| Pages:
1
2 |
Yttrium2
Perpetual Question Machine
Posts: 1104
Registered: 7-2-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
Questions about clan lab trends (title change)
Is it true that clandestine drug labs are only producing methamphetamine from pseudoephedrine?
After years of research, it seems like there are no viable routes for the home chemist--
everything seems rather involving, or it seems like it'd require analytical means to insure that the substance is there, and a toxic one is not.
thoughts?
Is anyone getting away with anything? And without analytical means to determine what's in the mix, how?
I'm sure experts could show me some things I'd gawk, although, I'm not really sure.
[Edited on 2/15/2019 by Yttrium2]
[Edit: title change j_sum1]
[Edited on 26-2-2019 by j_sum1]
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
I am sure there are some quite sophisticated clan labs out there. I understand also there is a lot of really grubby ones too, run by imbeciles.
I guess it depends on whether it is run by someone after the big bucks, or someone seeking a quick buck.
There is also the matter that if you set up a big, expensive operation then you make yourself a target and risk losing more when raided. Penalties if
caught will be greater too.
From the product perspective, users taking these things will often take nearly amything. So the push for extra purity is unnecessary.
So, both economic and risk factors would tend to promote fast, dirty, low-cost operations. I don't doubt there are exceptions but there are easier
ways for drug lords to scale up and spread risk.
|
|
|
andy1988
Hazard to Others
Posts: 135
Registered: 11-2-2018
Location: NW Americus ([i]in re[/i] Amerigo Vespucci)
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Continuing to approach these problems "technically" is an arms race, being both a distraction from and a failure to address the root causes.
So long as politicians and taxpayers collectively continue to drive demand, suppliers will continue to make disposable $1+ million USD submarines
carrying half a billion USD "worth" of drugs, e.g. [1] (many more articles in many topics on this "technical" aspect).
I realize the above argument may paint myself in unfavorable light, so I will continue with my viewpoint that the cause is political; this is a
manufactured problem, and a distraction. I wrote another page of my arguments... but I decided to hold my tongue.
|
|
|
Herr Haber
International Hazard
Posts: 1236
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Analytical means... I dont know.
I've read a couple of synthesis out of curiosity and what could concern me is a mercury salt used as a catalyst. You put X in, you should be able to
get X out.
All I really learned is that it's a pain in the ass to synthesize and if it's your own consumption you're better off getting getting your prefered
amphetamine from the street.
On a similar subject I learned this week that people in farmland steal ammonia gas with bottles and buckets. I mean, for real! I always thought that
was a hoax until I saw videos on YT.
I cant really see why people would do that instead of any ammonia salt and NaOH.
It's probably true that cooks tend to overcomplicate things.
|
|
|
karlos³
International Hazard
Posts: 1520
Registered: 10-1-2011
Location: yes!
Member Is Offline
Mood: oxazolidinic 8)
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by j_sum1  |
I guess it depends on whether it is run by someone after the big bucks, or someone seeking a quick buck. |
Hey that is not fair, there are also other types of drug labs.
Admitted, likely the rarest kind of them all, I mean those who do not produce for commercial reasons and only for personal use, out of curiosity.
Those are making a more or less large variety of substances in very small scales, as said they are rare, but they do exist.
Kind of similar to Shulgins attitude(who is admired by anyone operating such a lab), but probably less sophisticated.
|
|
|
Copper II
Harmless
Posts: 1
Registered: 15-2-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
I made ten grams of racemic methamphetamine once. I did not need a sophisticated lab or exotic chemicals. I tried the product and liked it a lot, so I
took some every day for three weeks. I soon realized I was addicted, so I unceremoniously destroyed all eight remaining grams and my meticulously
prepared precursors.
It was a terrible experience. Don't be like me. =)
|
|
|
nimgoldman
Hazard to Others
Posts: 303
Registered: 11-6-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
Common methods for checking purity are melting point determination as impurities usually heighten the melting point dramatically or create a melting
point range. The narrower the range and closer to the reference m.p., the purer the compound.
Purity of liquids can be determined by density or vapour temperature (usually checked during distillation).
Thin-layer chromatography is avaliable to an amateur chemists and allows him to analyse components of the product separately.
Usually the expected impurities are known and the work-up is designed so that we get reasonably clean product.
Further purification of the said product is possible using plethora of methods, such as washing, recrystallization, distillation, A/B extraction,
flash chromatography etc.
You can follow total synthesis of your desired substance in a small home lab, yes it's possible, even getting great quality and purity, but the yield
is usually relatively low and the process uneconomical - but it's definitely doable.
When people do it for profit, they usually set up a large scale operation designed for that one product. They divert or smuggle required chemicals and
precursors in bulk (therefore much cheaper per gram) and make the process very efficient. They can cut costs further by flushing the toxic waste in
sewers or burying it.
Some labs specialize in manufacturing drug precursors and others assemble the final product.
I've recently read an article discussing impurity profiles of MDMA manufactured in clandestine lab using only non-watched chemicals. The product is suprisingly
pure.
I can recommend the "Clandestine Chemist's Tale" episode from Hamilton's Pharmacopoeia to see how a small clan lab can operate.
|
|
|
Yttrium2
Perpetual Question Machine
Posts: 1104
Registered: 7-2-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
there isn't much besides a few things being made because of the requirement of skill, and precursors
Is what I meant to say
I could be way off,
but as far as I know, there are the peops making the gbl, mdma, various extractions, methamp through pseudo (maybe pma)- but not really many more
methods exist for (home methods)
|
|
|
beebo
Harmless
Posts: 10
Registered: 6-4-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Groovy
|
|
Wizard X ounce told me long ago...
you have source.. now "use the force"
[Edited on 16-2-2019 by beebo]
A MooseTacular Guy
|
|
|
Mothman
Harmless
Posts: 42
Registered: 26-9-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: Aminated
|
|
I'm quite err...fascinated by clandestine synthesis however I never really looked into how non-hallucinogenic compounds are illegally synthesized
until quite recently. It turns out that several synthetic routes to methamphetamine are available via your local hardware store, which makes the idea
that methamphetamine is produced solely via the reduction of pseudoephedrine even in larger laboratories seem like quite the fantastic claim. My guess
is that at least a fair number of the big labs operate via friedel-crafts alkylation of benzene using bromo- or chloroacetone to produce
phenyl-2-propanone, which is processed into amphetamine/methamphetamine in whatever manner is available to the laboratories. Fractional
crystallization of the tartrate salts would separate the racemic enantiomers for a mostly-pure dextromethamphetamine product if the labs want to
ensure high-grade meth but the street stuff winds up cut to shit anyways.
I will bet money that the people claiming that "the pseudoephedrine route is the only one followed by meth labs these days" are the same people who
are pushing for the tighter regulation or outright banning of pseudoephedrine from the shelves. I could be wrong of course but there are so many
routes to methamphetamine that use far fewer tightly-regulated substances such as pseudoephedrine that it just seems implausible that even the most
paranoid of cooks would take only that route.
You can be happy
|
|
|
Corrosive Joeseph
National Hazard
Posts: 915
Registered: 17-5-2015
Location: The Other Place
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cyclic
|
|
No............
I can think of 20 or 30 different routes straight away, off the top of my head, for somebody determined enough to make amphetamines. That is, if you
include all the variations and different catalysts for well trodden paths.......... And a few not so well worn ones.
You are either not trying hard enough.............. Or you are just trolling............. Again
Threads titled 'Wanting to make drugs?' are not too welcome here.
Detritus
/CJ
Being well adjusted to a sick society is no measure of one's mental health
|
|
|
happyfooddance
National Hazard
Posts: 530
Registered: 9-11-2017
Location: Los Angeles, Ca.
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
+1
|
|
|
VSEPR_VOID
National Hazard
Posts: 719
Registered: 1-9-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fullerenes
|
|
Drug chemistry is boring. I have come up with new routes to methamphetamine from non-regulated materials for fun. I obviously never made anything
illegal, but on paper there are defiantly new things that are possible. Thinking about meth chemistry gets boring quickly. Its chemistry is rather
limited.
I legitimately learned more chemistry from researching methamphetamine synthesis for the "kool" factor, than I learned in college so far.
Within cells interlinked
Within cells interlinked
Within cells interlinked
|
|
|
nimgoldman
Hazard to Others
Posts: 303
Registered: 11-6-2018
Member Is Offline
|
|
Well Alexander Schulgin wouldn't agree - he spent half of his life pursuing exactly this and never stopped being fascinated by it.
I would agree focusing just on "meth" really can become boring. There are much more interesting compounds with even more interesting chemistry around
them.
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2787
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
The clandestine synthesis "scene" has changed in two primary ways over the last two decades:
- Chemicals from overseas pseudo-legitimate suppliers are now a big deal. Back in the Hive days, Strike ran such a company out of (IIRC) Texas. The
new Strikes are in corrupt countries with bribable officials and they can stay under the radar for a long time as long as they stop selling each
precursor when it gets too hot.
- The price of palladium has increased 5x, so hydrogenation is not cool anymore and neither are Wacker-type syntheses. Also, NurdRage's discovery of
how to make sodium may have caused people to look at procedures that use sodium a little more eagerly (benzyl cyanide method), although tbh I haven't
seen much evidence of that.
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
Point noted. I will do a name change. The conversation has some merit.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4580
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by nimgoldman |
Well Alexander Schulgin wouldn't agree - he spent half of his life pursuing exactly this and never stopped being fascinated by it.
I would agree focusing just on "meth" really can become boring. There are much more interesting compounds with even more interesting chemistry around
them. |
Yes, that is about as much of a blanket statement as saying "organic chemistry is boring*" since drug
chemistry can involve virtually any aspect of organic chemistry.
*Incidentally, you might be able to quote me saying exactly that on here ~5 years ago, when I was still uninitiated to
the wonders of organic chemistry.
|
|
|
zed
International Hazard
Posts: 2283
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord
|
|
Well, fer all the hoopla about drug chemistry, the fellas, in 50years of trying, only hit the "sweet spot" a few times.
Other than "hard drugs", there aren't many good synthesis possibilities.
There are just a few new substances, that are considered highly desirable. The rest are kinda "meh".
Pot is now, more-or-less legal.
The old time favorites; LSD, DMT, Mescaline, and Psilocybin.....Remain favorites. Synthesis, with the exception of LSD, being either difficult or
dangerous. AND, now highly illegal.
Newcomers, MDMA and CB2, are produced either with difficulty, or via reagents that are no longer easily acquired in commerce.
Must be some decent labs around, but mostly the scene seems to be dominated by foreign manufactured "Hard Drugs".
Around here, Folks with a taste for it, tend to go with natural products. Less trouble.
In my locale, there is a movement to de-criminalize Psilocybin Mushrooms. Might as well. They grow wild everywhere.
Ayahuesca is sometimes available. Though Homeland Security has inexplicably cracked down on Mimosa Hostilis imports.
MDMA is now approaching a limited type of FDA approval.
And, The Native American Church, seems to have once again gained legal approval to utilize Peyote.
So.... Yes! We have no Bananas!
Probably fewer clandestine psychedelic labs, yet demand is being largely met by greater reliance on quasilegal natural products.
[Edited on 27-2-2019 by zed]
|
|
|
Corrosive Joeseph
National Hazard
Posts: 915
Registered: 17-5-2015
Location: The Other Place
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cyclic
|
|
Really............ Where..........?
| Quote: Originally posted by turd | Attention: People who have mental issues with blatant cookery better stop reading. Save yourself the anger and myself the useless comments.
Ghetto chefs read on. 
|
I will talk drug chemistry all day long but I refuse to spoon feed anyone, for a number of reasons. I also do not feel comfortable sharing the huge
wealth of knowledge
that is available ALL OVER THE INTERNET, because for some strange reason, it seems to bee frowned upon here, so I just upload explosives papers for
the terrorists in the Energetics Forum instead.
Drug chemistry is epic, I have never made any illegal compounds ever, but I will read it all day long "til the cows come home".
It is exciting, 'verboden', dynamic and in other places on the internet real advances are being made by a miniscule group of researchers who really
are at the forefront of modern science 
In the clandestine laboratories of big business, not much has changed, their art is that of acquisition, and apart from that, they just use the same
old reactions they always have.
Masked ketones and other precursors come by the ton from Asia............ This is no secret.
I feel the need to quote this again.......... This is soooo wrong. Please note, myself and the thread-starter have similar join dates.
Obviously, we couldn't have been researching the same topics.
| Quote: Originally posted by VSEPR_VOID | Drug chemistry is boring.
I legitimately learned more chemistry from researching methamphetamine synthesis than I learned in college so far.
|
And how can both these statements bee in the same post......... What a contradiction.
@ j_sum - What do you want to know? I have avoided a lot of discussion here on this topic for a long time now.
The war on drugs has caused more murders and destroyed more lives than the drugs themselves.......... Well, that and the fact that drug abuse,
*cough*. OVER-USE
is a medical and societal issue........... There is something fundamentally wrong with someone when they do that to themselves.
They need some help and support and as if caging them like animals (with the rest of the animals) is really going to remedy the situation.
The general population (and most drug users) are no better than uneducated cattle who really haven't a clue about anything.
Six million years of evolution has proved that.
Explore your mind, think for yourself........... And ALWAYS question authority.
Rant over.
Joe
[Edited on 26-2-2019 by Corrosive Joeseph]
Being well adjusted to a sick society is no measure of one's mental health
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
1. It is nice to hace a conversation about sensitive topics that focuses on objective facts and reasoned opinions while everyone remains civil. Not
saying this is a shining example, but it is not bin-worthy.
2. It is good to know a bit about those factors that contribute to making our hobby difficult at times. Really, I know little about clan labs except
what I read in the news. I have no desire to make anything pharmicologically active -- nor even acquire the knowledge except inasmuch as it affects
the chemistry I do want to do. But I do have an interest in "environmental factors" concerning this hobby. Input from intelligent and
knowledgeable people is always welcome. And, CJ, I think you have the balance right with respect to spoonfeedinf information.
|
|
|
Texium
|
Thread Moved
26-2-2019 at 07:31 |
Mothman
Harmless
Posts: 42
Registered: 26-9-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: Aminated
|
|
| Quote: |
I will talk drug chemistry all day long but I refuse to spoon feed anyone, for a number of reasons. I also do not feel comfortable sharing the huge
wealth of knowledge that is available ALL OVER THE INTERNET, because for some strange reason, it seems to bee frowned upon here, so I just upload
explosives papers for the terrorists in the Energetics Forum instead.
|
Why does this forum frown upon drug synthesis discussion anyways? I get that cookery contributes nothing to the forum's knowledge base but I've never
seen reason to discourage academic discussion regarding the chemistry behind the reactions. What gives?
You can be happy
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4580
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mothman |
| Quote: |
I will talk drug chemistry all day long but I refuse to spoon feed anyone, for a number of reasons. I also do not feel comfortable sharing the huge
wealth of knowledge that is available ALL OVER THE INTERNET, because for some strange reason, it seems to bee frowned upon here, so I just upload
explosives papers for the terrorists in the Energetics Forum instead.
|
Why does this forum frown upon drug synthesis discussion anyways? I get that cookery contributes nothing to the forum's knowledge base but I've never
seen reason to discourage academic discussion regarding the chemistry behind the reactions. What gives? |
It
isn't frowned upon- but theoretical, academic discussions often devolve as they get hijacked by spoonfeeders or the discussions verge more into
exactly how to set up a reaction rather than the theory behind it. Besides, rarely do truly academic discussions of drug chemistry actually START on
this forum. More often, a spoonfeeding request spawns some more interesting discussion, but at that point it gets all tangled up, and that's why I
encourage people to start a new thread after I shut it down. But that doesn't seem to happen.
So I wouldn't say it's frowned upon so much as it just doesn't happen.
|
|
|
morganbw
National Hazard
Posts: 561
Registered: 23-11-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mothman |
Why does this forum frown upon drug synthesis discussion anyways? I get that cookery contributes nothing to the forum's knowledge base but I've never
seen reason to discourage academic discussion regarding the chemistry behind the reactions. What gives? |
It does not seem to be very common at the present but if you spend a day going back over the threads from the start, there are some good ones.
Also, there are many threads, even recent threads, which could be extrapolated
toward drug synthesis, according to the readers understanding of the chemistry.
|
|
|
Mothman
Harmless
Posts: 42
Registered: 26-9-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: Aminated
|
|
If I were to ask why a reaction reported on another site failed or succeeded (ex. alpha-bromoacetophenone, sec-butyllithium, and dibromobutane in an
attempt to make phenyl-cyclopentyl ketone for ketamine analogue synthesis, this reaction failed apparently) that would be OK but if I just came on
here and said "teach meth please" (perhaps with fewer hard consonants  ) that
would be frowned upon.
Good to know! I will be less hesitant asking academic questions related to clandestine chemistry on here, it's nice knowing I can keep learning on
here like I used to when I was trying to learn a bit about inorganic chemistry in my earlier days as an amateur!
You can be happy
|
|
|
Jackson
Hazard to Others
Posts: 189
Registered: 22-5-2018
Location: U S of A
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy about new glassware
|
|
I am sort of interested in analogs. I say sort of because I’m less interested in their shared properties with a drug, and more with their different
properties. I am basically interested in synthesis/design of new compounds based of tryptamines/phenethylamines that have potential uses in medicine,
rather than recreationally. I have been running docking simulations of proteins with a couple different molecules, and I don’t currently want to
synthesize these compounds, but I do have a question about a specific grouping of compounds. It seems that when Substituted phenethylamines have a
benzyl group added onto their nitrogen, they become more active, but they also become more toxic. Why is this? Is the added toxicity due to metabolism
products, is the compound itself more toxic, or is it something completely different?
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
