Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Patriot Act or War on Drugs

Patriot Act or War on Drugs

FloridaAlchemist - 9-3-2006 at 16:31

Is the patriot act for combating terrorists
or arresting consumers for buying sudafed? :mad:

What does methamphetamine manufacture have to do with terrorism? How did this get incorporated into the patriot act?

Flip - 9-3-2006 at 16:57

You'd think they'd be focusing more on controlling the borders than controlling their local illicit activities. Looking purely at the economics of the situation, the international drug trade hurts the economy, the local drug trade actually benefits it. Of course, it's not going into the US GDP, but that money will enter the marketplace instead of leaving it.

The problem with the patriot act is that no one has been able to come up with examples of it's direct abuse. Of course, I read that during the Bush regime, the number of court cases in the US with completely sealed records has more than tripled. I wonder if the two are related?

Also, can you quote the Patriot act for the section you are talking about that concerns manufacture of illicit drugs?

Some Patriot Act Info

FloridaAlchemist - 9-3-2006 at 18:01

The law also takes aim at the methamphetamine trade by imposing new restrictions on the sale of over-the-counter cold and allergy medicines, which contain a key ingredient for the drug. Customers will be limited to buying 300 30-milligram pills in a month or 120 such pills in a day. The measure would make an exception for "single-use" sales _ individually packaged pseudoephedrine products.

By Sept. 30, retailers will be required to sell such medicines from behind the counter and purchasers would have to show ID and sign log books.

"Meth is easy to make," the president said. "It is highly addictive. It is ruining too many lives across our country. The bill introduces commonsense safeguards that would make many of the ingredients used in manufacturing meth harder to obtain in bulk, and easier for law enforcement to track."

S.C. Wack - 10-3-2006 at 04:11

Title VII of the Patriot Act as presented to the monkey for his X less than 48 hrs ago:

Attachment: patriot_act_title_vii.doc (69kB)
This file has been downloaded 822 times

Flip - 10-3-2006 at 05:49

I don't really see the correllation either. Actually, if manufacturers inside of the US are totally and successfully prevented from accomplishing their goal, then not only would the terrorist organizations have a field day importing narcotics, but they would make a tremendous profit in a seller's market. Suppressing local means of production is a poor economic decision for any nation in any market.

unionised - 19-3-2006 at 07:38

If I wanted to raise money for a terrorist group I would think about doing it by selling drugs. It's very lucrative and, if I'm doing it to fund an illegal activity I'm hardly going to care that trafficing is illegal.
I'm afraid the so called "wars" on terror and drugs are related. Both are doomed to fail.
Both will hit honest citizens.
Both serve to keep the people frightened enough to not object to the government grabbing more power.

vulture - 19-3-2006 at 12:33

Quote:

If I wanted to raise money for a terrorist group I would think about doing it by selling drugs. It's very lucrative and, if I'm doing it to fund an illegal activity I'm hardly going to care that trafficing is illegal.

Hell no. Drug trafficking leaves lots of traces and everyone in that bussiness goes great lengths in saving their own asses once they get busted.

Also, narcotics traficking is morally incompatible with the ideology of Al Quaeda and the Taliban. Remember that they had nearly entirely shut down opium growing in Afghanistan.

The problem with terrorism is not the funds, there are lots of people that will sponsor. It's getting the funds in the right place at the right time without LE getting a sniff of it.

Flip - 21-3-2006 at 01:40

It's not Al-Quaeda that our government should be worried about. Suppressing local production will only strengthen the distribution systems of violent street gangs that have extended across U.S borders from the south; prominently among them, MS-13. The war on drugs targets american citizens with real property, equity, and assets. It is a business proposal, fueled by all the money that is made from RICO and other government seizures. What they should be focusing on is border patrol and gang intelligence. But while the government is chasing imaginary threats cooked up by 'analysts' there are very real threats to their national security already growing within their borders. I don't abuse drugs, but if it were up to me, i'd buy mine from my neighbor as opposed to a thug.

Meth labs

MadHatter - 21-3-2006 at 16:14

These labs getting busted all over the U.S. is the cause of the new regulations. The Bush
Whitehouse regards them as narco-terrorists. Remember the anti-drug commercials a
few years ago that claimed if you smoked marijuana that you're supporting terrorists.
Still, it appears that the majority of methamphetamine is still imported and it's not being
manufactured outside the U.S. using ephedrine and it's derivatives. More likely, it's
the older methods.

Magpie - 21-3-2006 at 17:14

I saw a piece on "60 minutes" last Sunday on what New York City police are doing to prevent terrorism. One thing mentioned is working with beauty shops, etc to flag any unusual demand for H2O2. I found this rather bizarre.

On meth production I believe that 65% of that used in the US is from Mexican superlabs. I assume that they get their ephedrine and other supplies from China since they seem to be willing to sell anybody anything.

I'm glad to see that Mom & Pop meth production is being curtailed through making pseudoephedrine cold remedies virtually non-OTC. Anything that stops local production of this heinous drug should take LE's attention off home chemistry.

[Edited on 22-3-2006 by Magpie]

[Edited on 22-3-2006 by Magpie]

The_Davster - 21-3-2006 at 17:28

There has been this commercial on recently for 'Sudafed PE'. The ads use the phrase 'sudafed PE' many times. This is some twisted advertising on the part of Sudafed's marketing team, in a time when medicine which contains pseudoephedrine is being taken off the market OTC wise. They are trying to capitalize of pseudoepedrine's other uses, pretty much waving a flag saying "hey look! our product still has the stuff you want!" at all the 'mom and pop' meth labs.
The comercial sickens me, and most people don't even notice, mainly 'cooks' will notice due to them likely using PE as an acronym for pseudoephedrine themselves, others will just think its another nonsense medicine term..

[Edited on 22-3-2006 by rogue chemist]

Polverone - 21-3-2006 at 18:19

Quote:

Originally posted by rogue chemist
There has been this commercial on recently for 'Sudafed PE'. The ads use the phrase 'sudafed PE' many times. This is some twisted advertising on the part of Sudafed's marketing team, in a time when medicine which contains pseudoephedrine is being taken off the market OTC wise. They are trying to capitalize of pseudoepedrine's other uses, pretty much waving a flag saying "hey look! our product still has the stuff you want!" at all the 'mom and pop' meth labs.
The comercial sickens me, and most people don't even notice, mainly 'cooks' will notice due to them likely using PE as an acronym for pseudoephedrine themselves, others will just think its another nonsense medicine term..

You have it completely backwards. Sudafed PE does not contain pseudoephedrine, only phenylephrine. It's useless for making methamphetamine. The company is promoting and familiarizing people with their new pseudoephedrine-free formulation now that their classic products face stricter control.

The_Davster - 21-3-2006 at 18:35

Oh jeez, my bad. I could have sworn that it did contain pseudoephedrine, I guess I was wrong, thanks for clearing that up.

New Ingredient

MadHatter - 22-3-2006 at 03:06

Just give the illicit chemists some time and they'll find a way to convert that one also. After
all, it was the illicit chemists who found the way to convert ephedrine wasn't it ?

Oh hell, it won't even matter. The new laws require id and a limit on the amount of ephedrine
products a person can purchase which means the base ingredient is still out there. The
meth makers will have to get more creative about their purchases. That's all it means.

BTW, slightly OT I know, but for those who haven't seen it, I suggest downloading the
"Strike Dateline Interview" from my FTP. It's under \VIDEO. It can be played in RealPlayer,
NTSC AVI, 115 kbps DivX video, 130 kbps MPEG Layer-3 audio, 285 MB file length.
Approximately 42 minutes 16 seconds, it details the investigation and downfall of
Strike, Hobart Huson, who is currently serving 8 years in Federal prison with a concurrent
sentence of 7 years from the state of Arizona.

evil_lurker - 22-3-2006 at 04:07

Playing devil's advocate here for a minute....

"Cooking" meth from pills is all but over and done with in my neck of the woods... not so much because of the pill quantity restrictions, but because the pill manufacturers have won the extraction war... many an attempt to get the goodies out of the pills using "old school" solvent extraction techniques will result in something of the color and consistancy of elephant semen being formed in the flask... and although I am not about to test out my hypothesis, I can just about be sure they are putting the same "gaks" in the PE pills too so no hydroxy-ephedrine can be extracted either.

BTW it IS theoretically possible to make a methamphetamine analog using PE istead of PSE... the only diffrence between the PE and the PSE is a hydroxy group attached to the ring. Apparently over on wet dreams it was reported that by altering HI/RP reduction reaction it can be reduced down to hydroxy-methamphetamine which supposedly has similar physiological effects to normal meth.

Anyways, couple the gaks with the quantity restrictions and lack of cheap readily available red phosphorus and/or anhydrous ammonia, and now suddenly law enforcement has pretty much been put out of the meth lab busting business... the cold pill quantity restrictions were the last nail in the proverbial coffin. Just a guess, but I'd say about 95% of the meth labs in my area have simply dried up since the "cooks" simply do not know how to adapt. The few survivors have managed to find a brand of pills clean enough to extract and are now essentially manufacturing for personal use only.

So what ya had left is a local drug market which until recently had no competition. The mexicans quickly stepped in to fill that niche. Their so called "meximeth" is all done in mexico and imported into the USA in surprisingly high purity. They don't put the cutting agents into it till it gets to where its going because well hell, who wants to haul all that extra weight and mass? If you think about it, higher purity makes it easier to smuggle because you have to smuggle less of it... therefore it only makes sense to transport finished product across the border.

I also don't see P2P labs coming back into popularity because, well, essentially P2P is a bitch to make and yields for the most part suck. The only viable "commercial" method I know of for making large amounts of P2P is the willergrodt-kindler reaction on styrene and then reducing the formed phenylacetic acid down to the ketone with with pyridine and acetic anhydride... the former being very expensive and the latter still heavily watched. Sure there are tons of other ways to make it, but those running the meth labs are only interested in two things... the ease of manufacturing and not getting busted. Why bother with spending thousands of dollars on lab equipment, trying to aquire chemicals, and running said lab when you can buy a pound for $12,000-$16,000 off a mexican and double your money in a matter of a couple weeks?

Sadly, for us amateur chemists in the USA, even though the meth problem is being eliminated the government will probably never ease up on the DEA List I chemical precursor restrictions... that means no more phosphorus unless ya make it yourself.

Making chemicals

MadHatter - 22-3-2006 at 12:41

That's what we'll all do eventually as agenices like the DEA, ATF, and CPSC keep watching,
restricting, or banning chemicals. I enjoy making my own pyro chemicals with little or no
fear. Are they going to regulate salt and aluminum foil too ?

Magpie mentioned the watching of H2O2 purchases from beauty salons in NYC. I'd say
they're looking for AP makers.

S.C. Wack - 22-3-2006 at 13:27

> the only diffrence between the PE and the PSE is a hydroxy group attached to the ring.

No, it isn't.

> it was the illicit chemists who found the way to convert ephedrine wasn't it ?

Not the popular HI method.

> even though the meth problem is being eliminated the government will probably never ease up on the DEA List I chemical precursor restrictions

No shit. Fighting drugs will always be politically popular, and it is getting more and more difficult for politicians to find new laws to make.

[Edited on 22-3-2006 by S.C. Wack]

Amateur chemists in the USA

FloridaAlchemist - 22-3-2006 at 17:38

I guess amateur chemists in the USA are going to be labeled Terrorists in the new world order :mad:

If you experiment with chemicals as a hobby
then you must be screwing up the Environment , making drugs , fireworks or bombs

chemoleo - 22-3-2006 at 18:06

Now now, sorry to throw a stick into your wheels (how does that saying go again?) -
the REASON GENUINE amateur chemists suffer from all these laws is a) a large bunch makes drugs, which is outlawed througout the world, and b) some make explosives, which causes harm and death in some parts of the world, either by accident or by malevolence.

This sheds a bad light on the genuine amateur chemist, and thus they suffer by those who use chemistry to either cause harm, or to make money, or to cause harm by taking or providing drugs.

If neither faction existed, then genuine amateur chemists would be in the clear, and free of suspicion. What do you think why physics nerds who play with high voltages, etc, never have to deal with these worries? Or biologists, playing with microscopes, or whatever? It's becuase they haven't been used to cause harm. If chemists refrained from causing harm to themselves or others, then chemicals wouldnt be outlawed.

Thing is, I don't even mind if someone cooks up some drug for himself. It's like excessive drinking, the harm you cause is mostly to yourself. Those instances where you CAN cause harm by drinking, is when you drive. Hence drink-driving is outlawed, rightly so.
With other drugs, some greedy fuckers think it's a business, and then someone screws up by taking too much, or too frequently, and people DIE (or become socially dysfunct). Hence those chemicals are outlawed. Same goes for explosives, people die, and people have been known to use it against others (tim mc veigh for instance). Can you blame a government for outlawing things that harm society, cause deaths, or societal disruption?

The counterforce to this is the fear of the rise of fascism, many see all this banning as a governmental attempt to gain more power. Although this may be true in some parts of the world - lets not forget the cause - it's those who cause HARM that force the society to act against it.

MargaretThatcher - 22-3-2006 at 18:21

"lets not forget the cause - it's those who cause HARM that force the society to act against it."

Who is causing the harm here? It is called the politics of fear - politicians exaggerate external threats to create authority. Terrorism, paedophiles, drugs. The gullible swallow the bullshit hook, line and sinker and more than that, regurgitate it to others. Switch the brain on sunshine.

chemoleo - 22-3-2006 at 18:42

Yes it may well be that politicians *abuse* this for their own benefit - that is to gain power. I acknowledged this above. It may well be that those politicians cause, with their over-reacting policies, cause more harm than the original 'threat'.
The CAUSE nonetheless aren't the politicians. The cause are those who cause harm in the first place, which are the drug and bomb makers (again, how this is abused by politicians is another issue. Don't mingle their mis-doings with those who started it). Now, quite honestly, I got my interest in science through pyro stuff, and that's fine. Sadly, carrying this a bit further, great harm can be done. And it HAS been done. Who can blame ignorant society for wanting to minimise the harm?

Before you lash out again, care to explain WHY high voltage transformers, hell why in fact NO other amateur hobby is regarded with suspicion, except the hobby chemists?

Polverone - 22-3-2006 at 20:25

I strongly disagree. Drugs are at worst a means to self-destruction, like alcohol, gambling, or motorcycle racing. It's true that their effects cannot be completely internalized to the user (few activities can), but the quasi-military fight against the harm they cause is the promoter of much of their harm and out of all proportion to whatever remaining harm can be considered "intrinsic" to the substance. Basically, I am boggled that anyone can support the modern Prohibition when it was already tried once, disastrously, and there is no evidence that modern approaches are any closer to success.

The fear of terrorism that leads to draconian explosives regulation is even more astounding when you consider the supposed danger that was being reacted to. In the last 20 years there have been only 2 large bombings within the US. I don't think there has been any time in US history where explosives were more popular criminal instruments than (say) knives, blunt objects, or flammable liquids. I'm pretty sure the same is true of European history too. Laws more strictly controlling explosives are confronting a nonexistent crisis with a nonexistent solution. If Israel can't stop clandestine manufacture of explosives despite decades of experience and a significantly greater willingness to use extreme measures, I don't imagine how the US and EU think they could prevent terrorist acquisition of explosives. In the most recent example of the CPSC trying to outlaw a wide swath of chemicals that can be used to make pyrotechnics/explosives, the objective isn't even preventing malicious use. The objective is preventing people from entertaining themselves with dangerous devices... which is classic nanny-statism along the same lines as the drug war.

There's no law of nature that says how societies must act when confronting criminal violence or the negative externalities of recreational drug use. There is a clear line between action A and reaction B only with hindsight. Accepting its "inevitability" with the aid of hindsight promotes resignation to ongoing and future erosions of personal liberties. To put it another way and to tie it in to another hot topic: are the human rights abuses committed at Abu Gharib, Guantanamo Bay, and other US-run prisons in recent years the fault of the 9/11 highjackers? I would say no, absolutely not. The abuses fall on the shoulders of those who drafted and implemented policies permitting abuse as well as those of the abusers themselves. Oh, and those who elected officials who support or fail to root out and stop these abuses: they're to blame too, though each individual can't be attributed a very big slice of the problem. Shifting blame to anyone else just lets the abusers get away with even more.

Regulatory agencies and politicians will not be pacified by the mere disappearance of "threats." Any newly perceived threat is proof of their need for more control and any receding threat is proof that strict control is what solves problems.

As regards amateur chemistry, I have two predictions to make:

1) The increased regulation of non-prescription medications containing facile precursors to methamphetamine will lead to a drastic reduction in the number of domestic US methamphetamine producers. The crucial materials for conversion of these formerly little-regulated products to methamphetamine are/were iodine and phosphorus or certain phosphorus compounds, or (alternatively) anhydrous ammonia and alkali metals. Demand for these materials in clandestine chemistry will drastically fall as availability of precursor medications falls.

2) Even though anhydrous ammonia, phosphorus and certain of its compounds, and iodine will be much less important to clandestine chemistry in the post-sudafed era, the DEA will never relinquish control of what it has already taken hold of. Even if hydrogen iodide/phosphorus reduction of pseudoephedrine recedes into drug history, like clandestine production of quaaludes, red phosphorus will remain strictly controlled indefinitely.

Those are my predictions. Bueraucracies are loathe to relinquish power, even power that they have small need for. If I am wrong, and phosphorus is delisted 10 years from now after domestic pill-cooks have precipitously declined, I will be as grateful as I am flabbergasted.

If I'm right, and phosphorus remains under DEA control long after its importance to clandestine drug production has receded, will you finally see that the slow strangulation of personal liberties is really the fault of respectable persons in positions of power and not shady characters in the streets?

Now, the long postscript about my vision that will never come to pass:

I don't think that producing mind-altering substances or selling them to persons over the age of 18 should be in any way a crime, whatever scale it is done on. I think that fraud should still be a crime: the composition of that mysterious white powder should be fully and truly disclosed. I am not opposed to fairly heavy taxes on drug sales, as there are on alcohol sales, but the taxes should not be so high as to revive black markets. I do not think that allowing everyone to use drugs will be entirely without negative consequences for the user or people around them, that everyone would be enlightened if they just tried the right drug, or any other hippie drug cheerleading nonsense. I just think that the drug war is a vast waste of money and a terrible affront to personal liberties.

For things more dangerous than drugs, e.g. potent poisons, explosives, automobiles, and weapons, I would not fear registration and licensing as long as they were not precursors to or means of prohibition. The problem, particularly when it comes to (say) guns, is that examples of governments that did not follow registration with eventual prohibition and/or confiscation are few compared to examples of those that did. But if we could cede our government to benevolent, incorruptible, personal-liberty-loving gods instead of mere men, I'd have no problem with registration and tracking. I would still want mutual transparency, though: the makers and enforcers of law watch over the population, and the population watches over the makers and enforcers of law. Citizens should be able to check up on the police nearly as freely as the police check up on citizens.

I am basically a fierce, nutbar-fringe libertarian when it comes to personal liberties. Where I differ with big-L Libertarians is that I do not believe we'd all be better off if the government were all but eliminated and the market counted on to take up the slack. Private coercion is little better than government coercion, even if it's different. But I do agree with their strident defense of personal liberties, and share their wish that every politician who ever exclaimed "think of the children!" or "it's a post-9/11 world!" while tightening the leash of control would kindly drop dead.

vulture - 23-3-2006 at 11:27

Quote:

"lets not forget the cause - it's those who cause HARM that force the society to act against it."

The governmental use of explosives and the harm done by it far exceeds that of clandestine use of explosives.

"Society" is a big blanket term to throw over large crimes (eg war, etc) and to bury them in shared responsibility.
"We're all responsible, so let's not burn our own asses by prosecuting".

Society as such does not act. A very small part of it decides what should happen, most follow passively, few rebel.

The government says they need nukes because other states have nukes. So why don't give everyone the right to make explosives? MAD on a small scale should also work, given the previous logic.

Anyway, a system that gives in to more and more protectionism eventually strangles itself in a deadlock. You have a very large body of people enforcing and updating the law, with very few actually producing something for the society within very strict boundaries.

Lets not foget the EPA arm of goverment

FloridaAlchemist - 23-3-2006 at 18:15

Well stated Polverone.
If Uncle Sam finds out you have a home lab and you have chemicals like mercury the EPA might clean-up your work area and yard then send you a huge bill for the clean-up :mad:

The only thing to fear

Flip - 25-3-2006 at 01:03

Personally, I believe that the current restrictions of precursors, especially ephedrine, were a long time coming. No one should cry "fascism" or outrage. This would have happened eventually with or without the patriot act. Think about it. Sassafras oil is gone. Research chemicals are being scheduled after just a few reported deaths. Methamphetamine is an epidemic bigger than ecstacy and all the research chemicals combined.

And whether people like to admit it or not, it's widespread distribution has a very real cost on society. Anyone who touts that people have a right to destroy themselves with addiction has never met a serious pusher. As outlandish as this sounds, there are people who actively initiate and promote addiction for profit. How long could anyone reasonably expect one of the major sources of methamphetamine to go completely uncontrolled? For my part, I could care less.

My point here is that if you are involved in clandestine activity, and you are not intelligent enough to adapt and circumvent the need for listed reagents, then you've no business gambling your freedom in the first place. It's like sitting down to a chess board with no idea how to play. What are you really willing to wager?

To follow this idea, if you are pursuing legitimate or (if you're anything like me) mostly legitimate experiments, then you've little to fear from ordering suspicious reagents. It may be an inconvenience that some useful reagents are not availiable to you, but by the same token there are also ways around these incoveniences. Clandestine chemists don't give chemists a bad name any more than bank robbers give soldiers a bad name.

And as a final note, I have seen some very bright minds pursue an interest in chemistry that began as an interest in drugs. It is a detour, if you will, from a path of self destruction, to a path of scholarship and success. There will always be drugs availiable to the would-be drug user. Most of these will be brought into the country by men with guns. It is my belief that the social cost of allowing these potential scholars to slip through the cracks greater than any harm they might manage to do on their own.

Flip

Polverone - 25-3-2006 at 02:15

I don't especially care about ephedrine/pseudoephedrine one way or another. What I do care about is the ongoing difficulty that a curious private individual will face trying to buy (for example) benzaldehyde, red phosphorus, and piperidine. Those materials should be in any reasonably well-stocked lab, and have numerous legitimate uses, but are difficult for hobbyists to acquire. Even if easy homecooked meth goes away as the key alkaloids become hard to acquire, I bet the DEA will never un-control phosphorus now that they have controlled it. For example, even though quaaludes are about 20 years out of vogue in the US, anthranilic acid is still List I. I'd love to be wrong, though.

Quote:

To follow this idea, if you are pursuing legitimate or (if you're anything like me) mostly legitimate experiments, then you've little to fear from ordering suspicious reagents. It may be an inconvenience that some useful reagents are not availiable to you, but by the same token there are also ways around these incoveniences. Clandestine chemists don't give chemists a bad name any more than bank robbers give soldiers a bad name.

I don't think I would mind ordering suspicious reagents if I knew a seller for them. Even things that are not explicitly forbidden for sale may be de facto unavailable if enough vendors are scared by the potential liability involved with selling suspicious or potentially dangerous items to people unaffiliated with a business or institution. For example, I understand (perhaps wrongly) that it is difficult to purchase LAH or potassium cyanide as an individual, even though to my knowledge neither is explicitly controlled for domestic sale and both have a plethora of legitimate uses. The spectre of liability alone is enough to lock a wide variety of useful reagents away from hobbyists.

vulture - 25-3-2006 at 13:59

Law Enforcement is under huge media pressure. If your lab gets busted with something remotely suspicious, the media will make a witchhunt out of it and LE will have no choice but to put you behind bars or make your life miserable.

What is easier? Sacrificing one individual or being barraged with questions like "But what about the children??!"?

Magpie - 26-3-2006 at 10:58

Pacific Northwest States have joined forces to crackdown on meth by forming the "Pacific Northwest Pre-Cursor Chemical Committee." It "...will focus on monitoring sales of anhydrous ammonia, red phosphorous, and hydriotic acid...." Aren't these List I and therefore already heavily watched? Is this just another redundant law enforcement committee?

The article also mentioned that meth makers in Mexico and Canada get their ephedrine/pseudoephedrine from China, India, and Germany. They want those sellers to be more selective about who they are selling to.

garage chemist - 26-3-2006 at 11:28

Pseudoephedrine is heavily controlled in Germany, and private possession of it is illegal. German firms who are selling pseudo to individuals are commiting a crime.

In Germany, benzaldehyde and red phosphorus are relatively easy to get (relatively in comparison to America). Their possession is not illegal at all (but that has probably a lot to do with ephedrine and pseudoephedrine not being available in OTC medicines- all kinds of medicines are only sold in pharmacies).

Acetic anhydride is heavily watched, but when you fill out the required forms you are fine.
However, there's exactly one firm in germany who sells AA to individuals, and no more than 250ml per person.
Red Phosphorus is limited to 50g per person by this firm... I have no idea why they are doing this, laws don't require them to do so.

Chemicals labeled as toxic can not be bought from any internet suppliers. That means that you will never get any CS2, for example, if you search the internet for shops. Even simple things like Methanol can't be ordered (the difficulty of acquiring Methanol is annoying in Germany).

Trying to make all important chemicals from OTC things can be a challenge, but when you gain more knowledge, it becomes annoying. Then you start ordering chemicals from online suppliers, but you are limited to non- toxic ones.
This also becomes annoying when you realize that many chemicals not sold in internet shops are essential for many syntheses. Most of them you can make yourself, but not all. Acetic Anhydride, Carbon Disulfide, Phosphorus and so on are some of the best known examples.
And this is the time when you stop messing with internet shops and take the courage to GO TO THE PHARMACY and order your required materials there. This is true for all countries, not just Germany.
Most pharmacies will not cooperate, but once you find one where for example the owner was a hobby chemist himself in his young years, you are set.
You'll browse through the Sigma- Aldrich catalog, pick out the things that you want, print them out into a list (with item numbers and prices) and let the order go over the pharmacy.
That's the way the advanced hobby chemists obtain their stuff, and every one that pursues his hobby for more than a few years will eventually settle on this method to obtain their chems.

Magpie - 26-3-2006 at 14:21

GC, I find your situation in Germany very interesting compared to my situation in the US. I finally did get up the courage to ask 2 pharmacies to order chemicals for me. They didn't oppose this in concept but when they consulted their supplier listings there didn't seem to be much available in the line of pure, powerful reagents, like you have mentioned. So I gave up for now. Also I am still in the stage where I think I can synthesize anything, given enough time and effort. Like you I will likely get annoyed with this approach in time.

I have been cultivating a friendship with a pharmacist. Whether he would go to the extra effort to buy me exotic chemicals outside his catalog or not I don't yet know. I have the feeling that they all want to cover their ass from any potential criticism from LE, DEA, EPA, CPSC, etc. Maybe this is just my paranoia and not real.

I find what you say about methanol very interesting. I can easily buy all of this I want cheaply as it is sold as an automobile gasoline tank additive. Also, H2SO4 is easy to obtained in high strength and decent purity as a drain cleaner.

evil_lurker - 26-3-2006 at 14:55

I'd like to point out that KCN and NaCN are both considered chemical weapons and your likely to attract attention from a bunch of folks worse than the DEA if you are in the USA.

And that they happen to put some "foamy shit" in the sulfuric acid drain cleaner, or at least the Rooto brand in the USA.

The same "foamy shit" problem wasn't there in the ACS grade stuff I eventually had to switch over and use.

What brand are you using Magpie?

DeAdFX - 26-3-2006 at 15:00

When did they add this foamy shit... Mine rooto doesn't have that stuff

garage chemist - 26-3-2006 at 15:00

Neither H2SO4 nor Methanol are available OTC in Germany.
Conc. H2SO4 must always be obtained from a chemical supplier, and Methanol too.

My first H2SO4 (250ml) came from Kremer Pigmente, after asking my father to buy some battery acid in a car repair shop (they wouldn't sell him any).

Though the laws in Germany are definately better than in America.
I can buy red Phosphorus and make as much white Phosphorus from this as I want.
I even managed to make PCl3 and acetyl chloride from this.

The_Davster - 26-3-2006 at 15:32

Canada is somewhere in between. Technically I can get whatever through my various suppliers, but some stuff I just would be too scared to purchase. Up here I can get both sulfuric acid drainopener and methanol but the sulfuric is expensive at 15$ a litre(ACS is cheaper), and well there is noting wrong with the methanol at 5$ for 4L... Denatured ethanol is almost nonexistant OTC though.

I should try the pharmacy route for chemicals though, I never have.

[Edited on 27-3-2006 by rogue chemist]

12AX7 - 26-3-2006 at 16:06

Quote:

Originally posted by rogue chemist
Denatured ethanol is almost nonexistant OTC though.

I should try the pharmacy route though, I never have.

"Okay and what will you be needing this ethanol for?"
"Uhhh it's for my headaches....."

LOL, yeah, causing them!

Tim

garage chemist - 26-3-2006 at 16:10

Denatured Ethanol is one of the easiest to get chemicals here.
Several very good brands of Ethanol are sold in home stores.
They are denatured with 2% MEK and sometimes Bitrex, and contain at least 94% Ethanol (and absolutely no Methanol).

After removal of Bitrex by distillation and removal of MEK by prolonged refluxing with NaOH followed by distillation this stuff is theoretically drinkable. It smells and tastes very clean.

Polverone - 26-3-2006 at 16:17

Quote:

Originally posted by evil_lurker
I'd like to point out that KCN and NaCN are both considered chemical weapons and your likely to attract attention from a bunch of folks worse than the DEA if you are in the USA.

They're chemical weapons no more than chlorine is. That is, international transfers may be controlled under the chemical weapons convention, and LEO may excitedly bray about chemical weapons if they arrest someone who had cyanides and looked to be up to no good, but they have many legitimate uses and there is no national regulation of cyanide sales or possession that I am aware of. If I'm to believe accounts in alt.suicide.methods, most businesses that sell cyanides will simply ignore inquiries from private individuals, or follow up with a request for a statement of purpose and/or documentation of business/institutional affiliation. They don't sic the FBI on you, but neither do they readily sell to individuals either.

Polverone - 26-3-2006 at 16:19

Quote:

Originally posted by garage chemist
Denatured Ethanol is one of the easiest to get chemicals here.
Several very good brands of Ethanol are sold in home stores.
They are denatured with 2% MEK and sometimes Bitrex, and contain at least 94% Ethanol (and absolutely no Methanol).

After removal of Bitrex by distillation and removal of MEK by prolonged refluxing with NaOH followed by distillation this stuff is theoretically drinkable. It smells and tastes very clean.

You're lucky. I found after some MSDS research that much (all?) of the "denatured alcohol" sold in the US is about half methanol. It has very little use apart from solvent or fuel.

Magpie - 26-3-2006 at 16:26

Evil lurker the brand I bought is Rooto. It is not ACS pure of course but I have not experienced any noticeable problems (yet). I have to admit that I'm surprised that you can buy Rooto so readily. It seems that all the other OTC drain cleaners are full of worthless shit. I did find another pure H2SO4 drain cleaner but it was only available to plumbers and not OTC.

I have seen denatured ethanol readily available in the hardware stores. I imagine it is sold to remove shellac or otherwise prepare wood sufaces.

GC I find it amazing that you can buy red phosphorus but not battery acid. German authorities must have a totally different mindset than US authorities.

The_Davster - 26-3-2006 at 16:28

Almost forgot, there is only one OTC source I know of for denatured alcohol. A single pharmacy selling it at around 2$ for 500mLs as "rubbing alcohol compound". It is 95% EtOH denatured with camphor, diethylbenzyl benzoate, and diethyl phthalate.

Vitus_Verdegast - 16-7-2006 at 18:53

The pharmacy approach seems to differ not only from country to country, but also depends highly on the pharmacist itself.

One straight-collared nosey type ("the fascist-looking type") even hesitated to sell me boric acid, wanting me to give my personal details and what I was going to use this for. Generally pharmacists tend to be very nosey.

On the other hand, the nice little old lady pharmacist at the other side of town gladly order all I want from the ACROS or ALDRICH catalogue, provided that she also has a nice cut (I let her think I'm unaware of the catalogue prices). She asks no questions except that I should be careful in my work

I've told her stories about photography and my like for general experimenting when I first went there.

The pharmacy supply houses tend to carry alot of interesting stuff in their catalogues too, such as diethyl ether, acetaldehyde, benzyl alcohol, piperazine, iodine etc.. although the prices are high. (or can be considered normal these days as the catalogue I have is from 2003)

The "desinfecting alcohol" they carry here at the pharmacy is only denatured with 5% ether. People even make liquor pralines with it (guess the chocolate can overpower the ether-taste?) Prices fluctuate enormously from pharmacist to pharmacist, the one charges you 10 euros/l and the other sells you a gallon for 20 euros.

En France you can buy drinkable ethanol for only 9 euros/l but diethyl ether is only on prescription.

I think wherever you are you've got to try to get well acquinted with a pharmacist.

Sandmeyer - 17-7-2006 at 12:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Vitus_VerdegastThe "desinfecting alcohol" they carry here at the pharmacy is only denatured with 5% ether. People even make liquor pralines with it (guess the chocolate can overpower the ether-taste?)

Hmm, interesting denaturation agnet

pretty much useless.

I guess by the time they made the paralines ether simply evaporated...

Vitus_Verdegast - 18-7-2006 at 02:44

It's actually a clever trick, as ether isn't really that poisonous but even if you fractionally distill it, you never get the ether taste out of the alcohol.

All by all, it is better for an alcoholic than drinking eau-de-cologne

neutrino - 18-7-2006 at 05:30

Couldn't you just bubble air through it for a while until the ether evaporates out due to its higher volatility? There's no need for fancy fractional distillation here.

Vitus_Verdegast - 18-7-2006 at 07:49

Yes, probably. I never bother to remove it as ether is inert in most of the reactions I use ethanol for.

I don't usually drink it neither, but apparantly even traces of ether give a foul taste to it if you attempt to drink the diluted solution with the ether removed.

I assumed that was probably the reason why they used ether to denature it in the first place.

Nicodem - 18-7-2006 at 10:34

However, I heard that ingested ether is equally narcotic as if consumed by inhalation. One ml of ether is supposed to already be quite active (contained already in 20 ml of 5% ethanolic ether).
Though the horrible taste and smell might deter any average person, some alcoholics might even prefer the extra ether sedation. After all, during the prohibition there were people who drunk alcohol denaturated with organofosphate poisons, so if the point was to make that ethanol undrinkable it might have been missed. Luckily for such alcoholics there is no alcohol prohibition.

Sergei_Eisenstein - 18-7-2006 at 10:46

Quote:

Though the horrible taste and smell might deter any average person, some alcoholics might even prefer the extra ether sedation.

Horrible smell?

One of my favorite things to do in my lab is to open the bottle of ether and have a sniff. It surely warps me into another dimension for a few seconds. It probably is not too healthy either, but that other dimension is just too interesting to leave unspoiled. But yes, I've already noticed most people don't like the smell of ether. They prefer the exhaust of automobiles instead.

Vitus_Verdegast - 18-7-2006 at 10:51

I remember when I visited my grandmother once, we were looking outside and there was a little old lady strolling down the street, very slowly, she needed to hold on to fences, shrubs ... to get on her way.

I remember saying to my grandmother how pitiful that old wretched lady looked and asked her what the problem was.

My grandmother answered that the lady wasn't handicapped at all but that she was an ether-drunk.

Apparantely it used to be popular amongst alcoholics in the old days, my grandmother told me you can get drunk 3 or 4 times a day from it, as the effects last shorter than ethanol. Nowadays where I live it seems to still be popular amongst the elderly

(it is OTC in the pharmacy here)

Sandmeyer - 18-7-2006 at 12:19

Sergei, I also find the ether dimension interesting it's among the most intense feelings, it can be insightful too, even if it sounds unbelivable.

If you like ether dimension I invite you to try diisopropylether, it's more interesting than plain ether as it literally sends a plesent cold breeze throughout the every cell in your body, walking gives very plesent cold sensation and the smell/taste is plesent too, higher doses give vague visuals but mostly auditory hallucinations...

[Edited on 18-7-2006 by Sandmeyer]

Sergei_Eisenstein - 18-7-2006 at 12:25

I worked with diisopropylether only a few times. I found it to have a very interesting fruity smell, inviting for more. But I found the smell to be lingering far longer as diethylether as well. I can't remember I experienced the same effects as you describe, but there are only few ways to find it out, I guess.

Sandmeyer - 18-7-2006 at 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Sergei_Eisenstein
I worked with diisopropylether only a few times. I found it to have a very interesting fruity smell, inviting for more.

Yes, lady D is a temptress...

esp on a hot summer day. It would be interesting to hear if you also got the same effect or if it's only me that feels it that way, it really feels special so I wonder...

[Edited on 18-7-2006 by Sandmeyer]

Nicodem - 19-7-2006 at 02:52

I must admitt that diisopropyl ether smells really atractive, way more atractive than ether. But I would rather not fell under its temptation or soon we will have another usefull solvent under the law supervision as it hapened to gamma-butyrolactone already.

Keep in mind that all good things must be banned. So it is better to keep it a mystery on why organic chemists like their work in the lab so much. It has nothing to do with certain solvent vapors, right?

YT2095 - 19-7-2006 at 07:11

the only advice I can give to all is Stock-Up NOW with whatever you can, it will be worth spending that little bit extra and obtaining it, even if it means that you live on baked bean on toast for a month or 2.

here in the UK things are getting a little tighter too

it would seem that everything else, America gets the flu, and the UK starts to sneeze also

hell we don`t even have our own original Police sirens anymore! MacDonalds Subway etc...
all here, incl your infectious anti-chemical disease

I recommend that any UKer and other similarly afflicted countries into the hobby of Chemistry buy all you can NOW!
don`t wait until it is too late, own it NOW and in Large amounts (where possible).

I would also say that if you Know of anyone making drugs or weapons with chems that you report them ASAP! and apply the statement : "if it wasn`t for the fact that I`m an amature Chemist/Hobbiest, you wouldn`t have had this BUST!"
or words to that effect, it MAY go towards Vindicating ourselves.

oddly enough, WE are on the Same Side as the Police! (think about it, WHAT is giving us a bad name???).

and so, it Might be an idea to actualy Support our "boys in blue"! yes/no?

neutrino - 19-7-2006 at 09:16

Quote:

Originally posted by YT2095
I would also say that if you Know of anyone making drugs or weapons with chems that you report them ASAP! and apply the statement : "if it wasn`t for the fact that I`m an amature Chemist/Hobbiest, you wouldn`t have had this BUST!"
or words to that effect, it MAY go towards Vindicating ourselves.

The official police report on that will look something like this:

Quote:

A man came in on Monday and reported a meth cook to us before admitting to being one himself.

The first act was probably an act of revenge for a bad drug deal or possibly just eliminating the competition. The second is a little harder to explain. It was most likely a combination of hubris (he had just exacted revenge and / or eliminated the competition) and a momentary lack of judgment.

After his confession, the house of the informant was searched under probable cause and a number of drug-related precursors and chemical processing equipment were found. During routine interrogation, the suspect denied any illegal activity. The man clung to a story of hobby chemistry too well for us to extract a confession. No matter, the court will see his chemicals and equipment otherwise...

In the eyes of many police officers, having a test tube and cold tablets makes you a meth cook. Your last hope lies with the brainwashed masses who comprise the jury. See you in 20-life...

My advice is to keep your mouth shut and head over to RS and do a little reading. Your idealism will quickly be fixed.

Nicodem - 19-7-2006 at 09:23

YT2095, in the first part of your post you seam to pity your government for its collaborationism and its forcing of foreign values on your society and then in the second part you suddenly propose collaborationism as way to solve the resulting problems.
Could you please have consistent ethics? Cynism always confuses me. If being cynical was not your intent then at least put some more effort in analyzing the situation you propose a solution for.

Grab all the booty while you still can. Fuck the humans and praise the lords!
…said the butler.

Vitus_Verdegast - 19-7-2006 at 09:28

The life-history of a certain Vidkun Quisling comes to mind...

(if, as Nicodem previously implied, you were not being sarcastic)

YT2095 - 19-7-2006 at 10:33

Nicodem, I hedge my bets!

plain and simple, grab all you can NOW whilst it is still available to you.

any arg with that?

secondly, if us GOOD chemist help shift the bomber maniaics and the junky dealers (that give us ALL a bad name), then Kudos to us! maybe we can win a few points Back off them that`s been Stolen!

nothing more, nothing less. (exactly as I said on the tin)

Sergei_Eisenstein - 19-7-2006 at 12:47

Quote:

secondly, if us GOOD chemist help shift the bomber maniaics and the junky dealers (that give us ALL a bad name), then Kudos to us! maybe we can win a few points Back off them that`s been Stolen!

We, GOOD chemists, have already lost the 'war'. A problem from your side is a serious oversimplification of the issue. The problem at the surface indeed is that people with bad intensions can make explosives with relatively easily obtainable chemicals, but at the core of the issue is the fact that many people in our zombie consumer society avert everything that reeks after science. For this, mainly TV is to blame. People consider the world they see on TV as a true representation of real life. In other words, they don't raise eyebrowns when all the main characters in their favorite soap operas are wealthy lawyers and also have a lot of success in whatever carreer - albeit something that calls for a university degree - they pursue. It seems to be 'obvious' that everybody is rich, successful, intelligent and highly educated. Also in their favorite TV shows, scientist are almost always put into negative perspectives. They are murderers or are the cause for major problems. They are, simply put, the source of all Evil. Especially because people perceive the TV world as real, the picture of the scientist from TV is applied on the scientist of the real world. Mass media is a powerful tool that sadly enough is not on our side. It is also partially responsible for the fact that real sciences are much less popular today as they were in the days. Everyone wants to study wuss-stuff, like law, economics and - god behold! - spychology to fill their lives with the < blablablablabla

>

So, unless you can change this general picture, there is nothing you can do about it. By attacking this picture right in the zombie's face, you will only strengthen its conviction: scientists are a weird crowd, worthy of being kept under strict legal control.

Chris The Great - 19-7-2006 at 14:52

So, what you're saying is, everyone on this board is is or has made an explosive is the problem and will be reported to the police? That everyone who has made a mind altering substance is peddling drugs and will be reported?

Vitus_Verdegast - 20-7-2006 at 01:55

Who cares anyway about Joe Sixpack cooking up a gram of meth in his kitchen, while it will be the stuff organized crime imports daily in huge amounts (frequently with the co-operation of a few corrupt law enforcers) that will be presented to your kids on some moronic yet highly popular Saturday night rave party.

[Edited on 20-7-2006 by Vitus_Verdegast]

Sergei_Eisenstein - 20-7-2006 at 10:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris The Great
So, what you're saying is, everyone on this board is is or has made an explosive is the problem and will be reported to the police? That everyone who has made a mind altering substance is peddling drugs and will be reported?

No. What I'm saying is that the popular image of the scientist is not a good one, and that people who are not science enthusiasts will often categorize chemists among the more villain-type of persons. In this respect, it doesn't matter whether chemist means inorganic or organic chemist, polymer or medicinal drug developer, aficionado of mind altering or explosive substances. For the average Joe, all these types of chemists are often associated with images of drug cooks and terrorists. We know that's a false image, but try to convince them. In much of the Western World, the image of scientists as saviors of the human race simply does not exist anymore. A century ago, you might have advertised your brand as aspirin as being made by the finest stock of chemists from Germany. Today, the trick wouldn't work any more, unless you put a bunch of TV celebrities in a chemistry lab.

Quote:

Who cares anyway about Joe Sixpack cooking up a gram of meth in his kitchen, while it will be the stuff organized crime imports daily in huge amounts (frequently with the co-operation of a few corrupt law enforcers) that will be presented to your kids on some moronic yet highly popular Saturday night rave party.

Joe Sixpack is a much easier target for Law Enforcement. Why go through all the fuzz of catching international crime syndicates while Joe hardly knows how to spell his name and probably can't afford a good lawyer? This can happen in a democratic society, since democracy means different things to different people.

Chemists

MadHatter - 20-7-2006 at 20:07

Why isn't it a good idea to turn in drugs/explosive makers to the cops ?

I'll give you an analogy: Many years ago, it was proposed that the BATF be merged in with
the Secret Service after many years of complaints by gun dealers and owners alike of the
abuses. Seems that some of the old boys couldn't get beyond the cowboy tactics of
their still-busting days where they would resort to any means necessary to prosecute
a moonshiner.

A(refused to be identified) Secret Service official said that when you mix clean water with
dirty water all you end up with is lot more dirty water. Just imagine that being applied to
chemists.

neutrino - 21-7-2006 at 06:53

I didn't say that turning them in would be a bad idea, I said that adding the line

Quote:

if it wasn`t for the fact that I`m an amature Chemist/Hobbiest...

was sheer stupidity.

Decreasing the number of meth cooks in the world by one won't help anything. You won't change the police's perception of chemistry nor that of the general public. The phrase “drop in a bucket” comes to mind.

YT2095 - 21-7-2006 at 07:32

well for MY part I accept totaly that my outlook on it is Idealistic, but non the less I still hold that opinion until I hear of something Better (and I`m all ears / open minded about this).
I still hold to the idea that we Should NOT give up! and that we should obtain all the chems we possibly can WHILST we can.
That point I`m inflexible with.

but if some IslamaFacist was cooking a bathfull of HMTA or TCAP next to me, I`ve have the tw@ Busted in a heartbeat!

same as if some druggie cook tried selling meth (or whatever) to MY child, BUSTED!

providing I didn`t do it Myself First!!!! :mad:

[Edited on 21-7-2006 by YT2095]

Bad Actors

MadHatter - 22-7-2006 at 07:37

YT2095, sorry if I misunderstood your post about turning in bomb/drug makers. I understand
turning in ANYONE whoes intent is to HARM others. No problem there. The person who makes
somes drugs or a couple of M-80's for personal enjoyment is not a threat to me and I wouldn't
turn that type of person in to law enforcement. The problem I see is that all chemists get painted
with the same brush and we all suffer the derision of society when the bad actors, such as
terrorists or the assholes selling drugs to kids end up it the local news coverage. The same
can be said for stupid kewls who inadvertently hurt/kill themselves and others because
of their stupidity.

Like my Secret Sevice analogy on "dirty water", we're all considered "dirty water" every
time a chemist fucks up - deliberately or accidentally.