Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Poll: Is there too much illegal drug discussion?

There sure as heck has been a lot published on these compounds, I'll be the first to admit that. I know some of the authors. But I don't see how scholarly papers reporting research done under DEA permits and NIDA funding has anything to do with some of the near-illiterate threads that see the light of day on the forum.

The near-illiterate posts have been stamped out for the most part. If you see new ones popping up, report them and they'll rapidly be on the way to Detritus. Do you dislike the way bad discussions are sent to Detritus? It does mean they linger on the site, to be sure, but I think it offers better transparency and object lessons than simply deleting posts. The only posts I totally delete as a matter of course are ones from spammers because I don't want them to get any exposure at all.

Edit: poll results are visible only to people who have voted, which I think is what hissingnoise was referring to.

[Edited on 7-10-2009 by Polverone]

entropy51 - 10-7-2009 at 11:45

No, but there is way too much flaming and whining about "illegal drug discussion" most of which originates from one mentally ill (opinion, not offense) person.

Congratulations, turd! You managed to flame someone while ranting about too much flaming!

entropy51 - 10-7-2009 at 11:55

Polverone, you and I may be thinking of different meanings for near-illiterate. I meant in comparison to the articles that come up on Google Scholar. But the worst ones are going to Detritus and I think holding them in "quarantine" there is perfectly reasonable, for the reasons you cite. Perhaps the Search Engine spiders should be denied access to our dark, dank crawlspace under the back porch though. Maybe they are already?

"poll results are visible only to people who have voted"
may be a good thing if it encourages people to vote.

[Edited on 10-7-2009 by entropy51]

turd - 10-7-2009 at 12:15

No, but there is way too much flaming and whining about "illegal drug discussion" most of which originates from one mentally ill (opinion, not offense) person.

Congratulations, turd! You managed to flame someone while ranting about too much flaming!

There was no flaming. I can only guess that you are talking about the "mentally ill" part. For me a mentally ill person is in no way worse than a physically ill person. Would you consider it flaming if I observe that someone has a cold? And I'm quite sure that most people will agree that Sauron has mental issues, to the point of them being pathological. That's the reason why his flaming never bothered me.

PS: You should get rid of your preconceptions. Neither amphetamines nor mentally ill people are bad per se. But both can cause problems if not handled with care.

setback - 10-7-2009 at 12:24

Frankly I think your poll is seriously flawed. It is only a little better than the one made by the teenager who assumed we all made acetone peroxide.

Yes, we all know your feelings on the subject, and if we didn't this poll gives us a clear picture. It's easy to cook up a slanted poll.

setback - 10-7-2009 at 12:29

No, but there is way too much flaming and whining about "illegal drug discussion" most of which originates from one mentally ill (opinion, not offense) person.

This too, it gives the illusion of a drug problem, sure, but it's almost a page out of the old "reefer madness" book. It really needs to stop.

entropy51 - 10-7-2009 at 12:33

Quote: Originally posted by setback

Frankly I think your poll is seriously flawed. It is only a little better than the one made by the teenager who assumed we all made acetone peroxide.

Yes, we all know your feelings on the subject, and if we didn't this poll gives us a clear picture. It's easy to cook up a slanted poll.

Please send me some instructions on cooking (that damn word again) up a slanted poll so that I can do a better job of it next time. Based on the results so far, I screwed up bigtime!

[Edit] So should have I have asked if we had too little, just enough, or too much drug discussion?

You probably know less about my feelings than you think. But I'm trying to find how others feel. Even you!

[Edited on 10-7-2009 by entropy51]

setback - 10-7-2009 at 12:36

Quote:

And I'm quite sure that most people will agree that Sauron has mental issues, to the point of them being pathological. That's the reason why his flaming never bothered me.

I think this was why he wasn't banned after all this time. He's a narcissist, it's not exactly an endearing trait, but it's who he is.

Quote:

"poll results are visible only to people who have voted" may be a good thing if it encourages people to vote.

NO, this is exactly why this poll is so flawed. You only have two choices: if I said "yes", then I agree with you (and I surely don't). If I say "no", that implies I think that we do not have enough drug discussion.

Don't you see how this is a very slanted poll? It's almost something out of fox news.

hissingnoise - 10-7-2009 at 12:36

Mentally ill science; the art and science of amateur experimentalism. . .
I'm gibbering (slobber)!

[Edited on 10-7-2009 by hissingnoise]

entropy51 - 10-7-2009 at 12:47

HissingNoise, you stop that right now!

I can't stay mad at everybody for voting against me when I'm laughing out loud.

Eclectic - 10-7-2009 at 13:20

Oh go away....Ban polls on polls

hissingnoise - 10-7-2009 at 13:32

I can't stay mad at everybody for voting against me when I'm laughing out loud.

Laughter, one letter short of mayhem!
I'm hoping Sauron will see the funny side too. . .

Sedit - 10-7-2009 at 14:10

One thing I think that would reflect a more accurate pole would be to have the third option of "Don't care". May sound strange at first glance but I feel that by far would be the most filled position because many could care less and its only a select few that want drug discussion and a select few that are totaly against it.

PS: as to the question of the threed,

"Is there too much illegal drug discussion? "

The answer is Yes there is now because every one wont shut up about it.

[Edited on 10-7-2009 by Sedit]

watson.fawkes - 10-7-2009 at 14:29

I voted no, but then again I don't read organic chemistry topics for the most part. What little has bled over into what I do read has been modest and not particularly different from any other more-or-less open place on the internet.

entropy51 - 11-7-2009 at 12:50

Come on gang. VOTE! I kinow a lot of you don't care one way or the other, but only 30 people have voted so far.

hissingnoise - 11-7-2009 at 13:11

Only 30 entropy51?
I had expected people to be "tripping" over themselves to make their mark. . .
Drug-induced apathy no doubt---a salutary lesson?

solo - 11-7-2009 at 13:16

.....what is your agenda, regardless of the interest of the majority of the members.....you have a choice to read or not to read...there is a whole cadre of chemistry forums, chose and go if not happy here, just like the other fellow that made a long departure....i don;t use drugs contrary to what has been said,but i see no issue in writing about them or researching about them , ...it's science and research, so research your interest and avoid what isn't to your interest ....there are hundreds of members here from the now defunct Hive, and other forums and no one complains about other interests here be it pyro or inorganic hobbies, so why an issue with organic chemistry....your interest will only ignite another feud, unless you have a scientific query as to the findings.....solo

entropy51 - 11-7-2009 at 13:51

Agenda? No agenda Solo, just trying to inform myself and others who might be interested. It being a controversial issue seems a poor reason to pretend that everyone agrees about it. I'm happy to say that Polverone has allowed me to pose the question, and pretty much everyone has avoided feuding in this thread so far.

If there are hundreds of members here from the now defunct hive they don't seem to be expressing an opinion. I guess members just don't like to vote in polls.

Might it be presumptious of you to say "chose and go if not happy here, just like the other fellow that made a long departure"? It says neither Moderator nor Administrator under your name.

@Hissingnoise, I'm rather surprised at the low turnout as well. I'm sure some members don't care one way or the other, but that's data of a sort in and of itself.

[Edited on 11-7-2009 by entropy51]

basstabone - 11-7-2009 at 18:46

Honestly, if there was a "just right" option that is what I would have picked. Obviously by my response I would say there isn't too much but there also isn't lacking.

chemrox - 11-7-2009 at 21:57

A friend here felt there was too much and decided to exit. I felt there wasn't. Some of the discussions that could be labeled as such were in the nature of medicinal chemistry or pharmacology. I don't feel these should be opposed. Also, please recall that some founders and mods are former hive bees. I don't mean to encourage, "how do I make....?" or "I wonder if you could make..... this way?" Types of probes. I feel the policies the board already has serve as adequate checks against these.

turd - 11-7-2009 at 23:19

Come on gang. VOTE! I kinow a lot of you don't care one way or the other, but only 30 people have voted so far.

Maybe you should finally accept that most people just don't care. This atmosphere of tolerance and openness is what makes this place so unique and great. Everyone is just doing their thing (psychoactives, pyrotechnics, poisons, unusual compounds...) and helping everybody else out. I think it's very unfortunate that Sauron is (no worries, he'll find a way to weasel back) destroying this atmosphere by pitting people against each other. And now you are trying to do the same, by creating rifts where there are none. BTW, I bet both of you are very nice persons, but obviously Sauron has severe mental issues (borderliner or manic/depressive?).

PS: Since it has been made abundantly clear that policies will not change, one needs not to be a moderator to note that you either get more open minded, don't visit the organic chemistry subforum or move on to the new jihadist chemistry forum where your idea of "clean" chemistry is enforced.
PPS: The reason for Sauron's "departure" is not drug chemistry. It's the fact that he can neither dictate policy, nor enforce his personal views, because most people quickly realize that he's simply a madman and ignore his diatribes. What he really needs is a place where people unanimously worship him. I hope for him that he finds some good worshippers (some people need that).

Nicodem - 12-7-2009 at 01:27

Can't we finally get some rest?

Entropy has all the rights to probe the forum attitude in regard to this issue, especially if it means so much to him. It might have been a bad timing to bring up this pool now that some members were personally offended and afflicted after the recent madness, but can we please keep it civil and be relaxed? Let not this poll thread go out of control. If you still feel upset, take a day or more to think it over before posting what you have to say.

entropy51 - 12-7-2009 at 06:32

Thanks, Nicodem. I'm glad to see that people are basically being civil about the question.

If the prevailing opinion is that psychoactive drug discussion is acceptable to the majority then I will try to bow to the will of the majority and tone down my objections.

Maybe it's not a bad thing for the majority to know that a non-negligible minority is put off by it. The ratio seems to run 2:1 in favor, but that's not 100:1 or even 10:1.

@basstabone, I should have included the "Just Right" option, in retrospect. It was not an intentional omission.

@turd who said "Maybe you should finally accept that most people just don't care." The word "finally" suggests that I already knew people didn't care and I didn't kinow that. It's useful to know it, but there could be other reasons for a low turnout, such as fear of expressing an unpopular opinion. Who knows? And the poll isn't capturing the opinions of people who haven't become members because they are put off by the very discussions we are talking about. We don't know how many potential members it's costing us. Or as Chemrox pointed out, some have left because of it.

[Edited on 12-7-2009 by entropy51]

turd - 12-7-2009 at 07:56

The word "finally" suggests that I already knew people didn't care and I didn't kinow that.

Sorry, English is not my native tongue and such subtleties are lost on me. The "finally" was meant as in "I hope this discussion will soon stop".

Quote:

It's useful to know it, but there could be other reasons for a low turnout, such as fear of expressing an unpopular opinion. Who knows?

Far fetched. I don't believe that.

Quote:

We don't know how many potential members it's costing us.

Personally, I'm quite sure that meta-discussions like this, which do not much more than create animosity between members and especially Sauron's flaming have cost much more members than discussion on psychoactives.

S.C. Wack - 12-7-2009 at 09:08

The problem is of course people with no actual interest or understanding of chemistry who post anyways, or perhaps rather people with leech- or spam-type participation here only. It has nothing to do with drugs. To me, this is not unlike the events where the references section became hidden, after someone unwisely brought this forum to the attention of file-sharing sites, and a pair of prolific members of same.

If there are hundreds of members here from the now defunct hive they don't seem to be expressing an opinion. I guess members just don't like to vote in polls.

Maybe thousands of members here don't give a fuck about responding to you, ("REACT TO ME") or replying to everything that they read that provokes a mental response.
Unfortunately, actually saying so is a bit of a "Catch-22".

Magpie - 12-7-2009 at 09:56

Personally, the current level of drug discussion doesn't bother me. Sometimes I'm even curious as to what the cooks are up to now, ie, what's the latest work around to proscribed precursors, or what's the latest fad, etc.

It does bother me, however, that we may very well be driving away talented potential members. Also, I would like the forum to have as good a reputation as possible with the general public and law enforcement. But I wouldn't neuter the forum for this.

entropy51 - 12-7-2009 at 12:56

Quote: Originally posted by S.C. Wack

Dearest S.C.

Thank you for reacting to me.

A pleasure exchanging electrons with you. Were you reduced or oxidized?

vulture - 12-7-2009 at 14:51

Quote:

Please enlighten me. I wasn't aware of the fact that we were a profit driven media outlet that needs pageviews or members to make money. The surest way to get alot of members quickly would be to post detailed drug synthesis instructions in a protected spot of the forum.

There is also the issue of the question becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. Members will now scrutinize every thread to see if it's in any way related to drugs which they wouldn't do usually, often with good reason.

We are in danger of succumbing to the same scare tactics and faulty logic of those that are trying to eliminate any private pursuit of chemistry.

crazyboy - 12-7-2009 at 21:24

Personally I don't think there is too much discussion of drugs. I dislike threads asking how to make meth or extract DXM from cough syrup but I think there should be more leeway given to synthesis of less dangerous compounds such as MDMA, LSD, mescaline and other tryptamines and select phenethylamines.

Just like talk about how much AP is used to detonate ANFO in the energetic materials section I don't think it is appropriate to discuss "OTC meth" in the organic chemistry section however many pathways to psychedelics are just as interesting as any other organic compound if not more so.

I doubt my ideas will become a reality at this board but that's fine.

turd - 13-7-2009 at 10:30

Quote: Originally posted by vulture

Yes, you are right quality should come before quantity. But note that the argument of scaring away new members wasn't even mine.

And don't you just make the point that I tried to make?
Just look at this thread: http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=12387
I'd call that successfully chased away. There's nothing indicating that this couldn't have become a productive member if instead of chasing him away he was told that there is no reason to be secretive as long as he follows certain rules.

And don't get me started on the absurdity that one might get legal problems if one explains how to distill safrole. Pure FUD which unfortunately falls on fertile ground.

woelen - 13-7-2009 at 14:12

I also voted and I voted "No, there isn't too much".

Personally I think that every thread on making drugs and every obvious recipe/cookery thread is one too much, but I must say that the forum community does a good job in discouraging that kind of threads. There might be quite some threads which start with a request for making some obscure drug or a precursor, but almost all of them end up in detritus very soon and the cook or wanna-be cook does not get his answer.

As long as we have a freely accessible public forum there will always be people who want to abuse that forum, but it is my personal impression that sciencemadness becomes more and more hostile towards the real cook-types and that is a good thing. General questions about making amines or about adding acetyl groups to certain types of molecules _might_ be asked with making drugs in mind, but if this is not explicitly stated, then we should bot a-priori call such a thread a cookery thread. A lot depends on the initial attitude of the person who asks questions in this direction...

entropy51 - 13-7-2009 at 15:42

turd, I sure am glad we didn't scare you off. If we had we wouldn't have been able to savor the quality posts of yours, like this beauty:

"IMHO phenylacetone has a very pleasing smell unlike any animal piss. Phenylacetic acid on the other hand I would say has a pissy flavour. But, as opposed to what the rumors say, it doesn't smell very strongly. If you work on large scale, the smell of the solvents is probably a bigger problem"

We need your expertise to advise us about those pissy flavours and what constitutes a quality post.

entropy51 - 13-7-2009 at 15:57

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone

The near-illiterate posts have been stamped out for the most part. If you see new ones popping up, report them and they'll rapidly be on the way to Detritus.

Polverone, please see the post immediately above for an example of the illiteracy that still plagues us. It's not new, but neither is it ancient (nor unique) and it's not in Detritus.

turd - 13-7-2009 at 22:19

I don't know what your problem with that post is - the word "piss" instead of "urine" or my imperfect command of the English language - but it conveys more useful information than any post of yours in this thread.

PS: Since you want to bring the discussion to a personal level (a fact that doesn't need to be commented), you should have spent more time reading my posts. Some of them are *really* crappy. Go a head and repost them all.

PPS [OT]: I love the smell of phenylacetone. I think a thread on SAR (smell activity relationship) illuminating the relationship between the smell of phenylacetones and the activity of the corresponding amphetamines would be very interesting. And mad science to boot.

Sandmeyer - 19-7-2009 at 08:48

It seems to me that some people have big problem with the amateur discussion on the topic of psychoactive compounds, yet I see no-one of the Saurons zombies complain about BigPharmas blockbuster opioids, benzos and stimulants. So, if you're an amateur you better shut up on these issues - this discourse is reserved for the big boys with billions of dollars. This is utter confusion about what this forum is about (amateur science), and I don't understand what those who have been so deeply indoctrinated to hold this view are doing here and how come they are the ones to speak about the elements "destroying amateur science". It is extremely ironic. And by the way, every second joe-sixpack trying to change the forum-policy to fit his political views has become far more annoying (and destructive) than occasional cooks wanting to be spoonfed with meth recipes.

BigPharma vs. Cook:

The Emperor says to the Pirate: "How dare you think you can molest the seas!"
The pirate replies: "I am but a man with a small boat, so you call me a pirate. Yet you have a vast navy, and they call you an Emperor? How dare you think you can molest the world!"

[Edited on 19-7-2009 by Sandmeyer]

setback - 19-7-2009 at 09:51

Chicken Littles like entropy do far more harm than anyone else here.

starman - 20-7-2009 at 18:11

Well of the 58 people that voted it seems to be running about 70/30 no/yes.Given that on a typical day 100+ plus members visit the site it would seem most are simply content to leave these decisions to adiministration and moderators or couldn't care less either way.

[Edited on 21-7-2009 by starman]

nightshade - 21-7-2009 at 09:06

I asked a question concerning a kolby reaction,and someone shut down the thread.Why because concerned a paper by chem guy about oxidation reduction with phenylalanine.

Sedit - 21-7-2009 at 09:28

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.

entropy51 - 21-7-2009 at 09:59

Sedit!

benzylchloride1 - 21-7-2009 at 12:11

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.

MagicJigPipe - 26-7-2009 at 13:46

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.

JohnWW - 26-7-2009 at 14:32

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 - 26-7-2009 at 17:38

A throwback to the 1960's! Groovy, man.

Quote: Originally posted by JohnWW

I reckon there is nothing wrong with drugs, provided you know how and when to use them.

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 - 26-7-2009 at 17:47

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....

entropy51 - 27-7-2009 at 15:46

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 - 27-7-2009 at 16:15

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 - 27-7-2009 at 18:04

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.

hissingnoise - 28-7-2009 at 03:33

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 - 28-7-2009 at 15:59

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise

Do you even know what the problem is?

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 - 28-7-2009 at 18:17

"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]

ammonium isocyanate - 28-7-2009 at 20:52

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 - 29-7-2009 at 05:39

People who believe that they are above the law. That is the true arrogance of which you accuse others.

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 - 29-7-2009 at 07:31

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 - 29-7-2009 at 08:09

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.

entropy51 - 29-7-2009 at 16:37

Quote: Originally posted by MagicJigPipe

Please note that many people are not harmed at all and a subset of those actually benefit from using (il)legal drugs.

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 - 29-7-2009 at 18:02

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.

turd - 29-7-2009 at 21:34

[...] I know it's anecdotal evidence[...]

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 - 29-7-2009 at 21:55

You're assuming home-made speed would be better quality, which I'm guessing is often not the case.

kclo4 - 30-7-2009 at 21:04

Isn't all speed homemade speed, for what its worth anyways..

Ephoton - 22-9-2009 at 00:51

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.

hissingnoise - 22-9-2009 at 04:56

Quote: Originally posted by Ephoton

I have been a hive bee since I was 17 now I am 33. still I say no drugs on this site.

The results of the poll seem to show that censorship is the one thing this forum doesn't need. . .

dann2 - 22-9-2009 at 12:38

Quote: Originally posted by Ephoton

chemistry is too wide a subject too just let it bee

destroyed with drug talk.

Ephoton, perhaps it's time you became a wasp.

Dann2

hodges - 24-9-2009 at 16:14

I think the current policy is good.

I would like this to be a board that I can be proud to post on, and not hesitate to show to my friends. Not that I have anything against drug boards, but I just don't think this is the place. I don't think pornography should be banned either, and yet if asked whether porn should be allowed here I would say no as well. There are plenty of other boards out there for either.

On the other hand, if we start saying "well, you can't talk about x because x can be used as a precursor to such and such drug", then it is going to be pretty limiting, since just about everything falls into that category ultimately. For example, I'm sure that water is used in the synthesis of almost all drugs, but I would hate to see us not be able to mention water in any of our experiments.

It seems that a lot of the experiments we do are ones that were done for the first time by scientists in the late 1800s. I think we should emulate these scientists in our discussions. Sometimes they synthesized compounds that they tasted or even ingested to see what the biological effects are. Yet I'm sure few, if any, of these same scientists made "drugs" for the sake of making drugs. And if they did, they didn't talk about it in their books.

Hodges

psychokinetic - 24-9-2009 at 17:04

I'd vote no, cause I hardly see any. There's some good stuff relating to illegal psychoactives that relate to amateur chemists without being methods of mayhem.

For instance the current(ish) one about the shake n bake method for meth - it's not for us to use, it's for us to take note of and talk about - implications included.

I'm not interested in making any, but it's still good to know about.

Said Hodges: "Yet I'm sure few, if any, of these same scientists made "drugs" for the sake of making drugs"

-Yep. In today's societies, here we have good reason to know what there is that's illegal - because if you make it accidentally and are found with it - do you think you'll get off because you're a chemist? Unfortunately it's probably more damning than not.

Vogelzang - 26-9-2009 at 14:05

No, as long as the bastardized chemistry is kept off of this forum. Also, the bad thing about drug forums are the political wankers who try to hijack it. They always chase away the real chemists, since, obviously, chemistry is really a right wing capitalist activity. All the chemists I've ever known would be considered right wing capitalists among the political hijackers, at least the chemists that were employed. Chemistry takes a lot of work, which is something the left doesn't like and were never good at. :cool:

hissingnoise - 26-9-2009 at 14:35

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

Also, the bad thing about drug forums are the political wankers who try to hijack it.

And then you come along with your crypto-fascist jerk=off. . .

Vogelzang - 27-9-2009 at 05:43

We all know its true.

Lies lead to this sort of thing.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5384001427276447319...

watson.fawkes - 27-9-2009 at 05:49

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

We all know its true.

I am afraid that neither the "we", the "all", the "know", or the "true" is applicable in this case.

gdflp - 21-9-2014 at 05:31

It's interesting that the top two threads in beginnings are on extracting ergotamine and distilling piperine. Are there any legitimate uses for these, or are these just drug cooks we're supporting?

arkoma - 21-9-2014 at 06:54

I have cooked dope. Nowadays it is much much easier to just BUY/BUM it when I get the (now rare) itch.

That being said, I have a test tube full of piperine xtal's. It was a challenging/fun/interesting extraction, and taught me a bit of patience. They are several months old now, and still just as pretty as the day I finally saw them re-xtallize, and I'm thinking are a good clean product as they are stable.

Now where did I put that helional synth...............LOL

Texium - 21-9-2014 at 07:14

It's interesting that the top two threads in beginnings are on extracting ergotamine and distilling piperine. Are there any legitimate uses for these, or are these just drug cooks we're supporting?

Piperine has a use in drugs? I had no idea.
I was actually planning on extracting it just for the fun of it, but now I'm having second thoughts as I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea...

macckone - 21-9-2014 at 07:33

As a former hive member I voted no but I also
Think the board adequately discourages drug discussion.
Frankly there are drug boards for that.
This forum isn't for drug discussion.
I do wish there was more physics disscussion.
Many physics things like Tesla coils and
Jacob's ladders are mad science personified.
Of course there are astronomy and high voltage
Boards around too. I think we should welcome
Those communities.

gdflp - 21-9-2014 at 07:37

Quote: Originally posted by zts16

Piperine has a use in drugs? I had no idea.
I was actually planning on extracting it just for the fun of it, but now I'm having second thoughts as I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea...

Yep, it's a DEA List I chemical.

arkoma - 21-9-2014 at 07:40

Quote: Originally posted by zts16

[Piperine has a use in drugs? I had no idea.
I was actually planning on extracting it just for the fun of it, but now I'm having second thoughts as I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea...

Parsley has a "use for drugs" if you are determined enough Apiol

edit--@gdfp--you are incorrect--PIPERIDINE is a list I chemical. Check your facts, sir.

[Edited on 9-21-2014 by arkoma]

gdflp - 21-9-2014 at 10:15

Oops, I misread it. I apologize. That makes a lot more sense, I always wondered why the alkaloid in peppers was illegal

Amos - 21-9-2014 at 10:20

Quote: Originally posted by zts16

It's interesting that the top two threads in beginnings are on extracting ergotamine and distilling piperine. Are there any legitimate uses for these, or are these just drug cooks we're supporting?

Piperine has a use in drugs? I had no idea.
I was actually planning on extracting it just for the fun of it, but now I'm having second thoughts as I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea...

While gdflp is referring to piperIDine and not piperine, both of them DO exist in pepper.

[Edited on 9-21-2014 by No Tears Only Dreams Now]

[Edited on 9-21-2014 by No Tears Only Dreams Now]

jock88 - 21-9-2014 at 12:57

Isn't salt used to crash things out of solution too when doin some kookin!!

careysub - 22-9-2014 at 06:15

It's interesting that the top two threads in beginnings are on extracting ergotamine and distilling piperine. Are there any legitimate uses for these, or are these just drug cooks we're supporting?

Piperine is the major flavor component of black pepper. I can see uses for black pepper oil extracts. It is possible to make piperidine from it by hydrolysis, which in turn is used to make scores of different pharmaceuticals (including a notorious one no longer in medical use - PCP) but going from that to believing an interest in black pepper oil shows one is a "drug cook" is quite a stretch.

Ergot alkaloids are famously connected with one particular pharmaceutical called Delysid, known as LSD, but beyond that are a very interesting area of pharmaceutical chemistry (dozens of pharmaceuticals developed with several different applications) and mycology/botany. The distribution of ergot alkaloids appears to be broader than previously known, and appears to be due to previously unrecognized endogenous mycological symbiotes/parasites. Work in this area could develop original contributions to the field.

That being said - the particular poster about ergotamine, who appears to know nothing about chemistry, is probably not attempting original research in the distribution of ergot alkaloids.

But THAT being said - where do we decide on this forum when to join the "war on chemistry"? The number of chemicals - including very common ones of wide application - being banned in the US, EU and elsewhere for fear they might be used to create unapproved intoxicants, or weapons for terrorists, is growing by leaps and bounds.

Do we have an obligation to sign on to this campaign?

[My main concern about drug chemistry discussions here are: a) duplication with other forums and b) the poor quality of many such posts; rather than: "OMG, that might be illegal!"]

solo - 22-9-2014 at 06:23

.....illegal is all relevant, as to the application or popular use, RX drugs are sanctioned to be ok if pharmaceutical companies are synthesising them, again it's all relevant.....solo

arkoma - 22-9-2014 at 06:46

Quote: Originally posted by careysub

[My main concern about drug chemistry discussions here are: a) duplication with other forums and b) the poor quality of many such posts; rather than: "OMG, that might be illegal!"]

Indeed. Poor quality/spoonfeed requests please got to z*klet............

Bert - 22-9-2014 at 08:26

I personally moved three recent (drug precursor?) threads to "beginnings". Because the original poster's requests for information were in no way well documented or referenced.

I did not move them to "detritus"- Partly due to the quality of member responses.

Similar standards are applied to the other major "hot button issue" forum... Energetic Materials. Reference your source material and/or document your work. THEN ask for information, critique of your process, member help with some aspect of the subject...

Threads starting with balls out spoon feeding requests such as "How do I make improvised high explosive/profitable illicit drug/obvious precursor" go to beginnings or detritus.

Respect is earned, show your work.

gdflp - 22-9-2014 at 08:52

Quote: Originally posted by careysub

[My main concern about drug chemistry discussions here are: a) duplication with other forums and b) the poor quality of many such posts; rather than: "OMG, that might be illegal!"]

I agree with you. However, if we are helping people synthesize pseudoephedrine(just an example) then we draw more attention from the authorities and the TLA's. Lots of members(including me) don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about our intentions solely because we are a member of this forum. On the other hand, I have no problem with helping those trying to synthesize phosphorus, iodine, acetic anhydride etc. (if they aren't asking for spoon feeding) because these chemicals have many legitimate uses.

Little_Ghost_again - 22-9-2014 at 09:00

I live in a family that dosnt drink or take drugs, I have a problem with the distinction made when talking about drugs. From the few threads I have read on some of the drug stuff I can see the interesting chemistry of it. I personally will probably never take drugs and probably never drink, I think each individual should have the freedom of choice to take drugs or drink. I find it completely hypocritical to distinguish between say Cannabis and alcohol.
For the UK alcohol causes more problems and deaths than all the other drugs put together. The only logical reason that alcohol is legal is purely a money one, its a far far more dangerous drug than many others. & the same for tobacco another known killer and drain on medical resource, and yet legal because of the money (tax etc) made from it. Also not talking about making drugs isnt going to stop them being made,better for accurate information on the making of them than no information and bad batches that kill being made.
I am not pro drug, in fact i think all drugs should be banned including alcohol. Or all drugs should be legal, but having a policy of this you can have and this you cant dosnt seem to stop anything. So I voted NO because I believe in the freedom of choice.

arkoma - 22-9-2014 at 09:13