Sciencemadness Discussion Board

The Restriction of a Chemical Element

AndersHoveland - 26-11-2011 at 22:54

Iodine is one of the basic elements on the periodic table. It is neither radioactive, nor excessively toxic.

For those involved with chemistry, experimentation with the whole range of iodine compounds is impossible without access to either iodine or sodium iodide.

Yet governments in many different countries are essentially making it illegal to buy iodine, just because it happens to be one of many other ingredients used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine.

In the USA, many chemical supply stores have stopped carrying the element because of all the paperwork and excessive fees required to comply with the law.
Quote:

This rulemaking moves iodine from List II to List I; reduces the iodine threshold from 0.4 kilograms to zero kilograms; adds import and export regulatory controls

regulatory controls that will apply to iodine crystals and iodine chemical mixtures that contain greater than 2.2 percent iodine.

Persons handling regulated iodine materials are required to register with DEA, are subject to the import/export notification requirements of the CSA, and are required to maintain records of all regulated transactions involving iodine regardless of size.
Quote:

In 2007, federal regulations were passed strictly regulating the chemical. Wallace said the new rules mandated that he had to pay a $1,200 regulatory fee, get federal and state permits, keep track of exactly who was buying his product and report anyone suspicious.

to comply, the state Department of Justice fingerprinted the couple and told Wallace he needed to show them such things as a solid security system for his product.


Many states in the USA have added their own ridiculous laws, which essentially allow a person to be fined or arrested for transportation of "drug precursors" (including the elements iodine and phosphorous) without a specific license. California, New Mexico, and Texas have the worst laws.
Quote:

Iodine, for many years used by walkers and mountaineers to disinfect water, will be banned in the European Union from autumn.

The ban means that, from 25 October retailers will no longer be allowed to sell or supply for use the substance. Some equipment manufacturers will also need to modify their gear in response to the ban. The ban affects all 27 EU countries.

Generations of outdoors enthusiasts, military personnel and travellers have used iodine, producing its telltale yellow colouring, to kill bugs in drinking water. Alternatives include chlorine tablets, though these produce an unpleasant taste in the water. The main risks from drinking untreated water come from bacteria, viruses and parasites such as giardia and cryptosporidium.


This is just ridiculous. The only precursors that need to be regulated are ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenyl-2-propanone. Preparation of methamphetamine without these three precursors is essentially impossible, so why the need to regulate so many of the other chemicals? Unlike these three precursors, iodine, phosphorous, and methylamine have a wide range of other chemical uses. All these restrictions just add unnecessary or impractical burdens on everyone else that works with chemicals.

I urge civil disobedience in response to these excessive regulations that are limiting our freedoms. When it comes to basic elements on the periodic table, I am going to do as I please, regardless of what some ignorant unelected bureaucrats say.

[Edited on 27-11-2011 by AndersHoveland]

turd - 27-11-2011 at 01:59

Yes, banning I2 and P while still selling ephedrine is batshit insane. I've said so a couple of times.
Quote:
Yet governments in many different countries are essentially making it illegal to buy iodine, just because it happens to be one of many other ingredients used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine.

Actually, I know only one country (+ maybe a few subsidiaries). I can buy a kg each of P and I2 without raising an eyebrow.
Quote:
Iodine, for many years used by walkers and mountaineers to disinfect water, will be banned in the European Union from autumn.

The only thing I found on the web was that I2 was banned for water treatment. I don't know if this is a fallout of the US methamphetamine paranoia (first PCP then crack then methamphetamine, these people are clearly addicted to fear and should try some therapy), but it doesn't say anywhere that you can't buy iodine.
Quote:
The only precursors that need to be regulated are ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenyl-2-propanone. Preparation of methamphetamine without these three precursors is essentially impossible, so why the need to regulate so many of the other chemicals?

What about the classic benzaldehyde + nitroethane route? Most people will just reduce to amphetamine, but if needed it can be methylated. Or one pot benzyl cyanide + MeMgBr + reduction! It should also be possible to make it from bromophenylpropane with a large excess of MeNH2. I think the possibilities are practically endless. And I'm glad that they are. :)

Adas - 27-11-2011 at 02:38

Goverments simply don't know what they are doing, they know shit about chemistry. And that limits our possibilities.

I hope European Union will fall apart soon :D

AndersHoveland - 27-11-2011 at 11:17

Quote: Originally posted by turd  
What about the classic benzaldehyde + nitroethane route? Most people will just reduce to amphetamine, but if needed it can be methylated. Or one pot benzyl cyanide + MeMgBr + reduction! It should also be possible to make it from bromophenylpropane with a large excess of MeNH2. I think the possibilities are practically endless.


Then benzaldehyde, benzyl cyanide, bromophenylpropane, or any other benzene derivitive that can easily be used to make methamphetamine should be regulated. These types of compounds have few (or no) practical uses outside of illicit drug making. But leave nitroethane alone!

In their quest to stop methamphetamine makers, they have also, in many ways, made home organic chemistry illegal. You cannot make an element illegal (or put so many restrictions on it that it is effectively), unless it is potentially very radioactive, and non-naturally occuring, such as plutonium. Yes, chemical reduction can be used as part of the process to make methamphetamine. But should that mean the chemical reduction itself should effectively be made illegal? Of course not. That would be like saying that cars can be used to transport drugs, so the government should make cars illegal. Chemical reduction is one of the basic reactions of chemistry. The only reason governments are getting away with putting all these impossible regulations on home chemistry is the fact that it is an uncommon, and often misunderstood, hobby. Society would be outraged if it was something like computers, petrol fuel, or electric power being so restricted.

[Edited on 27-11-2011 by AndersHoveland]

a_bab - 27-11-2011 at 11:26

Turd, being "glad" about the multiple possibilities of your cooking ingredients only confirms you are indeed the kind of chemists I hate. But then again, there are enough of you on this forum, so it doesn't make any difference to me. You are like the bugs and other critters that run all over when you lift an old rotten log. The more I read this forum the more I find.

As about the country where you can buy kilos of I or P (for ridiculous prices may I add) it WOULD raise more then an eyebrow, especially in the light of that nordic country events. Just check your usual providers, you may have a surprise.


turd - 27-11-2011 at 11:36

Maybe some psychoactives could help you work on your hate problem?

Unfortunately I still have ~500g I2 for which I don't even have much use, so I have no incentive to prove my point.

AndersHoveland - 27-11-2011 at 11:46

I hope the government realises that anyone can order restricted drugs from Russia or China, where the governments have little ability to enforce their regulations, and where there are plenty of illegal drug factories operating. I ordered some anebolic steroid tablets (as a precursor for another compound).

It is just like carbon dioxide emissions. It makes no sense to regulate it so much here, when we can easily buy something made in a heavily polluting Chinese factory. Similarly, why put so many restrictions on organic chemistry when there are so many factories in China churning out cheap methamphetamine for illegal export. The Chinese government does not care about anything except increasing exports (and national "stability" of course). They see it as retribution against the west for the opium wars.

kmno4 - 27-11-2011 at 13:03

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
(...)

You do not realise how boring you are.
Unreformable case.

turd - 28-11-2011 at 00:17

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
Then benzaldehyde, benzyl cyanide, bromophenylpropane, or any other benzene derivitive that can easily be used to make methamphetamine should be regulated. These types of compounds have few (or no) practical uses outside of illicit drug making. But leave nitroethane alone!

Bullshit. These compounds have an enormous amount of uses. Benzaldehyde, banzyl cyanide, etc. are the "elements" of organic chemistry ("synthetic equivalents of simple synthons").

The solution is very simple: legalize amphetamine, control production, regulate sales and tax it like crazy. Less money for the mafia, more for the welfare state. I don't know where this crazy idea comes from that amphetamine (well known since the 1950ies) is some magical substance that immediately hooks people and turns them into meth zombies. It's a bland stimulant - yawn. No sane person is going to risk losing job or friends over indulging this substance. People who do have other issues anyway and will use any drug to destroy themselves. This is not opiates. I can understand that society fears drugs like LSD that makes people see the ridiculousness of all, but speed? Come on. </offtopic rant>

woelen - 28-11-2011 at 00:19

@AndersHoveland: What you are telling is old news and ONLY applies to use for water disinfecting. It already was mentioned in 2009 on other forums. It looks like you did a selective copy and paste from this forum:

http://immortalhair.forumandco.com/t1382-27-eu-countries-ban...


In the EU you still can buy iodine, iodates and iodides for the purpose of experimenting. There even are eBay sellers, who sell iodine at 100 gram or 250 gram amounts, e.g. in the UK, in Poland, Estionia, Latvia and I also have sources for iodine in the Netherlands (but these only ship to dutch addresses).

The ban, mentioned above, is not due to concerns about illicit drug manufacture, but due to concerns about adverse health effects of prolonged exposure to moderate iodine levels. Such exposure can affect the workings of the thyroid and it can make you really ill.

[Edited on 28-11-11 by woelen]

vulture - 28-11-2011 at 01:50

I'm getting really tired of these borderline conspiracy theory threads about the UN, EU, you name it. What's next? The illuminati are conspiring to decrease the yield of your reactions?

zoombafu - 28-11-2011 at 14:03

Ive been able to buy potassium iodide and sodium iodide

AndersHoveland - 29-11-2011 at 16:41

Quote: Originally posted by vulture  
I'm getting really tired of these borderline conspiracy theory threads about the UN, EU, you name it.


We must assert our rights. As soon as the government starts making ridiculous regulations, it will only get worse.

When several countries began putting restrictions on common incandescent light bulbs, most people never imagined that some governments would go all the way and make them illegal. But that is exactly what Argentina did!
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/ban-again...
Australia has also effectively banned normal incandescent bulbs, but fortunately not yet the halogen type.

This makes me very very unhappy. I hope the left does not make any concerted efforts to try that here- I would be liable to go Brevik on them! [angry]

Not to change the subject, but here are just a few of the reasons why I hate those compact fluorescent bulbs they are trying to push on us:
http://stoppingatthegreenlight.wordpress.com/

The truth is that compact fluorescent bulbs DO NOT SAVE ENERGY, are MORE EXPENSIVE (despite slightly lower electric costs to the consumer), and cause MORE HARM to the environment when one factors in realistic lifespans of the lower quality bulbs, differences in production (virtually all fluorescent bulbs are made in China since our countries cannot compete because of out much stricter environmental regulations and the bulbs mercury content), and disposal related issues. They also give off an unpleasant quality of light.

[Edited on 30-11-2011 by AndersHoveland]

strontiumred - 30-11-2011 at 04:59

I'm with you 100% on the "Compact Fluorescent Lamp" issue Anders. It's absolutely outrageous that we are forced to use them.

I hate the lack of shadows, the totally unnatural feel of the light and the utterly depressing wait as they slowly brighten up. Who wants to wait 30 seconds before they can have a piss for the crappy CFL to get going.

You cannot do chemistry under them either. Salts all look either washed out or totally the wrong colour (Holmium Oxide looks yellow under all other lights, halogen, sunlight, incandescent Etc, but bright PINK under CFL).

They are the work of the Devil and no mistake.

quicksilver - 30-11-2011 at 10:39

It seems this thread has gone in two directions. One is the legalistic element of why certain objects are restricted and the other is the differing societal agendas that bring about varying responses.

Anyone who had been a soldier or Marine remembers halozone tablets for drinking water (and putting Kool-Aid in with them to mellow the taste). Therefore the conception that the gentleman's "invention" is something unique is not accurate. The issues with "List chemicals" are a multi-fold agenda. The legality of the chemical is MOST often used for Prosecution padding so that a Plea Bargain can climb higher due to extraneous legislation giving the Prosecution more room to push a case through, etc. The other issue is a simple interpretation of legislation being a substitute for common sense: allowing society (supposedly) to protect someone from themselves.
While the merits of this could be discussed in-depth, history has shown that in general that type of governmental intervention rarely effective.
You can't cure "stupid". Someone will always attempt to synthesize a pharmaceutical in a restroom. And another even stupider individual will ingest it.

"Listed" chemicals from the DEA and "Watched" chemicals from DHS are myriad. Most people don't even know what the current lists ARE! The majority don't even know that threshold levels are no longer in existence!
*{YES, a prosecution & conviction can be achieved for whatever amount of Listed or Watched chemicals are found in concurrence with perpetration of a related agenda. USA vs Watson, Velroy, See DHS CHEMSEC} If the revised Patriot Act has not been read; comment should be reserved until such time as the facts are known.

There are several differing reasons why restrictions on materials are in place & they also change as does the demands of the present local and Geo-politics change. However that does not have convoluted conspiracy issues at it's helm. Believe me, the Masons, Jews, & Rastafarians are not out to control the world (nor do they now). However I would discourage anyone from attempting to buy Listed or Watched materials. That comment was not made from a sense of paranoia but a logical understanding of the way local and national politics affect the Judicial System.

The reality is that we live in a world with a percentage of jerks & pathological misfits [that] make headlines via tragedy & that reflects itself in the legal system just as politics itself is simply marketing.


* If you are not familiar with the two agencies allowance and flexibility in light of both the Homeland Security's List of Watched Chemicals and the DEA's List 1 chemicals, you had better get tight on the current laws! Currently DEA removed "Threshold" levels in prosecution & both agencies add to their lists at will. The Precursor Act's flexibility makes prosecution very easy now and Homeland Security has pulled private industry's attempts to monitor many chemicals. They also have the ability to use a VERY flexible agenda for their continually changing "Watched" list. I strongly suggest doing some research on "CHEMSEC", CSAT, & related DHS material. Laws are not written in an un-amendable format.
Commentary regards legislation within the USA.



[Edited on 30-11-2011 by quicksilver]

entropy51 - 1-12-2011 at 10:36

Can anyone give an example of a non-drug manufacturing amateur chemist being prosecuted for mere posession of a DEA listed chemical? I am not aware of any examples and I believe it occurs very rarely, if ever.

As Polverone has noted:
Quote: Originally posted by Polverone  
In some instances, prosecutors may build a case for intent to manufacture with flimsy evidence (including mere possession of certain chemicals with no evidence of controlled end products ever being created), but plain-and-simple possession of safrole or any other List I chemical is not a crime.
Please refer to Polverone's original post for detailed discussion.

I worry a little about running afoul of the Fire Marshall or the Environmental Protection Department. I don't lose sleep worrying that the DEA will come after my Iodine.

[Edited on 1-12-2011 by entropy51]

Rogeryermaw - 3-12-2011 at 21:28

the reason that the precious chemicals and elements are restricted and not the epedrine or pseudoephedrine is because of money. plain and simple. two of the biggest controlling factors over the us government are oil and big pharma. pharma pays a lot of money to have beneficial(to them) legislation passed and the lawmakers don't want to bite the hands that feed them. so they say screw you all and your chemicals too. if you want it turned around then give up the cash.

unionised - 4-12-2011 at 11:32

Quote: Originally posted by strontiumred  
Who wants to wait 30 seconds before they can have a piss for the crappy CFL to get going.




If you are in that much of a hurry then perhaps you should make other arrangements.

Seriously, you are saying that you want to carry on using something that's only 3% efficient.

bbartlog - 5-12-2011 at 11:43

Quote:
The solution is very simple: legalize amphetamine, control production, regulate sales and tax it like crazy. Less money for the mafia, more for the welfare state.


They sort of did that. It's called Adderall. Though I think most of the money goes to Teva or other corporations rather than the government.

Vogelzang - 5-12-2011 at 15:24

One thing I was wondering about iodine is that if you want to be on a low sodium (including salt) diet and don't use any salt, including iodized salt, where do you get your iodine from? Maybe you could get a doctor's prescription or eat/use kelp/kelp suppliments.

[Edited on 5-12-2011 by Vogelzang]

AndersHoveland - 5-12-2011 at 17:05

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang  
One thing I was wondering about iodine is that if you want to be on a low sodium (including salt) diet and don't use any salt, including iodized salt, where do you get your iodine from? Maybe you could get a doctor's prescription or eat/use kelp/kelp suppliments.


The human body does not need much iodine, but it is an essential nutrient. Eating fish twice a month will provide enough iodine. Seaweed is a very rich source of iodine, even more than fish. I think roasted nori, for example tastes good. Milk, and to a lesser extent eggs, also contain iodine. Yogurt contains more iodine than milk. Strawberries contain lesser quantitites of iodine. Cheese, however, contains even less iodine than strawberries.

Iodine overdose is also possible from nutritional supplements (but if you eat seaweed every day there is nothing to worry about). Eating more than 1 gram of sodium iodide can result in burning in the mouth, throat and stomach and/or abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, dirarrhea, weak pulse, and even coma.

Mister Junk Pile - 7-12-2011 at 16:02

@turd "Yes, banning I2 and P while still selling ephedrine is batshit insane. I've said so a couple of times."

Although I disagree with banning pretty much anything, I must say that this is not "insane". Ephedrine is useful to many magnitudes more people than I2 or P.

"They sort of did that. It's called Adderall. Though I think most of the money goes to Teva or other corporations rather than the government."

Good point, though I see a huge difference between what most people consider "legalization" and requiring a prescription and placing it in schedule II. Morphine, methamphetamine and cocaine are "legal" in this way (and heroin in the UK) but most people would not consider it "legal" per se.

It's funny that most of the major "illegal" drugs are really legal subject to the whim of a doctor.


[Edited on 12-8-2011 by Mister Junk Pile]

AndersHoveland - 7-12-2011 at 21:47

It is also amazing how many doctors abuse prescription drugs. One study suggested as many as 1 out of 5 !

I personally know a doctor who I stongly suspect is abusing. I found a bottle of Lomitol on his desk. The writing on the bottle clearly showed that he had written the prescription to himself. He also had intense shackiness to his bodily movements, suggesting the effect of atropine, which is an additive to the medication to discourage abuse. Either he had chronic explosive diarrhea, or he has dependancy issues.

[Edited on 8-12-2011 by AndersHoveland]

entropy51 - 8-12-2011 at 13:23

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
It is also amazing how many doctors abuse prescription drugs. One study suggested as many as 1 out of 5 !

I personally know a doctor who I stongly suspect is abusing. I found a bottle of Lomitol on his desk. The writing on the bottle clearly showed that he had written the prescription to himself. He also had intense shackiness to his bodily movements, suggesting the effect of atropine, which is an additive to the medication to discourage abuse. Either he had chronic explosive diarrhea, or he has dependancy issues.

[Edited on 8-12-2011 by AndersHoveland]
Only a jerk would assume that someone who had an anti-diarrheal medication like Lomotil was abusing it to get high. If a physician wants to abuse prescription drugs he can do much better than Lomotil, trust me.

Mister Junk Pile - 8-12-2011 at 18:12

I was thinking the exact same thing, entropy. With all the hundreds of different opiate/opioid drugs at his disposal (most of which do not contain atropine) why would he choose that one? However, almost all opiate medications are either schedule II or III (except for codeine but it's so weak I don't know if that's an option for a dependent person). Maybe he has to use the schedule V Lomotil to stay "under the radar"?

Ugh... gossiping about whether or not someone we don't know is abusing drugs just seems... wrong.

bahamuth - 9-12-2011 at 02:23

Most people who abuse drugs don't plan on doing it, as such it is pointless to argue that the person, doctor or not could get his hands on stronger drugs.
It may as well be as AndersHoveland said, either he has
Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  
chronic explosive diarrhea, or he has dependancy issues.


Most addicts get addicted by something they thought was harmless, e.g. codeine which has a very large user group in the UK IIRC. It may very well be that the doctor in question has developed an addiction to Lomotil due to using it over prolonged periodes due to not knowing it would be addictive. Doctors aren't overly smart people, they just are good at studying and they are still human and as such they may fall into any addiction as the rest of us (this may not be the actual case as addictive behavior is linked to genetics..).
Quote: Originally posted by entropy51  
If a physician wants to abuse prescription drugs he can do much better than Lomotil, trust me.


This is usually not the case anymore, atleast not in the western european countries as doctors usually are watched in the regards of prescribing stronger opiates and such. Don't think any doctor would be as stupid as to prescribe stronger abusable drugs to themselves as this would get them in the search light within a short time (though some "deep-into-addiction" doctors do this in the end of their career).



This thread is on one of the most "hot" topics for me and as such I have resisted posting until now, but it has completly derailed from its original intent in my opinion, urging a discussion on the regulation and restriction of chemical elements and compounds and if one should accept or reject these limitating laws.

My opinion is that nothing should be restricted, but I also see the problem with rouge elements getting free access to potential harmful components. There are probably not an easy fix to this but I believe restriction and illegalisation of such compounds are a stillborn attempt to get control over certain "non-taxable" businesses.

One last thing, I am sure that most on this forum see stupid (in regards to chemical knowledge) restrictions/legislations getting passed in their country based on fear or economical reasons and think a discussion of such fits into the original topic of this thread.

entropy51 - 9-12-2011 at 06:31

Quote: Originally posted by bahamuth  
Don't think any doctor would be as stupid as to prescribe stronger abusable drugs to themselves as this would get them in the search light within a short time (though some "deep-into-addiction" doctors do this in the end of their career).

Duh. Well of course not. You don't ever prescribe controlled drugs for yourself. But your golf buddies or other colleagues can prescribe them for you.

The idea of a physician abusing something like Lomotil is just silly.

rollercoaster158 - 5-5-2012 at 16:45

If they banned phosphorous, then matches will no longer be able to be sold. Strike-on-box matchboxes contain a usable amount of elemental phosphorous on the striking surface, although there are some impurities.