| Pages:
1
2
3
..
5 |
tupence_hapeny
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 25-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: continuing respiration (touch wood)
|
|
Illicit Drugs & Amateur Chemistry - What to do?
I have been placed in a position where it is time to make a choice. Those of you who have read my other post in this forum will know that amateur
chemistry in this country is basically illegal unless and until one of two things happen.
(1) The Powers that be win the drug war; or
(2) The Powers that be realise the drug war is unwinnable and legalise drugs.
I realise neither is particularly palatable, however, they are the choices we have. Thus for mine it is time to look at the pros and cons of each
result.
(1) The Powers that be win the Drug War
Pros
A greatly safer society, what more, one with full employment - whether in supervision of correctional facilities or with the various paramilitary or
law enforcement agencies. It will be good, kinda like the 50's, except for those goddamn reds.
Cons
Amateur Chemistry will remain the subject of considerable suspicion for the foreseeable future, as despite winning the government will rightly fear
outbreaks of subversive activities. However, and provided none of your immediate or extended family has ever been photographed at a rally or picking
up a copy of Das Kapital, you will be entitled to, at the culmination of a minimum of 5 years study, be entitled to own 1 beaker.
(2) The Powers that be realise that the Drug War is unwinnable
Pros
Amateur chemistry will be widely practiced, not least because the minute drugs are legal, prices and availability will rise - shutting out both the
tweakers and the major cartels - put simply - the money just won't be there. Taxes will fall as a result of the incredible reduction in spending on
law enforcement (crime will fall - junkies steal to score - if drugs are cheap they won't be so active) and the massive increase in taxes on newly
available revenue streams (drugs). The 50% of the population that now toke in private can now do so in comfort and democracy has triumphed - while the
agricultural sector will rebound overnight due to the availability of certain cash crops (poppies, marijuana, coca, etc.).
Cons
It will be incredibly hard to get work with law enforcement, prisons or other paramilitary organisations and this stagnancy will crimp promotional
opportunities and the power of the incumbents. Several lucrative investment opportunities, namely prisons, will suffer from lack of funding for the
foreseeable future. Painkiller manufacturers will be hit by the availability of cheap drugs that are off patent and finally decent drugs will be
available to treat (not hide) the causes of PTSD and trauma related illness. A portion of the public will rapidly become addicted to the newly
legalised drugs (face it, this is always going to happen - look at alcohol and even petrol).
So, if you disagree - tell me why, oh, and remember to vote for which option you believe to be preferable:
We are all the sum of our experiences, and our reactions to the same
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Pick the choice that best suits you. Amateur chemistry is not illegal. Making illegal substances is.
Joe
|
|
|
tupence_hapeny
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 25-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: continuing respiration (touch wood)
|
|
Here it most assuredly is, well not specifically, only if you want to use glassware, chemicals or something subversive like that.
Pick the choice which you believe is acheivable,
PS Do you honestly believe that the keystones can actually win the war?
We are all the sum of our experiences, and our reactions to the same
|
|
|
BromicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 3253
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Online
Mood: Rock n' Roll
|
|
Come on, a poll with two options, nothing is that black and white. Honestly I don't think the government is going to win and I certainly don't think
they are going to give up.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
You oversimplify.
You fail to consider the possibility that the "powers that be" already know the "Drug war" is unwinnable, but they don't care because winning was
never their intention. Were it otherwise they would have changed strategy long ago.
|
|
|
tupence_hapeny
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 25-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: continuing respiration (touch wood)
|
|
Don't care about whether they wish to change tactics... In a democracy they have NO choice but to change tactics, once 50% of the population
disapproves.
Otherwise we get into seriously dangerous territory, in which a minority is attempting to set and enforce rules which are not agreed with by the
majority, using the very tactics which they have legislated against the other side having the means to use. Moreover, doing so after having pissed on
the very people from which they derive their support.
I cannot think of a single instance in which the sitting power has survived (not weathered) an actual assault against citizens against the will of the
majority of their citizens. That places a society in a very inadvisable position (think Belfast circa 1970). When too much of society identifies more
closely with the criminals than the government the criminals will win every time.
However, this time (unlike Belfast/Ulster) the government have set out to put the amateur chemists in the camp of the disaffected. Not a real bright
idea, not considering what is possible.
tup
We are all the sum of our experiences, and our reactions to the same
|
|
|
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
|
|
IMO, My country (England) has had 2 great Prime Ministers, Churchill and Thatcher.
Lady Thatcher has a Degree in Chemistry, I don`t think for a second she didn`t do any Amateur Chem at home as well.
and so if it`s good enough for one of our greatest, it`s good enough for me!
I don`t care for either of your 2 options, as has been stated above, it`s NOT a B/W choice as you try and present it.
\"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)
|
|
|
tupence_hapeny
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 25-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: continuing respiration (touch wood)
|
|
In this country it very soon will be, on at least 4 occasions last year Police lost control of a gang-inspired situation, despite resorting to
violence to stop it. Prohibition gives the power to the gangs, clear and simple. It provides them with the disaffected recruits and the money with
which to purchase weapons.
And, YT2095 I agree wholeheartedly on your choice of PM's, they weren't only YOUR countries best IMHO. Yet I fail to see what Thatchers choice of
hobby has to do with the question?
Simply put, the problem will get way out of hand in the very near future... The problem is not posed by mythical 'unified' evil forces, but (as in
Ireland) a multiplicity of disaffected groups, which don't agree with each other - but who don't agree with the current approach either and who are
willing to use violence to further their own ends and/or vested interests. In Ulster this was predominantly sectarian according to most, despite the
facts that the majority of participants on one side were connected directly or indirectly with law enforcement or paramilitary forces, and the
original problem grew once the Crown (in right of the UK as embodied by the Royal Army) became involved (ironically to protect the residents of Derry
and Falls Road from the UDF/UVF/etc).
The trouble with trying to learn from history is the potential for unpalatable facts to become apparent. I prefer this to willful blindness, however,
I am hardly in the majority in doing so... Anytime one part of society attempts to sanction the use of violence to impose their will on the remainder
of society a violent backlash is possible. When violence happens, the majority of society supports whatever places them in the least personal danger,
not a nice fact - but a true one nonetheless.
We are all the sum of our experiences, and our reactions to the same
|
|
|
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
|
|
Albeit largely Borked post 9/11 and 7/7, I still have a modicum of faith in our Justice system.
\"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)
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
I completly agree with Sauron.
Me, I personally hate drugs, hell I avoid aspirin if I can.
The war on drugs is not going to be won, all the money going to fund the paramilitary police units makes working as part of the 'solution' far to
lucrative. And all the 'skimmings' from seizures of stuff from dealers is just icing on the cake.
Prohibition did not work 100 years ago, why would it work now? I have read a good deal of "Economics of Prohibition" which is a really good read.
Many go with the whole 'drugs are bad...mkay...they should be illegal' I still think they may be bad for you(but not evil like the media expouses),
but thats no reason for them to be illegal... I have said this once and I'll say it again Legalize it all and let darwin sort it out. Addiction is
your own damn fault, with all the information out there you have no excuse not to know the potential harm something does, so if you eat/snort/inject
something that some random degenerate gives you, you are a moron, and the gene pool is better off without you. 'Peer pressure" be damned, I did not
drink or have a desire to drink until second year of university, and even then it was 'ok, now whats the purpose of this?' after I tried.
Neither of the poll options are going to happen, but what WILL happen in the near future is that drugs are going to become a 'bigger problem'(however
you want to take that), gang activity will increase, and as such violent crime, all the while politicians give more an more funding to SS styled 'drug
law enforcers' leading us closer to 1984.
|
|
|
Levi
Hazard to Others
Posts: 196
Registered: 24-1-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by The_Davster
I have said this once and I'll say it again Legalize it all and let darwin sort it out. |
Amen. Imagine a world where airline peanuts don't need directions and warning labels...
There's this notion that it is evil to be so cold concerning these matters, but we need to learn that there is a difference between adequate warning
and fascist involvement. One cannot simultaneously believe in the inherent dignity of a human being and forcefully make their decisions for them. If
a person is not allowed to decide his or her own fate, the end situation is worse than death--it is the fate of a meaningless life which will
inevitably be followed by death.
Chemcrime does not entail death. Chemcrime is death.
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Levi
One cannot simultaneously believe in the inherent dignity of a human being and forcefully make their decisions for them. If a person is not allowed
to decide his or her own fate, the end situation is worse than death--it is the fate of a meaningless life which will inevitably be followed by death.
|
Mind if I quote this in the future? It sums up my feelings on a lot of things, put rather eloquently.
|
|
|
Levi
Hazard to Others
Posts: 196
Registered: 24-1-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I'd be honored to have that quoted--although I'm nearly certain it's been said before by someone more famous than myself. That is a 100% original
Levi-quote, but the concept has circled the globe several times and it's bound to have fallen somewhere else
Chemcrime does not entail death. Chemcrime is death.
|
|
|
tupence_hapeny
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 25-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: continuing respiration (touch wood)
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by The_Davster
I completly agree with Sauron.
Me, I personally hate drugs, hell I avoid aspirin if I can.
The war on drugs is not going to be won, all the money going to fund the paramilitary police units makes working as part of the 'solution' far to
lucrative. And all the 'skimmings' from seizures of stuff from dealers is just icing on the cake.
Prohibition did not work 100 years ago, why would it work now? I have read a good deal of "Economics of Prohibition" which is a really good read.
Many go with the whole 'drugs are bad...mkay...they should be illegal' I still think they may be bad for you(but not evil like the media expouses),
but thats no reason for them to be illegal... I have said this once and I'll say it again Legalize it all and let darwin sort it out. Addiction is
your own damn fault, with all the information out there you have no excuse not to know the potential harm something does, so if you eat/snort/inject
something that some random degenerate gives you, you are a moron, and the gene pool is better off without you. 'Peer pressure" be damned, I did not
drink or have a desire to drink until second year of university, and even then it was 'ok, now whats the purpose of this?' after I tried.
Neither of the poll options are going to happen, but what WILL happen in the near future is that drugs are going to become a 'bigger problem'(however
you want to take that), gang activity will increase, and as such violent crime, all the while politicians give more an more funding to SS styled 'drug
law enforcers' leading us closer to 1984. |
My feelings precisely.
However, what if I were unwilling to accept the two options you paint? A police state with a countervailing anarchy, thus legitimising the
continuation of the first? (Quite simply for mine these are the two things that I would least like to see). I note your signature (I agree
wholeheartedly with Mr Mill - also Mr Locke) and ask again, how may this result be prevented (my reference to your signature may indeed suggest that
from my perspective the only real option will require a modicum of intestinal fortitude).
I am essentially ambivalent to drugs, whether they be legal or illegal, and similarly ambivalent to the people making the same, after all if beer
manufacturers are such great people I see no reason to discriminate against the producers of other drugs per se. This is not to say that I agree with
either the greed or the total lack of ethics in business, that lead drug makers to charge excessively and create social chaos and misery. However,
drugs do not create addiction, a certain portion of society is sick enough to find solace only in continual intoxication - whatever the agent of that
intoxication may be - where drugs are not available petrol is used (especially in this country).
So, are we to continue to sit back and say nothing while our society goes to hell in a handbasket, while our leaders continue to apply a Victorian
style approach to an issue which may be dealt with as befitting the 21st century? Would allowing this to happen, knowing the consequences, make us
complicit in those consequences?
Unfortunately, neither side of this war wants to win - the government because they are empowered by the existence of the evil 'drug dealers' while the
dealers most certainly do not want to damage their business - which legalisation would cause. So society suffers silently in the middle, and amateur
chemistry in this country is dead (or illegal, take your pick).
There is only one answer to the problem, although god help me, not one I particularly wish to participate in... (nor one which will be particularly
well understood on this board).
That answer is of course, to make the drugs in sufficient quantity as to make the input of the tweakers and cartels otiose, and distribute them at the
lowest price possible per unit, in order to achieve market saturation. As this is a social action, use university students to distribute the wares and
to protest the continued prohibition at the same time (as per the social actions against abortion, with similar levels of resistance).
Unfortunately, the penalties for failure will be intense, to say the least, while some (particularly distributors) will not survive. That being said,
it will be their call as to whether or not to participate.
That being said, evil is winning while good men (and women) do nothing, this cannot be allowed to continue.
We are all the sum of our experiences, and our reactions to the same
|
|
|
indigofuzzy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 145
Registered: 1-10-2006
Location: DarkCity, Bay of Rainbows, Moon
Member Is Offline
Mood: Distilled
|
|
First, let me apologize in advance if my post gets incoherent. A lot of ideas to try to type, and it's getting late.
For one, while I acknowledge the statements that amateur chemistry is not actually illegal, I must interject that it's becoming legally dangerous. By
this I mean that an amateur chemist can get in trouble these days without having to do anything illegal, s/he only needs to be seen by the wrong
person whilst doing an experiment, then BOOM! legal trouble. I was in Wal*Mart the other night with my roommate, picking up some solvents for my
experiments, the whole time telling him to be quiet, fearing that someone might think we were running some kind of clandestine "lab". Sad, really. As
you may be able to ascertain from my other posts, my interest in chemistry has nothing to do with "illegal drugs", but I do use a *lot* of products
for other than their intended purposes. My (mis)adventures in amateur chemistry all stem from a sort of idle curiosity, but it gets really
discouraging to have to be watching my back because someone might get the wrong idea and get me in trouble with "the law". And for what? Copper
plating some knickknacks? Extracting the phosphorescent pigment form paint? being curious about plasma and high-voltage phenomena? Recycling used
styrofoam into sculptures? ::grumbles::
As for the connection between amateur chem and drug manufacturing, we all know it's one more big wrong turn in this "war on drugs", and we can all
agree that this war will never be won. As I see it, the "war on drugs" is causing more social problems than it set out to solve. America's "Drug
problem" is only a problem because of drug law. This has been alluded to several times already on this thread. The "war on drugs" creates poverty,
creates "criminals", creates violence and death, destroys lives, destroys careers, ruins neighborhoods, and for what? Virtually every life destroyed
by drugs, barring death from overdose, was destroyed not by the effects of the drug in question, but by the effects of the "war on drugs". How many
people have been doing well at their job, only to lose it for failing a drug test? How many people can't get off drugs and clean up their lives
because no one will hire them because they still have metabolites in their urine? Why the anti-cannabis campaign on TV? I have never heard of anyone
overdosing on cannabis, never heard of a death attributed to cannabis, and this whole gateway drug thing is utter bull....er...crap. Most people I
know who smoke (or eat) cannabis *don't* go on to "hard" drugs like cocaine, heroine, meth, etc. Many dabble with psylocybin mushrooms, salivia
divinorum, or Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), but only on rare occasions. There is a large but invisible subset of the population that uses
"illegal drugs" (mostly cannabis, but sometimes other things) responsibly. Just like how there is a large subset of the population that uses alcohol
responsibly.
Maybe the best solution to this is education. hmm, screw maybe. Definitely, the best solution is education, *truthful* education. Make people aware
that there are 100% legitimate amateur chemists. Make people aware that without us, there would be no plastic. (thank you, plastics industry for your
commercials about how essential plastic is) Make people aware that without us, there would be no nonstick cookware, no allergy medicines, no
painkillers, no insulin, no Pepto Bismol™, no nail polish, no panty hose, no hawaiian polyester shirts, NO COMPUTERS, NO TELEVISION, NO CELL PHONES,
no windex™, no tires on their car, no gasoline, no kerosene, heck, no steel, no brass, no perfume, NO DEODORANT, TOOTHPASTE, SHAMPOO or SOAP, no
coca-cola™, no Mountain Dew™, no glow sticks, no matches or lighters, the list could go on for pages. In short, without chemistry, our modern
world would not exist, and cannot continue to exist.
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by indigofuzzy
Maybe the best solution to this is education. hmm, screw maybe. Definitely, the best solution is education, *truthful* education. Make people aware
that there are 100% legitimate amateur chemists. Make people aware that without us, there would be no plastic. (thank you, plastics industry for your
commercials about how essential plastic is) Make people aware that without us, there would be no nonstick cookware, no allergy medicines, no
painkillers, no insulin, no Pepto Bismol™, no nail polish, no panty hose, no hawaiian polyester shirts, NO COMPUTERS, NO TELEVISION, NO CELL PHONES,
no windex™, no tires on their car, no gasoline, no kerosene, heck, no steel, no brass, no perfume, NO DEODORANT, TOOTHPASTE, SHAMPOO or SOAP, no
coca-cola™, no Mountain Dew™, no glow sticks, no matches or lighters, the list could go on for pages. In short, without chemistry, our modern
world would not exist, and cannot continue to exist. |
Ahh.. you mean all those items now made in China. A resurgence in amateur chemistry means that the social enhancements, as defined by the majority of
our society, has stalled and Darwin will once again contain more truth than most thought.
Joe
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
There won't be a satisfying end to this "war" in our generation. What we can do however, is to ensure that future generations don't suffer the same
oppression.
Most illegal drugs are, in my humble opinion, right where they belong. Sure, marijuana, psychedelics, and a few others don't belong on the list... but
heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines for the masses? No thanks! I think I'll move to a country where they are illegal. Most people in today’s society
simply can't use drugs responsibly. It's not that they are unable to, it's moreso that they haven't developed a societal/philosophical/moral lifestyle
that incorporates drugs and responsibility in a manner that is productive both for themselves and society.
And therein lies the problem: most people are uneducated. Indigofuzzy hit the nail right on the head... if we want to see any sort of change, we won't
be able to do anything in our generation... but if we educate our children, then we have a chance. It's my personal opinion that a course such as
pharmacology should be offered –no– required for every single student. Drugs are a part of our lives... yet so few know how they work, why they
work, or have any sort of philosophical viewpoint towards them (and drugs force you to evaluate your standing on life, something that most people, I
feel, are afraid to do).
The matter isn’t as simple as, say, banning or unbanning all drugs. First off, some drugs are illegal for a good reason… I’m sorry, but society
collapsing from mass opiate use (see China) is something I don’t want to see. A paranoid and sedated population? That’s not preferred either. So
what is left? I think the best approach would be something along of the lines of repealing harsh laws such as imprisonment and heavy fines,
implementing education, and then our children can decide what’s best, when they and their peers are educated about drugs.
Drugs are quite prominent nowadays and everyone seems to know something about them. Almost always, what they know is just wrong. Of course, that
doesn’t change people from sticking to what they know and demonizing and/or proselytizing drugs X and Y. I feel that people need to look beyond just
changing a law for their benefit. YOU might benefit, but some uneducated junior high student who gets addicted to crack won’t be benefiting, and you
can be sure society and his family will be grieving.
I don’t care much for the laws, and in the words of the Good Doctor “In a closed society where everybody’s guilty, the only crime is getting
caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.” Don’t get caught… problem solved. Sure the bans are harsh, and you aren’t
doing anything illegal… but, well, tough! I’d rather have chemicals difficult to get than see more people get sucked into hard drugs because they
know too little about them and for them, dopamine prevails over reason.
Education implemented into our children’s curriculum… that’s the only chance we have. Our generation is doomed.
[Edited on 2-4-2007 by PainKilla]
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Found this in my inbox today.
U.S. scientist urges support for NSF
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The head of the American Chemical Society said the National Science Foundation's education programs are critical to the nation's
competitiveness.
ACS President Catherine Hunt told a congressional panel Thursday that the NSF's education and research programs are needed to fend off threats to the
United States' economic and technological leadership.
Hunt said NSF plays an "absolutely essential" role in addressing challenges in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics education
from kindergarten through graduate school and beyond, the ACS said in a release.
NSF provides about one-fifth of all federal funding in support of basic research at America's colleges and universities.
"We must set aside any notion that NSF's education programs are either subservient to or stand in competition with its research programs," said Hunt.
"NSF's education and research missions are mutually supportive and play key, unique roles in building our nation's scientific and technological
capacity."
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tupence_hapeny
There is only one answer to the problem, although god help me, not one I particularly wish to participate in... (nor one which will be particularly
well understood on this board).
That answer is of course, to make the drugs in sufficient quantity as to make the input of the tweakers and cartels otiose, and distribute them at the
lowest price possible per unit, in order to achieve market saturation. As this is a social action, use university students to distribute the wares and
to protest the continued prohibition at the same time (as per the social actions against abortion, with similar levels of resistance).
|
That would do more harm than anything. You are expousing to a group of chemical hobbyists to essentially make drugs so we don't get in trouble for
our legitimate hobby. That is completly inane and I cannot see any support for such ideas here. The free market may be the solution to the problem,
but the LEGAL free market. Even if your idea could work, there is not nearly enough hobbyists to make it successfull, and even if there were I am
sure perhaps one in 1000 would attempt this. The rest finding it disgusting, myself included.
It would not do our LEGAL CHEMISTRY hobby any good to try this.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Check out this very same poster in the P2P from Styrene thread.
Just a fucking meth cook.
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tupence_hapeny
IIllicit Drugs & Amateur Chemistry - What to do? |
Hows about you quit making them and giving the rest of us a bad name? None of this trying to make yourself a martyr or some crap for a cause you
do not represent.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Being a professional criminal drug chemist is NOT amateur chemistry.
Unlike a few of our European members you do not even have the excuse of being legal or quasi legal in your own country.
In short, @Tup, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Don't be a drug cook and then winge about draconian laws enacted to counter what you yourself are doing. People just like you ARE the problem. If
amateur chemistry is just about extinct in Australia, it's because of Australian drug cooks - isn't it?
A few rotten apples spoiling the whole barrel.
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I have to say, I wholeheartedly agree - but drug chemistry is only in bad tastes, IMHO, if you sell whatever it is being made. One can research drugs
on an amateur level without much difficulty. Selling is another issue altogether... in fact, selling is the only reason amateur chemistry is targeted,
since "amateur chemists” (in the eyes of LEO) are the ones making and selling the drugs. Of course, the drugs themselves are another taboo, but I am
personally for freedom of the individual, provided nothing else is harmed in the process – and that’s easy to do, provided you provide for
yourself, only. And in a responsible manner, environmentally and such.
Of course, our good friend might claim the above, but personally, I have my suspicions too.
[Edited on 4-4-2007 by PainKilla]
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
The dilemna is that an amateur lab where the chemist is "researching drugs" is indistinguishable from a clandestine lab where a drug cook is preparing
drugs for sale.
Reagents, equipment, all the same.
Penalties the same.
Therefore, for one's own sake as well as for the sake of the hobby, better not to straddle the fence. Join the bad guys, or join the good guys. The
bad guys have utterly ruined any possibility of staking out a tenable libertarian position of "private research" or "personal use".
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Very true... this is the case in the USA anyway. In some countries, where people are a bit more lenient, provided you aren't harming anyone - things
could arguably be a bit better.
The wise man keeps his mouth shut.
[Edited on 5-4-2007 by PainKilla]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
..
5 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
