| Pages:
1
2 |
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Sauron, I share your concerns, however drug chemistry is one of the main driving forces of chemistry. To say that anyone that discusses drugs is a
criminal is not accurate. For example, I am studying pharmacology and find the chemistry and action of drugs to be very interesting, and I do not see
anything wrong with that. I hope you also do not have any qualms in this regard.
The way I look at this is that this issue would not be an issue if it were not for the legal restrictions placed upon drugs. For if there was no legal
implications to our discussion, then what exactly can be "wrong" about it?
I do agree that the cookery threads have no place in this forum because they do not warrant the time of any of the members here. Anyone interested in
that sort of thing should seek help elsewhere. The real concern here, is what constitutes a legitimate interest in the chemistry and what is merely
treading over ground that's been trodden by real chemists ages ago...
I don't think anyone is trying to promote Wet Dreams-esque discussion here, I think rather it's a concern that a thread was closed that may have had
real interest behind it.
I agree - tough shit. Vulture closed it because he saw it as necessary.
I think anyone who has their thread closed should work harder to not f*ck it up next time around. UTFSE, try harder next time to promote a legitimate
discussion.
As long as we keep to the discussion of chemistry I don't think anyone is in a position to complain.
For example, you find nerve agents interesting right?
I personally find them interesting, but I don't see a point to discussing them in a public forum because there is no one who is (in)sane enough to
make them at home. But I do not find it necessary to post and derail a thread simply because I disagree with it.
You may share the same view when nerve agents are replaced with drugs. Drugs make up a larger facet of our society, and thus have much more influence
both politically, and socially.
But no matter how much you separate "us" and "them", there are *chemists* that find drugs and their chemistry interesting, and I don't see how it is
our place to apply ethical restrictions on what is ("naturally") found in our world.
We are all in the same boat (note:we chemists, not cooks), and we should work to make everyone happy... I would rather educate someone more prone to
"cooking" to have a legitimate chemistry interest because in the long run, this is much more beneficial than sending him elsewhere and then having him
convert to a "real cook" and really bringing misfortune upon us all...
Anyone who is not in it for the chemistry... well, they have no place here. Everyone else has a chance for redemption... why not help to facilitate
that redemption?
[Edited on 24-1-2008 by PainKilla]
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
I am not talking about medicinal chemistry or pharmacology. I am talking about STREET drug cookery. It is disingenuous to pretend that you do not not
know or recognize the difference.
I am really tired of being Orgie's judas goat and punching bag, as I am not the point man on this issue. If anyone does not like Polverone's policies,
take it up with Polverone. If you don't like vulture's calls, take it up with vulture. Call them fascists, why dont you, Orgie, and see how far that
gets you.
This punching bag punches back.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I do know the difference; from what I know, Org. has the impression that you do not - thinking that you chastise both regular cooks and medicinal
chemists. Or perhaps that the distinction medicinal chemist is too highly reserved.
In any case, can't you both just ignore each other?
This entire affair would have been avoided, and no punching bags of any sort would be needed if we stuck to chemistry. And it can be further avoided
by NOT attacking each other, but rather just respectfully ignoring one another.
If there is a problem, just PM the mods, and that applies for everyone.
I should compile a list one day, of all the threads closed due precisely to random attacks on each other...
But seriously, I hope no one responds to this and we just keep our opinions to ourselves, and discuss *chemistry*. Remember, the better man is the one
that forgives and moves on.
The alternative is to open another board where we can just attack each other 24/7.
[Edited on 24-1-2008 by PainKilla]
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
I have since my student days (long gone) enjoyed reading medicinal chemistry. I have nothing but admiration for medicinal and pharmaceutical chemistry
and chemists. However I do not include clandestine producers of "recreational" compounds in that category. That is all.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
Nicodem
Super Moderator
Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I think the point PainKilla was trying to explain is that when the concept of law and legality is excluded there is absolutely nothing relevant that
differ a meth cook from a pharmaceutical industry manager. Obviously both have the same goal – to make money at the expense of human misery –
though one does that better and more cleverly than the other.
Now, given this is not a forum about law, but about amateur science instead, it would be nice if some members would stop playing the prosecutor and
some posters stop posting questions on how to increase their profits. It seems to me that both law enforcing and profit making are equally out of
place here. So, for what regards my taste, I would like this forum to continue throwing the cookery threads to Detritus and do just the same with off
topic law discussion (section "Legal and Societal Issues" excluded, of course). But I highly encourage any scientific discussion about mind
altering drugs, especially about psychedelics. Now, this is obviously a very personal preference, but I do not mind others discussing other
questionable stuff either as long they do it using scientific discourse. Also, I don't mind the warnings that something might be illegal in
certain countries since the posters should be aware of the legal aspects of their actions (I often give such warnings myself), but I find it really
hypocritical when someone (ab)uses law as an argument to promote censorship or otherwise tries to exclude discussion about drugs/explosives/toxins…
Back to the original issue…
The phenylacetonitrile thread was indeed likely to deviate into inane cookery discussion, but regardless of the high probabilities that was only one
of the possibilities. It might have also taken other directions but since it is now in Detritus, we will never know.
What is at stake here is whether this "preemptive strike" moderating policy should be implemented or not. Based on my anti-imperialist prejudices, I
vote against it.
I think every idiotic cook deserves a chance to at least try using scientific discourse. If he is unable to do so, his posts will go to Detritus
anyway while he will move over to WetDreams to enjoy the level of discussion appropriate to his own handicap. The system of exclusion as is set now is
functioning already – no need to implement irrational and self mutilating policies.
[Edited on 24/1/2008 by Nicodem]
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Very well said Nicodem; the issue at hand seems to be that we have members that are interested in the money and not the science: this forum is not a
place for them.
For those interested in the science, there should be no limits placed upon the realm of science, provided the discussion is thorough and up to par.
As a practical consequence: please do not add your opinion to a thread if it has nothing to do with science, but rather your own personal stance on an
issue. For example, I as Nicodem find psychedelics to be an incredibly interesting aspect of modern psychopharmacology and as such would gladly
participate in their discussion and synthesis should such a topic be created. While I do not support explosives and poisons as much, I still respect
their place in the world - I will not post and criticize the effort of others in those fields.
So let's remain objective and allow everyone to dwell in the fields they know and love - and act as a commune - for we are after all interested in the
common science of chemistry.
And for everyone not interested in chemistry, rather cooking: your thread will probably be locked and you might be banned. Try harder next time, and
maybe learn some chemistry/science in the process. Thanks! 
[Edited on 24-1-2008 by PainKilla]
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I would like to add that I completely agree with Nicodem. Even though I no longer have very much interest in drug chemistry (especially psychodelics)
I respect others who do as long as they are interested in the science of it (and even in personal recreation). I think if someone bases their morals
on laws then their morals have low value. Morals should be based on personal objections, not on what the government thinks is "right and wrong".
Now, of course, in the same sense, the owner of a BB should be able to run it as he/she sees fit. Polverone does a really good job but there is
always room for improvement. That's the purpose of constructive criticism. In my opinion, as long as what someone is doing isn't hurting others then
it's okay (most of the time). At the same time, letting "cookery" threads exist on this board will only damage our credibility. The current system
seems to be working well although I think we could be slightly more leniant on what is considered a "cookery" thread and what isn't.
P.S. Believe it or not I didn't always think this way. I used to think all illegal drugs were inherently bad and all that mumbo jumbo. That is,
until I started to look at the big picture. It's just not that simple and if drugs are bad because they can hurt people then what else is bad because
of that same reasoning? Guns? Chemicals? Anything? I believe that consistency in one's belief structure is also important.
Instead of hunting down these "cookery" threads before they occur, maybe we should let them occur and then lock them before they get out of control.
Doing away with something just because it CAN make a turn for the worse doesn't make sense to me.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Nicodem, you can express your opinion, and welcome, but the issue is not being voted on. After all the forum is not a democracy, it is a benign
dictatorship. Neither you nor I are likely to alter that status quo. Nor will anyone else except, of course Polverone.
You are quite correct to point out that drug cooks are not amateurs, but entrepreneurs and as such, foreign to this forum.
I disagree that pharm company staff are profiteering on human misery; quite obviously the pharm industry profiteers on alleviating human misery. There
is a valuable distinction there. While we can nitpick about various errors in the past that reversed this, e.g. thalidomide, I doubt that anyone would
dispute that on balance the good record of the pharm companies outweighs the bad, by a large multiple in fact.
Whereas drug cooks definitely do profit from human suffering, and often add to it with impure, indidious products. A drug cook may eschew a single
recrystallization while the pharm industry does rigorous HPLC prep scale purification.
So I think your equivalence argument falls flat. Drug cooks are not pharmaceutical chemists under the skin.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
leu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 368
Registered: 13-10-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | | I disagree that pharm company staff are profiteering on human misery; quite obviously the pharm industry profiteers on alleviating human misery.
|
That's a rather strange view since many of the millions of Africans that have died from AIDS would still be alive except for the threat of trade
sanctions:
http://www.globalissues.org/health/aids/
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Corporations/AIDS.a...
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Corporations/Medica...
Chemistry is our Covalent Bond
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Crap. How many might be alive if the leader of South Africa would admit that AIDS exists and accept free medications that Mbeki is an idiot.have been
offered?
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Drug companies aren't bad because they cause human misery the same way that marijuana farmers aren't bad because they produce a psychoactive
substance. Legal drugs, just like cannabis can be bad or good. It's the end user (and in the case of legal drugs, the doctor) that determine that.
Maybe, we should be placing more responsibility on the sometimes idiotic doctors that prescribe medication that causes harm.
That's why I hate all these anti-smoking ads. We all know smoking is bad for you. It's just the way they go about trying to turn people against the
tobacco companies. It's pure propaganda and sometimes pure lies. To them the end justifies the means. They're going after the wrong thing. Instead
of addressing the problem of people smoking in the first place, they're blaming the cigarette companies. It's the same as blaming gun companies,
pharmacuetical companies and coca farmers. They're just supplying demand. What matters is the fact that we WANT these things. If nobody wanted it,
the suppliers would go away. It's called will power. If you don't want to smoke, buy guns or do drugs don't buy them! If you can't help yourself,
work on improving yourself to where you can have the willpower to quit. If you have to rely on something to be non-existent to stop using it what
does that say about your will power and your ability to conquer obstacles and accomplish tasks?
Anyway, I'm done. I know people will disagree but debate is good for you and it doesn't exist if everyone agrees.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
What is at stake here is whether this "preemptive strike" moderating policy should be implemented or not. Based on my anti-imperialist prejudices, I
vote against it. |
I wouldn't call it a preemptive strike. The member who posted that thread wasn't banned or sanctioned, just got his topic closed. He (or she) is free
to repost it in a different style and we'll see how it goes. But somehow they never do.
Perhaps you should take a look and see how many drug related threads are still being allowed in the organics section. There are quite a few.
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
LSD25
Hazard to Others
Posts: 239
Registered: 29-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Psychotic (Who said that? I know you're there...)
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
Again, phenylacetonitrile (benzyl cyanide) is not a particularly blatant precursor (unlike, say, P2P) and an intelligent and competent discussion
without requests for spoonfeeding would probably make no waves. IMO solely of course.
Org Syn has straightforward prep scale procedure for this compound from benzyl halide. No need for erowid, etc. and an inferior process fraught with
problems.
Where I am, benzyl chloride and bromide are verboten but benzyl cyanide is OK. Go figure. So I just buy it. But if I wanted to make it I'd follow
garage chemist's suggestion and start with benzyl alcohol. |
Yup, cos orgsyn wouldn't have a straightforward synthesis of nasty things like P2P would they?
http://www.orgsyn.org/orgsyn/orgsyn/prepContent.asp?prep=cv2...
As to phenylacetonitrile - why not start with bloody phenylalanine and be done with it?
And as regards the locking/banning of threads, I believe my perspective on the subject is already on record and well known. That said there is no need
for me to say anything further.
Whhhoooppps, that sure didn't work
|
|
|
Nicodem
Super Moderator
Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I find it hypocritical that this now made famous phenylacetonitrile thread was closed while there are at the moment several threads opened by "swimer"
members with obvious retarded cook-style content left active and apparently unmoderated.
Is this some new forum policy?
PS: If it is just the consequence of moderators not having the time to check all the posts, then I apologize (and just ignore this post).
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
Perhaps vulture just likes to play with his food. He is letting them "swim" for awhile before the kill. 
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
LSD25
Hazard to Others
Posts: 239
Registered: 29-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Psychotic (Who said that? I know you're there...)
|
|
SWIM ( ) says that the discussion of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING which is, could be
or even might be of some use to non-amateur drug cooks should of course not be discussed here. There are other, more appropriate venues for such
discussions. This will keep the peace and preserve the sanity of this forum.
It would be nice if the members here who are so easily offended would avoid offending themselves and others would refrain from citing the various
Rhodium mirror's, but of course that is never going to happen.
This forum can then be more socially responsible, assisting both amateur chemists and Bin-Laden wannabees to learn about the other aspects of
chemistry without the repetitive and inane divergence into the condemnation of drug-cooks. Perhaps this will enable the community as a whole to get
past the argumentative bullshit?
PAX
Whhhoooppps, that sure didn't work
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
Unfortunately, the line between "drug cookery" and legitimate drug chemistry is a fine one. Your seemingly intolerant view toward the subject is
interesting given your username, LSD25. Perhaps we shouldn't allow names like that to exist on this forum so we appear to have absolutely no
connection to drug chemistry of any kind. Next we'll just get rid of the energetics section of the board since it's just as "bad" and illegal.
The way it is now seems to be working. Why impose more restrictions? People are going to think we're all terrorists and drug cooks no matter what
subjects we're posting about so, FUCK 'EM!
[Edited on 26-2-2008 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
froot
Hazard to Others
Posts: 347
Registered: 23-10-2003
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: refluxed
|
|
The topic, although it is locked, is not in Detritus. Perhaps someone who is able to make a contribution to the topic that will pull it out of the
twilight zone and up to this board's standards should send a u2u to the mod that locked it and request that he unlocks it and try get it on track. I
wouldn't be suprised if he obliges.
If nobody can contribute, leave it, the question has been answered anyway.
Simple.
We salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who remove themselves from it.
Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously. - www.darwinawards.com |
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
