| Pages:
1
2
3 |
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
You can find their MSDS here:
http://www.whink.com/rust_stain_remover.htm
It says 2.5 - 3.0%
You can order the product through the same website.
It is also to be found at Ace hardware:
http://www.acehardware.com/sm-whink-rust-stain-remover-01261...
From what I see on the web, people are using HF to clean rust stains off
their clothes and bathtubs. Hopefully, they are washing it off well, ideally
neutralizing it as well (soap should work). For both their sake and ours,
let's hope nobody tries to use it to clean rust stains off their skin, hand
wash the stains without gloves, spill the stuff all over the place, or
something equally dumb and come down with hypocalcemia. One good
lawsuit is likely all it would take to make the stuff disappear. I'm still mourning
the loss of iodine and wouldn't want to see yet another halogen put out
of public reach 
|
|
|
garage chemist
chemical wizard
Posts: 1803
Registered: 16-8-2004
Location: Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That is unlikely. HF of less than 4% concentration does not have the skin toxicity that normally makes it so dangerous.
Spilling this rust remover on your skin will most likely not result in too much damage.
It is still seriously toxic orally, though.
|
|
|
anotheronebitesthedust
Hazard to Others
Posts: 189
Registered: 24-6-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
HF Rust Remover
From experience I can say that when I got it on my skin it made me itchy. Also gave me a mild rash that didn't last very long.
|
|
|
DeAdFX
Hazard to Others
Posts: 339
Registered: 1-7-2005
Location: Brothel
Member Is Offline
Mood: @%&$ing hardcore baby
|
|
Eh good luck... I think ebay might be the only true remaining source of chemicals on this earth. Either that you better make some contacts in the
chemical industry because to be honest stores are most likely going to be carrying just enzymes and shit. It used to be that the eisles were filled
with lye and sulfuric acid drain cleaners now its a 50/50 mix of lye and enzymes. Hell even the lye contains metal and nitrates.
Honestly this planet is better off in the stone age. Thats what everyone wants here. At least then we don't have to worry about global warming,
pedophiles hunting jail bait, overpopulation, turning in next weeks homework assignment, terrorists and meth. We can all just give up and piss on
hundreds of years of accomplishment. Perhaps some son of a bitch can come up with chemical bonds, kinematic equations, Utopias, rap music, politics
and restart this whole process again...
[Edited on 11-1-2008 by DeAdFX]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I would like to report that I went to buy a can of toluene today. As I approached the counter I noticed a newspaper article posted on the register.
It seemed to be just your typical meth scare (pun intended a la Red Scare) mumbo jumbo with a picture of "household chemicals used to cook meth". I
proceeded to the register and placed my item on the counter when I was greeted with "I need to see your ID please". I asked "Why?". While pointing
to the article she said, "people use this to to make meth so from now on we're keeping track of who buys it". So, wanting to avoid suspicion and
confrontation I handed over my ID. She took it, turned around and took it to a copy machine behind the counter and copied my ID! Without asking!
Well, then I had to say something. I said, "What are you doing?". She replied with, "I have to make a copy of your ID so we can see how many ILLEGAL
chemicals you are buying". Yes, she said illegal! Deciding to vent my disgust elsewhere, I informed them that I would not be shopping there anymore,
completed the transaction and left. I can't believe this. That was the only store (that I know of) in my close proximity that still sold toluene.
This is outrageous. I can't believe she actually thought the toluene was illegal!
One other thing that happened to me a long time ago that I forgot to mention is when I called a pharmacy trying to buy some benzyl alcohol. The
pharmacist said I would have to wait while he "called the board to make sure I can't make any drugs or explosives with it". I called him back a week
later and he said I could buy it. Regardless, it's just stupid. Mass hysteria is what it is. I no longer consider this fear rational.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
anotheronebitesthedust
Hazard to Others
Posts: 189
Registered: 24-6-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Maybe they thought you looked like you smoke the magic jig pipe.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I don't think so Tim. I only smoke tobacco and I certainly don't look like a pothead. In fact, that day I was dressed up for an occasion, khakis and
a button up shirt. Shaved, short hair and my speach is articulated. There is no reason they should have suspected me of drug use. Not that you can
tell when someone uses drugs. Some of the most articulated, well dressed and trimmed people I know smoke cannabis. In fact, I prefer the company of
people who smoke it over people who drink heavily or even socially. At least they are not violent and/or aggressively argumentative.
BTW, my name has nothing to do with pipes used for smoking cannabis.
[Edited on 13-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
I would like to report that I went to buy a can of toluene today. As I approached the counter I noticed a newspaper article posted on the register.
It seemed to be just your typical meth scare (pun intended a la Red Scare) mumbo jumbo with a picture of "household chemicals used to cook meth". I
proceeded to the register and placed my item on the counter when I was greeted with "I need to see your ID please". I asked "Why?". While pointing
to the article she said, "people use this to to make meth so from now on we're keeping track of who buys it". So, wanting to avoid suspicion and
confrontation I handed over my ID. She took it, turned around and took it to a copy machine behind the counter and copied my ID! Without asking!
Well, then I had to say something. I said, "What are you doing?". She replied with, "I have to make a copy of your ID so we can see how many ILLEGAL
chemicals you are buying". Yes, she said illegal! Deciding to vent my disgust elsewhere, I informed them that I would not be shopping there anymore,
completed the transaction and left. I can't believe this. That was the only store (that I know of) in my close proximity that still sold toluene.
This is outrageous. I can't believe she actually thought the toluene was illegal!
One other thing that happened to me a long time ago that I forgot to mention is when I called a pharmacy trying to buy some benzyl alcohol. The
pharmacist said I would have to wait while he "called the board to make sure I can't make any drugs or explosives with it". I called him back a week
later and he said I could buy it. Regardless, it's just stupid. Mass hysteria is what it is. I no longer consider this fear rational.
|
I think you're giving an $8 per hour cleark more cedit than he/she deserves. Her concept of illegal / legal is probably not based on her
understanding of why she's collecting your information. The collection of your information provides the store with cover in case you do get caught
making meth using their products.
Joe
Joe
|
|
|
YT2095
International Hazard
Posts: 1091
Registered: 31-5-2003
Location: Just left of Europe and down a bit.
Member Is Offline
Mood: within Nominal Parameters
|
|
I`m all for the idea of stocking up on chemicals that will become hard / impossible to buy in future, but I don`t think it`s wise to stock up on chems
that will be Illegal to Own.
I think it`s Vitally important to operate within the law when it comes to our Hobby/Lifestyle even though there is often a Big gap between what is
Right and Just, and what the Law says.
I think I`d rather work within the Law, than be in jail knowing I have the Moral High-ground!
of course that is just my Personal opinion.
\"In a world full of wonders mankind has managed to invent boredom\" - Death
Twinkies don\'t have a shelf life. They have a half-life! -Caine (a friend of mine)
|
|
|
Bromide
Harmless
Posts: 24
Registered: 20-6-2007
Location: Flavor country
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by YT2095
I`m all for the idea of stocking up on chemicals that will become hard / impossible to buy in future, but I don`t think it`s wise to stock up on chems
that will be Illegal to Own.
I think it`s Vitally important to operate within the law when it comes to our Hobby/Lifestyle even though there is often a Big gap between what is
Right and Just, and what the Law says.
I think I`d rather work within the Law, than be in jail knowing I have the Moral High-ground!
of course that is just my Personal opinion. |
Of course, few disagree that it would be inconvenient (at the least) to expend time, effort and treasure in acquiring reagents, only for the stuff
subsequently to be declared contraband.
Fortunately, it seems that criminal liability for the bare possession (excluding the sale or other acts of transferring possession) of certain forms
of matter attaches only to a relatively limited set of controlled substances--usually, a two- or three-page list of psychoactive drugs in their
completed form. Precursor reagents, on the other hand, are almost never illegal just to possess in and of themselves. To my knowledge, in fact, the
sole exception to this general observation is phenylacetone, which is not itself a physiologically active drug yet, nonetheless, has been scheduled as
a controlled substance in the USA.
Rather, the possession of precursor reagents becomes illicit when coupled with a corresponding criminal mens rea--such as, e.g., the
intention to use such a reagent to manufacture a controlled substance without a priori government authorization. So unless the amateur
chemist in question is acquiring a material that is in fact an active drug having characteristics likely to draw the attention of legislators, or he
has an inclination to embark upon clearly criminal courses of conduct in the future, there seems little reason to worry with regard to this subject.
|
|
|
Alan
Harmless
Posts: 10
Registered: 16-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Ill start worrying about it when i cant buy 50lb sacks of NH4NO3 for $20
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Heh, intent can and is abused. I mean, intent can be just the fact that you possess other chemicals that could possibly be used in the manufacture of
said compound. I think it would be a safe guess that most home chemists own the right chemicals for "intent" to stick simply because most of the
chemicals used for production of drugs are so common and used for other things.
I mean, who here doesn't have some iodine, acetone, toluene, benzyl chloride/cyanide, phosphorus, decongestant medication and/or the means to create
anhydrous ammonia?
I would be willing to bet that the only reason I was not charged with some drug crime when the cops searched my apartment (because of my roommate) a
few years ago is because they wouldn't be able to prove whose stuff it was and because I was so nice and cooperative.
At the time, all I had was a few solvents and I think a small vial of iodine. Even then they were trying to accuse me of making meth even though all
their tests of my equipment came up negative. They even tried to trick my girlfriend at the time by telling her they found meth in the apt (I assume
they did that thinking she would turn on me and start telling them stuff). She called their bluff though. Bastards.
I could go on and on about the stuff they said and did to me but it just gets old.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
microcosmicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
The fly in that ointment is "conspiracy to commit" laws. While
the precursors might be legal to own individually, having a combination
of reagents which could be used to manufacture a controlled
substance can be construed as conspiracy to make it, whether or not
there is evidence that one actually produced a micromole of the drug,
much less sold it.
As for mens rea, that is open to the interpretation of the court --- I don't
think a competent lawyer would have a hard time convincing a jury of
people like the clerk in MagicJigPipe's store that somebody with a garage
full of flasks, condensers, and beakers and a stockpile of chemicals was
obviously up to no good and that talk about home chemistry was a lame
cover story because the days of the garage inventor are long gone and
real science is obviously done in industrial and academic laboratories, not
in kitchens. Sure, if Harry Homeowner happens to have a bottle of
toluene and a stash of lithium batteries in the workshop, a drawerful of
matches in the kitchen, some iodine and sinus pills in the medicine chest,
the mens rea defense would work just fine because it is quite obvious that
he is only using these products for their intended purposes even if he
happens to stock a complete set of meth precursors. But if someone is
routinely using household chemicals in ways completely removed from
what their packages say to do experiments with them, the tables can
turn --- one may expect an uphill battle convincing the average guy in the
street, especially someone fed by sensationalist stories of bombs made
from OTC materials and the like, that one's experiments are motivated
purely by mens scientiae curiosa with no admixture of mens rea.
What can also make cases of mistaken identity so tragic is that, logically
enough, drug makers are a prime target for prosecution, ranking above
dealers and users --- cut off the supply at the source and the middlemen
and end-users will automatically be out of business. In the zeal to nab the
big fish, nicities like mens rea can get pushed to the side. While it isn't
exactly what we are discussing here, consider the case of Sam Zhadanov,
the inventor who had the misfortune to have the perfume sample bottles he
was producing in his factory be used as crack vials:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29676.html
Never mind the fact that Mr. Zhadanov supplied the vials in good faith as
perfume bottles not knowing what they were actually being used for.
Never mind that banning vials is about as irrelevant as banning
baking soda. Never mind that a professor of medicine testified that
Zhadanov's inventions were used in his lab. Never mind the parade of
character witnesses who should have cleared up any lingering doubts
as to mens rea.. Some latter day Elliot Ness had to crack down on the crack
vial kingpin, so the inventor went to jail and the factory was confiscated.
To be sure, there were tax irregularities and marking American-made
product as Chinese was questionable, but the drug paraphrenalia charges
were trumped up out of proportion.
For these reasons, I am wary of putting too much weight in the mens rea
criterion without having solid evidence in hand that what I am doing is
legitimate. I agree with YT2095 --- unlike the birdman of Alcatraz, I
doubt there will be a lab in my jail cell. Sure, I will stock up on stuff like
CFC's before they get completely phased out, but banned chemicals
are another story.
[Edited on 14-1-2008 by microcosmicus]
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
Heh, intent can and is abused. I mean, intent can be just the fact that you possess other chemicals that could possibly be used in the manufacture of
said compound. I think it would be a safe guess that most home chemists own the right chemicals for "intent" to stick simply because most of the
chemicals used for production of drugs are so common and used for other things.
I mean, who here doesn't have some iodine, acetone, toluene, benzyl chloride/cyanide, phosphorus, decongestant medication and/or the means to create
anhydrous ammonia?
I would be willing to bet that the only reason I was not charged with some drug crime when the cops searched my apartment (because of my roommate) a
few years ago is because they wouldn't be able to prove whose stuff it was and because I was so nice and cooperative.
At the time, all I had was a few solvents and I think a small vial of iodine. Even then they were trying to accuse me of making meth even though all
their tests of my equipment came up negative. They even tried to trick my girlfriend at the time by telling her they found meth in the apt (I assume
they did that thinking she would turn on me and start telling them stuff). She called their bluff though. Bastards.
I could go on and on about the stuff they said and did to me but it just gets old. |
Why did they pick you out?
Joe
[Edited on 15-1-2008 by joeflsts]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
My roommate was a well known "pothead" (by the police because he went to high school with a few of them) to start out with. I was still packing my
stuff 2 days after he moved out. I get home from work one night to discover that someone had broken in to the apartment. The doorknob just
fell off and I walked in. All my stuff was "trashed" and I noticed that all my lab equipment (that was boxed up at the time) was out and had meth
tests all in it and around it (negative of course). I even noticed (I think) a HI/Red P test and an MDMA test. Anyway, very suspicious, I decided to
leave and go to the main office to see what was up (my girlfriend arrived about 20mins before). As I walked out the door I noticed two police cars
pulling up so I thought "Ok, I'll just tell them what's going on". One of them got out as I was walking down the stairs and said, "are you Jake
Blank?" I said, "Yes, and I'd like to know what's going on". Without saying another word she grabbed my arm and twisted it behind my back and threw
me against the railing, cuffed me and took me to the back of the police car.
Background info:
A few months before this incident I was arrested by this cop for having a pistol in my car without a CCW. Before I was arrested I was threatened by
her (she said she would "stick her Glock .40 in my mouth and pull the trigger if I didn't consent to the search") Well, needless to say, I reported
her and pleaded coercement but nothing came of it because "her cruiser cam wasn't working at the time". She even told me personally that she was
pissed that I "snitched on her".
Continued:
I sat in the back of the police car for 2 hours while they searched the apt. The male officer came back to the car, I asked him what I'm being
charged with and he said, "we don't know yet". Eventually he got in the car and they took me to the station and put me in interrogation. The whole
time I was asking about the charges and they kept ignoring me. To make a long story short I didn't know what I was charged with until I made bail the
next morning. The charge was trespassing and possession of a controlled substance because the woman officer said that she didn't think my
prescription was "what it says it is". Well, it turned out it was and the judge eventually dropped that. In the end they dropped the tresspassing
for reasons I don't know but the whole process cost me nearly a thousand dollars and countless hours of my time.
I am almost absolutely certain that if I had more chemicals than I did, I would be in a federal prison right now. The only reason I didn't have
chemicals is because I wasn't experimenting the whole time I lived in the apt with my roommate. All my chemicals were elsewhere.
I haven't been arrested for anything since (I got my CCW) but I am still afraid to go through that particular suburb. I used to fear for my life. I
honestly thought that woman cop would kill me if she pulled me over again. My fear has subsided though.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
My roommate was a well known "pothead" (by the police because he went to high school with a few of them) to start out with. I was still packing my
stuff 2 days after he moved out. I get home from work one night to discover that someone had broken in to the apartment. The doorknob just
fell off and I walked in. All my stuff was "trashed" and I noticed that all my lab equipment (that was boxed up at the time) was out and had meth
tests all in it and around it (negative of course). I even noticed (I think) a HI/Red P test and an MDMA test. Anyway, very suspicious, I decided to
leave and go to the main office to see what was up (my girlfriend arrived about 20mins before). As I walked out the door I noticed two police cars
pulling up so I thought "Ok, I'll just tell them what's going on". One of them got out as I was walking down the stairs and said, "are you Jake
Blank?" I said, "Yes, and I'd like to know what's going on". Without saying another word she grabbed my arm and twisted it behind my back and threw
me against the railing, cuffed me and took me to the back of the police car.
Background info:
A few months before this incident I was arrested by this cop for having a pistol in my car without a CCW. Before I was arrested I was threatened by
her (she said she would "stick her Glock .40 in my mouth and pull the trigger if I didn't consent to the search") Well, needless to say, I reported
her and pleaded coercement but nothing came of it because "her cruiser cam wasn't working at the time". She even told me personally that she was
pissed that I "snitched on her".
Continued:
I sat in the back of the police car for 2 hours while they searched the apt. The male officer came back to the car, I asked him what I'm being
charged with and he said, "we don't know yet". Eventually he got in the car and they took me to the station and put me in interrogation. The whole
time I was asking about the charges and they kept ignoring me. To make a long story short I didn't know what I was charged with until I made bail the
next morning. The charge was trespassing and possession of a controlled substance because the woman officer said that she didn't think my
prescription was "what it says it is". Well, it turned out it was and the judge eventually dropped that. In the end they dropped the tresspassing
for reasons I don't know but the whole process cost me nearly a thousand dollars and countless hours of my time.
I am almost absolutely certain that if I had more chemicals than I did, I would be in a federal prison right now. The only reason I didn't have
chemicals is because I wasn't experimenting the whole time I lived in the apt with my roommate. All my chemicals were elsewhere.
I haven't been arrested for anything since (I got my CCW) but I am still afraid to go through that particular suburb. I used to fear for my life. I
honestly thought that woman cop would kill me if she pulled me over again. My fear has subsided though. |
Interesting. So this all took place because you were ticketed for not having a CCW?
Joe
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
That's my theory. I know the cop was pissed about the complaint and that I was arrested without being charged and the charges were dropped by the
prosecution/judge. Seems like she was on a vendetta.
Also, since there is very little REAL crime (as in non-drug crime) in this suburb, the cops are always looking for something to do. I think this had
something to do with the fact that the cops are bored there. I know they are notorious for arresting people for single cannabis seeds and whatnot.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
That's my theory. I know the cop was pissed about the complaint and that I was arrested without being charged and the charges were dropped by the
prosecution/judge. Seems like she was on a vendetta.
Also, since there is very little REAL crime (as in non-drug crime) in this suburb, the cops are always looking for something to do. I think this had
something to do with the fact that the cops are bored there. I know they are notorious for arresting people for single cannabis seeds and whatnot.
|
Is there a legal threshold in your part of the country for Cannibis seeds? I think much of what you think happened is very different from what
actually happened. That is merely my opinion and no better or worse than yours I suspect.
Joe
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
No threshold. And what do you mean? Hardly any of my story is what I think happened. I know it happened. I know at least
one person personally who was arrested because the cops found a half a seed in his pocket. It had been crushed and only half of it remained. He was
charged with "Possession of 'Marijuana'".
There has been much more anecdotal talk of people being arrested for "marijuana residue" which, apparently, is the resinous material that sublimes on
car surfaces when it's smoked. It's just stupid.
There is not threshold. Technically, one could be prosecuted for "possessing" one molecule of THC or 1 picogram of cannabis.
EDIT
I forgot this was in the Reagents subforum. I suppose we need to get back on topic.
[Edited on 16-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
No threshold. And what do you mean? Hardly any of my story is what I think happened. I know it happened. I know at least
one person personally who was arrested because the cops found a half a seed in his pocket. It had been crushed and only half of it remained. He was
charged with "Possession of 'Marijuana'".
There has been much more anecdotal talk of people being arrested for "marijuana residue" which, apparently, is the resinous material that sublimes on
car surfaces when it's smoked. It's just stupid.
There is not threshold. Technically, one could be prosecuted for "possessing" one molecule of THC or 1 picogram of cannabis.
EDIT
I forgot this was in the Reagents subforum. I suppose we need to get back on topic.
[Edited on 16-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe] |
No problem - and I meant nothing by it - I asked the threshold question because in this state possession of a seed is a crime and will continue to be
that way until the law is changed.
Joe
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I have noticed from anecdotal reports on this forum that a few types of chemicals seem to be getting harder to get. Most of them were listed when I
first made this post.
Nitrates (some kind of new bill)
Toluene (at my solvent supplier toluene is now "restricted")
Iodides (most people seem to think they will be regulated)
I2 Tincture (pretty much gone in many areas of the US now)
Potassium permanganate (still available OTC but new laws/regulations are being made apparently)
If anyone else is having trouble with anything else, please post it here so it will be in one spot. Thanks.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
evil_lurker
National Hazard
Posts: 767
Registered: 12-3-2005
Location: United States of Elbonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: On the wagon again.
|
|
Ammonium nitrate is not problem, I have access to approx 125+ tons of fertilizer grade at the moment @ $400 per ton. Fuck, I could go swimming in it
if I wanted to.
Urea same thing. Just go take a shovel to the bin.
KNO3, not a problem to order off the net, but the locals have never even heard of it.
Toluene, still plenty at Ace Hardware and Shermin Williams, but its dissappeared from Lowes, Wal-mart and Home Depot.
Iodides, yah you better stock up on these. May or may not be regulated, who knows. Probably will to some degree. I'd recommend getting several kg's if
they could be found cheap.
Tincture is *poof* gone. Only thing available is those little tiny 1oz bottles of 2%.
Permanaganate is also hard to find. I have about 4Kg of technical grade so I'm not hurting.
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in
beer.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
"Only thing available is those little tiny 1oz bottles of 2%."
Those are gone as well in my area.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
soxhlet
Harmless
Posts: 19
Registered: 10-4-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The major supposition of this thread seems to be more driven of regulatory resentment than valid inference from fact.
Fact:
It is terribly costly for DEA to impose regulatory compliance upon listed chemicals. Consider anhydrous ammonia. The DEA could not begin to perform
administrative audits of the tens of thousands of suppliers. They will only target very specific chemicals which have little if any use outside of
business and research. (Or, the existing home use is so small as to be eliminated from cost increases that occur registration and addition
administrative overhead).
Fact:
A new category of regulated chemical was established to control pseudoephedrine. This new category encompasses over-the-counter medicines which
contain listed chemicals.
Fact:
Most recently, a change in verbiage has been observed in DEA submissions to The Federal Registry. DEA is now making some distinction between
immediate precursors and those other chemicals whose use is peripheral.
This leads me to believe that efforts to eliminate drug manufacture will become more intensely focused upon those immediate substances such as
ephedrine, benzyl methyl ketone, safrole, etc.
Someone, maybe joe, made a profound statement albeit in a different thread. “If you want to obtain regulated materials, simply comply with the
protocols”. The regulations are not intended to discriminate between professional and amateur demand for chemicals. DEA doesn’t make any
distinction between professional and amateur drug makers. 
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
"The major supposition of this thread seems to be more driven of regulatory resentment than valid inference from fact."
Bullshit. This thread was made because of DIRECT observations by myself and others that many chemicals are becoming harder or impossible to obtain.
This has almost nothing to do with listed chemicals as they are already virtually impossible to obtain.
Unfortunately, the DEA or DHS don't have to create new regulations or impose new restrictions to take certain chemicals out of the hands of ordinary
citizens. They utilize threats and propaganda so that companies decide "on their own" to restrict them.
Why is it that there are hundreds of non-regulated chemicals that are difficult to obtain? It's not illegal or even technically suspicious to sell 5
gallons of toluene to an individual yet a local supplier in my area will not do it. Same with ammonium nitrate and iodine tincture.
"They" don't have to do anything but spit propaganda to make de facto regulation.
If you don't see it happening you are blind. And, IMO, if you don't act now you will regret it. That is, if you are interested in home chemistry.
EDIT
I would like to point out that 2 of the 4 things that I put stars next to in the first post have since become impossible to obtain locally "OTC".
Iodine tincture
Ammonium nitrate cold packs
I suppose I have no idea what I'm talking about and I'm just paranoid, though. That's fine. I will have these chemicals when they "disappear" and
some others will not.
I will stop trying to convince people now.
[Edited on 4-13-2008 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
