should be acceptable on this specific bulletin board. I was merely making a very personal statement on the in my opinion very narrow minded comments made on drug chemistry. If the forum administrators choose to ban drug discussions I accept their choice to one hundred percent and respect them for it.

However as I see a quite a lot of money is made on "energetic materials" and it's research. The main difference between drug and bomb making is not it's morality but that the latter is sanctioned by the state as "tools of democracy". As for the sake of this forum I think both topics should be allowed to be discussed as long as the intentions are good and the level is of an appropriate level.

And of course it is much more easy for the amateur chemist to make a profit from drugs than bombs. But in my very subjectice opinion the largest issue that makes drug abuse such a big problem lies with the lack of harm reduction policies and how society deals with and criminalizes drug abusers. But that is a whole different discussion and I think I made my view on the matter clear so I leave this discussion here.

Sauron - 15-9-2007 at 10:19

1. AMATEURS don't make PROFITS. Professionals so. If you make a profit from your hobby it is no longer a hobby but a business. This forum is about HOBBY CHEMISTRY.

2. Energetics chemistry does not equal BOMB MAKING. Read the FAQ.

3. NO ONE in this thread proposed banning ANY topic of discussion. But it has been the policy of the proprietor and moderators to discourage "cook threads" that are not chemical discussions but clueless wannabes seeking recipes.

Clearly, you have not read the thread carefully or understood it if you have.



[Edited on 16-9-2007 by Sauron]

syntelman - 15-9-2007 at 13:19

1. Semantics. If you want to discuss with real arguments please feel free. And I who thought this forum was about CHEMISTRY NOT GRAMMAR...

2. "Energetics" and energetics doesn't necessarily mean the same.

3. As clearly stated I was only expressing my view on some of the comments made on the "pharmacologically interested" members of our community and at large.

:P
This discussion is clearly getting very booooring...
Back to sleep. :D

Sauron - 15-9-2007 at 19:47

Nothing to do with semantics.

You attributted positions to me that were simply false and had nothing to do with my posts. In short you are a liar. In fact the positions you attributed to me, are in most cases antithetical and opposite to the positions I took in posts in this thread.

Semantics? Hardly.

And when I take exception to your dissembling, you call it boring.

Menadacity pure and simple.

You say, "Talk about chemistry."

But you yourself have NEVER ONCE posted anything about chemistry on this forum.

Most of your 7 posts are in this thread.

The others in thread about fume hood construction and talking about local regulations.

Let's see what your chemistry is like.

[Edited on 16-9-2007 by Sauron]

MagicJigPipe - 13-12-2007 at 11:54

I can say, from my unfortunate experience with drugs (one type of drug rather, not meth... god I hate that drug and most of the people who use it) in the past that most "drug cooks" don't know the difference between chemistry and baking a cake. In fact, all too often, they think they're basically the same thing. It's mainly just "a dash of this and a pinch of that and bake it 'til it turns golden brown" mentallity.

As far as LSD is concerned. IMO if LSD is illegal then alcohol needs to be as well. When is the last time you heard of an LSD overdose or someone getting ripped on LSD and beating their spouse while running over an old lady? Even though I would never touch the stuff (or anything else for that matter).

However, not everyone who "cooks" drugs is motivated by greed for money. I have a few former friends that were good, smart people. They were just corrupted by a curable addiction. At least one of them made his own drugs purely to support his own addiction. Although I do think this is a bad thing and I do not support that type of behavior, at least he wasn't distributing it.

People who manufacture drugs like (especially) methamphetamine, cocaine, fentanyl and heroin to sell are, the worst of the worst IMO. However, I don't believe anyone is inherently evil and even those people can change their lives. Maybe I'm a bit naive because I have hope for the humanity and think that people can change and do right. But that's just the way I am.

Also, people will be scared of anything they don't know much about. It's not just with chemistry, as Sauron mentioned, and it's not just with science. It's everything. Take the plague *cough* I mean religion for example. Or people who believe in UFOs. It's just so unfortunate that it is somewhat a natural human response to the unknown. That's why religion was created and now look where we are.

Done ranting and rambling...

[Edited on 13-12-2007 by MagicJigPipe]

woelen - 13-12-2007 at 12:13

Quote:
Take the plague *cough* I mean religion for example.

The biggest plague in the world is those people who call other viewpoints which are not their own a plague.

At best, such behavior is simply immature and may change when people get wiser in due time.

[Edited on 13-12-07 by woelen]

MagicJigPipe - 13-12-2007 at 12:56

Oh c'mon. It was in jest. It's no secret that organized religion causes many problems in this world. And I don't think someone expressing an opinion is a problem at all. And as long as I'm not trying to convert others to my viewpoint through violence and coersion how is it a plague? Many religious people do that and that's why I called it such.

But let's not get started on that.

woelen - 13-12-2007 at 13:02

Quote:
And as long as I'm not trying to convert others to my viewpoint through violence and coersion how is it a plague?

Also words can do harm. Polarizing and preaching hatred have done more harm than any religion in the world.
Quote:
But let's not get started on that.

OK, then let's go back to the topic of undesirable chemistry web pages...

[Edited on 13-12-07 by woelen]

Fleaker - 13-12-2007 at 18:02

Is it just me, or is there an overwhelmingly large number of drug-related posts in organic chemistry? I feel that this takes away from the board and I am sure that I am not the only one who thinks this. So before us here at sciencemadness.org become an undesirable type of chemistry web page, I propose more stringent guidelines for any drug-related posts. It just seems I can only see so many damn references to methamphetamine precursors without getting angry, very angry.

Magpie - 13-12-2007 at 18:43

Fleaker, I agree with you in spirit but am wary of trying to set rules for such discussions. You can hardly mess around in chemistry without making or using chemicals that can be considered a precursor, or a precursor to a precursor, for some drug. There are just so many of them (drugs and precursors).

Here's a quote from another member (contrived) in another current thread that says it all:
Quote:

"Currently we are doing research on colorimetric methods in quantifying components of biodiesel. However the DEA Precursor lists now include most of the contents of a 1950 Gilbert Chemistry Set so we thought we’d better get registration."


I have, I imagine, made many precursors, just for the fun of it, likely not even realizing I was doing such. I would like to make some mercuric chloride and some benzaldehyde. Is it bad to talk about this on the forum?

I like the idea of leaving it up to the mods to censor such discussions.

Sauron - 14-12-2007 at 06:25

Fleaker is quite correct. Anyone want to serious dispute that most, if not all, posts relating to phenylacetic acid, phenyl-2-propanone (by any name), ephedrine, and sadly, phenylalanine (in particular its decarboxylation) are methamphetamine related posts, even when not outright "cook" thread material.

It is true that these compounds do have other uses, but it strains credulity to hypothesize that those other uses are behind this overwheening focus.

I railed about it to the point where I had to be told to shut the fuck up or be banned.

Well, I no longer rant about it, but I don't think agreeing with a fellow member who is like minded, constitutes a rant.

Polverone - 14-12-2007 at 10:00

We don't tolerate obvious requests for recipes or help-me-cook threads. I'm loathe to get any more strict than that. I think it leads to a witch-hunt mentality, where one scours the entire clandestine drug literature looking for connections to members' threads. I prefer a presumption-of-innocence approach, at least until a thread is completely transparent in its intentions.

I'm sure there are also people who are repelled from this site because of the energetic materials section. If I sanitized the forum to eliminate discussion involving potential safety, health, or regulatory violations, there wouldn't be much discussion here anymore. I suggest participating in the threads you like, reporting threads that you think violate forum rules, and ignoring threads that are within forum rules but that you find personally distasteful or suspicious.

[Edited on 12-14-2007 by Polverone]

syntelman - 14-12-2007 at 10:39

I propose that we close the energetic materials subforum and ban any further discussion on the subject.
To further conform I think it's also reasonable to deny any membership applications from people from muslim etnicities.

OR, we could focus on _qualitative_ discussions on chemistry disregarding what direction it points in and fuck the narrow mindness...

JohnWW - 14-12-2007 at 15:16

Are you a CIA agent, then, Syntelman? Only someone like that, who hates free speech, would propose that sort of censorship.

syntelman - 14-12-2007 at 15:37

No, I am a man of the sarcastic generation and you are a (wo)man who didn't read my entire post. :)
Personally I think this, as Polverone puts it, witchhunt is extremely uninteresting in the long run. As long as a thread meets a certain standard I think it is completely irrelevant wheter it's subject is the synthesis of drugs or explosive materials. We are all free to choose what threads to read and participate in.

Ignorance (which sadly is expressed much to often here nowadays) and censorship sucks.


[Edited on 15-12-2007 by syntelman]

[Edited on 15-12-2007 by syntelman]

Fleaker - 14-12-2007 at 15:53

I think syntelman's saying what I was going to say next albeit with some sarcasm. Drug chemistry is every bit as illegal as energetic materials chemistry here in the USA so we might as well be fair. Still, I have friends that have come to this site and were very turned off by "New Route to P2P", less so by some nicely written article in Energetics by Axt. They have complained that 1 out of 5 posts in organic chemistry had overt drug applications (I don't know about that, but there are quite a few threads and definitely it's an objective evaluation).

"OR, we could focus on _qualitative_ discussions on chemistry disregarding what direction it points in and fuck the narrow mindness."
On the contrary, it's not narrow mindedness at all, quite the opposite. Disregarding what direction something points in? THAT is being narrow minded. So you're suggesting that I disregard someone ruining my hobby and making it more difficult for me to pursue? Frankly, I wouldn't normally give a damn what other people do so long as they do it to themselves; it's when it interferes with how I live my life that I take offense.


If the discourse is kept scientific (like proper grammar, mechanisms or reactions proposed/offered), I think discussing various reactions is fine even if they have obvious illicit applications. Most anything can be misused, it's the operator who's at ultimate fault. It's my opinion any swimming or requests for "how do I get the good stuff out of ____ (insert pill) for cheap?" or worse yet "in a dream, I uprooted a whole forest of sassafras trees..." is entirely inappropriate, adds nothing to the board, and is probably being put to illicit purposes.


I like our mods here, I like our system here, I like the freedom members have here. I just think the standard should be set higher for discussion of obvious precursors. I've got no problem reading about phenyl acetic acid--it's got legitimate uses in the fragrance industry. I wasn't asking for a totalitarian state, just less of these damn obvious low-caliber threads. I know I'm not the only one here who hates it.


I agree that almost anything is some sort of precursor. What I would've liked to see is more science and why that particular *direct* precursor is being made. Benzaldehyde has many more uses than say PPA so I wouldn't question why, but if, in the same thread you ask how to make nitroethane, yes, I'm going wonder what the hell you need both of those reagents for, and why you're not telling.


I regret saying anything about this problem as it is connected with many other things. It's ultimately unenforceable without sacrificing what we have here. Maybe I should side with Voltaire even though I know information gleaned from here is being misused and abused.

MagicJigPipe - 14-12-2007 at 16:23

I agree with you somewhat Fleaker. My opinion differs in that if someone does a post on a direct precursor (even if it's the chemistry of ephedrine) then so be it. As long as it's not completely obvious that that person is trying to make a drug or if the post talks specifically on how to make that drug from said precursor. Direct drug precursors can be just as interesting as any other substance. So, why exclude them from discussion just so we don't "look" like drug cooks.

Maybe we could make a requirement that the post needs to look intelligent or be focused on the OTHER interesting things about the "precursor" other than drug manufacture.

I mean just think about, if we were all REALLY concerned with "looking" like drug cooks then we probably wouldn't be doing home chemistry at all.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to care what people think. We shouldn't have to. It sucks that we have to because of (mostly) methamphetamine. What a stupid, stupid drug.

syntelman - 14-12-2007 at 16:43

Fleaker: How can accepting a discussion no matter it's topic being narrow minded?
And exactly how does internet discussions on drug synthesis ruin your life?
First of all, clandestine drug manufacture isn't a common problem outside the United States (with the exception of industrial preparations in for example the Netherlands and Baltic countries). Secondly, explosive materials is clearly a much more high profile subject today and therefore much more prone to further any restrictions on amateur chemistry. Personally I doubt that a discussion board such as Science Madness have any influence on governmens. Sure, it may give them some ideas but they already have all the knowledge and ammunition they need to do as they please.

And the examples you mention clearly doesn't meet my standards nor do I think they should they be allowed, but the requirements should be applied on all subjects and not only threads related to drugs. If anyone wants to synthesize amphetamine from benzaldehyde and write a intelligent and reasonable thread on it, let it be. If you're not interested in that particular synthesis, just don't read it. I'm neither interested in amphetamine or explosives and it's not very hard to avoid those discussions. Additionally one should not forget that drug chemistry is far from being restrained to making a buck out of selling DIY methamphetamine, in the same way as energetic materials isn't always about being the next Bin Laden.

Magpie - 14-12-2007 at 16:56

From Fleaker:
Quote:

So you're suggesting that I disregard someone ruining my hobby and making it more difficult for me to pursue? Frankly, I wouldn't normally give a damn what other people do so long as they do it to themselves; it's when it interferes with how I live my life that I take offense.


I couldn't agree more.

Just because a person wants to know how to make a suspicious chemical is not a reason to forbid that discussion. If a poster is blatantly refering to illegal use, then yes, by all means: Go directly to "detritus." This covers war gases and explosives as well as drugs. This is the policy of this board as far as I understand it.

I think we all want a board where theoretical and experimental chemistry can be discussed in depth. You can't have that with a constant threat of a "witch hunt."

Sauron - 14-12-2007 at 19:03

Syntelman is a ten-post member who has never posted a single time about chemistry but has strong opinions about this topic. I find that very odd.

If you care so much about chemistry, syntelman, who not try DOING some? and posting about it?

syntelman - 15-12-2007 at 01:33

It's nothing odd about liking a forum and being an active reader, and wanting to avoid it going in a direction that I personally feel would be sad.
Not seeing what is has to do with this discussion, but I "do" chemistry on a daily basis at one of the larger universities in my country, but there is no need for me to post about it on bulletin boards. I enjoy the reading, what I don't enjoy is people like who constantly whine like a grumpy old men whenever possible (in your case, at every mentioning of anything even remotely related to drugs) because it makes my reading boring. You need a big hug and some real life friends man. :)

I am very glad to see that Polverone seems to keep an open and free thinking mind, and hopefully the witchhunt will not lead to any opinion banning.

Fleaker - 15-12-2007 at 09:17

Quote:
Originally posted by syntelman
Fleaker: How can accepting a discussion no matter it's topic being narrow minded?
And exactly how does internet discussions on drug synthesis ruin your life?
First of all, clandestine drug manufacture isn't a common problem outside the United States (with the exception of industrial preparations in for example the Netherlands and Baltic countries). Secondly, explosive materials is clearly a much more high profile subject today and therefore much more prone to further any restrictions on amateur chemistry. Personally I doubt that a discussion board such as Science Madness have any influence on governmens. Sure, it may give them some ideas but they already have all the knowledge and ammunition they need to do as they please.

And the examples you mention clearly doesn't meet my standards nor do I think they should they be allowed, but the requirements should be applied on all subjects and not only threads related to drugs. If anyone wants to synthesize amphetamine from benzaldehyde and write a intelligent and reasonable thread on it, let it be. If you're not interested in that particular synthesis, just don't read it. I'm neither interested in amphetamine or explosives and it's not very hard to avoid those discussions. Additionally one should not forget that drug chemistry is far from being restrained to making a buck out of selling DIY methamphetamine, in the same way as energetic materials isn't always about being the next Bin Laden.


"a intelligent and reasonable thread..." Exactly, that's all I want. It would be hypocritical to be biased against drugs but not explosives, which are an international problem. To be honest, I wouldn't normally care if we discuss that or any other drug precursor or explosive so along as there's a certain high criterion of scientific discourse to it, and I think it should be of a higher level than other common things. At least talking like a scientist when you discuss some of those things should be attempted. There comes a point when free speech/exchange of ideas needs to be balanced against clear and evident evil intent. The problem is that intent is rarely transparent.

As far as the narrow-mindedness goes, it's a matter of opinion and perspective. We obviously agree to disagree on this. I'll still offer some of my rationale. Let's do a hypothetical as example (granted this is hyperbole): say a certain member posts an plans or an attempted synthesis of a nerve agent, a lot of it. Would you want to answer his questions and tell him how it's done, even though you (I hope at least) know that a nerve agent is really only for one purpose. Would you not have some doubt as to his intentions, or would you not care so long as his chemistry is sound? I think it is narrow-minded to assume people are only just curious about how to make this or that. I am not saying everyone who posts of illegal things are bad people (I'd bet it's the opposite and that most are just curious), but there are always a few. I just can't adopt a "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Do No Evil" philosophy towards something I know is wrong for society and in turn, for my own interests.
I feel that it's a few people that are out to profiteer (in the case of drugs) or a few that aren't properly trained/knowledgeable enough (in the case of explosives and drugs) which ruin the hobby for the rest of us with legitimate interests. Those few make our legitimate interests less and less legitimate to the public, the government, and the scientific community. This is true of firearms users/owners worldwide. When you ask how it ruins my life and makes it harder for us all, you forget that it is always a minority that ruin it for the majority. Ponder that well.

vulture - 15-12-2007 at 11:53

Let's not allow this to get personal, because that would only take us further in degrading this board.

I pretty much use personal discretion and that's a big euphemism for saying that I close any thread that I don't frigging like or chastise any poster which pisses me off. Undoubtedly, some will say I go too far and some will say I don't go far enough. As long as that is the case, I think I'm doing well.

But I do make mistakes and members reporting threads make my work here alot easier.

syntelman - 15-12-2007 at 13:30

Fleaker: Yes...
Nothing is black and white, and everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion.
I do not deny that I have a somewhat liberal view on drugs and their use (read use, not abuse) although I personally have no interest in taking them but I find their preparation and pharmacology interesting.

When you exemplify with the hypothetical preparation of a nerve agent, you somewhat blindly assume that anyone that prepares or uses/abuses drugs harms innocent bystanders which I find is not the case. I do not argue that drugs can be very detrimental and dangerous, but I personally think that responsible drug use is not the devil and may not be any worse than the occasional visit to the local pub. And from a strictly scientifical viewpoint, drugs clearly are not as dangerous as the media and DEA portrait and severe abuse and it's consequences clearly have underlying societal issues.

None the less, if anyone asked about the preparation of a potent drug for use as a toxicological/poisonous agent I would definately argue that it would be very unwise to give advice/help, but I think that there is a large difference between making a personal choice to take a drug and subjecting civilians to a nerve agent (or a drug) and it is impossible to make any comparision between those cases in general.

I also think that it is quite naive to think that internet forums make any large difference in decisions made on government levels. Regulations regarding amateur chemistry have existed long before bulletin boards such as Science Madness (or even The Hive) existed. And those responsible for any regulations are not the govermental scapegoats, but the government itself even if it's easy to blame those who the laws are "based" upon.

All that being said I think we (all) agree that any discussions should be on a scientifical level, I just hope we stay at that level of moderation.

Sauron - 15-12-2007 at 18:34

So, syntelman, you are a chemist, or a chemistry student, and you like this forum, but you feel not the slightest inclination to post here EXCEPT when you choose to kibbitz and tell us how to conduct ourselves on THIS issue, then you are suddeenly a fount of universal truth.

I say you are an outsider with no real standing to have an opinion that anyone here should give a damn about.

And that will remain my opinion unless and until you actively participate in the chemistry discussions of this forum and not merely its internal affairs which are none of your concern.

You are like a rubbernecker at an auto accident.

syntelman - 16-12-2007 at 02:10

You are fully entitled to your opionion and I realise that my thoughts in many eyes won't weigh as much as those from long time members. However I personally feel that my viewpoint is just as valid wether I have 10 or 1000 posts and I hope that it will make people think no matter if they agree with me or not. So your opinion or arrogant posts won't refrain me from saying what's on my mind on any matter, chemistry related or not, now or in the future. :)

quicksilver - 19-12-2007 at 05:11

Vulture: I wouldn't want your job here. It's obvious that you can see both sides of an issue and that makes choices very difficult, especially as everyone is entitled to their opinion and you certainly have some yourself. The toughest thing is to makes choices for the greater good when it means going against that which one finds acceptable in other context.

Frankly, I have always wondered what you personally thought of the level of moderation in a board like E&W...? It's been rolling along now for a lot of years. To the best of my knowledge it has had more activity and longevity than the Hive did (in it's prime) and with polar extremes in moderation.

vulture - 19-12-2007 at 14:41

Well the problem with moderating is that you always make a choice. If you don't look at a thread and that thread happens to be going wrong, you're making the choice of leaving it open, just by not looking at it. It's not a voluntary choice, but it is a choice nevertheless. This is also why I sometimes close threads which don't seem so bad at all, it's because I know where it's going and I know it's going to be a mess to contain the fallout. Closing such a thread is perhaps a bad choice, but leaving it open would be the worst choice, if you know what I mean.

About E&W, the quality of moderation was very good when I was still active there (long time ago now). The problem is that some people mixed their rather extreme political views with their moderation duties. Which is essentially why I got banned there even after they had offered me a moderator position first.. But there were alot of moderators which I got along with very well.

Actually, it's funny you say that, because I've been and am regularly accused of NBK style moderation. :D

[Edited on 19-12-2007 by vulture]

quicksilver - 20-12-2007 at 05:51

I've gone there (E&W) frequently. He (NBK) passed away from a heart attack brought on by a hx of heart disease at age 37. I can't really say that I felt it was appropriate to shower everyone with one's political views if you are in a moderator position; extreme on not. Quite frankly I don't see that happening here. I would almost say that this has been an example of a differing style of moderation (& not that I haven't had some of my comments/threads closed also) but I think this works well for the style of posts here.


BTW - I DID want to edit this as I read with interest the notes that were left upon his passing (NBK) and one by Megalomania was quite reveling. He made mention that NBK also may have been a user of some "medicines not prescribed by a doctor" & that had an impact on his heart disease. The "medicine" that makes an impact on heart disease & brings a life quite short is meth or amphetamine related drugs obviously. This is a very strange world.

[Edited on 20-12-2007 by quicksilver]

MagicJigPipe - 21-12-2007 at 01:25

Is there any evidence that he was an amphetamine user? Cocaine is MUCH worse for your heart than pretty much anything else. Then again there's plenty of non-psychoactive drugs that cause heart problems as well.

The point I'm trying to make is there's hundreds of ways to get heart disease and more than a couple of drugs that will cause it.

I didn't even know the guy existed until he died. However, I'm bringing this up because I know how rumors can start and it would be a terrible thing to be remembered as a "meth head" and even worse if it wasn't true.

quicksilver - 21-12-2007 at 05:25

No - no evidence would exist. There was a family history of heart disease NO ONE said a drug caused it. Exacerbated it - maybe. (let's forget about this fellow for a moment and let him rest in peace. In the context of the medical implications of the use of same; a post that said the guy did "medicines not prescribed by a doctor": ...simply that. [It COULD mean he drank some "energy drink" by the quart but that's doubtful as it would be mentioned specifically.] I frankly agree with you; I don't want to start ANY rumor what-so-ever. I don't even want to talk about the guy.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Why would abuse of one strong CNS stimulant be "worse" than than another? If we are not talking about caffeine here but amphetamines or cocaine - why would one be worse than another? Why is cocaine harmful & amphetamines less so?



[Edited on 21-12-2007 by quicksilver]

MagicJigPipe - 22-12-2007 at 23:47

Cocaine is know to be one of the worst drugs for the cardiovascular system. It acts much like lidocaine (they use it sometimes during cardiac arrythmia to "jumpstart" or induce a normal rythym in the heart) and it is also a vasoconstrictor. That's one of the many reasons cocaine is never (in a medical setting) administered internally and (meth)amphetamine is. I was told by a friend that works in a hospital that they consider any amount of cocaine an overdose. Whether or not they say that about other drugs I'm not sure.

Not super reliable but...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/355256.stm

http://www.steadyhealth.com/Cocaine_Heart_Attack_And_Stroke_...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990601081626.ht...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&re...

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/coke/a/blnida030430.htm

(Meth)amphetamine... Not so much. However, anything that causes one to be "on edge" can increase the chance of heart attack, cocaine has many more factors contributing to it's risk than other stimulants.

[Edited on 23-12-2007 by MagicJigPipe]

quicksilver - 23-12-2007 at 06:23

I had thought that one CNS stimulant was as destructive as another (or more or less so depending on the route of administration). Interesting stuff.

LSD25 - 20-2-2008 at 03:53

Oh for fucks sake,

If you want to read about chemistry, do so...

If you want to try it, bloody do so..

If you just want to whinge about what the owners of this site feel is acceptable....

Nah, won't say it - cos I ain't in the position to say it...

The thing is that the people who own this site and pay the bloody bills determine what they feel is acceptable - they perform the balancing act between social responsibility and censorship based upon their own idea of where the line should be drawn.

Personally I feel there is no difference between breweries and cigarette companies and the average drug-cook... They all knowingly and intentionally produce something, for which they know there is a market, despite knowing that their product has the potential to seriously fuck up the life of others, causes harm and is addictive. However each person has their own moral viewpoint which is truly fucking irrelevant to this forum.

The fact remains that I find some of the content on this forum utterly reprehensible, I dislike the association of this forum and discussions upon a variety of potential bombmaking topics - which quite possibly may have already been utilised in the development of IED's and other devices by terrorists/fanatics in Iraq, etc.

The thing is, I don't use this forum as a soapbox to decry the association between amateur science and Hizbollah, Hamas, Al Quaeda, etc. I most assuredly could, they are constantly developing improved IED's, shaped-charges, rockets and so on, and all of this requires some chemistry knowledge, but it is irrelevant to the majority of the reasons why I value this site. I could also point out, that the advent of serious domestic terrorism has probably contributed as much, if not more, to the public perception of amateur chemistry as drug-cooks - particularly post-Oklahoma City, 11 September & the London bombings.

I mean, to be fair, I honestly and sincerely believe that in the spirit of cooperation and fairness, that every thread on the improvisation of explosive devices and especially shaped-charge devices, should be shut down automatically once they descend into mere cookery type discussion. It ain't likely to happen because of double-standards, but this is what I think.

I have to ask however, should I do as you have done and pollute every thread dealing with this type of discussion with strident calls for the closing of the thread and the immediate expulsion of the contributor's thereto? No, I should do what I do do, read and contribute to the threads that interest me and ignore those that I disagree with. No it ain't right, but I haven't earned the right to force my opinion down everybody elses throat.

quicksilver - 20-2-2008 at 08:30

Quote:
Originally posted by LSD25
I have to ask however, should I do as you have done and pollute every thread dealing with this type of discussion with strident calls for the closing of the thread and the immediate expulsion of the contributor's thereto? No, I should do what I do do, read and contribute to the threads that interest me and ignore those that I disagree with. No it ain't right, but I haven't earned the right to force my opinion down everybody elses throat.


Who exactly has done that? Not one person that I have read has done anything of that nature.

[Edited on 20-2-2008 by quicksilver]

LSD25 - 20-2-2008 at 13:34

You haven't? Really? Perhaps I was too subtle?

I wasn't referring to you, not at all. There is a core of people on this site who seem to spend a great deal of their time and a whole lot of other peoples bandwidth on whingeing about what the people running this site see fit to allow. I suspect they know damn well who they are, the same as I know damn well who they are. It is just that I see the incredible hypocrisy of this approach, even illegal drugs are not normally designed specifically to kill, maim and dismember the innocent.

Given the fact that this core appears to have used this topic to reiterate their skewed version of morality, it is necessary that the alternative viewpoint be stated unequivocally and in response to the topic as a whole. Given that I have experienced both, and that I personally believe that the majority of harm done by illegal drugs is caused by the fact that they are illegal, overpriced and run by criminals - or that the greatest of the harm could be alleviated by treating the consequences of drug use, not by causing the same by continued prohibition, it is a matter of some indifference to me if I am called an apologist for drug-cooks.

On the other hand, I have some training in the use and application of explosives via a parabolic curve and see no way in which the continued discussion of ways to improvise the same could be justified where it descends into cookery, I know that IED's are designed to kill, destroy and seriously alter the lives of those coming into contact with them. I also know for a fact that the use of these weapons (and that is all they can be described as) by terrrorists/fanatics (of any stripe) is increasing and the level of expertise is improving. I find it very difficult to assauge my personal horror at the thought that this and other sites see no problem in marginalising criminality whilst apparently pandering to vicious, murdering terrorist bomb-makers.

The difference in the evil is best illustrated by the fact that although both destroy lives and the lives of the families of those affected, those harmed by drugs are harmed by the by-products of their own choices, whereas those harmed by explosives are rarely harmed as a consequence of the choices made of their own volition. To equate the one with the other and say that the harm caused by ones own choices is more inherently evil than the intentional infliction of harm upon others as a result of choices made by another person, is to seriously mistate the equation.

The fact that the continued improvement in terrrorist/fanatic IED's appears to mirror the improvement in the knowledge available to amateur chemists (from sites such as this), particularly with regard to the use of shaped charges, improved explosives and various liners, truly scares me and will probably see the end of this form of information exchange far sooner than anything else. To ignore this whilst demonising those who wish to talk about drugs is absurd and hypocritical. The fact that topics discussing the above and dealing step-by-step with the improvement of shaped charges and liners for the same exist on this site will see this site become a favourite of these terrorists/fanatics and the rather nasty-in-their-own-right intelligence agencies tasked with monitoring the same.

My entire point was that the damage done to amateur science is not attributable solely to the 'greed' of drug-cooks, but also to the bloody minded misuse of energetics by fanatics bent upon killing as many innocent people as possible. This is my opinion, I am entitled to hold it and you are entitled to agree or disagree with it.

Sauron - 21-2-2008 at 10:25

Seems to me the one doing the wingeing and wasting of others' bandwidth is LSD25.

You might have a look at the recent and ongoing thread about phenylacetonitriles to see how the pro-drug faction whines and bellyaches when a very senior moderator (vulture) makes a call that THEY don't approve.

LSD25 - 21-2-2008 at 13:52

No, moderators on this site have the right to do as they please in order to draw the line on this site. I personally would prefer that there was a greater degree of uniformity in the decision making process, but shit, I read that this is being worked on.

No, my problem would be the fucking hypocrisy of people who really ain't in a position to make pointed statements against someone who has posted a total of 5 posts (in appropriate threads) dealing with this, especially given their own hundred plus posts, scattered throughout the entire site, decrying the evil of 'drug-cooks'?

What really irks is that semi-serious discussion, ie. that which contains some material of a serious nature is being consigned to detritus, etc. while pointless, repetitive drivel written by an apparent imbecile, seeking information on the making of the worlds No.1 drug-precursor continues to be answered by our resident anti-drug campaigner, and that this crud (there is no other way to explain it), which would the subject of derision at Totse.com, continues to be given a prominant placement in the organic chemistry discusssion...

I mean, if drug-chemistry is to be tolerated with bad-grace if only the discussion about it surpasses or even attains a minima of scientific rigour or even style, then I struggle to understand how the incessant reposting of tripe into the aforementioned thread is to be considered? I assume even our resident counter-counter-culture rebel from asia would be somewhat cognisant of the reasons why that particular chemical is difficult to acquire in Asia?

PS What, the remainder of the argument was perhaps beyond your capacity to understand and/or refute? Are we to see yet another example of utterly peurile counter-accusation and counter-charge which misses (or avoids) the fundemental central argument?

Fleaker - 21-2-2008 at 16:17

It doesn't matter much anymore LSD25--Nicodem is the new moderator for the Organic Chemistry section. Read what he has to say about the topic of censorship with respect to explosives and drugs; you will find he is of like mind as you are. I will trust his judgment.

I personally dislike blatant cookery threads or obvious bomb/IED related threads. I feel it detracts from the forum quality as a whole.For people seeking to post on such subjects, I feel that they should at least give the impression that they know what they are doing and have put adequate research into it. I also realize that I have the option of not reading threads that I believe to be drug or explosive related. Just my opinion on it.

woelen - 21-2-2008 at 23:59

You indeed have the option to not read that kind of threads, but their presence does harm to sciencemadness (and to the hobby of home chemistry / home science as a whole).

I would say, as long as the discussion is chemistry related AND has some scientific meaning and content, it must be left open to my opinion. Even if the compounds in question can be used to make drugs or explosives.
If a thread is just something like: how can I make explosive X or drug precursor Y, then please kill those threads ;)

LSD25 - 22-2-2008 at 01:14

Yeah,

Fleaker I was happy (although I personally am somewhat ambivalent to Nicodem) to see Nicodem made a mod... All other things put aside, Nicodem is fair and appears to be unbiased. This also extends to the majority of the mods/others on this site, they prefer to allow threads that are not overtly and blatantly cookery related to continue.

The thing is, I personally am quite happy to see and read Sauron's post, I am just beginning to get irritated by the continued 'drug-cooks' this and 'drug-cooks' that shit. This blatent one-sided approach misses and understates the harmful effect on home-chemistry posed by explosives, etc. Please note, I have nothing against well researched and written threads, or the contributor's thereto, dealing with this subject - it is just that the failure to point this out is hypocritical.

I do not even attempt to hide the fact that I am interested in, amongst other things, drug-related chemistry. It is perhaps also pertinent to state that I am mildly interested (coming from some experience with the same) in explosives and the various ways such can be utilised. Quite frankly, I see no reason for me to apologise for either any more than I intend to apologise for being interested in making chemistry related gadgets or modifying them.

I try very hard to be tolerant of others, it is just sometimes this is harder than I can bear.

Sauron - 22-2-2008 at 03:43

Stop being a drama queen.

Wingeing is bad enough without being repetitive and long-winded about it.

You accuse others of hypocrisy but, you are just as much as any trying to impose your personal worldview of Good vs Evil Amateur Chemistry on all others as anyone else here.

Put a sock in it. If you ever had a point you have known worn out the gramaphone.

YT2095 - 22-2-2008 at 05:05

Threads that degenerate into This type of nonsense are as equally if not More responsible for causing damage to good forums!

quicksilver - 22-2-2008 at 07:46

What do we have here?
Drug making (or interest in) = Leftist, Progressive ?
Explosive / energetic materials interest = Rightest, Conservative ?

I'm sorry but that's a bit silly.

solo - 22-2-2008 at 08:24

Quote:
Originally posted by __________
I know this subjected has been touched on and is of great importance to anyone doing chemistry at home. Perhaps most of us have never really seen the "roots" of all these drug chemists so it only comes to us in a more informative type of way or so it's the usual way.
Today I was browsing for some of the contents of drain opener Sulfuric acid and by pure chance I came to a site (displayed on the search engine) that talked about them in an unrelated type of way (as usual). After reading some of the article I went to the main directory to see if I could find anything of importance. As it turns out it isn't your regular chemistry-fun experiments type of site it was a drug making site. What really strike me here is that whoever wrote this page actually has some decent amount of chemistry knowledge and yet the person is doing that sort of thing. Just what drives people to actually take on chemistry to accomplish such degrading task?
Here's the site if anyone is interested to look at it but now I don't even know just how good of an idea this is to have in your "history" files.
http://designer-drug.com/pte/12.162.180.114/dcd/chemistry/in...


...........all this nonsense because someone doesn't like The-Hive type of material.....the web is large and to bring it up as not your cup of tea was a folly, as it only starts and fuels conflict and political differences ......there are many bees's here more than you know,.....you like red I like blue......wow lets argue.....not! this is a science forum it's about investigating and experimenting not about personal likes and dislikes......there!....I couldn't keep quiet anymore......solo

Fleaker - 22-2-2008 at 10:36

Very well said solo. It is indeed a chemistry forum, but I still maintain that we should have some criterion of excellence for such posts. I have nothing against drugs or their proper use. What I disdain is that information gleaned from here may go to someone who is motivated only by money and cares little for what his products do to the lives of others. They then aren't out to learn, only to profit and I do not think such a thing is what this forum is about. The same goes for explosives use; here we are (I hope) interested in the chemistry of their making, not in how to practically apply them for terrorist purposes. And solo, I do know that some ex-Hive members are here and believe me, I have a lot of respect for the talent that quite a few of them have. If any illicit drugs are to be made, I would much rather have them coming in a fairly pure state from someone who knew what he was doing, rather than some matchbox hillbilly profiteer. At least then it is less likely that people will hurt themselves.

Yet if I think like that, then I must be fair and consider practical explosives threads to be dangerous as well. If I think that stupid cookery threads ruin this board, then so must I also think that stupid explosives threads discredit us. I don't want to be a hypocrite.

I'm against censorship too, but I realize that information can be deadly. Thus I suggest that such posts dealing with explosives and drug related chemistry be of a high calibre like something out of a respected journal. While it won't solve the problem of people misusing information, it will definitely discourage some poor fool's thought " oh, making this from that is so easy!! I can't wait to try it, I'll just follow this recipe". Instead, people without a certain level of expertise will go to other threads of a more basic level. This, to a certain extent, keeps dangerous knowledge or corrupting knowledge out of the heads of those who aren't mature, responsible, or experienced enough to use it appropriately.

As to who decides what is fit for common discussion, or what requires censorship, I am in no position to say: it is up to the moderators and administrators of the board and their personal likes and dislikes.

[Edited on 22-2-2008 by Fleaker]