| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
Because you have come here and with only 14 post every single one of them have been about direct drug synthesis.They where mostly not even good
questions just something a 16 year old kid would ask that wanted to know how to make a quick $. We are tolerant here but not retarted. Get some
intrest in chemistry instead of drugs and you MAY have people care about your questions.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
Sedit! 
|
|
|
benzylchloride1
Hazard to Others
Posts: 299
Registered: 16-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pushing the envelope of synthetic chemistry in one's basement
|
|
There are millions if not billions of organic compounds out there to be discovered with multitudes of different properties and uses. There are many
other compounds beside street and designer drugs that can be synthesized by amateur chemists. The only point of synthesizing narcotics is to get
screwed up, break the law and possibly make some money. I cannot see any scientific value in making methamphetamine. Reactions involved in its
synthesis can be demonstrated with out makind a drug. Synthesize a new molecule, rather then some drug that has been produced thousands of times by
drug cooks. A drug cook is not a legitimate amateur chemist, end of story.
Amateur NMR spectroscopist
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I was almost chased away by Sauron because of his assumption that I was making or planning to make drugs. I found it to be somewhat of a double
standard that he was allowed to speak all he wanted about chemical weapons (even with extreme detail) but when I even mentioned a chemical that had
anything to do with a drug I was chastised and labeled a "druggie" (or something similar).
Despite that I decided to stick around but I know most people wouldn't have given leaving a second thought. Most would leave and never look back.
Of course I have gotten over it, but it should be a lesson to all of us to not judge a books by their covers.
"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
|
|
|
JohnWW
International Hazard
Posts: 2849
Registered: 27-7-2004
Location: New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I agree with Benzychloride. A really good and smart "drug cook", and one keeping on the right side of the law, would discover (possibly as a natural
product) and synthesize (or at least extract and concentrate if a natural product) some new hallucinogenic or narcotic or euphoria-inducing drug which
has not (yet) been legally prohibited by the corrupt politicians in his own country, who of course are in the pockets of the big pharmaceuticals and
alcohol and tobacco companies (as everyone knows), and who use hand-picked so-called "experts" to produce fudged scientific "reports" to give the bans
some sort of quasi-legitimacy.
I reckon there is nothing wrong with drugs, provided you know how and when to use them. What about all the people who legally used and dealt in
now-prohibited drugs before they were banned in the early-mid 20th century? - and why is there no witch-hunt by the cops against those still living?
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
A throwback to the 1960's! Groovy, man.
Seems like this violates Polverone's Rule: NO discussion of drug policy.
But aren't you painting with a broad brush? Which drugs? Don't you make a distinction between marijuana and crack or heroin? Seems kind of
uninformed to me.
You reckon? Excuse me if I am underwhelmed by your qualifications to make such a sweeping generalization, in spite of your qualifications
being......well, what exactly are your qualifications?
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
[Edited on 27-7-2009 by entropy51]
|
|
|
starman
Hazard to Others
Posts: 318
Registered: 5-7-2008
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
John WW,I tend to agree wth you.There are some who will always seek 'altered states'.Given that there will always be demand and hence supply of these
classes of pharmacalogical agents,what about the course of looking for less addictive/impairing/harmful alternatives to the ones currently available
as an alternative to the unsuccessful,frontal assault,approach of the WOD.
I think that the next legislative salvo will be based on receptor activity,thus any compound showing agonist activity of greater than X at Y receptor
is henceforth illegal,immoral,a blight on society,blah,blah,blah....
Chemistry- The journey from the end of physics to the beginning of life.(starman)
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by starman  | John WW,I tend to agree wth you.There are some who will always seek 'altered states'.Given that there will always be demand and hence supply of these
classes of pharmacalogical agents,what about the course of looking for less addictive/impairing/harmful alternatives to the ones currently available
as an alternative to the unsuccessful,frontal assault,approach of the WOD.
I think that the next legislative salvo will be based on receptor activity,thus any compound showing agonist activity of greater than X at Y receptor
is henceforth illegal,immoral,a blight on society,blah,blah,blah.... |
They're 20 years ahead of you. Its called the Analog Act, but they didn't even bother with receptor affinities. They don't need to be that
discriminating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analog_Act
|
|
|
JohnWW
International Hazard
Posts: 2849
Registered: 27-7-2004
Location: New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It is just as well no such equivalent of that Act exists here in New Zealand! Our Misuse Of Drugs Act 1975, foisted upon the gullible Labor Government
of the day that allowed itself to be hoodwinked by the corrupt NZ Cops and by the pharmaceuticals, alcohol, and tobacco lobbies, is bad enough. The
part of it allowing warrantless searches on mere suspicion, with no hard evidence, is contrary to the later NZ Bill Of Rights Act 1990, but this has
never yet been properly tested in a New Zealand Court in respect of drug busts made without warrants.
|
|
|
starman
Hazard to Others
Posts: 318
Registered: 5-7-2008
Location: Western Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes ,I aware of that legislation in the States,but as the article explains interpretation of "substantial similarity" of either structure or effect
has led to difficulties in practical prosecution. Having only to deal with neurochemical response completely eliminates questions of structure and
conveiniently illegalises currently unknown compounds.
Chemistry- The journey from the end of physics to the beginning of life.(starman)
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by entropy51 | | Excuse me if I am underwhelmed by your qualifications to make such a sweeping generalization, in spite of your qualifications being......well, what
exactly are your qualifications? |
Qualifications entropy51?
Could that possibly be any more arrogant?
Have you any more right to pontificate on this subject than anyone else?
Do you even know what the problem is?
[Edited on 28-7-2009 by hissingnoise]
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
Well, there are at least three.
1. Individuals who presume to be knowledgeable in the effects of drugs of abuse and the harm they have caused, and continue to cause to individuals
and society as a whole. Avarice and hedonism usually underly their righteous pronouncements regarding imagined freedoms.
2. The tyranny of the majority, but that's the way that things work. Should we stop the world so that you can get off?
3. People who believe that they are above the law. That is the true arrogance of which you accuse others.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
"1. Individuals who presume to be knowledgeable in the effects of drugs of abuse and the harm they have caused, and continue to cause to individuals
and society as a whole."
I think you should ponder this more thoroughly. I presume to be "knowledgeable in the effects of drugs of abuse and the harm they have caused". I
also presume to know the latter about the system that claims to want to end such harm. I would seriously be glad to answer questions.
I think you should look into what might be the main cause of such harm. Perhaps you should study the history of it all (from an objective
source(s) of course) if you haven't already. You might be truly fascinated, as I was.
Is this considering talking about drug policy? Let me know please.
[Edited on 7-29-2009 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
|
|
|
ammonium isocyanate
Hazard to Others
Posts: 124
Registered: 13-7-2009
Location: USA - Midwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: sick 
|
|
Let me rant for a little bit about the Federal Analog Act...
Under it, anything is a controlled substance if intended for human consumption (although it is debated if the prosecution must prove this)- and is one
of the following in relation to a schedule I or II substance:
1. Substantially similar in chemical structure- REGARDLESS OF ACTIVITY, i.e. MSG (monosodium glutamate, a common food additive) could easily be
considered an analog of gamma-hodroxybutyric acid (after all, just decarboxylate and swap a hydroxyl group for the amine, right?). That's right, drop
the soup and trun around slowly, perp!!!
2. Substantially similar or greater in activity- Let me spell this out in a few steps. Many cannabinoids which act only on the CB-2 receptor are
schedule 1. These cannabinoids have no pharmacollogical activity. Anything with equal or greater activity is considered a controlled substances
under the FAA. You got a prescription for that tomato, asshole? How 'bout that air you're breathing? Off to the clinker with you!
3. Made out to be substantially similar- Really? You sell a tea that is so wonderful and invigorating that it'll make you feel high? Cops!
I know these three aren't the law word for word, and it is unlikely a jury would convict someone for breathing (if only out of self-preservation).
As for the ability of prosecutors put people behind bars, it usually works. The only counter-example I can think of was a ruling that
alpha-methyltryptamine was not substantially similar to dimethyltryptamine because they couldn't be easily synthesized from each other, and that one
was as primary amine while the other was a tertiary amine. But the DEA's response was to add alpha-methyltryptamine (investigated and used in some
countries as an antidepressent) to schedule I. Jerks.
If you don't think the FAA is effective, just look up operation web tryp. They had no problem there.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
Sorry entropy51, my last post sounded badtempered.
But, with respect, you seem to have difficulty seeing the wood for the trees, here.
It may seem simplistic, but all drugtaking is part and parcel of the pursuit of happiness, and the absurdity of any attempt to curtail any of the
various means by which this pursuit is conducted should be evident to all.
People certainly should feel they are above any law which is unjustified and the simple fact is, these laws of prohibition lack any
justification, whatsoever. . .
The arrogance is wholly on the side of those who think it right to legislate the private lives of others to suit their own religious/moral agendas.
If the human propensity to ingest drugs, legal and illegal, were to be
be viewed as a disease it would be evident that the disease is refractory/incurable; prohibition, in this context, is an aggressive chemotherapy
course whose only effect is an exacerbation of an already poor situation.
[Edited on 29-7-2009 by hissingnoise]
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise |
The arrogance is wholly on the side of those who think it right to legislate the private lives of others to suit their own religious/moral agendas.
|
That is the tyranny of the majority of which I spoke. But I think we are stuck with it. I agree about the religious/moral agendas, but there are
also medical issues to be considered. Admittedly some drugs are worse than others, and those individuals who are prone to addiction are harmed more
than those not so inclined.
No offense taken, hissingnoise. I enoy a spirited discussion as much as the next guy as long as we are discussing and not cussing! And many thanks to
Polverone for allowing this discussion.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
| Quote: |
and those individuals who are prone to addiction are harmed more than those not so inclined. |
Please note that many people are not harmed at all and a subset of those actually benefit from using (il)legal drugs.
"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
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
Magic, are you going to leave me hanging, or tell me how they benefit?
I went to college in the 60's and 70's when drugs were everywhere. (I'm not as sheltered as you might guess.) The otherwise capable people that I
knew who got heavily into drugs pretty much without exception lost their motivation and dropped out of school. I can't say for certain that it was
causality, but there was a very strong correlation. I know it's anecdotal evidence, but I tend to believe those things that I have personally
witnessed.
Your experience may be different?
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
| Quote: | | The otherwise capable people that I knew who got heavily into drugs pretty much without exception lost their motivation and dropped
out of school |
Thats the point. Even H2O will poison you if you drink to much of it. Nothing should be done inexcess and expect a benefit from that substance.
Opiates have benefited a great many people over the years and century for that matter by relieving pain that could have not been soothed by any other
means of the time.
Stimulants have helped truckers and nightshift workers since there discovery to help them fight away drowsyness and allow them to be more productive.
Marijuana has aided me in creativity and thinking more then anything in my life allowing me to throw ego aside and see the world thru other peoples
eyes.
Almost any substance that alters the way one perceives the world or alters the functions of ones the body can be used for many benefits if used
properly. To say an illegle drug is bad but a perscription one is ok is appalling considering I have taken a few different substances in my time
because I had social anxiety and almost everything showed no ill effects yet when I decided to leave it up to a doctor to cure me later in life they
perscribed me to an SSRI which did nothing but make me legally insane for about a year until one day I blacked out in the middle of a seizure and
destroyed my house. I fail to see how the classification of legality made that poison safe but the others that where used safely for hundreds of years
up till a few decades ago dangerous.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
And a strawman argument. Which, besides ad-hominem attacks and cynic off-topic comments, is all you produced so far in this thread.
The experts on the subject are quite clear that prohibition is an utter failure. It doesn't stop people from taking drugs, it just generates
suffering. Thank god in places with less medieval drug policies focus is more on help and harm reduction than locking away what one doesn't
understand.
Our goal - even if utopian - should be to generate a situation where everyone who is into speed can be self-sufficient. Every gram of home-made speed
is a gram-speed-equivalent cash less for mafia-like organisation and it's less risk for the user due to controlled quality. With grass and magic
mushrooms a non-negligible part is already domestic made, so why not other drugs?
|
|
|
ammonium isocyanate
Hazard to Others
Posts: 124
Registered: 13-7-2009
Location: USA - Midwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: sick
|
|
You're assuming home-made speed would be better quality, which I'm guessing is often not the case.
|
|
|
kclo4
National Hazard
Posts: 916
Registered: 11-12-2004
Location:
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Isn't all speed homemade speed, for what its worth anyways..
|
|
|
Ephoton
Hazard to Others
Posts: 463
Registered: 21-7-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: trying to figure out why I need a dark room retreat when I live in a forest of wattle.
|
|
I must put my two cents worth in now before I have no chance.
every one knows what I am about and would think I would say keep the drug
synths in this site.
well maby I am changing as I get older or maby I am seeing the truth.
no more drug synth I say if you cant ask for an alkene like styrene to be made
into an epoxide or a halo alkylbenzene then what right do you have making drugs
for human consumtion in the first place.
we dont need to talk about drugs and its drug talk that is taking down half of
the chemistry sites on the web in the first place.
please respect this site and realise that here and only here you will get answers.
every were else you will get rhodiums chemistry remaped and made to sound
origonal.
chemistry is too wide a subject too just let it bee  destroyed with drug talk.
I have been a hive bee since I was 17 now I am 33. still I say no drugs on this site.
e3500 console login: root
bash-2.05#
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
The results of the poll seem to show that censorship is the one thing this forum doesn't need. . .
|
|
|
dann2
International Hazard
Posts: 1523
Registered: 31-1-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Ephoton, perhaps it's time you became a wasp.
Dann2
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
