| Pages:
1
2
3 |
I am a fish
undersea enforcer
Posts: 600
Registered: 16-1-2003
Location: Bath, United Kingdom
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ichthyoidal
|
|
The rights of individuals to buy chemicals.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
"The restrictions that prevent private individuals from buying laboratory chemicals are an unjust infringement on their personal freedom."
1f `/0u (4|\\| |234d 7|-|15, `/0u |234||`/ |\\|33d 70 937 0u7 /\\/\\0|23.
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
It's a tough point. I would love to have some Pu, U or such. Let's say someone sold it in 10 g amounts, legally. How about then this
somebody bought 1300 such batches, over various buyers? This would in total be 13 kg, the critical mass for a nuke.
Now do you still think, everyone should be able to buy Pu OTC?
How about buying TNT or PETN OTC. Sure it would be cool for a few interested ones, but the DANGER of deadly abuse would by far OUTWEIGH the danger
caused by personal freedom infringements. This is especially the case with Pu, U235 etc.
Then... drug precursors. This one is more debatable I guess, one could argue that everyone should be free to use drugs as much as they like - and if
it interferes with their job etc well then they get fired.
But for drug precursors to become freely available, FIRST the laws have to change, the drugs have to be made legal, and then you can think about
legalising the precursors.
How about things such as normal inorganic chemicals, salts, etc? Or organic ones? Yeah I agree they should be buyable anywhere 
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
I am a fish
undersea enforcer
Posts: 600
Registered: 16-1-2003
Location: Bath, United Kingdom
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ichthyoidal
|
|
Ok, perhaps making fissile materials available OTC would be a bad idea. However, I see no reason to ban the sale of depleted uranium (especially when
you consider that large quantities of it are spread liberally across Iraq and Afghanistan).
1f `/0u (4|\\| |234d 7|-|15, `/0u |234||`/ |\\|33d 70 937 0u7 /\\/\\0|23.
|
|
|
Hermes_Trismegistus
National Hazard
Posts: 602
Registered: 27-11-2003
Location: Greece, Ancient
Member Is Offline
Mood: conformation:ga
|
|
Individuals have no real rights......(an aside)
except those given to them by those idividuals in positions of power.
and those individuals in power have power because most individuals really don't care enough to take it away from them, if they did, they too
would be in power.
Nooo....things will be as they are, various governments will always be able to restrict just so many things, if they try to pass too many laws, there
will be general civil disobedience and the gov't will then lose the illusion of control that allows them to enforce any laws.
it's a fine line that all gov'ts walk between what they can do to control the populace and what the populace will put up with, without
revolt.
one other interesting fact is that the only way a restrictive gov't can exist and be stable is to be situated near a more liberal
country/city/state.
That way the more adventurous citizens can leave (or feel that they can leave) to do what they want.
For example, Canada and the U.S. is in such a situation.
Liberal attitudes and slack laws towards Drugs in Canada
Liberal attitudes towards Guns and other weapons in the U.S.
There is an unofficial but huge trade between those two countries.
for example, the canadian gov't estimates that more than ten BILLION dollars worth of pot is EXPORTED from our westernmost province alone.
From a province with a population of only five million people.......that's alot of pot. It is, in fact, about a kilo of dope for every man woman
and child in the province. And those are the conservative government figures!
And it is well known in Canada, if you are a gun nut, Arizona is the place to go and buy a "camp".
Look at the European Union, kept reasonabley clean by concentrating the "problem" of "rowdiness" in Amsterdam, Paris and varioius
city's in Spain.
Releif valves for government control. Total control will always fail, look at the Soviet Union, the most stifling gov't fostered the largest
black market on the planet.
No matter what government policies dictate, the policies will always be in place to appease the "moral majority" and feed their secret dark
desires.
the gov't laws will not make purchasing chemicals a "right" but they will never make it completely "wrong" either.
They'll just make you work a little for your "rights and freedoms"
(or travel)
Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics; even if you win: you\'re still retarded.
|
|
|
Mumbles
Hazard to Others
Posts: 436
Registered: 12-3-2003
Location: US
Member Is Offline
Mood: Procrastinating
|
|
While there are some things I'd like to be able to buy, I wouldn't trust myself with everything. Being able to walk to the store and buy
everything takes half the fun out of it. It's nice having a chip on my shoulder knowing that I can make so many more chemicals that anyone else
in the school. In a way, it makes me feel superior that I can make the nitric acid I use for nitrations rather than having to buy it and risk some
things.
There's no skill in buying a liter of Acetic Anhydride. It may be more convienient, but no skill. Personally I'd rather make it that buy
it. It would make my final goal of whatever compound I would need it for that much more rewarding.
|
|
|
IgnorantlyIntelligent
Moderately Insane
Posts: 280
Registered: 16-10-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: Unhuman
|
|
I dissagree. If anyone could buy any chemical there would be more and more kids burning or blowing off their hands. And yes we(the intelligent and
responsible) must suffer because of the ignorant. If you really need something that badley you can make it or go to further lengths to get it. If I
could buy nitric acid and nitromethane readily from the hardware store it would be nice though 
\"People fear from ignorance what they do not have the intelligence to understand\"
\"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.\"
\"A fool would rather not question, a soldier is taught not to question, a slave dares not question.\"
\"To fight for nothing is to love nothing, to die for something is to have lived for something.\"
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
yes, it pisses me off!
I do resent that I cannot just call up Aldrich or Fisher and order what I want.
There are lots of ways to cause mayhem abusing readilly obtainable items such as knives, chains, baseball bats, rocks, etc. Also many dangerous
chemicals are legal to buy such as gasoline and pesticides. But high demand by the public keeps those easy to buy. So, really governments just
restrict what is convenient for them to restrict.
Since it is easy to put paraldeyde or phosphorous on a restricted list and the public will not complain, they do it.
|
|
|
IgnorantlyIntelligent
Moderately Insane
Posts: 280
Registered: 16-10-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: Unhuman
|
|
Yes, they keep the chemicals that are in high demand on the list because a country can not funtuion without it. You can't blow up a building or
daycare with gasoline can you. However, Any bomber who wishes to bomb a target WILL do so. I know how to obtain ANY chemical I want and could make
just about any HE or explosive device(shaped charge, claymore, etc.) known with the help of you all of course. With that in mind, why not just sell
all chemicals at Heaven hardwre store down the street? Anyone who has a use for nitric acid or 50% hydrogen peroxide hopefully knows how not to kill
him/her/other self/people with it. Anyone can get any chemical, its just over priced to limit the buyers to industry and bombers and not small
children
\"People fear from ignorance what they do not have the intelligence to understand\"
\"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.\"
\"A fool would rather not question, a soldier is taught not to question, a slave dares not question.\"
\"To fight for nothing is to love nothing, to die for something is to have lived for something.\"
|
|
|
Hermes_Trismegistus
National Hazard
Posts: 602
Registered: 27-11-2003
Location: Greece, Ancient
Member Is Offline
Mood: conformation:ga
|
|
It makes me wonder.
I know too many people with just enough knowledge to hurt themselves (which is their own business) or other people (which isn't)
I might say that I think only people like me should be able to do have access to whatever chemical's they want, because I consider myself to be
mature and responsible.
BUT
But even then I wonder, I'm be thirty in a few more years, and I haven't always been as levelheaded as I am now.
If I had been carrying a loaded handgun on my person since the age of 21 (the age of majority in most places), can I honestly say that I would never
have shot anyone, or threatened someone?
In all honesty ,I'm not sure I can say that I would always have been adult.
There are times I have been so angry I just wasn't right in the head. There have been times when I have been jealous, felt betrayed, felt
wronged, and generally felt at odds with the world. Normal feelings that come and go.
If however, I had great destructive power at my fingertips, either in the form of a firearm, or deadly poisons, or powerful explosives, great
misfortune could have resulted.
I am overall, benefitting from the restrictions on some basic chemicals. And to some extent they work.
I don't worry about drinking the water that comes out of my faucet. Even though it might not be that hard for someone with a grudge against
humanity might climb up the town's water tower and dump a bag of something nasty in.
I don't worry about being in public places where large groups of people congregate. Even though someone might have wheeled in a garbage bin
filled with C-4 and ball bearings.
No, I don't really worry, because it would require a great deal of work to do it, and that weeds out most people.
The measure of expense weeds out the very poor.
The great risk of personal injury weeds out the cowardly.
The knowledge required weeds out the stupid
And finally, the difficulty of procuring the basic chemicals, necessitates cunning, resoucefullness, discretion and patience. And that generally weeds
out the vast majority of lunatics.
It still remains that the possiblity of doing evil is real, but far more unlikely to be successfully executed by the kind of people capable of
performing the task from a logistics point of view.
to paraphrase, the people who could......won't.
The people who would.........can't.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics; even if you win: you\'re still retarded.
|
|
|
IgnorantlyIntelligent
Moderately Insane
Posts: 280
Registered: 16-10-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: Unhuman
|
|
Anger. That brings up a good point. Anger can and will envelope everyone sometime or another in their lives, some more than others. I can recall a
time I would have squeezed the trigger or pulled the pin out of the deepest of mortal anger and hatred and riped their flesh into the dark nothingness
that plagues their soul. It is nice not having to worry about a trash can full of RDX/ball bearings but I dont think it is due to the inability for
one to aquire the materials needed as it is reasonably harder for someone in Israel to aquire these materials than here in the US yet more incidents
occur there(far more) Our society is controled by law and religion. Always have I hated the mindless sheeple that roam monotonously over this world
unil now when I see their importance as the other type of person is us, the educated, free willed individuals that have minds of our own and although
are responsible enough to stand the torment of this world without retaliation, could do so with huge reprocusion.
\"People fear from ignorance what they do not have the intelligence to understand\"
\"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.\"
\"A fool would rather not question, a soldier is taught not to question, a slave dares not question.\"
\"To fight for nothing is to love nothing, to die for something is to have lived for something.\"
|
|
|
Turel
Hazard to Others
Posts: 141
Registered: 29-11-2003
Location: The Hardware/Software Interface
Member Is Offline
Mood: Thixotropic
|
|
Just a worthy note
It is not only ignorant or uninformed people who get hurt. Some of the smartest chemists in history have been marred during their experiments.
Likewise, I personally know quite a few smart individuals who have made either a careless mistake, or had an unfortunate mishap outside their control.
And then there are those people you just don't understand.......they use no form of personal protection whatsoever, consistently expose
themselves to severe danger, and they always turn out fine. Very strange.
Just that I noticed several people target uninformed and ignorant people as the ones hurting themselves. Even informed people get hurt, and do so
every day, so these implementations are in effect because of everyone, not because of a few. True no one here might blow up their house in an
accident, and get on the news, so we don't see that. But at some point or another, someone will get burned, either thermally or chemically or
both, or marred with shrapnel, or be the victim of one of their own explosive devices during a misfire. Shit happens, informed or not.
Someday when I have a son, many people will consider me crazy. I will teach him the ins and outs of explosive chemistry, and teach him the correct
way. I wish many more people would adopt this philosophy. Protecting onesself does not equate to abstinence. Abstain from life, and much more dire
fates await you: old age regret and being an overbearing parent.
Protect yourself, and your children, whichever be more applicable at this point in your life, but EXPOSE them/yourself. You cannot run from every
danger. I will take notice in my son's interests, and someday just as my dad noticed me, I will notice him hollowing out fireworks for powders,
making blowguns, playing with ether, etc. I will notice, and more importantly, act.
Will I point my finger and raise my voice? Of course not, this won't stop him from doing the things he is curious about. What it will do is make
him afraid to ask me anything for fear of reprimand, and it will make him hide his hobby from me. This is a danger in of itself. My dad was no
chemist, but he was a chemical warfare and improvised munitions instructor in the military, so he knew how to make a few bombs and gases.
Imgine my surprise when my dad came home early (on purpose) and caught me making a pipe bomb in the garage. I was 12 or so at the time. But he
didn't yell at me; instead he made me take it apart. Then he made me tell him exactly what I was doing, and why. I couldn't finish any
single sentence without him interrupting and asking another question, or telling me that I could do it a better way. I never made that pipe bomb that
day. But I talked to my dad for a few hours about what I was doing, and he never yelled at me. He was angry I was doing it in his garage, with all the
solvents on the wall, while I was home alone and inexperienced. He got his point across, and I never did it there again.
I realize not everyone's parents are as relaxed as this. But they should be. Chemical tampering is quite a common activity for a growing teenage
mind, driven by curiosity and adrenaline. My parents never let me make 'anything I wanted' in the garage or backyard, but they did not stop
me from doing simple things either. And more importantly, they did not stop me from hnging out with other friends with similar interests, even though
they knew I was going to go do what they would not let me do in our garage.
And most importantly, my dad showed me I could ask him about stuff. I didn't have to hide it from him. I think the best thing I learned from this
is one key to being a good parent. And personally, though I don't have children now, I cannot wait until I come home from the lab early someday,
and find a curious 12-13 year old boy hollowing out fireworks in the garage, as strange as that sounds. It will be a moment of nostalgia for me,
that's for sure.
Sorry for the long rant, but it instantly came to mind when I read this topic. This mentality of 'protection through government imposed
abstinence' must be eradicated. Sure, impose regultions that make it next to impossible for a wacko to acquire these materials, but don't
take the easiest way out and simply make them off limits to everyone. That is one of the biggest anti-freedoms in this country: the votes of a few can
remove the rights of the whole. And it is done everyday. What a shame for a country that prides itself on it's freedom.
This mentality must go, or we will be living in 1984 in under 20 years. And I tell you something, NO ONE will have a right to complain when it
happens, because it is the PEOPLE who vote theirs and other's rights away, every chance they get. What is more important to you? Security or
freedom? You must make the choice, our future's depend on it.
-T
|
|
|
IgnorantlyIntelligent
Moderately Insane
Posts: 280
Registered: 16-10-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: Unhuman
|
|
Yes but being ignorant isn't the same as being iresponsible just as being intelligent isn't the same as being responsible. There are many
very smart people that I wouldn't trust with a match and there are some dumb people I trust very much.
\"People fear from ignorance what they do not have the intelligence to understand\"
\"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.\"
\"A fool would rather not question, a soldier is taught not to question, a slave dares not question.\"
\"To fight for nothing is to love nothing, to die for something is to have lived for something.\"
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
the rights of individuals to buy equipment
This is a variant on I_am_a_fish's original question, but just as relevant.
Today my spirits were in need of a lift so I decided to buy some glassware. This is in breaking with a longstanding promise to myself not to buy
chemicals and equipment until I have a proper lab in which to use them.
My first attempt was to buy a set of glass beakers from Fisher Scientific. They said they could not sell to me, as an individual, glass beakers, but
could sell me plastic beakers. I ridiculed the salesman but it had little effect. I explained that I could buy 20 gallons of gasoline at my local
service station which is potentially much more of a risk to society than glass beakers - still no effect. I then said I will go to the secondary
suppliers and ebay. He said he would like my business and could sell me some kinds of equipment but not other kinds.
Do any of you have comments or experiences to share on equipment purchase attempts? I know the big guys will not sell an individual chemicals, not
even NaCl.
|
|
|
Zinc
Hazard to Others
Posts: 472
Registered: 10-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I think that anyone should be able to do what ever he wishes as long as it does not endarge other people. I would allow selling explosive OTC. If
someone buys or makes even 1000 kg of explosives and detonates it somewhere where it would not hurt anyone it would be OK but if someone buyes or
makes only 10 g of explosive and hurts intentionally someone with it he shuld be imidiently sentenced to life or electric chair.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8013
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
At the moment it is difficult but not impossible to find chemicals of all kinds. I think that is good. I must not think of a situation where everybody
can buy chemicals of all kinds at any drugstore or hardware store without any questions. That would lead to many k3wl-accidents.
The situation as it is now is good, but things should not become more difficult. The current situation is such, that most kewls will be stopped,
simply because they cannot satisfy their instand B0mZ and 5m0K3 desire, while the serious chemistry hobbyist is willing to put effort in searching for
chemicals. Also, forums like this are good to give tips and build up a network of people who can help each other. The situation now still is such that
the persisting people can get their hands on most chemicals they want, but indeed it requires quite some effort. Exactly that witholds kewls from
their nasty and stupid things and I really think it should remain so.
So, I agree with the original statement that individuals should be allowed to purchase chemicals, but with the added remark, that finding a source of
these chemicals should not be so easy that a 5 minute search gives you all the answers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, we should not idealize the situation of "the good old times" too much. With the internet and (still) many online suppliers available, the
ability to form a network of informed and knowledgeable people, we have more opportunities than we ever had before. Indeed, 50 years ago one could buy
KClO3, KNO3, a few transition metal salts and a fair bunch of organics like CHCl3, CHCl=CCl2, CCl4, which now cannot be found anymore easily. But what
about the really nifty stuff like lanthanides, compounds like iridium salts, ruthenium salts, stuff like KIO4, all kinds of phenolic derivatives,
nitrites and many many more? The local drugstore did not have them and also could not order them, because there was no domestic use for them. Now, I
have found many very special chemicals through eBay (Se, Te, lanthanides) and other rare metal salts through raw photography suppliers. Not a single
chem I have is from an official chemical supply house.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something which concerns me much more is the social climate towards chemistry hobbyists (and amateur scientists in general). At best you are the
somewhat weird geek who likes to surround him(her?)self with poisonous fumes, smelly liquids and weird apparatus, at worst you are seen as a threat
for the neighbourhood, being able to cause severe accidents, which your neighbours are afraid of. It should become time that the society has a more
positive attitude towards science in general and especially towards (amateur)chemistry.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
"At the moment it is difficult but not impossible to find chemicals of all kinds. I think that is good. I must not think of a situation where
everybody can buy chemicals of all kinds at any drugstore or hardware store without any questions. That would lead to many k3wl-accidents."
I find this opinion hard to believe. I think you should all spend some time looking into old news archives, and comparing old catalogs of what could
be bought by anyone (even dynamite) over the counter around the turn of the century. Look at the lists of chemicals provided in children's chemistry
sets in the 40's and 50's. Compare the two. Does the ability to buy anything on the planet have any relation to the almost complete lack of any so
called "kewl accidents"? Really, go search for yourself. Also, look at soceital mindsets towrds science at the time.
THERE WERE NO NERDS FROM 1870 TO 1970!
Science was looked upon as the hope for the future and all children were encouraged to learn science. Going into the 80's, we see the sudden onset of
private chemical cookers of drugs which caused great harm, but even at this time any form of terrorism was based upon military explosives and devices
provided to terrorists by one or another rogue government.
Seriously, little to no home made destruction in the hundred years from 1890 to 1990.
Yet, already the 80's had seen the draconian demise of not only our ability to buy labratory supplies and chemicals, but also the demise of the public
view of amateur science and scientists. Every single bit of this can be traced to governmental (LEO) propaganda aimed at anyone making anything
outside of the realm of government controlled science somehow all related to criminal activity, and all of it was related to the government's war on
drugs. Even during the 80's, homebuilt terror was not a global issue worthy of any real time in the news. Homemade drugs were.
Good god, that kid has a chemistry set he MUST BE MAKING DRUGS! or, NO GOOD CAN COME FROM A KID PRACTICING SCIENCE!
In 1984 I went to a certain chemical supply house (white building) in a certain downtown city. I went there to get only a few acids and formaldehyde,
for a mineral test kit I was building as I was geting ready to go out into the mountains for a few months to do some prospecting.
The walls were loaded with row upon row of organic chemicals, and every single one of them were for one drug recipe or another. Yet, they had zero of
any of the normal items we mad scientists might need. I asked the guy if he had a list or catalog. Answer, "no". I then proceeded to tell him that all
I saw were supplies devoted exclusively to drug manufacture and nothing else (I did not have the internet nor any lists of recipes but I did know
enough of chemistry to guess the use of many items like gallon jugs of pyradine but not even one chemical used for any "normal" experiments).
So I said "what the hell kind of crap lab supply was he running when I could find nothing needed for real science, seeing as how the sign outside
clearly stated labratory science and chemical supplies". He did not have an answer for that but did walk out and look at my car as I drove away (I
remember this as I thought "what the hell is your problem guy" but did not think about it further until days after an incident to take place a couple
more weeks down the road).
2 weeks later this surfer looking dude showed up at my house and spent some time trying to talk me into going in with him to make 20,000 dollars worth
of "crack", and how he was fresh in from california. While I had gone through the 60's I did not know what this "crack" was but I did not let on to
him the fact. Talk about stupidity, I at this point did not connect the two incidents and never gave thought to the fact that the building was a
police setup to trap drug makers, and that they wrote down my plates, got my address, and sent out a detective trying to talk me into making drugs.
This guy came up to me, mentioning the name of someone I had known in the past (who had been in jail for drug sales, I can only assume the guy I knew
had mentioned my name as someone with a lab full of chemicals in his efforts to make himself look better?).
After a while I was getting pissed so I told him he must be crazy to think I was going to risk my freedom making him drugs for 20 grand when I was
working on patents which might be worth a lot more than that.
Possibly the guy was taken aback by the idea that I never came off either anti drugs or pro drugs, rather just anti getting busted for stupidity. I
don't think he knew how to take that. But he did start trying to talk me into giving him recipes for other drugs, even trying to get me to look for an
old Mr Natural comic from an old 60's headshop which may have had recipes in it (this stemming from a mention by me that I had not even seen drug
recipes since the 60's and then it was an old Mr Natural comic).
While I do not want to sound like a complete idiot here, I shit you not I never gave thought during this whole conversation to the fact that this was
a cop who was after failing to get me to make drugs was trying a last ditch attempt to nail me in entrapment for conspiracy! Really, I lie not, I had
not been into this drug making scene so I did not connect everything until I spent days thinking about the whole incident. It was my thinking that the
guy must have looked up my address from my plates at the cop trap/chemical house that I slowly realized what had really been going on. Failing to get
me to directly commit crimes, they tried to nail me on conspiracy charges for something as lame and stupid as an old recipe in a head shop comic book
which talked about how to make hash out of stems and seeds.
Let that be a lesson to you all, hopefully I will not now be thought of as possibly the dumbest member of SCM! Hey, at least I never blew off my
fingers being kewl. Ok, so I did almost blow all of me up once in the 70's being kewl but I grew up, I think?
Bottom line is I think the war on drugs has now turned into a global war on science, that is any science not conducted under governmental control and
supervision. I think we should be able to buy chemicals but I would not be against some kind of control for certain items like Pu providing we can
pass some kind or another of tests for knowledge, use, purpose, and so on, mind you this only for the real problem items. To make glassware illegal
while still selling kitchen supplies is beyond the pale of ignorance. Then again, does anyone know anyone in government who is not beyond the pale in
ignorance?
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8013
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
| Quote: | | I find this opinion hard to believe. I think you should all spend some time looking into old news archives, and comparing old catalogs of what could
be bought by anyone (even dynamite) over the counter around the turn of the century. Look at the lists of chemicals provided in children's chemistry
sets in the 40's and 50's. Compare the two. Does the ability to buy anything on the planet have any relation to the almost complete lack of any so
called "kewl accidents"? Really, go search for yourself. Also, look at soceital mindsets towrds science at the time. |
With the long story after this remark, you tell exactly what I want to tell. Society has changed. Indeed, 50 years ago, with KClO3 available in every
small town, there were hardly any accidents. But I'm very sure, if that would be the case nowadays, we would have hundreds of injuries due to chemical
abuse in every large city and tens of injuries in every midsize town, every year!
Society has changed. People want kicks, fast, violent, NOW!
Making BOMZ is one possible way of violent kicking. Many young people are bored to death, they really don't know what to do and that causes a lot of
grieve. That is why they need those kicks. Chems are not easily available, they have to put a lot of effort in that type of kicks, so they have other
kicks (e.g. fighting at soccer games, hefty parties, drugs, sex, ....). Also, when you do not want or need to participate in those groups, then you
are the nerd, and you are out.
So, that is why I think it is good that chemicals are hard to obtain. I'm a very passionate chemistry hobbyist, and still I'm saying this, because of
young people, damaging themselves (and also our hobby). On the other hand, chemicals are hard to obtain, but not impossible. Have a look at my site at
the list of chems I have: http://woelen.scheikunde.net/science/chem/exps/exppatt.cgi?l... . And this list is not even complete (it needs to be updated again, quite a lot
have been added  ). Not a single chem is from official supply houses, so one can
indeed still obtain almost every chemical (s)he wants.
Some chemicals, to my opinion may be absolutely forbidden. Things like plutonium, nerve gasses, and highly specialized drugs or precursors for drugs
indeed are good to be forbidden. With a specialized precursor I do not mean iodine, phosphorous or hydrogen iodide. These have also many other
applications.
|
|
|
chromium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 284
Registered: 27-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: reactive
|
|
I am not so sure about number of accidents nowadays and in the past.
In older days people belived that they are responsible for their safety and if somebody hurt himself then he did not go to police or to press to sue
others. He just thought "I was not carefull enough" and others agreed with him. So in older days there surely were accidents but these were not looked
at as we look at them today.
I am not so sure that today would be many accidents if chemicals were again available from pharmacies to everyone. There is lot of dangerous chemicals
on supermarkets in the city where i live, such as AN fertilizer, battery acid, calcium carbide, acetone, potassium permanganate and many others but
kewls and other fools rarely buy any of these. I do not know why. Maybe it is too complicated for them if they have to read some book or plan their
"experiment" longer than half an hour.
[Edited on 13-7-2006 by chromium]
|
|
|
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
|
|
In older issues of the Journal of Chemical Education you occasionally come across stories about injuries. I have one noted in particular here: "J.
Chem. Ed. 1956 508 chem accidents involving minors." I wrote this note to myself a couple of years ago and I'm not at the library now, so I can't
localize it better, but people certainly were injured in the old days. I can't remember it all that well, but I think its safety lessons could be
summarized as "just because you can mix an oxidizer with something doesn't mean you should mix an oxidizer with
something." There are comparitively few serious chemistry accidents that do not involve fires and/or explosions. Even acknowledging the risk, I don't
think risks should be outlawed, only well-documented. Swimming pools have killed more children than potassium chlorate ever will, but few people would
seriously suggest that private swimming pools should be legislated into oblivion.
I don't think it's completely necessary or desirable to return to the days of Uncle Tungsten, when an unescorted 12 year old could buy
potassium cyanide or nitric acid. I would be quite happy if we simply returned to the days when adults could buy ordinary laboratory chemicals as
easily as research institutions buy them. I support additional controls for highly radioactive or highly toxic materials, but access should be a
matter of training and education, not financial means or institutional prestige (corporate/academic/government customers shouldn't be priviliged above
their demonstrated knowledge, and private citizens shouldn't be turned away in spite of demonstrated knowledge).
[Edited on 7-14-2006 by Polverone]
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
Not mentioned so much here is the litigiousness of modern society. This more than anything else seems to be a reason for restrictions to individuals,
but I haven't tried to buy liability insurance for a retail chemical operation, so I'm kind of asstalking. Anyone in the know?
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 590
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Online
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
I think that liability/fear of lawsuits has to be the biggest reason (at least in the USA) for the difficulty in getting chemicals.
As far as I know, there are very few laws against individuals owning chemicals, other than drugs themselves. Even here in Texas, which has the most
draconian anti-chemistry laws I've heard of, the only chemicals outlawed are the DEA List I chemicals (thankfully excepting P), with malonic acid
being the only one I really care about. (Don't think about getting an erlenmeyer flask, though )
I do kind of like the idea of having some test to prove you know chemistry/safety, and if you can pass then you can freely get normal reagents. Don't
know if it could actually work, though.
|
|
|
chromium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 284
Registered: 27-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: reactive
|
|
Quite a few of chemical and glassware supplyers do not want to sell to individuals although they know very well that this is not forbidden. They just
do not want to do it because they fear bad attention from press or possible lawsuits.
They also do not want to waste their time for customers who will never buy as much as big institutions do.
At least some smaller supply houses are not able to fill every order at once and they will make errors sometimes and have to replace particular items.
Also they may be unable to sell some items that customer found from catalogue and then they try to find alternatives. This all is not too much burden
if customer pays $$ $$$ -s but they do not want all this for every single person who buys for 100$ per year. Why to do it if you can as well sell to
big boys only and get the same money with much less work?
It's sad but this is how it works.
[Edited on 14-7-2006 by chromium]
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
"As far as I know, there are very few laws against individuals owning chemicals"
Go read the thread somewhere around here where I talked about my walmart story. It is not always a certain chemical, but combinations of 2 or more
extremely common items which they use to create charges and reasons for validating searches. If you have H2SO4 in the garage (anyone have a parked car
out there?), cotton balls in the bathroom, aluminum foil in the kitchen, not to mention any cold medicine in the bathroom medicine cabinet in effect
you are in posession of enough precursors to warrant charges and many, many times just exactly this scenario has played out. Usually ending up in no
jail time unless some real drug was found, but quite often resulting in the "arrest" of your money and property.
There are a very large number of stories where the scenario I just described has played out in real world. The draconian mindset of LEO and the media,
and therefore the public at large, has created an intolerable situation for most if not all amateur scientists in the US today. I have been told this
by officers, and have read many accounts of real world cases which verify my words here. Many times the person was subject to a vendetta for one
reason or another, often from someone who they knew who existed in the darker areas of life and gave a name of someone they knew or knew of during a
time of duress. Usually when they are in trouble and are coming up with ways to get out of or lessen said trouble.
Read my above post. The person I mentioned who I said may have dropped my name even though I was not into crimes of any sort, two years after this
incident caused me to be raided which turned out to be a big nothing for all involved (except me, nothing for them to find or do, but the stress level
I endured was great). It was this incident which prompted me to mention him in the 1984 incident, something which at the time was not thought of but
years later looking back seems to be a good theory. This was a person I did not know myself who was a relative of a very good friend, a "very black
sheep" in his family.
To clarify this understand that my good friend was always talking about my huge laboratory and various madsci escapades to his family. Now with this
thought picture a scenario where this "black sheep" is being grilled and pressed for names and offered lesser charges. He did not know anyone making
drugs but he remembered stories of my big chemical lab so he gives my name as someone they can look at. I do not know if this was the case as we never
spoke but they did not know I existed due to any actions on my part and my being in the limelight had to come from somewhere right?
This is possibly the best reason I can use to explain how very carefully you should pick your friends and how much more important this is as to
picking acquaintances. They are the most dangerous people you will ever know, especially true in light of current political trends in soceity.
In any case once you are known about or looked at for any reason no matter how trivial, suddenly you are in a position that for safetys sake you must
start thinking about future possibilities. Examples are not having a dozen or so items which together can be made into a strong circumstancial case
even though you have no one illegal item nor are you involved in anything wrong. In short the innocent fall prey every day to circumstances which
snowball over time, usually because LEO is always looking for new sources of revenue under their out of control powers to confiscate where law and
justice don't mean a damn thing to them at all.
Today they expand such powers under the guise of emminent domain, again nothing but a money making tool which has nothing to do with either law or
justice.
I guess however, that is another story.
|
|
|
Fleaker
International Hazard
Posts: 1252
Registered: 19-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: nucleophilic
|
|
That's horrible IrC and all the more so because it's the sad state of affairs we have to endure. Talk about "loose lips sink ships" :\
In my opinion, as long as the desires of killing, maiming, and extorting exist, then I think some chemicals should not be available for public use.
More or less, I'm in agreement with what chemoleo said in his post. If people need a certain chemical and have legitimate use of it, then they should
write a proposal to get it. If the proposal seemed authentic and in earnest, then the person should have authorization for purchase and posession.
This wouldn't include every mundane hazardous material (i.e. nitric and sulfuric acid) but would be relegated to things that do have a sinister
purpose and aren't normally used i.e. radioactive isoptopes that are x-ray and gamma emitters, or perhaps certain highly toxic materials (i.e.
organo-phosphorus compounds).
I would say that most of us (certainly not all) here at sciencemadness are interested in chemistry for the sake of a hobby and of expanding our own
personal knowledge of it while improving our understanding. It would be convenient to buy phosphorus halides or acetic anhydride for that particular
reaction that still incites curiousity--but a minority of people misused and abused the old system and ruined it for the rest of us who aren't in it
for profit, but rather for a sort of personal glory and satisfaction. I think the punishment for those crimes should be deterrent enough in most
circumstances (i.e. large-scale explosives manufacturing, or drug production).
It is almost pointless to regulate these items today; it only makes it harder on us amateur chemists not some methamphetamine-cook who already has
tens of thousands of dollars stashed from pre-ban and can afford to do blackmarket purchases. I do agree that it impredes the amateur drug makers to a
degree, but it won't stop determination and it won't stop them from going store to store buying matches and materials. That's what a prison sentence
is for. (Granted no prison sentence will discourage a terrorist who wants only mayhem and counts his own life as forfeit to the cause.) Those type of
people are in it for the money and the greed will eventually get them. It will, however, stop us honest folk from acquiring what we need.
I put that I moderately agree with the statement that "The restrictions that prevent private individuals from buying laboratory chemicals are an
unjust infringement on their personal freedom" because in many ways they are an infringement, and an unnecessary hassle. However, these restrictions
force us to learn and use more chemistry to produce our reagents. It makes us better chemists and gives us an appreciation of the processes and
techniques that were used hundreds of years ago. For the most part, anyone who can make their own hydrazine, or distill his own perchloric acid and
not kill himself probably knows what he's doing and is a responsible person.
I think Polverone captured it:
"I don't think it's completely necessary or desirable to return to the days of Uncle Tungsten, when an unescorted 12 year old could buy potassium
cyanide or nitric acid. I would be quite happy if we simply returned to the days when adults could buy ordinary laboratory chemicals as easily as
research institutions buy them. I support additional controls for highly radioactive or highly toxic materials, but access should be a matter of
training and education, not financial means or institutional prestige (corporate/academic/government customers shouldn't be priviliged above their
demonstrated knowledge, and private citizens shouldn't be turned away in spite of demonstrated knowledge)."
Once again, I'll return to the basis of it: a small minority ruins it for the well-intentioned majority. When a small group abuses a situation or
loophole to their advantage, and it's subsequently closed, the majority loses as well. I don't need to list examples like Oklahoma City (applies to
chemistry and pyrotechnics), or in the case of firearms abuse, the people who own small armouries and get into a shooting match with the FBI and BATF.
Such events create fear, which in turn leads to public outcry, and for a change, the politicians want to listen to the people--more voter confidence
and security for them in elections because they can say they've "banned dangerous materials". As someone aptly pointed out, how many of the general
public would care about the banning of phosphorus? Most don't even know how to spell it, let alone dream of ever posessing it.
What's happening today is the cumulative result of a variety of factors, namely terrorism and illegal drug manufacture. Is it effective in preventing
the two? I frankly believe that there is no definitive answer to it. With porous borders (Canada) terrorists could smuggle explosives, and drug
couriers: drugs (as seen recently on the news). I guess what it boils down to is if the cure is worse than the cause and if the means truly justify
the ends. As far as us amateur chemists and other scientific enthusiasts are concerned, it's a resounding "No!".
|
|
|
joe69cool
Harmless
Posts: 14
Registered: 31-10-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Clearly the issue of restrictions upon the rights of individuals to have access chemicals is a complicated one. Though, I often have political
differences with those who govern our United States, but I still support the current policy of placing some restrictions upon an individual's right to
access of chemicals. I think all mature adults of sound mind can accept that fact that explosives shouldn't be allowed into the hands of all. There
must be regulation! An individual, in other words, must prove themself worthy and capable of handling their materials responsibibly. I do not
believe that other non-explosive chemicals should be treated any differently. While I don't nessicarily believe that one should be required to apply
for a home chemistry permit, one still should prove to society that he or she is capable of being safe. How does one accomplish this? By being a
productive member of society. Those who stay on the right side of the law in other situations, are likely to do the same in a laboratory context.
Like guns and motor vehicles, chemistry labs can be dangerous, but they can also be great fun to the responsible. Unlike guns and motor vehicles,
chemistry takes a lifetime to master and even then only a small mar is made. Therefore I would be hesitant to allow individuals with no formal
scientific education to have their own labs, though I would not neccisarily be apposed. Such a matter would require individual consideration. In
short I support the current system. While it is difficult at times to find suppliers or specific chemicals, I think we ought to tolerate these
inconviences for it is they that maintain the integrety of the system. And while some chemicals maybe "listed" whatever that means, I think such
classifications are designed to discourage those who would do ill, rather than preventing honest chemists and hobbiests from their scientific
pursuits.
[Edited on 30-11-2006 by joe69cool]
\"Why oh why didn\'t I take the blue pill?\"
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
