Sciencemadness Discussion Board

"Drug Cooking" vs "Bomb Making"

MagicJigPipe - 17-12-2007 at 15:46

I just had a revelation. Something I had overlooked and now I fear I am hypocritical for it because I agree that drug cook threads should not be allowed.

However, what is really the BIG difference between drug cooking and energetics synthesis. Both can be benign or malicious. Drugs can be used and synthesized in a safe manner and be used only by the synthesizer just like energetics. Both of them can be misused/abused resulting in injury or death. Albeit it takes a more disciplined person to use drugs without harming anyone and without becoming an addict, but it is still possible and I'm sure it's being done.

So, what is it EXACTLY that makes "drug cookery" threads "bad" and "explosives making" threads acceptable?

Is it because of how society views the two? Is it the reputation the "drug cooks" have given drug synthesis?

Anyway, I thought it would make an interesting discussion.

**If this has already been discussed before please forgive me. It is so difficult to use this site's search engine and find anything that specific.

quicksilver - 17-12-2007 at 17:22

Let's take a step back from the emotional or political issues and say that all "objects" or chemicals are neither "bad" or "good"; they are merely objects. The Board (mods, etc) basically allows the discussion of energetic materials in the theoretical and not the "practical" (no bombs!) nor the implementation of the energetic applications (outside of interrelationships). Primaries, explosive trains, initiation, etc). The board does not promote drug cooking in the same manner or development criterion. When someone's question or commentary moves over a line wherein the "theoretical becomes the practical"; specifically to implement the development of a salable narcotic; it is frowned upon. I believe that is consistent.

"Drug Cooks" have a similar emotional impact as "bomb makers" to many people. Each version has an anti-social, destructive impact upon society. Now it may be true that many people go through a phase of interest in energetic materials when younger (or not so young) and their interests in science are heightened by this. Drug manufacture is pretty much a one-way street. I still enjoy learning about energetic materials and I'm not so young. I've had this interest for quite awhile (as many others here who are also not so virginal). I also belong to organizations that have professional interest in same, etc, etc, etc.... I don't know many professional organizations that cater to cooking meth.

Frankly, I don't think it's a question of how society at large views drugs or energetics...it's a question of the moderators' - those people who put up the Board. It's theirs to do as they like.

[Edited on 17-12-2007 by quicksilver]

Magpie - 17-12-2007 at 18:28

I am as curious about the mechanisms of the synthesis of a drug as I am about any other organic chemical. Same goes for war gasses and explosives. This doesn't mean I want to apply that technology.

I thought that any chemistry was discussable on this board. Anything less is not free speech. A discussion that transparently is for the purpose of illegal activity is the exception. Then you have to ask, "Illegal where?" What if it is only illegal in the USA? That doesn't seem like a fair criterion.

MagicJigPipe - 17-12-2007 at 18:43

I went through both of those phases when I was younger. I learned a lot from both drug and energetic chemistry.

Ovation Pharma and Shire Pharmaceuticals are two of many professional "organizations" that are in the amphetamine bussiness.

Yeah, Magpie, it seems like everything is illegal, regulated or "evil" here in the US.

[Edited on 17-12-2007 by MagicJigPipe]

Sauron - 17-12-2007 at 20:07

I think that the drug cooks constitute by far the greatest threat to the future of amateur chemistry.

Law enforcement encounters man many many drug cooks (operators of clandestine drug labs of one degree of sophiostication or another.)

Law enforcement, I believe, encounteres relatively fewer problems with amateur energetics people, and even fewer problems with illicit attempts to make chemical weapons.

It's all a matter of which category has the largest number of incidents. The drug cooks "win" by a long mile.

Clandestine explosives labs usually only make headlines when one blows up, or is connected with some sort of terrorist activity, or at least some criminality large or amall. Just to cite a few rather trivial examples mentioned on this forum previously, we have heard about guys setting off homemade explosives in their own driveways at 3 AM, other guys thought to be connected to bomb making components found in a nearby parking lot, and one guy who had some sort of alleged pipe bomb (or firecracker) in plain sight when the meter reader came round.

Compared to the hundreds or thousands of drug labs that get busted, it's down in the baseline noise.

Chemical weapons clanestine labs, almost nonexistant. Probably a self correcting problem as they would likely not be discovered till the corpse of the lucky chemist who actually made some agent, begins to decompose and stink up the area.

Bomb makers and WMD makers are of concern, but just not often encountered.

What IS often encountered, are drug labs, primarily but far from exclusively meth labs.

So they are the irritant to the cops and the bane of all legitimate amateur chemists everywhere.

We ought to be against them because it is in our interests to be against them. In the interests of amateur chemistry.

quicksilver - 18-12-2007 at 08:08

Without going into too much detail here I happen to know that LE tends to look at the energetic chemistry issue in terms of immature individuals blowing their fingers off and this is a real side issue that even members of a major city bomb-squad don't devote [too] much of their focus on.
The pipe bombs that are encountered with a degree of frequency are a by-product of drug labs wherein the cook takes a bit of a hiatus from the process to entertain themselves. What happens with frequency in terms of amateur chemistry in the headlines? Wherein do we find constraints to the purchase of chemicals ("List" chemicals)? These issues focus themselves around the activities of drug cooks. This is NOT an opinion; it's a reality. By far the greatest threat to the future of amateur chemistry is drug cooks.

Amateur chemistry today is directly threatened by public perception of what occurs in the lab. It's the perception that counts. When the authorities bust a drug lab the effect on all amateurs is bought home as one. That one bust taints those who are rational, productive, & law abiding. We have to live with public perception. That may not be the reality but it is realistic.

The constraints on "List 1" and "List 2" chemicals came about NOT someone making a gram of primary and hitting a few milligrams with a hammer in his backyard. They came about by the sale of drugs manufactured by those with access to science. This in itself is a great wrong, in my opinion, as it does so much harm to so many things completely outside of the "drug usage debate".

[Edited on 18-12-2007 by quicksilver]

woelen - 18-12-2007 at 11:13

I have no objection to any chemistry, it is the intention of the people behind the chemistry to which I can have an objection.

Indeed many compounds are drug-precursors, while they also can be used for MANY interesting and useful other things. So, I personally think that over here on sciencemadness there should be a lax atmosphere, also when compounds are discussed which could be used as drug-precursor. The moderators are perfectly capable to distinguish between threads about e.g. red P, where real chemistry is discussed and where plain cook-requests are made. A thread, which is somewhat borderline would receive the benefit of doubt from me, I simply would not be engaged in that thread.

Drug cooks really do harm to home chemistry, and as such they really suck. They also do harm to society and many individuals are ruined by them (either directly or indirectly). But when it comes to threads on sciencemadness, one should be careful not to start a witch hunt.

To my opinion the same applies to energetic materials. As long as the discussion is real chemistry, things can be interesting and I see no reason to suppress that kind of discussion. Actually, it is the energetic materials which rise interest in many (young) people for chemistry, or science in general. But also here, the moderators do a perfect job distinguishing the stupid k3wl-threads and the real chemistry threads.

Finally, I cannot remember any threads on sciencemadness, which are bad from a point of view of weapons (be it chemical or more 'classic'). I agree with Sauron that this kind of bad threads are very rare. It is mainly cooks, and sometimes kewls which are irking me.

One extra reason for me to be very negative about drugs-chemists (I do not mean the cooks who want to make stuff for profit, but people who try things themselves) is that they take an unacceptable risk with their body and health. Playing with energetics implies a certain risk, but when done with care and when common sense is used, then the risk is acceptable. Playing with drugs (especially self-made stuff) to my opinion introduces an unacceptable risk, e.g. through contaminations, reaction by-products or impure reagents. Besides that (but that is purely personal), I despise the use of drugs and think it is plain stupid and destructive.

bio2 - 18-12-2007 at 11:17

So then the next step for the USA police state is to require background checks for anyone to "access science".

It is slowly evolving into this with the government removing certain books from public libraries and requiring librarians
to disclose reading habits of suspect people.

Censorship is just a creeping tyranny whether
promulgated by this website or the governments.

MagicJigPipe - 18-12-2007 at 14:00

Drug chemistry seems more risky because of the kind of people who use it. Technically, it's not any more risky to (dare I say) synthesize some.... diazapam with proper procedures, proper measuring and pure reagents and then to ingest an acceptable amount of the drug than to do the same with energetics (not ingesting). Both can be equally risky if done improperly and whether or not it is an acceptable risk is subjective.

It is the reputation that drug cooks give it that makes it seem like an unacceptable risk. We have been subjected to so much propaganda about drug abuse that when we here "drugs" we automatically think "evil".

Don't both energetics and drug synthesis (for one's own use) stand for the same thing? The ability to be able to do what you want inside YOUR home as long as it doesn't harm others?

Damn, I sound like I'm coming on pretty strong for drug synthesis. That couldn't be further from the truth. I have a VERY good reason to dispise drugs, however I will always defend something in the name of equality and will always argue against double standards. I just had the revelation that this might very possibly be a double standard, whether it was brought upon us by dumbass meth cooks or not.

I do know what you are saying about drugs (and alcohol) woelen. I know plenty more people whose lives were destroyed or ended from drugs and alcohol than energetics. If only we lived in a utopia.

bio2 - 18-12-2007 at 15:00

It is a double standard and the books being removed from the libraries are those
on "energetics" not organic chemistry.

The uninformed populace probably agrees with this as protecting them from the
pervasive "terrorists" which are actually almost non-existent in the USA.

The propaganda and control will only worsen as the dumbed down public
accept anything the controlled media dishes out.

It won't be long until half the high school graduates are functionally illiterate
and the universities "advanced chemistry" class becomes more diluted than
it already is.

Science will then become the domain of the elite who can afford
private education while the rest of the kids still can't do fractions in the 11th grade.

A high school math teacher told me that she never understood even basic
algebra until in the university. This goes to show the quality of teaching in
the public schools in USA. When she showed me the math course work of senior
students it was about at the level of an 8th grader of the 1960's. Try asking
the average 10 year old to look up a word in the dictionary these days, it's pathetic.

A chemistry professor said recently that todays chem graduate students have
little to no practical experience and expect everything to be done for them having
"learned" lab procedures watching videos.

Sauron - 18-12-2007 at 19:38

Public libraries and university libraries have always had restricted sections that were closed to the general public (or general student body) but available to researchers deemed qualified by the librarians.

Nothing new about that.

In the past, such material was most often controversial because of adult content.

Fads and fashions change.

I regard it as stupid, but I would not go so far as to declare it the leading edge of a new Dark Age.

Anyway, this forum was founded by and for energetics people and they are unlikely to shift their emphasis.

It was not founded for drug cooks.

Drug cooks being the greater menace, perhaps Polverone should close the window on them some more, but I would not suggest throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The_Davster - 18-12-2007 at 20:03

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron

Anyway, this forum was founded by and for energetics people and they are unlikely to shift their emphasis.



Not exactly, it was founded as a result of E&W not being willing to discuss chemistry that was not goal oriented to their specific goals.

From Polverone in the "Sciencemadness Retrospective" thread
"As much as I enjoyed the E&W Forum, I wanted a place to discuss chemistry where the discussion didn't have to be so goal-oriented toward making explosives. The Hive was a great place to visit, but it too was goal-oriented, with different goals. I discussed this with madscientist and we came to an agreement: we would create the place that we wanted to visit."
Quote:
Originally posted by bio2
A chemistry professor said recently that todays chem graduate students have
little to no practical experience and expect everything to be done for them having
"learned" lab procedures watching videos.

Using cookbook style procedures usually followed by a writeup consisting of answering problems such as "describe the orbital interactions occuring during the reaction" and other questions such as "why are dry solvents needed" are rare, and when present are usually answered wrong. Questions were not critical thinking ones, they were 'try to see if you can find the page in the text the answer is on and regurgitate it.'
The first time working in a synthetic lab as an undergraduate, under a new graduate student, it was remarked that my ability to propose and conduct new reactions was advanced compared to other undergrads, whom were historically clueless in such areas. That knowledge came from this site, and my own home experiments, not from their method of 'education'

Sauron - 18-12-2007 at 21:33

Well, the forum has an Energetics subforum, a FAQ that is an apologia for energetics amateurs, and a flaming bomb (similar to US Army Ordnance emblem) as logo. Also prominently displayed on SM home page are links to LANL (energetics) documents. The forum library contains two texts on explosives (granted that it also contains a lot of non-explosives material)

Agreed, that madscientist and Polverone wanted to be able to broaden the forum beyond explosives chemistry, but they hardly were running away from it, and they did/do defend it. I am not attacking this. I see nothing wrong with this.

Chemistry

MadHatter - 18-12-2007 at 23:12

One thing I've learned from this Forum is that chemistry in general is THE basic topic.
Sure, there are discussions about compounds that could be used in drug or energetic
applications. These should be discussed.

Another thing that I learned from this Forum is that practical applications are discouraged.
And they should be. Although I'm a firm believer in knowledge, practical appilcations
invites lawsuits at the very least, and law enforcement at the very worst.

vulture - 19-12-2007 at 15:03

99% of all drug threads that I see are extremely goal-oriented and have tell tale signs of spoonfeeding, cooking and mass production.
It's these flags that gets them closed. There is no intent of any research or creative input.

Most explosives threads are also goal-oriented, but usually on a small scale, have some thought and creativity put into it and allow people to learn.

Polverone - 19-12-2007 at 15:56

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
Well, the forum has an Energetics subforum, a FAQ that is an apologia for energetics amateurs, and a flaming bomb (similar to US Army Ordnance emblem) as logo. Also prominently displayed on SM home page are links to LANL (energetics) documents. The forum library contains two texts on explosives (granted that it also contains a lot of non-explosives material)

Not to derail this, but the logo is actually a play on the oxidizer hazard warning symbol. The LANL docs are here not because I think they're especially relevant to amateur chemistry, but because I wanted to be sure they were publicly available and this was the only web space I owned.

My personal wish is that any adult with a clean background could buy explosives at the hardware store, and recreational drugs at the liquor store, so the only users of amateur chemistry forums would be those who have some fundamental interest in chemistry. Everyone else would just buy the products they want. That's not to say that I wish everyone was disinterested in drugs or explosives -- on the contrary I think they are fascinating and can make a great "hook" for stimulating interest in chemistry.

I do wish to exclude discussion that seems entirely product-oriented with no apparent broader curiosity or intent to learn. This rule may be applied with a bit too much zeal on occasion to threads that look drug related, simply because there are a lot more people who want to get rich quickly, or get altered quickly, than there are people who want to blow things up quickly. It's easier to imagine shallow motives with possibly-drug-related topics for that reason. Sorry, bees -- I still enjoy intelligent chemistry discussion regardless of the legal status of the compound under discussion, but I want to avoid the feeling that this board is performing outsourced R&D for lazy clandestine entrepreneurs.

Twospoons - 19-12-2007 at 17:11

A lot of it comes down to intent. You can spot the meth cooks and kewl bomerz a mile off - and I'm pleased to see these individuals shut down rapidly by the mods here. We do not need to be spoon feeding individuals whose only interest in chemistry is making cash out of the drug trade, or blowing up the neighbours letterbox.
I don't mind seeing drug or energetics related discussion when it operates at a more intellectual level - people trying out new research or methods or ideas. People that contribute to chem, as opposed to just leaching. Case in point: the active discussion on perchlorate anodes. We all know what the perchlorate is for (illegal in many countries), but the level of research and experimentation going on in those threads is inspiring.

Sauron - 19-12-2007 at 20:06

Bottom line: it's Polverone's board, and he can set policy as he sees fit. Period. The mods are there to implement such policy. We should all be grateful that these gentlemen do this with a total absence of the extremes of draconian regimentation that are evident now or in the past on other boards (no names need be mentioned).

Polverone's views are quite even handed and IMO represent a good balance.

Other might disagree, in which case they are free to vote with their feet. We are lucky to have avoided the polarization that has occurred elsewhere over these matters.

MagicJigPipe - 20-12-2007 at 15:36

I completely agree. Polverone is the shit.

Sauron - 20-12-2007 at 19:57

I'd have phrased that differently, but, whatever.

MagicJigPipe - 27-12-2007 at 19:56

Ok, Polverone is an extemely rightous and intelligent super human.

Ephoton - 11-3-2008 at 03:47

cool this ones not locked yet ;P great to see who is who and to find that what I belived peoples
standings were in fact true. now my two cents. were did the guy who started this place come from
well the few anyway what forums. answer this and all other questions seem to be answered
as far as why things are as they are. now who in the say last few years has come and stirred the
pot so to say :) then we see why people are getting called names as such and why people
jump to each others defence. personally bombs and drugs have nothing to do with nerve agents
of mass distruction hmmmmm. but it was some realy find chemistry when you get down to it.
why do people do what they do is it money some sort of sick desire or addiction curiosity or
some other motivation. why not send them a pm and ask so much easier they might even tell
you the truth.
why try and move the goals and views of the originators of this site by discussing this stuff.
personally I find both interesting and both hidiously dangerous in the wrong hands.
why drugs more than bombs or why bombs more than drugs depend on the individual and this
is the key point here individual. If you want to sell large quantites of drugs well your life
will most likely be a fake and soon to be inprisoned one. if your into doing harm with bombs
or even letting them off to the knowlage of other people well see what happens to the druggies.
now I loved reading rogue it had great firework chemistry and taught me heaps about nitrations
of all kinds. I loved reading the hive as it was a little more hard core in the chemistry side and
well some times I even enjoyed the fruit it could bare. does this mean I am out there to destroy
the population or the planet I live on. well the answer of course could be either and only I truly
know. but the fact is it COULD be either and the web was created for freedom of information
not govermental ruleing porn promotions coke adverts and arguments that are against the
core belife of the internet. its only the damb noobs that only just got on the web that get down
and dirty about this. honestly who here who is arguing against either side was on arc net before
the internet or even ran a BBS in there own home. some have but most of them that I know of
belive in freedom of information. of course if you run a site that is viewed by the general population you must be carefull not to get in trouble as the authoroties can also view it
but other than that as some one once said and im sure his whole gang agreed let sleeping threads lie or more to the point stop asking dumb questions.
if you dont like it dont read it. I vary rarely enter the energetics forum its my right and I practice
it. but do you hear me talk about making ketone peroxides with the aim of detonation. this is
taught as a big no no in school hell you might even hurt some one. none of my business I
am here for what I want and to try if I may to give back something for that. is it so hard to understand and to think that way.
oh just to be a true ignorant idiot what about it I was to make a hydrogenation BOMB for
reducing some kind of aromatic isopropyl imine well then id have both sides after me and both
sides kissing me. sounds rather irish to me (no insult I like the irish)

MagicJigPipe - 11-3-2008 at 22:38

WTF? No offense but you need a better translator. I had trouble understanding what you were talking about.

I... I'm sorry, I can't even respond because I'm so confused.

Could I ask a favor of you? Please, try to use some punctuation besides periods (and maybe some capital letters to indicate the beginning of your run-ons). That would be awesome. Thanks in advance.

I now believe that (aside from a few isolated incidents) the current system is working and there are very few occurences of double standards. Hopefully, this board can keep it up without turning into a strict dictatorship like the E&W forum.

[Edited on 12-3-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

pyrochemix - 17-3-2008 at 22:30

I gotta say i stay away from that stuff drugs can cause really !@#$ed up things to happen, bad things good things, who's to judge, mercury is a great big neurotoxin but its still used in most vaccines, I like to research dangerous things like drugs and bombs, i try to stay away from even prescription drugs but bombs are great fun without malicious intent and with safety also you cant cage information it will always get out, with the internet in 2 weeks of research you could probably synth some mediocre quality meth with a coffee maker and a trip or two to walmart, home depot and the pharmacy. its same with bombs, its a matter of time till everyone finds out what c4 is made of, probly some shit like crayons and lysol, to the experianced chemist any household garage basement or kitchen has potential for disaster. Still i think bomb related stuff should stay to an extent ( when we get to bombs that are only used for destruction, rather than pyrotechnics or things like that) and drug stuff, id feel safer knowing that top notch chemists are making meth thats purer, stronger and SAFER then thinking some stupid kid junkie is gonna die making red phosphorous from matchbook strike plates

Edward Elric - 29-3-2008 at 13:19

I'm into medical science and biochemistry. Discussing the theory of drug creation is something that is a necessity to me. I understand the axiological views certain communities have. But, knowing that it's required of me to have the knowledge, I would need to go elsewhere.

Only when a person cannot find a community to discuss such things, then the person may have to push and shove some ideas in order to advance.

[Edited on 29-3-2008 by Edward Elric]

Pulverulescent - 30-3-2008 at 14:09

'Hope I don't ruffle any feathers with this, but the drug laws, largely unenforceable, and counter-productive to the point where the widespread damage they cause far outweighs any damage they might purport to prevent, affects everyone with any interest in any area of chemistry.

I they didn't exist, and you wanted, say, acetic anhydride for a small cyclonite synth, you could tell your supplier you wanted to acetylate wood (sculptures) as an experiment. This is a legitimate use for anhydride, and you'd probably get it without as much as a quizzical look if you were anyway soberly dressed.

The concept of "restricted chemical" would largely disappear, and reagents like P and I
would be fairly readily available to committed experimenters.

And Boy, do I want some (Ac2)0???

P

[Edited on 30-3-2008 by Pulverulescent]

Sauron - 30-3-2008 at 19:12

It's too late. The DEA et al set the archetype, and now the WOT people are following on, in the directions both of explosives making compounds and of supposed chemical warfare agent precursors.

Have a look at the DHS "chemicals of concern" list.

I agree with your remarks in general. But the barn is already on fire.

Furthermore, political discussions are verboten here, and it is hard to construe this as anything else.

froot - 31-3-2008 at 00:43

Topic heading:
Quote:
"Drug Cooking" vs "Bomb Making"


As far as I understand it, neither are welcome here.

Edward Elric wrote:
Quote:
I'm into medical science and biochemistry. Discussing the theory of drug creation is something that is a necessity to me. I understand the axiological views certain communities have. But, knowing that it's required of me to have the knowledge, I would need to go elsewhere.

Only when a person cannot find a community to discuss such things, then the person may have to push and shove some ideas in order to advance.


That's different, very different, you shouldn't need to go elsewhere.

Edward Elric - 31-3-2008 at 11:29

Ok, then let's say a person is interested in making methamphetamines and various similar things (like ritalin) to treat disorders, such as ADHD and ADD. And what about developing cocaine as an analgesic?

Then would some of you get annoyed?

Of course, making cocaine without a license would simply be illegal. But the medicinal value of some of these things are great, despite the fact they are old and dated in their usages.

Sauron - 31-3-2008 at 11:46

That's a comically transparent rhetorical argument.

If you were remotely qualified to even begin to address such research programs, you could go get yourself a license to do so.

But you aren't and this is all just a pose. Stop the pretense. If you were a serious student of medicinal chemistry, you'd have an embarassment of more worhty and far less controversial choices for research topics.

It's tiresome.

Nicodem - 31-3-2008 at 11:53

It was already established (several times) that the criteria for any discussion of topics, that might be illegal or not, is to use scientific discourse. If someone has not noticed it yet, we have threads where even such things like explosives, psychoactive drugs, toxins (including organophosphorous ones!) are being discussed (nooo, really?). On the other hand, most members could have also taken the time to notice that any thread where such topics were not discussed using scientific discourse (like cook, swiming or recipe stuff) end in Detritus. In short, everything scientific is allowed, all the rest is at the discretion of the moderators and their arbitrary decisions (which can be influenced by many factors, mood and whether included!).

MagicJigPipe - 31-3-2008 at 19:06

"Of course, making cocaine without a license would simply be illegal. But the medicinal value of some of these things are great, despite the fact they are old and dated in their usages.

I agree somewhat with your post. I think there really are some people that use and make drugs for medical reasons. They are not bad people IMO.

I disagree somewhat about cocaine. It's only legitimate medical use is an anesthetic and their are much better alternatives. Cocaine is one of the very few drugs that can actually cause harm without taking a lot (internally) in it's pure form. It's basically a cardiovascular toxin. This may seem crazy but even methamphetamine is very unlikely to cause harm if used in moderation by a healthy individual. Cocaine is different.

Pulverulescent - 1-4-2008 at 09:41

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
Furthermore, political discussions are verboten here, and it is
hard to construe this as anything else.


Damn! Can't slip anything past that incisive gaze!
I will desist, though, from veen-splenting over political expedients as I consider myself apolitical, anyway.
(I won't even draw attention to that "Burke quote")

You're making me think before posting, at least!

As for drugs and HEs, all real scientific inquiry should, I think, be fully inclusive!

p