Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2
Author: Subject: "Drug Cooking" vs "Bomb Making"
Pulverulescent
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 792
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!

[*] posted on 30-3-2008 at 14:09


'Hope I don't ruffle any feathers with this, but the drug laws, largely unenforceable, and counter-productive to the point where the widespread damage they cause far outweighs any damage they might purport to prevent, affects everyone with any interest in any area of chemistry.

I they didn't exist, and you wanted, say, acetic anhydride for a small cyclonite synth, you could tell your supplier you wanted to acetylate wood (sculptures) as an experiment. This is a legitimate use for anhydride, and you'd probably get it without as much as a quizzical look if you were anyway soberly dressed.

The concept of "restricted chemical" would largely disappear, and reagents like P and I
would be fairly readily available to committed experimenters.

And Boy, do I want some (Ac2)0???

P

[Edited on 30-3-2008 by Pulverulescent]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Sauron
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline

Mood: metastable

[*] posted on 30-3-2008 at 19:12


It's too late. The DEA et al set the archetype, and now the WOT people are following on, in the directions both of explosives making compounds and of supposed chemical warfare agent precursors.

Have a look at the DHS "chemicals of concern" list.

I agree with your remarks in general. But the barn is already on fire.

Furthermore, political discussions are verboten here, and it is hard to construe this as anything else.




Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
froot
National Hazard
****




Posts: 347
Registered: 23-10-2003
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline

Mood: refluxed

[*] posted on 31-3-2008 at 00:43


Topic heading:
Quote:
"Drug Cooking" vs "Bomb Making"


As far as I understand it, neither are welcome here.

Edward Elric wrote:
Quote:
I'm into medical science and biochemistry. Discussing the theory of drug creation is something that is a necessity to me. I understand the axiological views certain communities have. But, knowing that it's required of me to have the knowledge, I would need to go elsewhere.

Only when a person cannot find a community to discuss such things, then the person may have to push and shove some ideas in order to advance.


That's different, very different, you shouldn't need to go elsewhere.




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
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Edward Elric
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 86
Registered: 2-5-2005
Location: : Cloud 9
Member Is Offline

Mood: seraphic

[*] posted on 31-3-2008 at 11:29


Ok, then let's say a person is interested in making methamphetamines and various similar things (like ritalin) to treat disorders, such as ADHD and ADD. And what about developing cocaine as an analgesic?

Then would some of you get annoyed?

Of course, making cocaine without a license would simply be illegal. But the medicinal value of some of these things are great, despite the fact they are old and dated in their usages.




☣ - Full Metal Alchemist - ☣
View user's profile View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
Sauron
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline

Mood: metastable

[*] posted on 31-3-2008 at 11:46


That's a comically transparent rhetorical argument.

If you were remotely qualified to even begin to address such research programs, you could go get yourself a license to do so.

But you aren't and this is all just a pose. Stop the pretense. If you were a serious student of medicinal chemistry, you'd have an embarassment of more worhty and far less controversial choices for research topics.

It's tiresome.




Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Nicodem
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 31-3-2008 at 11:53


It was already established (several times) that the criteria for any discussion of topics, that might be illegal or not, is to use scientific discourse. If someone has not noticed it yet, we have threads where even such things like explosives, psychoactive drugs, toxins (including organophosphorous ones!) are being discussed (nooo, really?). On the other hand, most members could have also taken the time to notice that any thread where such topics were not discussed using scientific discourse (like cook, swiming or recipe stuff) end in Detritus. In short, everything scientific is allowed, all the rest is at the discretion of the moderators and their arbitrary decisions (which can be influenced by many factors, mood and whether included!).
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Suspicious

[*] posted on 31-3-2008 at 19:06


"Of course, making cocaine without a license would simply be illegal. But the medicinal value of some of these things are great, despite the fact they are old and dated in their usages.

I agree somewhat with your post. I think there really are some people that use and make drugs for medical reasons. They are not bad people IMO.

I disagree somewhat about cocaine. It's only legitimate medical use is an anesthetic and their are much better alternatives. Cocaine is one of the very few drugs that can actually cause harm without taking a lot (internally) in it's pure form. It's basically a cardiovascular toxin. This may seem crazy but even methamphetamine is very unlikely to cause harm if used in moderation by a healthy individual. Cocaine is different.




"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
View user's profile View All Posts By User This user has MSN Messenger
Pulverulescent
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 792
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!

[*] posted on 1-4-2008 at 09:41


Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
Furthermore, political discussions are verboten here, and it is
hard to construe this as anything else.


Damn! Can't slip anything past that incisive gaze!
I will desist, though, from veen-splenting over political expedients as I consider myself apolitical, anyway.
(I won't even draw attention to that "Burke quote")

You're making me think before posting, at least!

As for drugs and HEs, all real scientific inquiry should, I think, be fully inclusive!

p
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  2

  Go To Top