Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Moving drug-related threads

Amos - 8-12-2014 at 17:42

There's a somewhat unsettling trend I've been noticing on here lately. We have a good number of threads on the site that detail the synthesis of illegal drugs and their precursors, and this opens the door to a lot of wannabe-cooks coming to pay Sciencemadness a visit with the sole intention of cooking. This can be seen in that these old threads are awoken from their rest by first-time posters.

While I'm not opposed to the threads remaining, especially considering the amount of useful information present in them, I do feel that they attract attention that the majority of us do not want here. I was thinking that they could be kept behind locked doors in their own category, similar to Whimsy and References, until the judgment has been made that users wanting access actually have a smidgeon of honest investment in the science of chemistry.

What are your thoughts on this?

careysub - 8-12-2014 at 18:06

Going back 20 days I only see one thread (that I recognize) as being such ("Phenylpropanones (P2P) from anilines").

Am I missing some?

If is a basic reagent that just happens to be useful in various drug syntheses then I would say that this is a very slippery slope.

Zephyr - 8-12-2014 at 18:08

The thread no tears only dreams now is talking about is "Potential route to amphetamines" which I agree doesn't belong on sciencemadness, at least not in a public section.

careysub - 8-12-2014 at 18:59

Quote: Originally posted by Pinkhippo11  
The thread no tears only dreams now is talking about is "Potential route to amphetamines" which I agree doesn't belong on sciencemadness, at least not in a public section.


Oh, I missed because I was looking for older stuff.

That is a good test case to consider. Although the original thread was started with the explicit intent of making amphetamine, the post that brought it up was dealing with the synthesis of a general purpose reagent which I think should not be problematic.

This one situation where encouraging people to post to old threads is not a good idea.

Bert - 8-12-2014 at 20:05


Those asking for "cookbook" level controlled drug/precursor synthesis information will likely see those threads or posts sent to detritus rather quickly. There are many other forums for those with such interests, site policy is to detritus and/or lock down, not delete.

No class of chemistry/chemical engineering is automatically forbidden here- And the organic chemistry typically used for illicit pharmaceutical production has applications far beyond that area. Please see the FAQ for site policy on this, and PM one of the moderators more experienced in organic chemistry for clarification on any explicit questions regarding what may be "beyond the pale".

Regardless of personal opinions about motive, ethics or personalities of those posting on such chemistry, there has been some very innovative chemistry developed or re-discovered by those on what some deem to be the "dark side". Knowledge and technologies are neither good nor evil. It comes down to the uses and users-

Amos - 8-12-2014 at 20:10

Quote: Originally posted by Bert  

Those asking for "cookbook" level controlled drug/precursor synthesis information will likely see those threads or posts sent to detritus rather quickly. There are many other forums for those with such interests, site policy is to detritus and/or lock down, not delete.

No class of chemistry/chemical engineering is automatically forbidden here- And the organic chemistry typically used for illicit pharmaceutical production has applications far beyond that area. Please see the FAQ for site policy on this, and PM one of the moderators more experienced in organic chemistry for clarification on any explicit questions regarding what may be "beyond the pale".

Regardless of personal opinions about motive, ethics or personalities of those posting on such chemistry, there has been some very innovative chemistry developed or re-discovered by those on what some deem to be the "dark side". Knowledge and technologies are neither good nor evil. It comes down to the uses and users-


All good points that I agree with; my concern was more with detracting people from coming here at all if they only want to be spoonfed cookery techniques; a google search for "methamphetamine from X and Y" might lead them straight here.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 8-12-2014 at 20:25

It might also bring people who are legitimately interested in the chemistry here.

Texium - 8-12-2014 at 20:36

Meant to post this hours earlier, but refreshed the page and forgot:
While I agree with the idea in principle, I think that having a subforum of "Super Sketchy Drug Related Stuff" would attract other sorts of unwanted attention...

Also, I don't think someone searching for "methamphetamine from X and Y" would be legitimately interested in chemistry.

Bert - 8-12-2014 at 21:02

After about 9 months? of moderating and 10 years membership, I can tell you- The kitchen recipe drug cooks are neither prevalent nor catered to/ignored when posting here. There are certainly some here with experience in the chemistry of illicit pharmaceutical manufacture. Also personnel of various police and drug enforcement agencies.

I rather suspect some of the more "balls out" requests for drug precursor sources are actually made BY the drug enforcement types? Hoping someone is so foolish as to do their work for them? Although a drugged up amateur chemist COULD be foolish enough to post such idiotic requests as THIS!

If you have questions, ASK. If you have doubts, or flat out know something does not meet forum guidelines, REPORT it or PM a moderator WITH A LINK. The more you are involved in self policing the forum of questionable content, the less likely it is to linger.

I have not yet got a PM with link or a member's report on the post that sparked this? And no one has yet linked to it in this thread! I (and the other mods) do still have "day jobs", and can only spend some of our off work hours here- you have to help us out a bit .

[Edited on 9-12-2014 by Bert]

Amos - 8-12-2014 at 21:34

Yeah, you're right, Bert. I'll try to help get those things taken care of; that should be enough to keep it clean. You can close/remove this thread now if you like.

Bert - 8-12-2014 at 21:43

No, this thread stays. It's worth while.

The only stupid questions are the ones you didn't ask...

Etaoin Shrdlu - 9-12-2014 at 04:49

Quote: Originally posted by zts16  
Also, I don't think someone searching for "methamphetamine from X and Y" would be legitimately interested in chemistry.

Say you were interested in that reaction. What exactly would you search for?

Darkstar - 9-12-2014 at 18:58

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu  
Quote: Originally posted by zts16  
Also, I don't think someone searching for "methamphetamine from X and Y" would be legitimately interested in chemistry.

Say you were interested in that reaction. What exactly would you search for?


If someone's genuinely interested in learning about the actual mechanisms involved in such reactions, there are ways to go about it without ever mentioning "methamphetamine." For example, one could use search terms like:

Reductive amination mechanism
Leuckart reaction mechanism
Reduction of benzylic alcohols by Li/Na/K in NH3
Reduction of benzylic alcohols by hydroiodic acid and red phosphorous

To be honest, the last two are actually rather interesting. (mechanistically speaking) They both seem to involve benzylic radicals and the latter also reduces hydroxyl groups adjacent to carbonyl groups. You don't have to be a "drug cook" to find some of these reactions kind of interesting.





Amos - 9-12-2014 at 20:21

Darkstar, this is kind of what I was getting at. People that are genuinely interested in the chemistry will use those kinds of terms, rather than searching on google "how to make meth with kitchen tools". The fact that we're getting people of the second category coming to the site is what I had intended to prevent.

Bert - 9-12-2014 at 21:41

We constantly have people showing up at the forum, young, ignorant and looking for kitchen cook book recipes for explosives. They are treated in much the same fashion as those who showed up looking for a quick and dirty drug synthesis. Not categorically forbidden to post on their interests, but required to demonstrate they have tried to learn something and to use certain accepted patterns when posting

A certain % of these new people stick around, learn and grow interests beyond whatever enticing "forbidden fruit" sucked them into this fine madness.

Go back and re-read the Mad Science FAQ

Don't sweat who is showing up. Just help educate them into the culture, either they will learn- Or they will leave.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 10-12-2014 at 13:26

Quote: Originally posted by Darkstar  
Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu  
Quote: Originally posted by zts16  
Also, I don't think someone searching for "methamphetamine from X and Y" would be legitimately interested in chemistry.

Say you were interested in that reaction. What exactly would you search for?


If someone's genuinely interested in learning about the actual mechanisms involved in such reactions, there are ways to go about it without ever mentioning "methamphetamine." For example, one could use search terms like:

Reductive amination mechanism
Leuckart reaction mechanism
Reduction of benzylic alcohols by Li/Na/K in NH3
Reduction of benzylic alcohols by hydroiodic acid and red phosphorous

No, no, no. You're just interested in the reaction. You haven't studied it. You don't know what type it is. You don't know the terminology. Or maybe you do know the terminology, but you're curious how things work with this particular substrate. What do you search for?

EDIT: Let's put it this way. You've just now become acquainted with the term "shake-and-bake" through a news story, and you're curious about what exactly people are doing that other people are so concerned about. Don't tell me your very first search is going to be "generating ammonia in-situ for Birch reduction," because if it is you're some sort of magic man who never needed to do a search to begin with.

[Edited on 12-10-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]

Chemosynthesis - 10-12-2014 at 23:06

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu  

No, no, no. You're just interested in the reaction. You haven't studied it. You don't know what type it is. You don't know the terminology. Or maybe you do know the terminology, but you're curious how things work with this particular substrate. What do you search for?

I could see it either way.
If they knew almost any chemistry at the time of searching, they should be able to look at reactant and product and determine if an oxidation, reduction, etc. is going on. This should allow someone to use terms such as "reduction of X to Y using reagent" or some variation thereof.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 11-12-2014 at 10:14

I can see that argument. But the fewer ingredients and conditions you know and the more obfuscated the procedure is, the less likely that you're going to be able to go straight to looking up the basic type of reaction. Like I said, if you heard "shake-and-bake meth" and thought "generating ammonia in-situ for Birch reduction" you already knew what was going on and probably didn't need to search. It's entirely possible to be curious without having a clue where to start with the scientific terminology.

As well, people with some experience in inorganic chemistry but none in organic chemistry often get interested in drug synthesis reactions because those are (hilariously) the type of organic synthesis that gets into the public eye. It seems kind of petty to deliberately "cloak" the forum, as it were, against searches that only contain ingredients because really, isn't that where all of us got started?

What comes first, seeing what happens when you combine baking soda and vinegar, or learning you can classify it as a double displacement reaction with subsequent decomposition of a product?

MrHomeScientist - 11-12-2014 at 13:13

I agree. I'm well-versed in inorganic chemistry, but know next to nothing about organic. I doubt I could look at some crazy stick drawing and compare it to another crazy stick drawing and conclude 'this must be a reduction!' :) Even if I were able to find a "reduction of X to Y" type reaction, it would be hard for me to know if this pertained at all to the actual reaction I was looking for. First step is to find out what the hell 'meth' even is (chemically-speaking)!

chemrox - 11-12-2014 at 13:59

Quote: Originally posted by Bert  

Those asking for "cookbook" level controlled drug/precursor synthesis information will likely see those threads or posts sent to detritus rather quickly. There are many other forums for those with such interests, site policy is to detritus and/or lock down, not delete.

No class of chemistry/chemical engineering is automatically forbidden here- And the organic chemistry typically used for illicit pharmaceutical production has applications far beyond that area. Please see the FAQ for site policy on this, and PM one of the moderators more experienced in organic chemistry for clarification on any explicit questions regarding what may be "beyond the pale".

Good for you Bert. Maybe the Nannies should go to another forum as well

Regardless of personal opinions about motive, ethics or personalities of those posting on such chemistry, there has been some very innovative chemistry developed or re-discovered by those on what some deem to be the "dark side". Knowledge and technologies are neither good nor evil. It comes down to the uses and users-

Antiswat - 11-12-2014 at 14:20

im just happy that drugs wasnt my interest when i once decided to buy my first chemicals
we poured drain cleaner into plastic bottles and added aluminium foil, rather harmless

i think its quite seldom people are actually drawn to chemistry by the more uninteresting parts of chemistry, such as aquarious reactions that has no colour change and is done in 0.01M concentrations

most chemists does something thats by societal standards not okay, whether that be to dare to make 0.1g of HE or methamphetamine, honestly it has been through my head a few times to try to make just a miniscule amount of the stuff and i know many others have had the thought, but again SM should be kept to amateur chemistry and not for profit

diddi - 11-12-2014 at 16:38

in my training days I did quite a lot of work in organic retrosynthetic analysis of drugs. it was an interesting academic exercise and useful for legitimate synthetic research. I have no interest in drugs at all.

IMHO if a member is asking about such topics for legitimate reasons, they would more than likely be able to access the appropriate papers and find out for themselves. Otherwise members should take their drug peddling questions elsewhere and reduce the likelihood of forum members getting undue attention from Big Brother

APO - 11-1-2015 at 13:19

I don't necessarily think all drug related synthesis should be banned here, like many others have said, the chemistry is extremely interesting and has potential far beyond drugs. I have no interest in making, selling, or using drugs, but I still like to read about the procedures and chemistry behind them. More importantly, people can and will always find ways to make drugs with whatever they have, so essentially everything is a precursor. We should not vilify precursors because of their potential use. Most if not all precursors have plenty of other legitimate use. People vilifying any inanimate object or substance is just ridiculous. A person's will is to blame. If someone is really set on something, a simple regulation or law will not detour them. Of course there are the obvious cooks and such, that make amateur chemistry harder to practice for everyone since they are the sole reason for countless useless laws, but we shouldn't let them bring us down and inhibit the learning of others. In my opinion, everyone deserves to access non personal knowledge, how they use it is their responsibility.

Sedit - 12-1-2015 at 00:15

Drugs hurt less people then explosives, well at least the choice to be hurt by drugs is a personal one and just that a choice yet time and time again i see people crying about biologically active chemicals yet no one bats an eye at the entire section dedicated to blowing shit up. Does this make any sense?

j_sum1 - 12-1-2015 at 00:53

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  
Drugs hurt less people then explosives

You have a citation for that?
At least in my corner of the world, drug related problems, (including crimes to finance habits and family/community breakdown) are far more prevalent than damage caused by explosives and guns.

woelen - 12-1-2015 at 04:06

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  
Drugs hurt less people then explosives, well at least the choice to be hurt by drugs is a personal one and just that a choice yet time and time again i see people crying about biologically active chemicals yet no one bats an eye at the entire section dedicated to blowing shit up. Does this make any sense?
Drugs make far more victims than explosives! The Netherlands has a fairly liberal regime when it comes to drugs, and at registered houseparties we have special checkpoints for assessing the quality and safety of XTC tablets so that people can 'safely' use these tablets, but even with those checkpoints, we have ten or so deaths of XTC every year at registered and legal parties. The last large death-toll was at such a party in Amsterdam, where 4 people died because of (ab)use of XTC. And that is at a registered party, with checkpoints. How many people die due to XTC abuse, but not known explicitly, at non-registered illegal parties? What about other drugs than XTC? What about slow long-term degradation of the body, due to prolonged use of drugs? I think that in the Netherlands every year at least 100 people die due to drugs (ab)use and many more maim themselves because of slow destruction of their bodies due to prolonged drugs use. No one cares, there is no media attention to this.
On the other hand, the number of people, dying from explosions is very low. Maybe once per year. If such a thing happens, then the media are full of it. It is more spectacular for the neighbourhood, hence the media attention.

Sedit - 12-1-2015 at 06:52

Read what I said closer.

If I chopped off my finger would you feel sorrt for me? How about if someone else did it against my will?

[Edited on 12-1-2015 by Sedit]

Chemosynthesis - 12-1-2015 at 16:05

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  
Drugs hurt less people then explosives[....]

Please cite this. I find it extremely hard to believe that drugs harm fewer individuals than explosives. I am almost certain that cross-referencing FBI UCR explosive statistics with DAWN hospital admittance per annum will contradict such a belief.

In accordance with the rationale that more individuals likely take drugs than expose themselves to a kind of morbidity range of an explosive substance, making a simple law of averages possibly favor more people being injured by drugs, the most common pharmaceutical overdoses (both supervised inpatient and out) tend to be the most commonly prescribed drugs.
Some data: http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/overdose/facts....
Compare the following claims"Every day in the United States, 114 people die as a result of drug overdose, and another 6,748 are treated in emergency departments for the misuse or abuse of drugs. Nearly 9 out of 10 poisoning deaths are caused by drugs."
ATF apparently averages that only "hundreds of people are killed or injured by explosive devices, many of which involve black powder, black powder substitutes, and smokeless powder. [In the U.S.]"
http://www.atf.gov/content/Explosives/explosives-industry
So an argument could be made about relative harm.

It's also worth noting that there are far more legal outlets for explosive use (amateur pyrotechnics and rocketry associations, permits, etc.) than for narcotics. Filling out a DEA Form 225 requires you to submit experimental design protocols and educational background, among other criteria, for narcotics research. Anyone who has had the bureaucratic pleasure of filling these out per class of drug used in experiments can tell you they are far more strenuous than the ATF E-Form 5400.13/5400.16 appears to be, since it doesn't necessitate any prior synthetic knowledge, but merely appropriate storage and associated locational and business aspects (which are also a concern to DEA registration). Thus anyone posting on narcotics should already have experimental designs, synthesis, etc. planned out and approved, at least in most Western nations' following guidelines such as the INCB standardizing various precursors along DEA regulations. This isn't necessarily the case for explosives.

Your view on the choice to be hurt by drugs may be valid, while entirely philosophical, though I respectfully find your phrasing a bit unconventional (the choice to risk harm is more likely apt, rather than a stated willful decision to self harm using drugs). I disagree, however; any time an individual uses a pharmaceutical in a manner not explicitly prescribed by a medical professional, or takes an unverified narcotic without physician's advise... they consent to just as much risk as someone using an explosive, in my view... but that is not the only risk involved. Improper waste disposal or synthesis of drugs can be very dangerous, just as with explosives, people under the influence of recreational psychotropics may operate motor vehicles in an impaired manner, jeopardizing the safety of others, and not all individuals consent to drug use ('date rape' being one example.)

All reading, please note I am not arguing that one topic is any more appropriate than another here. Just trying to get to the facts in an area I'm educated in.

Acronyms:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation
UCR: Uniform Crime Report
DAWN: Drug Abuse Warning Network
ATF: Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives
DEA: Drug Enforcement Agency
INCB: International Narcotics Control Board

Brain&Force - 18-1-2015 at 01:03

Sure explosives are more dangerous, but the sheer number of people who are irresponsible with drugs result in a larger number of deaths.

Zombie - 18-1-2015 at 13:01

This is an interesting thread. I understand the opinion of the OP as well as the response of Admin., and all the others who have added to the thread.

This all sort of comes down to human nature, who has the right to censor, and when censorship is warranted.
It also begs the question if censorship is even morally right.

When (a) agrees to a set of "rules", and breaches this agreement a default cessation of contract should be effected. Understood.

When (a) agrees but the rules are not specific, what form of action can be effected? How do you determine (a)'s motive?
Play it safe, and cease (a)'s contract or allow at the risk of greater harm?

It's a fine edge, and there is no clear answer.

I agree that explosive shit creates an immediate threat to anyone in the vicinity. Depending on many factors the bigger the threat can be.
I also see that as amateurs there is no "real need" for developing these type experiments other than curiosity. If you need a stump blown up, call "The TNT Stump Guy".

Same goes for drug manufacturing... It creates an immediate threat on a much broader range. A few grams of anything can change hundreds or thousands of lives, and the result can effect generations to come.
Again there is no "real need" to make drugs at home. Call "The Local Rx Guy", and get your Dramamine.

I find that I fall into both arguments both for, and against. I like to blow shit up. Who doesn't. I also like some types of drugs. Everyone does, whether it is Aspirin or Quaalude.
We have all needed to take something for some reason, and we have all been thankful it was there when needed.

My current interest is in learning about organic chemistry, and the physiology of the brain. More specifically in how organic compounds effect the chemistry in the brain, and what these results really mean.
Right now I can't tell you what's in toothpaste (except Fluoride which I have recently learned is deleterious to certain higher brain functions) but I wish to learn.

The sites that deal w/ the chemical compounds I am interested in do a wonderful job on "Trip Reports", and "J.B's Tek" or "Spore Sources" but they contain next to nothing about the chemistry involved.

So to be clear... I wish to learn the chemistry involved in certain reactions. I wish to learn the how/why of what is happening, and not the how to get high part. I already have decades of experience there.

In searching for a home site to learn these things I (hope) I have found what fits my bill here.
While there are a few topics here that are (IMHO) of questionable real world use, I understand there can be genuine reasons for researching the methods, and the motive of the OP's can not easily be determined.
Therefore I feel it is best to keep human judgement out of my thoughts, and answer what I can as well as I can. In return I expect the same response to my questions. Genuine answers without judgement. In essence (i believe) using this forum as it was intended. To be a bastion of information to help enlighten the amateur scientific community. I have no way of knowing why someone wants to know about Potassium Cyanide, any more that you would know why I wish to dilute Nitrous Acid .
Curiosity, enlightenment, a greater understanding of how things work? These are my motives.
I believe these are the motives of the owners of this site as well. At least that is my take on the response on this thread from management.

Hopefully I have not crossed any lines or deterred any potential friends here. Forums only work as a communal whole. Dissenting groups or judgmental individuals are better suited for "Chat rooms" or "Blogs".

Great forum you have here.

Zombie - 18-1-2015 at 14:34

That goes back to, where is the line in the sand, and does it "shift" on how a question is asked?

Motives are deep inside the possessor. Judgments are on the surface of the perceive'r.
The two most volatile topics are drugs, and explosives, agreed. for most of the population neither needs to be explored any further than the yellow pages. For the minority of us there are as many reasons for understanding/researching these topics, as there are shinning stars.

So again... Where is the line drawn? Should there even be a line?

The people that post/research these two particular topics are either
(a) sincere, and have their own reasons for thinking.
(b) Just plain curious.
(c) borderline.
(d) exploring where their passions may lie, and looking to develop a field of expertise.
(e) sociopaths.
(f) some combo of the above, or some that I have not listed.

There is a line. Clearly or not. This sites Admin. holds the stick that draws that line. The very bottom line (IMHO) is it has to be one F@cking tough job to determine when, where, how to apply a "rule" when learning has it's own agenda, people have their own motives, and education will directly effect "how" a question is asked.

I have to take a crap. Where's the shitter?
Excuse me... Is there a wash room nearby?

Respectfully... Z.

Mesa - 18-1-2015 at 15:54

I think the current level of administration in regards to drug related topics is spot on. Discussion that is truly motivated by reasons outside of illicit production of drugs are easy enough to differentiate in the way the posts are written.

Though the rules regarding such topics allows for a lot of flexibility, the judgement calls made by mods/admins has only rarely been out of line enough for people to complain. I know quite a few of the staff (and userbase for that matter) come from communities where this problem was far more prevalent, if any specific decisions were too lenient or strict someone would almost certainly bring it up in site matters.

Zombie - 18-1-2015 at 16:20

You should check out the "anoym" sections or the "complaints sections of some of the more "liberal forums.

A bigger batch of cry babies you will never find, and that's where less than accepted topics are the focus of the forum.

Nope! I like the way this site is structured. Everything from qualified scientists that are willing to share their time, and experience, to new comers like myself that are expressing an interest in what is happening all around them, right down to a school kid that is trying to understand what he just read, and has to submit a report on in 3 days.
I found the site by accident just as my curiosity in all forms of chemistry is blooming. In four or five days of reading threads here I have learned more than I did in several months of trying to decide what I was really interested in.

I guess open mindedness, and wisdom will always shine thru the darkness of ignorance. (just impressed myself):D

Darkstar - 18-1-2015 at 19:44

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie  
The sites that deal w/ the chemical compounds I am interested in do a wonderful job on "Trip Reports", and "J.B's Tek" or "Spore Sources" but they contain next to nothing about the chemistry involved.

So to be clear... I wish to learn the chemistry involved in certain reactions. I wish to learn the how/why of what is happening, and not the how to get high part. I already have decades of experience there.


Erowid is much more than just a collection of trip reports. (assuming it's one of those sites you're referring to) An enormous amount of information on drug-related chemistry and laws, as well as the lab equipment commonly used and the various techniques utilized can be found on Erowid if you know where to look. If drug chemistry is what you're interested in learning more about, Rhodium's Archive is a great place to start.

Rhodium's Archive

There's nothing wrong with simply being curious about that stuff or wanting to learn more about it. Many of those reactions are quite common and have plenty of applications outside of illegal drug synthesis. Just don't let yourself get too tempted to try them once you realize just how easy some of them actually are. ;)

[Edited on 19-1-2015 by Darkstar]

Mesa - 18-1-2015 at 20:13

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie  
You should check out the "anoym" sections or the "complaints sections of some of the more "liberal forums.

A bigger batch of cry babies you will never find, and that's where less than accepted topics are the focus of the forum.

Nope! I like the way this site is structured. Everything from qualified scientists that are willing to share their time, and experience, to new comers like myself that are expressing an interest in what is happening all around them, right down to a school kid that is trying to understand what he just read, and has to submit a report on in 3 days.
I found the site by accident just as my curiosity in all forms of chemistry is blooming. In four or five days of reading threads here I have learned more than I did in several months of trying to decide what I was really interested in.

I guess open mindedness, and wisdom will always shine thru the darkness of ignorance. (just impressed myself):D


I have briefly checked out quite a few alternate forums with more restrictive rules. They also tend to be far too tolerant of laziness and spoonfeeding which seems somewhat ironic to me.

Zombie - 18-1-2015 at 20:32

That is a very good point.
I tend to briefly explain whatever the question requires, and then lead to whatever link/site/book, whatever has more info than I can supply in a few paragraphs.

People tend to learn more, when they can absorb at their own pace.
Something else that I DON'T see here is Parroting. You all know... One person says something, and it gets repeated as fact when the reality is so far off from the statement that it makes your head spin.

I know, Off topic. Sorry.:(

Mesa - 18-1-2015 at 20:57

The "UTFSE" culture has certainly made for a far less cluttered/redundant forum, thats for sure.

Zombie - 18-1-2015 at 21:24

Quote: Darkstar.
"There's nothing wrong with simply being curious about that stuff or wanting to learn more about it. Many of those reactions are quite common and have plenty of applications outside of illegal drug synthesis. Just don't let yourself get too tempted to try them once you realize just how easy some of them actually are. ;)"

I believe this sort of sums it all up (for me).
I started looking into some of this home brew exotic drug thing, and found out it was the chemistry involved that interested me not the drugs.
That led to wondering why the brain reacts to compounds like N,N-Dimethyltryptamine, and what it is actually doing.
That in turn steered me away from the "other forums", and started me searching for one that is both tolerant of an individuals choice of subject, and respectful of the rules of society.

Bring that this thread is sort of a question mark for many, and a warning post for others, I respectfully submit that I have nothing to hide, and my motives are clearly posted for all to see.
If this is offensive to anyone in this community I understand BUT I do have to say that I feel my interest in this branch of chemistry is both valid, and valuable. I also believe it falls well within the guidelines set for this site (I may well be mistaken).

Coming here to learn "Super Meth" recopies can be, and should be an offense to the owners, and members. I get that.
Coming here to learn how, and why things are what they are can be and should be a compliment to you all. It all comes back to motives, and the need for No Tears's first post to start this thread. IMHO

Animal research... anyone?

Chemosynthesis - 19-1-2015 at 12:10

Aside from just the relative legal availability of amateur explosives, the science behind testing some explosives (Trauzl test, lead block, etc.) are much more amenable to poorly funded researchers. Pharmacology is just not within the realm of amateur or hobby experimental science, which is what the forum is about.

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie  

Right now I can't tell you what's in toothpaste (except Fluoride which I have recently learned is deleterious to certain higher brain functions) but I wish to learn.

With respect, you should look into pharmacology/toxicology and epidemiology for making any determinations on such complicated matters. Assay selection, or imaging technique, etc. all matter. Cohorts and sample sizing matter (and statistics can be manipulated or simply poorly used due to ignorance).

Correlative studies are next to worthless without a mechanistic paradigm for investigation, and later dose-response challenging. Without a firm mechanistic proposal, there is no reason to believe a correlation either faulty, or merely a statistically valid surrogate measure that has nothing to do with causation. You won't learn this type of scientific rigor from a psychedelic forum or a quack with a clinical degree and no scientific training selling their supplements, and a history of censuring from the FDA for dubious claims of efficacy.

Neuropharmacology is very complicated, and psychoneuropharmacology, as the name implies, can be even more complicated due to the design of metrics for psychological effects (which often involve self-reported symptoms and surrogate behavior). As with all clinical trials, these often require bridging science and clinical fields with large, educated, inter-disciplinary groups.

Take schizophrenia treatments, for example. The clinician with an understanding of the nuances among the Current
Global Assessment of Functioning, the Clinical Global Impression score, and the Nurses' Observation Scale for Inpatient Evaluation isn't the person who determined how to monitor the maximum tolerable dose of a trial medication through either continual reassessment method or a 3+3 trial design. They almost certainly weren't using cell lines or animals prior to that, either. And your average Joe probably can't even decide if a T-test or ANOVA is more appropriate, or when to switch from gaussian to nonparamatric tests. The extreme complexities of biological systems require cooperation from multiple educated specialists in complementary fields. One M.D. PhD Nobel laureate isn't changing the world just from playing in their garage.

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie  
Animal research... anyone?

Additionally, studies using animal models must be taken with a grain of salt because animal model selection is actually very complicated. I'm not an animal model specialist, but I could name several examples of weaknesses in animal models that we have to deal with due to societal, legal, and funding/space issues. Rodent epiphyseal plates don't ossify like humans, canine celiac disease models aren't mediated by major histocompatibility class II complexes, stroke models favor younger animals, murine liver models have different transcriptional regulatory protein functions than humans, the Zucker Diabetic Fatty rat and the Biobreeding rat don't model the same type of diabetes, etc. Misusing such animals due to ignorance on the part of an amateur, or improperly caring for them via neglect of their unique needs, is animal cruelty.

The hobbyist, while free from the antagonism of bureaucracy, is also free from oversight in the form of an IRB or IACUC.

Science reporters/writers often aren't scientifically trained, and so in attempting to communicate may mislead the lay public. There is additionally an incentive to sensationalize to sell articles or paper subscriptions.

Simply put, it's ridiculously easy for someone to misrepresent science, intentional or not, and to peddle their wares. A hobbyist couldn't ensure adequate quality control of their chemical samples for pharmaceutical testing, much less culture their own appropriate cell lines in your standard home with sterile media. Cell line selection isn't any easier than animal modeling, and I've talked briefly about some of those difficulties elsewhere. Your most lauded drug cooks generally either repeat syntheses from the literature, which may be improved upon in a hobbyist setting, or fantasize about impure, untested and potentially dangerous bioisosteres that they don't understand and won't understand without actual scientific research, which unfortunately takes a great deal of funding in biomedicine.

At least peer reviewed papers are supposed to require conflict of interest statements, and publicly funded scientists generally have published salaries. It's the quacks with their own fringe "health" organizations, website publications, and books that avoid scrutiny. It's just unfortunate that with the vast expanse of knowledge through science, the individual is often completely incapable of interpreting results outside of their niche. This is much less the case with explosives than drugs.

Zombie - 26-1-2015 at 13:14

Um... OK.

LOL, The funny part is I actually understood everything you said in one read thru. I could even figure out some of the definitions from the context.
IUt is posts such as yours that led me here, and who's to say where it will lead me in the future. If nothing else I just gave myself an A+, for ambition alone.

Let's just say that if nothing else you very eloquently expressed the reasons this thread is valid. Now I'm not going outside to blow up a lead block, any more than I intend to go on an 8 hour "trip" in my living room. but you supplied an entire banquet for thought.

That is a very helpful post for a fella like me. I'm sure the entire community here applauds your taking the time to write up a masterpiece such as that. Personally I do thank you. Food for thought.

Random - 27-1-2015 at 07:11

Drugs are problem of the society not the individual. But as long as alcohol and xanax are legal they are as bad as illegal drugs. In fact, alcohol also damaged the family not just the individual. Because of neglect. Neglect is as bad as the bad action itself.

Explosives are dangerous and especially dangerous when used in non humane ways. Besides, who would like to be near touch or light sensitive explosive? Same as radioactivity. I would't want to have a neighbour messing with radioactive stuff. Rural ares aren't a place for this.

Nicodem - 27-1-2015 at 07:59

Quote: Originally posted by Random  
Explosives are dangerous and especially dangerous when used in non humane ways.

I assume you meant dangerous when used in humane ways. For obvious reasons, the only safe use of explosives is their inhumane use.

Random - 27-1-2015 at 10:00

Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem  
Quote: Originally posted by Random  
Explosives are dangerous and especially dangerous when used in non humane ways.

I assume you meant dangerous when used in humane ways. For obvious reasons, the only safe use of explosives is their inhumane use.


Yeah I expressed myself uncorrectly. Without explosives we would have a hard time getting rid of large rocks for example.

Zombie - 27-1-2015 at 10:06

Quote: Originally posted by Random  
Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem  
Quote: Originally posted by Random  
Explosives are dangerous and especially dangerous when used in non humane ways.

I assume you meant dangerous when used in humane ways. For obvious reasons, the only safe use of explosives is their inhumane use.


Yeah I expressed myself uncorrectly. Without explosives we would have a hard time getting rid of large rocks for example.


Hmmmm. No problem there.:cool: