quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Should There Be Legal Controls on Chemicals & Glassware?
In this age of world-wide terrorism should there be legal controls on chemicals or apperatus such as glassware, etc
I live in the United Sataes and in a state wherein there are limited controls on such things, my state has a very low violent crime rate. Next door to
us we have two states (on each side) that have high crime rates, lots of violence and associated problems. One state (Texas) has controls on
GLASSWARE! The other state has controls on freedom of expression.
My rhetorical question is that in this day and age, where there are new and significant challenges to a peaceful citizen (no matter where he lives)
should the government control what we can purchase? And what if they could not control what we could buy? Would the world fall apart? Attempts are
made by such American organizations such as the Consumer Product Protection Commission to curtail the pyrotechnics & model rockety hobby. Would
this action keep the population as a whole safer? Where would you personally put a stop to the sale of scientific equipment and why?
The "what if" * factor aside; is there any real need for control of objects?
* What if terrorist got a hold of an automobile battery acid and some fertilizer? What if the terrorists got a hold of some solvent, hair bleach, and
some acid? What if a terrorist got some Castor beans? Or some box cutters? What if the terrorist had guns?
[Edited on 9-12-2005 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
neutrino
International Hazard
Posts: 1583
Registered: 20-8-2004
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: oscillating
|
|
>Would this action keep the population as a whole safer?
I doubt it. Look at the case of hard drugs: by making them illegal, the US government has driven them underground where they fuel organized crime.
People buying them have no assurance of their quality, as a result many needless deaths have occurred. The Netherlands, which took the opposite
approach and legalized these drugs, suffers from these problems to a much lesser extent. Outlawing pyrotechnics will just shift them from responsible
users to kewl pyros.
>Where would you personally put a stop to the sale of scientific equipment and why?
Outside the realm of anything an amateur would buy. Beakers, flasks, and fractionating columns are all right, while uranium-refining equipment should
be regulated.
You will never stop a determined terrorist from emulating the function of simple equipment like the stuff we use. No beakers? Get jam jars.
Distillation equipment? Go with an evaporation still. Chromatography? Fluorescent light bulbs and sand or alumina. My point is that shooting ourselves
in the foot will not solve anything.
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
Well, obviously this is a rather complex subject, and we are rather biased, but here goes....
Well, I agree that some stuff should be controlled, but not others. I personally think that one should be able to do whatever, as long as it does not
harm anyone else. That being said, stuff like nerve agent precursors and really dangerous chemicals like those should be kept out of the hands of the
average person, sure some people could be perfectly safe with them, but what about some idiot(which greatly outnumber anyone who has the ability to
handle such things) who knows nothing, and succeeds to make, for example, a potent nerve agent which then excapes and wipes out the neighborhood?
Chemicals other than those I think should be decently easily available, not to every joe schmoe in a grocery store of course, but in specialty shops
which could sell to anyone, in reasonably sized quantities. Quantities up to perhaps 3-4kg at a maximum should be available to use for
experimentation, as one really does not ever need more than that for general chemistry, but larger quantities should be available of certain chems to
those who have a legitimate use, such as pyrotechnics. Sure you would get the occasional problem with kids loosing a few fingers on occasion, due to
either a freak accident or being an idiot, but it doesent mean something should be banned just because it is potentially dangerous in the hands of the
inexperianced.
Things like the CPPC are good in small doses to protect against stuff like faulty wiring in appliances, but what they are today, preventing such
things as pyrotechnics and rocketry is not really needed, they only exist in this form because a lot of parents know their kids are too stupid and
irresponsible to handle such things, and have no control over them so they turn to the government to help them. No good comes from allowing the
stupid to live on...
As for glassware, sizes up to perhaps 5L should be available, I can pretty much guarantee no evil could come from someone owning a 250ml flask. Noone
really needs to conduct reactions on a huge scale...But certain equipment, such as stuff that could be used for something like refining uranium
isotopes, should not be available to the public
This day and age is pretty messed up, instead of blaming the individual for being an idiot, we make it out to others' fault. People are so concerned
about making sure noones feelings are hurt and that everyone is equal they have turned most civilized countries into baby-states. "oh its not your
fault you became a mass murderer, your mommy just never hugged you enough" "Oh its not your fault you murdered someone, its our fault for allowing you
guns"" its not your fault you blew off your finger with nitroglycerin, its ours for allowing the precursors to be sold in stores." We need individual
responsibility and abolishment of the equality notion. No good comes from saying noone is stupid. If people were just responsible we would not need
control of objects.
I will likely post more later, I'm ranted out for now...
EDIT: I should have said regarding nerve gas precursors, that they should be inavailable only if they have no other uses.
[Edited on 9-12-2005 by rogue chemist]
[Edited on 9-12-2005 by rogue chemist]
|
|
|
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
|
|
In principle I am opposed to controls, but not to monitoring/tracking. Unfortunately, every system of monitoring/tracking is eventually accompanied by
controls. In my ideal world, people would be able to buy nearly anything they please. That doesn't mean that I would expect governments to ignore
sales that might signal an intention to commit mayhem (like large orders of phosphorus halides or nitric acid to new customers), but that they would
make inquiries about those sales and not take rash action against mere possession. This isn't as ridiculously unregulated and hazardous as it sounds:
people are free to buy gasoline without training, license, or identification, even though it can be a potent weapon. There are few mass killings
because most people are not willing to engage in mass killing, not because regulations are keeping us safe.
The only things I'd keep traditional regulation around for are special nuclear materials.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
DeAdFX
Hazard to Others
Posts: 339
Registered: 1-7-2005
Location: Brothel
Member Is Offline
Mood: @%&$ing hardcore baby
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by rogue chemist
Well, obviously this is a rather complex subject, and we are rather biased, but here goes....
Well, I agree that some stuff should be controlled, but not others. I personally think that one should be able to do whatever, as long as it does not
harm anyone else. That being said, stuff like nerve agent precursors and really dangerous chemicals like those should be kept out of the hands of the
average person, sure some people could be perfectly safe with them, but what about some idiot(which greatly outnumber anyone who has the ability to
handle such things) who knows nothing, and succeeds to make, for example, a potent nerve agent which then excapes and wipes out the neighborhood?
Chemicals other than those I think should be decently easily available, not to every joe schmoe in a grocery store of course, but in specialty shops
which could sell to anyone, in reasonably sized quantities. Quantities up to perhaps 3-4kg at a maximum should be available to use for
experimentation, as one really does not ever need more than that for general chemistry, but larger quantities should be available of certain chems to
those who have a legitimate use, such as pyrotechnics.
[Edited on 9-12-2005 by rogue chemist] |
@ para one. I think as long as people take the time to research they should be able to aquire bulk chemicals no problem. Buying from science stores
at the moment is really expensive. 8 mesh aluminum 500grams for ~20usd is a crappy deal.
Banning glassware solves nothing. However pyrex is really good stuff. I would rather spend the extra $$ for higher quality stuff.
[Edited on 9-12-2005 by DeAdFX]
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well ofcourse the US government would like the average citizen to believe that the explosives used by terrorists are homebrew, rather than they find
out it was given to those very terrorists by the CIA in the eighties or stolen from poorly guarded munition bunkers in Vietraq.
Furthermore, except from the 1993 WTC bombing, which failed, has there been any substantial terrorist attack in CONUS using explosives and/or chemical
weapons?
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by vulture
Furthermore, except from the 1993 WTC bombing, which failed, has there been any substantial terrorist attack in CONUS using explosives and/or chemical
weapons? |
They would argue it's working. 
Tim
|
|
|
epck
Harmless
Posts: 27
Registered: 27-7-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: confused
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by vulture
Furthermore, except from the 1993 WTC bombing, which failed, has there been any substantial terrorist attack in CONUS using explosives and/or chemical
weapons? |
There was the Oklahoma city bombing as well. That may have not been a foreign terrorist attack but I think it qualifies as domestic terrorism. That
had a great deal to do with the whole nonsense with AN.
|
|
|
Chris The Great
Hazard to Others
Posts: 463
Registered: 29-10-2004
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What's with all the "ban U refining equipment"? I think it would be obvious enough when someone buys several tons of uranium to purify.
Then again, if you control the equipment, and they make it themselves and produce a viable nuclear device, they are probably the kind of person you
can trust with a 50kT nuclear device.
After all it would be the equivalent of making octanitrocubane with only jam jars, carbon, and air.
Anyway:
I think controls are really useless. It doesn't matter what you ban, the people you don't want to have it will get it anyway. It doesn't matter that
automatic rifles are banned here in Canada, the gangs and criminals have them anyway.
All it does it piss of the people who just like shooting automatic rifles at the range, and strengthen organized crime sales.
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If you really ban according to risk of something costing lives and you use casualties caused by terrorism as a treshold level, the following should be
banned ASAP:
Smoking, alcohol consumption, driving, operating heavy machinery, construction work, swimming, crossing the street, air travel, trains,
lighters/matches/gasoline/flammable materials, firearms, knives, sharp objects, electrical appliances(electrocution & fire hazard), etc.
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
lordmagnus
Hazard to Self
Posts: 92
Registered: 10-1-2006
Location: Webster, TX
Member Is Offline
Mood: No longer annoyed ( I found a new girlfriend)
|
|
Godz,
Take a look at how TEXAS, USA handles certain laboratory apparatus, and chemicals.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/nar-121.pdf
That is the link to the .PDF file for the permit you have to file to legal posses laboratory glassware and certain chemicals if you are a buisness,
and there is another if your a private resident, involved in a one time sale
[Edited on 1/16/2006 by lordmagnus]
I\'ll kill a man in a fair fight, or if I think he is gonna start a fair fight, or if he\'s bothrn me allot, or if I am getin payed good, or probably
over a good woman.
-Jayne Cobb (Serenity) |
|
|
evil_lurker
National Hazard
Posts: 767
Registered: 12-3-2005
Location: United States of Elbonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: On the wagon again.
|
|
That law texas has passed on controls of glassware and lab equipment is just plain ridiculous... what are they going to TRY to do, make every
business apply for a permit then send someone come out and assign a serial number to every piece of lab equipment? It will cost millions of dollars to
keep track of everything... plus what do you when you break something, you have to file something with the Texas Dept of Health? This is about the
best example of a poorly written bad law I have ever seen in my life. I mean come the fuck on.. gimme a break.
The scary part is it will probably at least try to spread to other states eventually.
|
|
|
neutrino
International Hazard
Posts: 1583
Registered: 20-8-2004
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: oscillating
|
|
Ah yes, the infamous state of Texas. My advice to anyone reading this is to get out of that state and fast. I'm sure everyone here will agree.
|
|
|
evil_lurker
National Hazard
Posts: 767
Registered: 12-3-2005
Location: United States of Elbonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: On the wagon again.
|
|
Agreed...
But once you get to thinking about it, the real purpose of the law isn't to try to control the manufacture of illegal substances, it is to enhance the
punishment of getting caught making illegal substances.
From what I understand, each piece of glassware or lab apparatus found during a bust and failed to be registered is considered a separate offense.
Hell a damn beer bottle could be considered a flask under the law and a kitchen stove a flask heater.
If your pursuing any chemical research in TX and your not a business, then get the hell out.
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
One would think it's a plot to turn Texas into the US trashbin, no?
Scare the intelligent minds out, get the criminals in and jail them, $$ for the jail industry, safe streets (hey, everybody's in jail!) and no more
annoying local residents to complain about the third world industry in their backyard.
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
For a man who does not live in America, I would say Vulture has a pretty good handle on the Texas thing. I would say more but the mind police are
probably looking for me.
Trying to type as quietly as I can.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
