| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
Isn't it obvious?
1. Greed
2. More greed
3. Avarice.
|
I would add IGNORANCE! The comment made re: ferricyanide (sp?) is typical. The neighbor went off due to ignorance regarding what was perceived as a
poison "in their own backyard" so to speak.
The point I am trying to make is that due to media influenced ignorance one is constantly attempting to explain the science under discussion and that
is often looked upon as "explaining away" a truth or threat.
[The following is NOT a political reference] Al Gore's film got many people to believe that carbon emissions may be responsible for the end of the
world. How many of those individuals concerned over this perceived threat did any research of their own? Of that percentage who did so, what was their
motivation; scientific exercise, a search for truth or politics?
A twisted mindless media has the power today of the Inquisition of centuries past. Whats more it builds it's own momentum.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
It's a hard thing to fight. Let's say, impossible to fight.
|
|
|
Nicodem
Super Moderator
Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by __________
Well, after looking through some of the replies here, my intention of this thread wasn't to cry out a sign of awareness of an inherent 'evil' that
must be stopped. |
Your starting of this thread was obsolete in the first place. If you would have looked around or searched the forum you would have found that the
Rhodium archives are constantly refereed here as a valuable source of chemical information and that similar discussions about the ethics of
psychoactives and energetic materials synthesis abound already.
| Quote: | | I was simply pointing out two things: first finding sites like this seems a relatively easy task even if you're not looking for them and second that I
found somewhat surprising just how well informed these "cooks" are on their chemistry. |
It is not true that finding sites like that is a relatively easy task! The Rhodium archive is actually the only such archive compiled with some "peer
review" attitude and it still contains a number of errors and misinformation. The original site went down 3 years ago and now only mirrors like the
one you found exist. It was not compiled by "cooks" but serious chemists and you seem to be new in chemistry or else you would realize that the
organic synthesis of any drugs, being them psychoactive or physiologically active, involve an enormous amount of knowledge and dedication (unless you
are one of those that consider the reduction of pseudoephedrine from pills like done by criminals in the USA as "synthesis"). In fact, the Rhodium
archive is such a handy source of scientific information and useful organic chemistry papers that several of my colleagues read and use it to help
them in their lab work or get new ideas (and they do nothing connected with drugs!). It is simply handier than go to the library. The only other so
reliable sources of information for psychoactive drugs synthesis are the chemical journals itself (like the ACS, RSC, Springer, etc.). Meanwhile the
famous internet forum where people interested in the chemistry of psychoactive compounds gathered, The Hive, is now down three years already.
| Quote: | Other than that I asked for opinions on just what drives regular amateur chemists to start up on drug synthesizing and nothing else.
I hope this sort of clarifies the purpose of this thread. |
I have been around enough to realize there is no single motivation. It mostly has to do with the cultural background. For example, it appears to me
that the majority of USA members of such virtual communities are interested only in illegal psychoactive compounds having a black market value. They
therefore tend to behave in line with their culture of profit making at the expense of human misery (as to why they need money is beyond me – I
doubt they are starving). I might be unjust to some that make an exception, but that is just my subjective impression. On the other hand, I found
there are also those who are interested due to their love for science and life in general. They are pretty easy to spot as they are mostly interested
in psychedelics and have a deeper understanding of chemistry. They have the tendency of trying not to break the law unless unavoidable. They are not
interested only in illegal drugs and often they develop new ones. I guess these ones fit the guidelines of ScienceMadness and amateur science
perfectly. Then there is also the sad party of those who just annoyingly buzz around such sources of information trying to get an easy recipe for meth
or whatever other stuff they think will make them get some money. These often represent the majority and are even easier to spot since they have a
terrible disregard (or even hate) toward science, know shit about chemistry and are not interested in knowing what they are doing, generally
contribute only misinformation, and they usually talk about themselves in third person calling themselves SWIM or whatever similar paranoid acronym.
…there is a human touch of the cultist “believer” in every theorist that he must struggle against as being
unworthy of the scientist. Some of the greatest men of science have publicly repudiated a theory which earlier they hotly defended. In this lies their
scientific temper, not in the scientific defense of the theory. - Weston La Barre (Ghost Dance, 1972)
Read the The ScienceMadness Guidelines!
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
I remember when Rhodium was almost the only organic chemistry resource I could find online except course outlines and comp-chem. At that time it was
useful, though in a fairly narrow way, if you were not specifically interested in the chemistry of abuse drugs.
Anyone can go and see how it is organized: Categories of abuse drugs. Wade through that long list and down at the bottom there are Precursors and
Reagents, Chemical Data, References, Lab Technique, and a little on Microwave. Of the material present, a not insubstantial number are just copied
straight out of Org.Syn., and indeed there is a link to the Org.Syn website.
Of the original work, the quality is sometimes spotty.
Compared to the resources available on SM and its library and related FTP sites and References, Rhodium is a joke. A narrow, 95% drug focused, tunnel
vsioned joke. I do rather wish that The Hive would come back, just so the SWIMmers would flock back there instead of here.
@Nicodem, I do not want to bandy words with you, but I think your characterization of two kinds of rec-drug chemists is simplistic. Basically you say
there are the greedy American sort and the altruistic psychedelic self-experimenters everywhere else. That is not true. The black market in drugs is
global. And it is far from being entirely a matter of US criminal enterprise and US consumption. While the opiate and cocaine markets are largely big
business, the amphetamine and related stimulant business if generally small timers all over the place. Relatively recently major speed labs were
busted in places like Guam and Fiji. The Fijian ones I believe were not US related at all but probably Asian or Australian.
The modern opiate trade has its roots in the opium trade dominated by the English and Scottish and abetted by the East India Company, which is to say
the British crown, as a matter of statecraft. The counter to the tea trade and the subversion of China. This ultimately led to the fouding of Hong
Kong and two wars (the Opium Wars). We are only talking about 160 years ago. In the 20th centory the Japanese financed colonial war in Manchuria with
heroin profits while the opium monopoly in Laos was a French government affair till 1954. At the present time the dominant region in the heroin
business is South Asia and NATO is in Afghanistan trying to get the jihadis out of the white powder business.
The cocaine business was started by a cartel not from Columbia but from Holland made up of the largest European and American pharm companies. Once
cocaine was put out of fashion the South American nations with the resource looked for a way to regain their economic clout and eventually, the two
Columbian cartels sprang up, with the help of an American fugitive named Bobby Vesco and his accountant Norm Augustine, at the time in Costa Rica.
AFAIK Vesco is now in Cuba. The Cuban DGI has long been involved in narcotics as a means of generating black money.
Specifically relating to small clandestine manufacture, this is hardly uniquely American. Designer drugs, stimulants, opioids, all globalized.
|
|
|
16MillionEyes
Hazard to Others
Posts: 153
Registered: 11-3-2007
Location: 16 Million Eyes, US
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | | Your starting of this thread was obsolete in the first place. If you would have looked around or searched the forum you would have found that the
Rhodium archives are constantly refereed here as a valuable source of chemical information and that similar discussions about the ethics of
psychoactives and energetic materials synthesis abound already. |
Well, you're probably right but I didn't know. I'm fairly knew to chemistry and its web sources so "Rhodium" sounds to me as foreign as ancient
Mesopotamian might sound to you. From what I gather and from what you've said I know see what you mean but understand that given the case and
circumstances this is something that I'm not very familiar with and therefore finding a site like this isn't something expected.
So please forgive me if I offended you, next time I am given birth I'll make sure I am born learned.
|
|
|
Organikum
resurrected
Posts: 2339
Registered: 12-10-2002
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: frustrated
|
|
It might be interesting to mention that in the EU authorities are discussing to block access to all webpages which contain information about making
explosives. Not drugs.
Moral is a double edged sword.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Europeans should censure politicians more and censor websites less.
|
|
|
Organikum
resurrected
Posts: 2339
Registered: 12-10-2002
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: frustrated
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
Europeans should censure politicians more and censor websites less. |
You are right. But I regard you as an politician.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
As iof I care how you regard me...
If you bothered to read my second post in this thread you would see that it was I and not you who was saying that censorship does not work, that the
Internet is hardly the only place where such information (about whatever chemistry you choose) is available to the public, and so unless those EU
authorities want to return to wearing brown shirts and burning books, the entire thing is absurd.
Furthermore, proxy anonymizers make Internet censorship totally ineffective (not that it was effective in any real sense anyway).
This thread has nothing to do with morality. The originator of this thread had some point to make (or thought he did) abour sites he regards as
smarmy, and someone else (not me) commented that many people including fellow chemists regard THIS site as just as suspect as the ones already
mentioned abovethread. (mainly designer-drugs.com)
I objected to that and defended Sciencemadness for its balance of permissiveness toward technically competent members while at the same time
endeavoring to exclude "drug cooks" and that is the moderators and the forum proprietor rather than me, doing that.
So if you had actually read the thread, you would have seen me defending the right of members (need I mention yu are an excellent example?) who can
talk abouit any chemistry topic they choose.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8027
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
| Quote: | | I objected to that and defended Sciencemadness for its balance of permissiveness toward technically competent members [...] |
You do not need to defend sciencemadness over here. Everyone over here agrees with you on that subject, including me. What I
mentioned is not what I think, but what many people, including chemists working at official labs, think. Many of them (fortunately not all) think that
sciencemadness is as suspect and undesirable as drugs-cook sites. So, if you want to defend sciencemadness, try to defend it outside of this forum.
[Edited on 14-9-07 by woelen]
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Yes, I know, I was just responding to Orgie's usual ad-hominem tirade against me (in the offing.)
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by woelen
Many of them (fortunately not all) think that sciencemadness is as suspect and undesirable as drugs-cook sites.
|
Could you elaborate on that? Do those people believe that the attraction to a science is limited to those with "mature" motives of learning in a"pure"
academic state?
Are not most people interested [as children] in chemistry for instance, for things like colour changing materials and then pyro-related youthful
activities?
The "drug-cook" issue aside (as I also think it's grotesque for many reasons) for moment; don't most people get involved in science as children and
have childish entertainments? And isn't that thinking (itself) a value judgment on pyrotechnic aspects of chemistry? I think it is. But then I can see
the abuse in most any aspect of learning, just as any material object may also be abused. I believe what we are dealing with here is aspects of abuse;
not simple discussion or learning. I certainly admit that I have a reaction to questions that involve pharmacology as I tend to think it's going to be
abused. But perhaps that's my mis perception (& perhaps I need to re-think my gut reaction).
|
|
|
syntelman
Harmless
Posts: 31
Registered: 26-8-2007
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tired
|
|
This thread is by it's nature naive, simplistic and full of bullshit (excuse my language). I care not to elaborate because few of the members have
clearly expressed their un-scientific view on different matters. But I must say that I am saddened to see such narrow minded thinking on a forum I had
high thoughts of.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8027
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
Yes, I can elaborate on this. But I think Sauron already worded it quite well. People think that if you have lots of chemicals at home, lots of
glassware, and/or lots of (electronic) devices, that you have those things for MAKING something. Why would you otherwise have that stuff at home?
Others have stuff at home, for making clothes, for making furniture, etc. etc. So, we as mad scientists have stuff at home for making things, the
general public does not understand. What things can be made from chemicals and all kinds of weird electronic devices? Bombs, drugs, poisons, weapons.
That scares people.
The more educated people, working in a real lab (university, research department of company) have other reasons to think sites like sciencemadness are
undesirable. They think that experimenting does belong in a real lab, with all precautions on safety, disposal and procedures. They simply cannot
imagine that people are playing with dangerous chemicals and devices at home, without all the protective things of a real lab. I had a fairly hefty
discussion on a dutch forum of professional chemists (not chemixtry, that is the dutch/belgium equivalent of sciencemadness, somewhat more geared to
pyro). Some of those chemists really went mad at me, that I have so many chemicals at home, they simply think that playing with these at home is
irresponsible and undesirable behavior. Of course, they do not object to the vinegar/soda experiments, but strong oxidizers, reductors and organics
should not be in a home, a garage or a shed. This all has to do with regulations.
[Edited on 14-9-07 by woelen]
|
|
|
syntelman
Harmless
Posts: 31
Registered: 26-8-2007
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tired
|
|
Sauron clearly elaborated an extremely narrow minded view on "business" not any different from the view politicians made on "bomb recipes" earlier
this week when promoting world wide internet censorship. His views are the exact same, just expressed from the other side.
Not all "drug cooks" are greedy bastards. And there is a huge difference between drug USE and ABUSE. Actually I find it quite ironic as the exact same
arguments that are made on drugs can be made on amateur chemistry and "pyrotechnics". Again it just shows how un-scientific scientifically inclined
people can think. It's not just restricted to internet bulletin boards but the whole world of academia. And it sucks.
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
This looks like it's about to turn into a flame war or a political discussion of the kind that has been banned here because it will inevitably trigger
a flame war. Be aware that if things grow uncivil the thread will be swiftly closed.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
gregxy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 421
Registered: 26-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by __________
Well, after looking through some of the replies here, my intention of this thread wasn't to cry out a sign of awareness of an inherent 'evil' that
must be stopped.
I was simply pointing out two things: first finding sites like this seems a relatively easy task even if you're not looking for them and second that I
found somewhat surprising just how well informed these "cooks" are on their chemistry. Other than that I asked for opinions on just what drives
regular amateur chemists to start up on drug synthesizing and nothing else.
I hope this sort of clarifies the purpose of this thread. |
He probably made the site for the same reason that so many
people create websites, the thrill of publishing something and having people read it. Or maybe he is a freedom of
speech advocate. Anyway getting the information is not
the "rate limiting step" in cooking drugs for someone that
really wants to do it. Only the simplest synthesys
proceedure are going to be useful to the non professional
chemist. Look at all the "chemists" on here that can't make
picric acid from asprin.
[Edited on 14-9-2007 by gregxy]
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
For the benefit of syntelman and anyone else who wishes to misstate my views for their own purposes:
I NEVER advocated Internet censorship of drug sites, explosives sites, or any other kinds of sites, on or off this forum. I clearly stated that IMO
Internet censorship does not work and solves nothing.
I APPLAUD the forebearance and tolerance of the proprietor of this forum and the moderators toward anyone with a modicum of chemical knowledge and
communication skills, and I also applaud their enthusiasm at excluding those who possess neither, but who come here just fishing for recipes.
For this I am reviled? And the revilers call me narrow minded! HAH!
@Polverone, keep up the good work.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by syntelman
Not all "drug cooks" are greedy bastards. And there is a huge difference between drug USE and ABUSE. Actually I find it quite ironic as the exact same
arguments that are made on drugs can be made on amateur chemistry and "pyrotechnics". |
Any generalization of human actions need be subject to the outcome and expectations of those actions. While great amounts of profit may be made from
amphetamines, etc, etc - there is little money to be made from a rocket in one's backyard or for that matter a whole carton of rockets. Realistically,
while I imagine there are drug cooks that make some drugs for their own use there is ample evidence that there are many who make a great deal of money
from making drugs.
While there is certainly a difference between drug USE & ABUSE, this becomes a subjective interpretation and has little bearing on the impact drug
abuse has on the lives of those who are entirely innocent of any involvement in drug use/abuse.
I certainly know that the same could be said for bombing as an example of the abuse of energetic chemistry however that line is much less subjective.
The forum clearly delineates what is acceptable in-so-far as discussion of energetic materials. The question here therefore is where is that same line
to drawn for pharmacological discussions?
## Drawing a line as to what's appropriate in a private discussion board is NOT censorship. The thing is private; they have a right to say what they
want posted; no?
[Edited on 15-9-2007 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
syntelman
Harmless
Posts: 31
Registered: 26-8-2007
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tired
|
|
I am sorry if my intentions were unclear but they were never meant to discuss what's should be acceptable on this specific bulletin board. I was
merely making a very personal statement on the in my opinion very narrow minded comments made on drug chemistry. If the forum administrators choose to
ban drug discussions I accept their choice to one hundred percent and respect them for it.
However as I see a quite a lot of money is made on "energetic materials" and it's research. The main difference between drug and bomb making is not
it's morality but that the latter is sanctioned by the state as "tools of democracy". As for the sake of this forum I think both topics should be
allowed to be discussed as long as the intentions are good and the level is of an appropriate level.
And of course it is much more easy for the amateur chemist to make a profit from drugs than bombs. But in my very subjectice opinion the largest issue
that makes drug abuse such a big problem lies with the lack of harm reduction policies and how society deals with and criminalizes drug abusers. But
that is a whole different discussion and I think I made my view on the matter clear so I leave this discussion here.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
1. AMATEURS don't make PROFITS. Professionals so. If you make a profit from your hobby it is no longer a hobby but a business. This forum is about
HOBBY CHEMISTRY.
2. Energetics chemistry does not equal BOMB MAKING. Read the FAQ.
3. NO ONE in this thread proposed banning ANY topic of discussion. But it has been the policy of the proprietor and moderators to discourage "cook
threads" that are not chemical discussions but clueless wannabes seeking recipes.
Clearly, you have not read the thread carefully or understood it if you have.
[Edited on 16-9-2007 by Sauron]
|
|
|
syntelman
Harmless
Posts: 31
Registered: 26-8-2007
Location: Europe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tired
|
|
1. Semantics. If you want to discuss with real arguments please feel free. And I who thought this forum was about CHEMISTRY NOT GRAMMAR...
2. "Energetics" and energetics doesn't necessarily mean the same.
3. As clearly stated I was only expressing my view on some of the comments made on the "pharmacologically interested" members of our community and at
large.
This discussion is clearly getting very booooring...
Back to sleep. 
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Nothing to do with semantics.
You attributted positions to me that were simply false and had nothing to do with my posts. In short you are a liar. In fact the positions you
attributed to me, are in most cases antithetical and opposite to the positions I took in posts in this thread.
Semantics? Hardly.
And when I take exception to your dissembling, you call it boring.
Menadacity pure and simple.
You say, "Talk about chemistry."
But you yourself have NEVER ONCE posted anything about chemistry on this forum.
Most of your 7 posts are in this thread.
The others in thread about fume hood construction and talking about local regulations.
Let's see what your chemistry is like.
[Edited on 16-9-2007 by Sauron]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I can say, from my unfortunate experience with drugs (one type of drug rather, not meth... god I hate that drug and most of the people who use it) in
the past that most "drug cooks" don't know the difference between chemistry and baking a cake. In fact, all too often, they think they're basically
the same thing. It's mainly just "a dash of this and a pinch of that and bake it 'til it turns golden brown" mentallity.
As far as LSD is concerned. IMO if LSD is illegal then alcohol needs to be as well. When is the last time you heard of an LSD overdose or someone
getting ripped on LSD and beating their spouse while running over an old lady? Even though I would never touch the stuff (or anything else for that
matter).
However, not everyone who "cooks" drugs is motivated by greed for money. I have a few former friends that were good, smart people. They were just
corrupted by a curable addiction. At least one of them made his own drugs purely to support his own addiction. Although I do think this is a bad
thing and I do not support that type of behavior, at least he wasn't distributing it.
People who manufacture drugs like (especially) methamphetamine, cocaine, fentanyl and heroin to sell are, the worst of the worst IMO. However, I
don't believe anyone is inherently evil and even those people can change their lives. Maybe I'm a bit naive because I have hope for the humanity and
think that people can change and do right. But that's just the way I am.
Also, people will be scared of anything they don't know much about. It's not just with chemistry, as Sauron mentioned, and it's not just with
science. It's everything. Take the plague *cough* I mean religion for example. Or people who believe in UFOs. It's just so unfortunate that it is
somewhat a natural human response to the unknown. That's why religion was created and now look where we are.
Done ranting and rambling...
[Edited on 13-12-2007 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
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8027
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
| Quote: | | Take the plague *cough* I mean religion for example. |
The biggest plague in the world is those people who call other viewpoints which are not their own a plague.
At best, such behavior is simply immature and may change when people get wiser in due time.
[Edited on 13-12-07 by woelen]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
