| Pages:
1
2
3 |
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
I certainly wouldnt say most companies do that. Unless you order strychnine straight at sigma, that is as a private individual.
I once ordered chemicals at a certain company, and after 6 months they didnt have my records anymore. Despite the potential illicit uses of some of
the chems.
Anyway, but the trend is definitely there.
More and more is restricted, and more and more is monitored/recorded. I wonder when this trend will stop 
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1332
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
Chemicals
It's really strange that something like KMnO4 is on the DEA's
list yet I can buy it at Sears. IIRC, the reporting quantity on this
is 55 KG. I was in Ace Hardware the other day and noticed
they no longer had toluene on their shelves. You can bet your
ass that any site dealing with chemistry is watched by the DEA and
BATFE. Any site about making drugs is probably the most
watched because drugs are a bigger problem than explosives in
the U.S.. Anything dealing with explosives is the 2nd most watched
although I think pure pyrotechnics would not be a major concern.
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
Yes but you may have noticed that I didn't take the perspective of being IN the US, but being OUTSIDE it ..
But then... I think regarding chemicals the US is a lot more lax than other countries... surprising really considering they tend to overregulate other
things to the extreme (such as smoking/drinking, while not giving a shit about the poor  )
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1332
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
Controls
One of things I've noticed in places like Walmart and Dollar General
- a sign that informs purchasers of limits on OTC diet pills and cold
medicines. IIRC, it's labeled "The Methamphetamine Control Act".
Big Brother must really be paranoid, and Chemoleo, your right -
they're more concerned with controlling our lives instead of caring
about our poorest citizens.
From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
|
|
Mendeleev
Hazard to Others
Posts: 237
Registered: 25-12-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: stoned
|
|
While browsing chemical suppliers I sort of had a thought, possibly obvious to most, but this is the first time it has formulated in my mind: there
are list two chemicals, and there are LIST II CHEMICALS. I think the DEA watches several of the List II Substance much much more despite the alleged
150 L thresholds, namely acetic anhydride, benzyl chloride, ether, and iodine.
The difference being, when I order multi-kilos of potassium permanganate or sulfuric acid or toluene, I feel perfectly fine, but when I even hit the
search button for ether of acetic anhydride, I get the willies, like the big brotherly eyes of the DEA are burning a whole in the back of my skull. I
think this is because despite the potential usefulness of acetic anhydride and the others, they are more useful in the industry and not so much at
home. Thus when an individual orders them it sets of more alarms than potassium permanganate which has more legit purposes for the individual. I for
example don't know anything I would use acetic anhydride for at home besides in an experiment or synthesis, certainly not cleaning my water. I
would even go so far as to say that acetic anhydride and ether would be list one chemicals if it wasn't for their extreme usefullness in the lab
and industry.
I think that if I order 20 L of sulfuric acid or 5 kg of KMnO4 that the DEA will go "meh". But if I order 1 L of ether they say something
more along the lines of "meth lab alert, kill this fucker". In fact I wish they would ban sudafed all together. It hardly works anyway,
and it would put a stop to all those rednecks who can mix iodine and red phosphorus with ephedrine, thus loosening the restriction on these chemicals
as well as greatly reducing national meth production and taking the suspicion of amateur experimenters.
[Edited on 7-8-2004 by Mendeleev]
[Edited on 7-8-2004 by Mendeleev]
Trogdor was a man. A dragon man. Or maybe just a dragon. . .
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
Sudafed
That's an excellent suggestion about removing psuedoephedrine OTCs from the market. I've had the same thought myself. It just shows you
what a stranglehold the big drug companies have on the federal government (i.e., money). As I have stated before, the government bans what is
convenient for them to ban. They really don't have the backbone to do what is right.
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1332
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
Ether
If necessary, for ether, I'll just go with plain old "starting fluid" unless
there's a lot of other shit mixed in. Really depends on the application.
Acetic Anhydride is another matter entirely.
From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
|
|
Senjoro Nie
Harmless
Posts: 3
Registered: 3-8-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
IIRC, starting fluid has a large amount of heptane or similar added in. I suppose the ether could be distilled out, but I'd be worried about any
peroxides that might be present. Especially considering the notorious (im)purity of OTC chemicals.
|
|
|
Mendeleev
Hazard to Others
Posts: 237
Registered: 25-12-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: stoned
|
|
I had a few questions about several chemicals, none of them listed, but some are "watched" I think. I would like to know the risk I run by
ordering the following, not necesarrily together:
ethyl acetate
sodium/potassium cyanide
sodium/potassium iodide
iodobenzene
bromobenzene
benzene
dmso
dmf
Quanity-wise I was thinking between 2.5-12.5 kg for the solids and 4-16 L for the solvents/liquids.
[Edited on 12-12-2004 by Mendeleev]
Trogdor was a man. A dragon man. Or maybe just a dragon. . .
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
I think benzene would be fine to get, it is too common a reagent to be under much suspicion because it has so many uses.
I do not have the knowledge to comment on the rest of the goodies you want to get. But from my limited readings on rhodium they all seem to be drug
precursors. (Correct me if I am wrong here)
You really like large ammounts of chems don't you?
|
|
|
Mendeleev
Hazard to Others
Posts: 237
Registered: 25-12-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: stoned
|
|
Yeah, the solvents require large volumes for relatively small reactions, that's why I'm looking in the 4 L range. I haven't seen DMF
mentioned as suspicious but I remember reading something about how it's become less easily available, I guess because the druggies have used it
too much and now the DEA is onto them. DMSO is supposedly watched, but not listed, same for bromobenzene, sodium iodide, and sodium cyanide. But
wait, you said all but benzene are drug precursors, even ethyl acetate is watched? I have never heard any mention of ethyl acetate being watched or
listed, are you sure?
Trogdor was a man. A dragon man. Or maybe just a dragon. . .
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
No, I am not sure. Out of all the reagents you listed I am the least sure of how much ethyl acetate is watched. How I usually determine if something
would be not good to order is to search on rhodium, if it is mentioned lots and is not a very common chem like NaOH, it goes into my head as something
not wise to order.
Similar type of question as Mendeleev's: Ordering 1L of 98% nitric? Someone on this forum (he can come forward if he wishes) ordered some from a
Canadian supplier and he is in the states, however I am in Canada and wish to order the nitric from the same supplier. It is actaully cheaper fro me
to buy the acid than it is to distill my own. Is it to risky to order some 98% nitric from a supplier in your own country?
[Edited on 12-12-2004 by rogue chemist]
|
|
|
Mendeleev
Hazard to Others
Posts: 237
Registered: 25-12-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: stoned
|
|
I wouldn't think so. As long as you're not ordering a 600 pound drum, I wouldn't worry. Besides you could always say you wanted to
make aqua regia or something. Great aqua regia party trick: make someone's watch dissapear, and promptly leave before they realize it's not
coming back  . I personally have no qualms about ordering nitric acid, it seems
like the authorities care a lot more about drug precursors than they do about bomb precursors. This is actually quite sad considering explosives are
much more dangerous than drugs. Just goes to show you what a bunch of power and money hungry bastards the DEA and the government are. They worry
more about someone having a little chemically induced fun than they do about things which can blow people's limbs off and destroy buildings.
[Edited on 12-12-2004 by Mendeleev]
Trogdor was a man. A dragon man. Or maybe just a dragon. . .
|
|
|
Oxydro
Hazard to Others
Posts: 152
Registered: 24-5-2004
Location: NS, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: distracted
|
|
The difference is, explosives are not as massive a market as are drugs. A fair fraction of the population uses drugs, and they pay a lot for them.
However, there aren't really that many people interested in the sort of explosives (not to mention poisons etc) that would concern the powers
that be.
There are (relatively) so few dangerous people out there in the explosives side of things, therefore attempts to detect them will have little success.
But drugs, so many people are making and selling them, that someone buying something suspicious is moderately likely to be making drugs.
|
|
|
HNO3
Hazard to Others
Posts: 211
Registered: 10-11-2004
Location: America
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
According to this, we only need to be afraid of Schedule VI, Section 1 Schedule VI, Section 2 which regulates
(1) Acetone
(2) Ethyl ether
(3) Hydrochloric acid
(4) Methyl ethyl ketone
(5) Sulphuric acid
(6) Toluene
Schedule VI, Section 1 also regulates potassium permanganate and acetic anhydride. Yes, one time I went to Menards, and bought $69.~ of chemicals,
including 3.78 L of toluol, 2.2 kilos of KMnO4, and 3.78 L of acetone. 
Related or not, several months later, the big boss took my picture with a disposable camera. I calmly posed for the picture...it throws them of track,
since drug dealers *wouldn't* want their pictures taken. When he took my picture it was like my second time in there in the week to by boards for
shelving, and I may have mentioned that I was going to use them to store chemicals .
I think he took a picture of my car, too, but this has been at least 4 months ago, no phone call and no jackbooted thugs. *whew*
PS It also hurts when you live in one of the worst areas for making meth in
the US . 
\"In the beginning, God...\" Wait a minute, God doesn\'t exist!!!!!!!!!! \"OK, in the beginning, ummm, hydrogen...\" Wait a minute, what about the
laws of thermodynamics? \"OK, in the beginning, ummm.....UMMMMM, what\'s left to choose from?
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
If you live in the US, why do you think that Canadian regulations are all you have to worry about? There are some funny things in that Act, like
scheduling barbituric acid above isosafrole, and scheduling sulfuric and hydrochloric acids while ignoring hydriodic, but not so funny I'd
actually laugh aloud.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
Polverone: Was your post directed at me? If I was not clear in my post I am in Canada.
|
|
|
HNO3
Hazard to Others
Posts: 211
Registered: 10-11-2004
Location: America
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I got 99% DMSO at a local farming store, no questions asked. Pretty cheap, too. There was a disclaimer on the back that told of all the evils of
getting DMSO on your skin as its a strong solvent and the chemicals dissolved in it will go right through your skin and kill you dead instantly, or
something like that.
\"In the beginning, God...\" Wait a minute, God doesn\'t exist!!!!!!!!!! \"OK, in the beginning, ummm, hydrogen...\" Wait a minute, what about the
laws of thermodynamics? \"OK, in the beginning, ummm.....UMMMMM, what\'s left to choose from?
|
|
|
Mickhael
Hazard to Self
Posts: 65
Registered: 17-11-2004
Location: B.C. Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Terrificlawful
|
|
Be careful...
| Quote: | Originally posted by HNO3
Related or not, several months later, the big boss took my picture with a disposable camera. I calmly posed for the picture...it throws them of track,
since drug dealers *wouldn't* want their pictures taken. When he took my picture it was like my second time in there in the week to by boards for
shelving, and I may have mentioned that I was going to use them to store chemicals.
I think he took a picture of my car, too, but this has been at least 4 months ago, no phone call and no jackbooted thugs. *whew*
I wouldn't stop worrying just yet, or being extra careful, seeing as alot of advance recon by the powers that be is taken in a 6 month
period...which they then use as evidence that you were doing whatever it is seriously and over the long term...makes for a stronger case against you.
Ps: I'm not overly impressed that they are now even clamping down on MEK and Acetone...for gods sake our last few low key invaluable chemicals,
being messed with!
[Edited on 4-1-2005 by Mickhael]
[Edited on 4-1-2005 by Mickhael] |
|
|
|
HNO3
Hazard to Others
Posts: 211
Registered: 10-11-2004
Location: America
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Aww, shucks. I never have made drugs, and don't plan to for at least another millinia...
I keep a database of all my chemicals, store mildly toxic (CuCl2, NaBr, p-formaldahyde) in a locked cabinet, and have so many more chemicals than
could possibly be used for drug manufacture, and have a warning sign on the outside of my lab (which is locked up whenever I'm not around
anyway).
|
|
|
Pyridinium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 258
Registered: 18-5-2005
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: cupric
|
|
sorry for long post, but...
I know this might sound naive, but I want to continue hoping the police and DEA can / will try to sort the real bad guys from the amateur chemists who
have no interest in manufacturing drugs, exp**s*ves, etc.
I've often said that nearly anyone with a science background is capable of doing a great deal of damage. What I mean by that is, if you really
open your eyes, you have to realize that danger could come from people in government labs, industry, universities, everywhere- not just some eccentric
guy whom the neighbors fear because they spotted him going to and from the shed carrying colored liquids in oddly-shaped vessels. I'm WAY more
worried about a disgruntled government employee stealing a self-replicating "material" (I think you know what I mean) than I am about mad
scientists who just love chemicals and want to own some acetic anhydride.
I was going to buy some anthranilic acid until I found it was on DEA List I. (It didn't even occur to me this compound might be used in drug
manufacture!!). Then I saw the threshold quantity as something like 30 kg. I just wanted 50 or 100 g of the stuff for honest experiments.
Mendeleev had said in this thread that the days of discovery by amateur chemists are over. I disagree, for the most part. There is a lot of great
science that has been passed over as not commercially important (or whatever other reason it may be), or else it's buried back in a journal from
1854 (which nobody can seem to get, so the information is for all purposes unknown.) There are still some very interesting and even complex
results you can produce with jam-jar chemistry. Some things like the properties of certain compounds are not all that well documented, at least in
the modern literature. This is especially true on the Internet, which has huge gaps in the available knowledge (that is, the knowledge you can get
without paying exorbitant sums for online journal / database access).
Besides, amateur chem is part of what I consider life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm not interested in drugs or explosives (had a
brief interest in pyro for a bit though), but I am interested in scientific experimentation and research, which may use some of the same chemicals
that raise eyebrows.
I believe amateur scientists should have the right to own, say, 10 g of phosphorus, if they can store and handle it without hurting anyone. I find it
upsetting that we should be restricted because of what drug traffickers have done.
Anyway, drug traffickers have underworld connections and can get things the amateur scientist can't, yet who gets the suspicous glances when
going to the store and asking for 4L of toluene?
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
Looking at rights the wrong way
Historically, in the US, the government had only the powers very clearly granted to it by law within the bounds of the Constitution. If state, local,
or federal laws did not explicitly prohibit something, it was permitted, and there were many laws that the federal government would never be permitted
to enact/enforce because of Constitutional limits on federal power. This situation turned topsy-turvy after the American Civil War, and even more so
later. Now, Constitutional objections all-too-rarely forestall the expansion of federal powers, and if the government wants to prohibit something, it
doesn't even necessarily need to pass a new law: it will just use a creative interpretation of one of the innumberable laws already in existence,
and most times judges and juries (in the rare case that there is a jury trial) will play along. Regardless of this reality, I think the idea of
explicitly enumerating the powers of government and forbidding it to do anything outside those boundaries is a very good idea. Floating ideas like
"law-abiding amateur chemists should be permitted to own 10 g of phosphorus" is entirely the wrong approach: it puts innocent people on the
defensive. It shouldn't be up to citizens to preemptively justify their actions. In reality, our musings here don't matter to anyone with
real political power, so let's keep to liberty-loving fantasies instead of liberty-curtailing ones. The government should be left to FOAD when it
comes to your lab and chemicals unless it can convince a jury of your peers (12 people with the background to understand your case) that you were
violating a law and that the law itself is needed and just.
It seems that the bulk of illegal synthetic drugs are made by competent chemists or at least experienced "cooks" in a relatively small
number of high-capacity labs. However, in the US, there are thousands of drug "labs" discovered and shut down each year. The bulk of these
operations are small-scale drug producers making methamphetamine from OTC cold pills and other chemicals. This may be one reason you get scrutinized
when buying toluene (another reason is that dumb kids enjoy inhaling it).
Many states are now making it much harder to buy certain OTC medications in quantity and anonymously, and there may be federal legislation to do the
same thing in a few years. I suspect that most small-scale producers will not make the transition to the post-pills era, because they aren't
interested in or capable of coping with fancier chemistry. I further suspect that the pill crackdown will not greatly hinder overall methamphetamine
traffic in the long run, but when you're doing something as futile and stupid as waging War on Drugs, you've got to milk pseudo-victories
for all they're worth. On the bright side, when the meth menace is eliminated (i.e. the small producers are mostly gone and it's time to
find easier targets), amateur chemists may undergo reduced scrutiny.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
Pyridinium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 258
Registered: 18-5-2005
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: cupric
|
|
That's the problem... innocent people do find themselves on the defensive.
The doctrine of "that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden" is extremely dangerous, but if nobody speaks up, it looks like
that's the way we're headed.
Like you said, I think most the so-called "drug labs" that are busted each year are small fry. Lawmakers think, as usual, that more laws
are the answer. They never are, unless you count a totalitarian state as "the answer". Funny thing about that, even a totalitarian state
has hardened criminals, but by definition nobody is a law-abiding citizen anymore...
[Edited on 2-6-2005 by Pyridinium]
Edit: I thought of something else.
You know, every time I see a photo, diagram, write-up, or some other bit of knowledge offered up by an amateur scientist (especially chemist), it
makes me happy.
I ask myself, how could it possibly be righteous or just to take away the ability of these people to do one of the few things in life that gives them
joy, when they are hurting nobody? The answer is, it isn't righteous or just. So I guess I pretty much agree with you
Polverone.
I think of the damage done to our great hobby by K3w1s and druggies. *sigh*.
[Edited on 3-6-2005 by Pyridinium]
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
I have some more discouraging news:
Today I was shopping for acetone. I bought the 1st quart (~ liter) at one hardware store for $3.50 with the usual ease. To spread the wealth I
bought the second at Ace Hardware. After jumping the clerk (figuratively) for false advertising she admitted it was her fault and we both had a good
laugh. Then she said, "Oh, I'll need to log your name and driver's license number for that" (also true for toluene and xylene.)
I asked "what's this all about?" She said "to prevent making meth" or some such. This quart cost me $5.50! So I got fucked
2 ways.
So what are the police doing with this list (there were about 8 entries so far). Is it just for intimidation, or are they going to check my record to
see if I'm a criminal (I'm not - have squeaky clean record with only a few traffic infractions) and possibly follow up. This crap is just
depressing.
Here's a picture of the 2 quarts so you can see the false advertising:
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
I had to do the same to buy toluene at a paint store in Washington state. Never had that trouble in Oregon. Never heard a peep from anyone afterward,
though I was using an OR driver's license to make the WA purchase.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
