Sciencemadness Discussion Board

prohibition

chemrox - 21-6-2012 at 11:36

As some of you know I oppose all drug prohibition laws. I say make them all legal and clean up the meth mess that follows with rehab and education. The price of marijuana is going way down in California and Washington states. I only know of a few cases of anyone being addicted to psychedelics. The "rave" scene and it's X use. (Is mdma a psychedelic?) The other case I kow about is Richard Alpert aka Ram Das. Why make these illegal? We're missing a fantastic opportunity to develop and explore these materials. Sasha Shulgin pave the way and David Nichols keeps the faith so to speak but in his academically oriented milieu. I'd liketo see a lot more cook and taste going on. Having broached the subject, why are we so hincty about drug synthesis here? Yes I agree that we don't want to become a source of information for would be meth makers and other profiteers. However it would be easy to close that subject by itself. Also we generally don't encourage, "how would I make (insert name of drug or its precursor) especially from a member who hasn't done any reserach or have any references. Maybe I'm saying something that isn't necessary and is the result of my own lack of understanding of the rules. Would we allow, for example, a report on a new synthesis of an prohibted psychedelic? Could I report improved yields of mescaline? Or the use of different reduction technique? I'm unclear on that one. We certainly don't want to attract the attention of Big Brother. Many years ago there was a lot going on at the Hive and ADC. Some of the more paranoid members were sure DEA watched the sites; listening in. I talked with some "diversion control" cops from DEA about this. They didn't know about ADC or the Hive and expressed zero interest. Bees just aren't a big threat. A partcularly naive friend who used the nom du guerre of eleusis got in serious trouble because he was selling through the mail and admitted so when investigators visited his parents. It had nothing to with posting on ADC. What are our guidelines? And what is the limit to what one can say in this context without massive group flaming? I've tried to figure these out from the forum rules and maybe I don't read carefully or am not smart enough.

bbartlog - 21-6-2012 at 12:07

In my experience on this board, there is no problem with posting about drug chemistry (illegal or otherwise) per se; rather, there is a bit of a double standard, where posts on such topics are held to a higher standard (references, proper grammar etc. mandatory rather than just encouraged). Makes sense to me as a way of avoiding a lot of traffic from people just expecting to get pointers on improving their drug cookery.

chemrox - 23-6-2012 at 11:00

When you put it that way I agree. I appreciate that we don't have those kinds of discussions here. I would like to hear more from those employed in the industry talking about problems they ran into and how they solved them. A couple of years ago Sauron and a few others from here started a site called "Synthetic Discussions." The moderator was an industry guy. The discussions were about syntheses of all kinds. I was trying to improve the yield of a pharm. intermediate by taking a different route and Sauron had a bunch of step by step examples of using TCT or TCCT .. whatever it is..The site failed from lack of participation and the moderator's lack of time to manage everything. The URL may still exist but I doubt there's much going on. Sauron was a big player and he was losing his sight.

SWilkin676 - 23-6-2012 at 17:04

I wonder how many people are using meth to stay awake to handle 2 jobs or long hours on the job - would think the establishment would like that!!

hyfalcon - 23-6-2012 at 17:39

If they are they won't be for long. You start burning you candle at both ends while taking that crap and you start hallucinating. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be able to get a thing done job wise if that was the case. Meth is poison as far as I'm concerned. If you want to poison yourself go right ahead. I won't stand in your way. Just don't try to take the rest of us with you when you geek out.

Rogeryermaw - 26-6-2012 at 11:33

"prohibition? pfff. they tried that in the movies and it didn't work. i bet this is the last we'll be hearing about prohibition"-homer simpson

aaparatuss - 26-6-2012 at 19:30

I think your pretty much preaching to choir here, good luck convincing the mainstream politician and worried mothers of the world.


i think this forum only tolerates rehashed talk, but enjoys peoples successes in some write up or patent confirmation etc. some actual guide post the next person can use or get reassurance before embarking on a
costly time consuming adventure.

triplepoint - 27-6-2012 at 06:17

This board attracts primaily people who are truly interested in experimentation, rather than meth cooks. If the focus of the board were to be widened to include more pharmaceuticals, I fear that it would not simply broaden the audience, but dilute the experimental focus of the board. That said, I understand how someone can be interested in pharm experimentation and be frustrated by the lack of discussion in that field here.

Diablo - 27-6-2012 at 10:41

@hyfalcon Methamphetamine is not a hallucinogen, it is only if it is extremely abused to the point where a person has been awake for several days or even longer that they will begin to hallucinate. Meth is also no more of a poison on its own accord than is most any other drug. In fact a main stay of antimeth propaganda is that because its made from scary things like chemicals, drain cleaner, and acids that in fact it absolutely must be an evil chemical poison itself. Also on a side note The smell of a meth addict is not meth, but actually physical exhaustion.

Although I must say that Meth addiction would absolutely suck. Although this can be said of any addictive drug, especially alcohol with its horrible, sometiomes deadly withdrawals.

@everyone I also oppose prohibition to any drug as not only is it immoral on its own right, it has many other negative consequences. The main cause of overdose on illicit drugs is uncertainty of their purity one batch is say 10% you get used to using a certain amount, next batch is 95 % you don't know you use the same amount and your dead. This particular problem would be incredibly easy to avoid if drugs were legal.
I would keep going, but I could write pages on this topic and not be done.

Edit: also the reason we don't usually dicuss drug synthesis is probably two-fold one. we don't want the chance of getting in legal trouble, and two we want this to stay a chemistry forum, not turn ito a drug forum.

[Edited on 27-6-2012 by Diablo]

hyfalcon - 27-6-2012 at 11:11

I'm a member of the choir also. I guess I should have said poisonous behavior. I've been around meth addicts. It's sad the way they allow the drug to take over their lives to the exclusion of all else. In that behavior, and I've seen it in heroin addicts also, lies the poison. Meth addicts are the only ones I've seen stay up for 3-5 days at a time, and at the end of that time they hallucinate, and yes it's from lack of sleep not the drug per se.

Rogeryermaw - 27-6-2012 at 22:50

my personal aversion to the whole concept of prohibition is simple, yet multifaceted. one the one hand i resent that some group of douche bags that has never met me has decided that it is not only acceptable but expected that they should be the ones to decide for me what is best and what is ok (not just politicians and law makers/LEO, but the nervous house mommies as well) for me to do with my life and my body (i understand that when my actions physically hurt others that should be the line at which my decision making should be questioned). on the other hand, i resent that the only reason the nanny state pushes such regulation is for political and monetary purposes. no government agency gives a shit about the betterment of mankind and improving quality of life unless it is a thinly disguised attempt to rake in more capital/votes/power.

dann2 - 28-6-2012 at 15:47


Am I right is saying that sometimes Meth (or some sort of Amphetamine) is ocassionally given to pilots (airforce) on long missions to keep them awake.

Dann2

Diablo - 28-6-2012 at 17:18

At least as recently as WW2.

Rogeryermaw - 28-6-2012 at 22:50

adderall. same stuff they give to kids with adhd. fighter pilots still take it to enhance cognitive processes on missions requiring extremely fast decision making and to maintain alertness for extended patrols.

SulfurApothecary - 28-6-2012 at 22:54

Interesting, I never heard of that before...

bbartlog - 29-6-2012 at 05:15

Paul Erdős also used amphetamines to apparently positive effect. I believe that they also provide a short-term boost to measured IQ (see: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223980.1939.991... ). In general if the activity in question requires a short period of intense effort and the situation allows for a period of recuperation afterwards, stimulants might be advantageous.

Diablo - 29-6-2012 at 12:58

Also a study on rats shows that worker rats do less work on amphetamine, and slacker rats do more work. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/339509/title/Slac...

gregxy - 29-6-2012 at 14:43

One thing to remember is that big Pharma has had 50+ years to explore these compounds from every angle. Work done by expert chemists and medical researchers using the best equipment.

If MDMA, LSD etc. did something wonderful, doctors would be prescribing them now. They already do for some like amphetamine to treat ADHD (although most don't consider that wonderful).

Whole classes of drugs have been discovered and abandoned. In the 60s barbiturates where commonly used.
Now they have been replaced by benzodiazepines which
are much safer (but still create dependency issues).

This company has a whole bunch of drugs that you can
buy semi-legally (some are schedule 4):

http://www.antiaging-systems.com/

Check out deprenyl which is related to amphetamine and increases dopamine and has also been shown to increase the live spans of some animals by 30%

Some MDs will work with you and prescribe you drugs if you ask for them. It's interesting to see their reaction when you ask for something that they have not heard of before.

Much safer than making your own or buying them on the
street.

[Edited on 29-6-2012 by gregxy]

weiming1998 - 29-6-2012 at 17:09

Quote: Originally posted by chemrox  
As some of you know I oppose all drug prohibition laws. I say make them all legal and clean up the meth mess that follows with rehab and education. The price of marijuana is going way down in California and Washington states. I only know of a few cases of anyone being addicted to psychedelics. The "rave" scene and it's X use. (Is mdma a psychedelic?) The other case I kow about is Richard Alpert aka Ram Das. Why make these illegal? We're missing a fantastic opportunity to develop and explore these materials. Sasha Shulgin pave the way and David Nichols keeps the faith so to speak but in his academically oriented milieu. I'd liketo see a lot more cook and taste going on. Having broached the subject, why are we so hincty about drug synthesis here? Yes I agree that we don't want to become a source of information for would be meth makers and other profiteers. However it would be easy to close that subject by itself. Also we generally don't encourage, "how would I make (insert name of drug or its precursor) especially from a member who hasn't done any reserach or have any references. Maybe I'm saying something that isn't necessary and is the result of my own lack of understanding of the rules. Would we allow, for example, a report on a new synthesis of an prohibted psychedelic? Could I report improved yields of mescaline? Or the use of different reduction technique? I'm unclear on that one. We certainly don't want to attract the attention of Big Brother. Many years ago there was a lot going on at the Hive and ADC. Some of the more paranoid members were sure DEA watched the sites; listening in. I talked with some "diversion control" cops from DEA about this. They didn't know about ADC or the Hive and expressed zero interest. Bees just aren't a big threat. A partcularly naive friend who used the nom du guerre of eleusis got in serious trouble because he was selling through the mail and admitted so when investigators visited his parents. It had nothing to with posting on ADC. What are our guidelines? And what is the limit to what one can say in this context without massive group flaming? I've tried to figure these out from the forum rules and maybe I don't read carefully or am not smart enough.


Making all drugs legal could spell disaster for everyone. Firstly, there would be an increase in car accidents/murder, etc under the influence of psychedelic drugs. Alcoholics already causes a large percent of car accidents, and we don't need to increase it more. Fights, etc is also common in alcoholics around pubs, and if all drugs are made legal, I cannot imagine the mess it would cause in bars and pubs.

Secondly, children would be influenced the most. If we made all drugs legal, then the drugs would be even more accessible to curious teens. New trends could start, influencing every teen to take drugs (they are extremely susceptible to peer pressure/ media influence). Some of them would no doubt experiment with the more addictive drugs like heroin, and we could be facing a whole generation of future addicts, causing chaos to society and hindering it down.

Finally, there would be mass addiction issues over the drugs. You claim to only see a few cases of people becoming addicted to psychedelics, but if it was made legal, and freely available, then the "few" would turn to "many". There are also other drugs that would be more addictive, and if they are made freely available, well, probably death and destruction to society. There would be hoards of beggars on the street, begging for money to buy drugs, the prisons would be crammed tight with people being violent whilst on drugs, bars/pubs would literally be war-grounds of people on drugs and in chaos, and many productive members of society would degenerate to drug-addicts. That would not be good at all. Think of the damage tobacco and alcohol has caused us now, and many times worse.

I don't think discussions of direct drug synthesis should be allowed, even if it is in scientific discourse. There are countless other, just as interesting compounds for those who like to do synthetic organic chemistry, so why focus on drugs specifically? It makes no sense.

Last thing, education of people would not work to prevent them from becoming addicted. There are simply just too many hormone-crazed teens and stupid people that would ignore education, and continue taking drugs. Did the education of people about the dangers of tobacco stopped many from continuing to smoke? No. Then it won't happen for other drugs. I think banning them is a very good idea, and even tobacco should be banned but are not just because the government can leach tax money from it.

Diablo - 29-6-2012 at 18:11

Legalization of drugs wont get everyone to start using them. For example many people don't smoke even though tobacco is legal. Believe it or not heroin would likely be far less dangerous legalized than alcohol.
Children would not be positively reinforced to do drugs just because they are legal. Legalized drugs are far, far more difficult for minors to obtain than illegal ones. Dealers dont ask for ID.
Also being legal wont make physcedelics addictive thats just silly.
Education doesnt stop people who are using drugs, rather it helps to prevent their use.What happens now when a heroin addict wants help would they tell someone when what their doing can put them in jail? The tax money made from a legal drug trade would be able to be used to help both the economy, and build rehab centers for the people who do develope probles.

Banning drugs thats just stupid and ineffective, it takes lives and imprisons people for years rather then helping them, and you want more drugs to be illegal, ridiculous.

Sgiglio10 - 29-6-2012 at 18:40

[/rquote]

Making all drugs legal could spell disaster for everyone. Firstly, there would be an increase in car accidents/murder, etc under the influence of psychedelic drugs. Alcoholics already causes a large percent of car accidents, and we don't need to increase it more. Fights, etc is also common in alcoholics around pubs, and if all drugs are made legal, I cannot imagine the mess it would cause in bars and pubs.

Secondly, children would be influenced the most. If we made all drugs legal, then the drugs would be even more accessible to curious teens. New trends could start, influencing every teen to take drugs (they are extremely susceptible to peer pressure/ media influence). Some of them would no doubt experiment with the more addictive drugs like heroin, and we could be facing a whole generation of future addicts, causing chaos to society and hindering it down.

Finally, there would be mass addiction issues over the drugs. You claim to only see a few cases of people becoming addicted to psychedelics, but if it was made legal, and freely available, then the "few" would turn to "many". There are also other drugs that would be more addictive, and if they are made freely available, well, probably death and destruction to society. There would be hoards of beggars on the street, begging for money to buy drugs, the prisons would be crammed tight with people being violent whilst on drugs, bars/pubs would literally be war-grounds of people on drugs and in chaos, and many productive members of society would degenerate to drug-addicts. That would not be good at all. Think of the damage tobacco and alcohol has caused us now, and many times worse.

I don't think discussions of direct drug synthesis should be allowed, even if it is in scientific discourse. There are countless other, just as interesting compounds for those who like to do synthetic organic chemistry, so why focus on drugs specifically? It makes no sense.

Last thing, education of people would not work to prevent them from becoming addicted. There are simply just too many hormone-crazed teens and stupid people that would ignore education, and continue taking drugs. Did the education of people about the dangers of tobacco stopped many from continuing to smoke? No. Then it won't happen for other drugs. I think banning them is a very good idea, and even tobacco should be banned but are not just because the government can leach tax money from it.
[/rquote]

This is terribly misinformed. .

First, there are few drugs which impair your ability to drive a car more than alcohol. Regardless, this is irrelevant, if someone is going to be fucked up driving they are going to do so regardless of what is in their system. It is irresponsible to drive while under the influence of just about anything, the legal status of a drug does not change that. If anything, it would make it easier to impose regulations for driving while intoxicated.

Most drugs do not make you angry like alcohol can. I have never experienced a psychedelic that has made me angry, nor have I ever seen anyone pissed off while stoned or tripping. It is far too intense. Additionally, it is impossible to become truly "addicted" to most hallucinogens because the bodies natural tolerance will become so high the effects will be unnoticeable. Cocaine and meth have the reputation for doing so as well, but those are also some of the most detrimental drugs, ranking above tobacco and even alcohol in their detriment, according to the UN.

Children have far easier access to illegal drugs than they do to beer and tobacco. This is because in order to get them you need to have ID. Illegal drugs no one cares how old you are, because you do not buy them from a store. Instead of making drugs some kind of forbidden fruit, like many cultures do, the distinction between soft and hard drugs needs to be clarified, as well as the categorization, and addiction potentials. Your point that people will always do dumb things and teens will always be curious is true whether or not drugs are legal or illegal. However, by making them illegal, we create a market that is dangerous for them to obtain such materials in, and renders them uncertain of the purity.

If you were to examine the UN convention on global drug policy, you would see that it takes a stance similar to the other members on this board. Your point about alcohol and tobacco causing harm is legitimate, however tobacco and alcohol are two of the worst drugs imaginable. They are extremely harmful, physically, mentally and socially. Things such as LSD, psilocybin, THC (and the other ~60 naturally occurring cannabinoids that are present in cannabis) MDMA, Mescaline, Kava, DMT and in fact most other ddrugs are all significantly safer. As you have, many people try to compare alcohol to other drugs, however unless it is being compared to another depressant, it does not overlap very well. Even then you are on shaky ground. Alcohol is a sedative hypnotic, a very specific class of drugs. As another user mentioned, psychedelics are another class of drugs which operate in a totally different way, give totally different feelings and do not cause the same level of addiction as alcohol or even close to the addiction of tobacco.

Why focus on drugs? Because they open a new perspective and state of awareness. The word "drugs" is seriously bastardized nowadays. All humans use drugs, whether or not they accept it is irrelevant. However, what we must learn to do (as I said earlier) is to recognize the difference between drugs that have something to offer and are safe, and ones that are destructive. Whoever said that you will gain nothing from drugs has clearly never experienced any type of entheogen.

There have been societies that have used (and still do) use drugs, significantly more than western society drinks alcohol. In Polynesia, on the Island of Pohnpei, the inhabitants drink Kava for roughly 8 hours per day. They do not work, they sustain themselves from the land and enjoy Kava and talk. The recommended theraputic does for kavalactones is approximately 160 mg. These people drink roughly 2600 mg per day. And they are fine. They have been doing so for thousands of years. In Latin America, the use of psilocybin mushrooms and ayahuasca (DMT containing plants mixed with MAOI containing plants) has been around again, for thousands of years. By the letter of the law (at least in the US) these people would be drug addicts. Kava is not illegal, yet, in the States, however the dependence on this substance would most certainly be classified as addiction. Obviously DMT and mushrooms are schedule one drugs in the US. As are all hallucinogens. The safest class of drugs.

Which brings me to my final point. Prohibition does not work, but more than that, it leaves people who are already seeking help completely rejected, isolated or, worse, imprisoned. It is centered around racism, religion, and most of all money. There is an enormous amount of money in keeping drugs illegal. Lots of police are employed, lots of prisons have to be built. Here in the US, guess what our #1 growing industry is? Private Prisons.

Drug addicts only hurt themselves in their use. A person who is seeking to reject humanity, nature and the world in place of a needle and an acyl ester needs serious help. Not punishment. If we really want to see a world where there are no actual drug addicts (those who use drugs to remove themselves from the misery they perceive in their existence) we will find ways to bring them back to life and show them that their failure is not their fault, but a failure of the systems and constructs there to protect them and ensure their well being.

Rogeryermaw - 29-6-2012 at 18:50

Quote: Originally posted by gregxy  
One thing to remember is that big Pharma has had 50+ years to explore these compounds from every angle. Work done by expert chemists and medical researchers using the best equipment.

If MDMA, LSD etc. did something wonderful, doctors would be prescribing them now. They already do for some like amphetamine to treat ADHD (although most don't consider that wonderful).

Whole classes of drugs have been discovered and abandoned. In the 60s barbiturates where commonly used.
Now they have been replaced by benzodiazepines which
are much safer (but still create dependency issues).

This company has a whole bunch of drugs that you can
buy semi-legally (some are schedule 4):

http://www.antiaging-systems.com/

Check out deprenyl which is related to amphetamine and increases dopamine and has also been shown to increase the live spans of some animals by 30%

Some MDs will work with you and prescribe you drugs if you ask for them. It's interesting to see their reaction when you ask for something that they have not heard of before.

Much safer than making your own or buying them on the
street.

[Edited on 29-6-2012 by gregxy]

right, because no government ever criminalized any substance as part of a political agenda or to exert its will over the people.

some of these other arguments sound like they came right out of the books printed in the 1950's and 1960's. where is the evidence that people on psychedelics will run rampant raping and murdering? sounds more like some regurgitated crap you heard from your health teacher in high school. rape and murder are doing just fine with alcohol and yet that is still legal. only good use for alcohol is as a reagent/solvent.

when i was a teenager i used a tenstrip (that's ten hits of acid for the uneducated) two, sometimes three times a week my junior year in high school. my only side effect was my first ever honor roll report card.

[Edited on 30-6-2012 by Rogeryermaw]

BromicAcid - 29-6-2012 at 19:44

When taking classes on leadership, problem solving and compromise were covered in depth. One of the key points stressed was that there are several steps to come to a solution that must be passed through. The first step is agreeing on the problem. If this cannot be done then things can go no further. You state your standpoint that these compounds should be legalized and then things can work out on their own. Essentially you're offering a solution to a problem that others in this thread cannot see and as such no forward momentum can be obtained. Not to say there is a better way of doing it but I can't see anyone on either side of this issue convincing anyone else on the opposite side.

That being side, by my own experience living so close to the ghetto, dealing with the addiction to illicit narcotics, and the horrible devastation to my own family, the families of those around me, and so many people from my high school class that are no longer with us, I have to say that I am against legalizing anything. People are too stupid to see when enough is enough. Recreational drugs change the way our brain receives and interprets information. Really, the brain is all we truly are, therefore willful intake of these substances with the intention of altering perception is tantamount to self mutilation.

Diablo - 29-6-2012 at 19:47

All of the violence and most of drug related deaths exist solely due to their illegality, which makes them both a way to rebel and a valuable commodity.

Edit: changed do to due

[Edited on 30-6-2012 by Diablo]

BromicAcid - 29-6-2012 at 20:16

I didn't mean to single out illegal narcotics but anything mood/mind altering. Also I didn't even get into the violence, just the annihilation of the family unit by the drugs themselves. If the potential for abuse exists, it will be abused.

Alcohol-Related Deaths Kill More Than AIDS, TB Or Violence, WHO Reports

Prescriptions now biggest cause of fatal drug overdoses

To use a false analogy:

Murder is illegal. If people were allowed to murder they would have less stress by removing from their lives the source of that stress. Eventually if murder were legal thing would work themselves out though retaliation killings / mutually assured destruction and because people would no longer indulge in murder because it was no longer illegal. :P

Diablo - 29-6-2012 at 20:41

Sorry I misunderstood your post, and while you are right that "If the potential for abuse exists, it will be abused." this is not only true of drugs. People can and will abuse anything that gives them pleasue, from video games, to drugs, to the internet, to sex, people can get addicted to anything. However this does not mean these things should be illegal. As for alcohol related deaths are so common, it would be, and indeed was, much worse if alcohol were to be illegal. Especially considering that one could never be sure if what they were drinking would kill them.
The prescription drug problem is mainly that many people have no idea what the medications their taking actually are. In fact I have a friend who recieves stimulants for ADHD and guess what he doesn't even know what a stimulant is. If people would actually learn what they were doing they would likely be more careful.

If murder were made legal, would you go out and kill that guy who cut in line? If so are you only going to do it because its now legal, also since its now legal would you not worry about their family's revenge? In the minds of people who would commit murder, legality makes no difference, they will do it. Your right though that one would work itself out for the most part.;)

Rogeryermaw - 29-6-2012 at 20:58

bromic i do have to agree with some of your points. i cannot judges the possible actions of others by my own experiences. self control and will power are not popular these days and it is easy to see how one out of control behavior could lead to another. it is only my own personal belief that people should be left to their own devices because i have proven to myself that i can decide when enough is enough. a quick look around me shows that this is not always true and is not true for all people. what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. but at the same time, how is it fair to restrict everyone based on the actions of a minority? some chemists blow themselves and others to kingdom come, but we would all be howling if our hobby was stripped away outright.

if a group of people do not have the responsibility to experiment with drugs safely then no one should have them. by the same token, if a group of people cannot experiment with chemicals safely, no one should have them. our world is coming to this soon enough. i personally am in no rush to get there.

watson.fawkes - 30-6-2012 at 07:45

Quote: Originally posted by BromicAcid  
Also I didn't even get into the violence, just the annihilation of the family unit by the drugs themselves. If the potential for abuse exists, it will be abused.
Few people would disagree with you that there is harm caused by the use of drugs. The question is what to do about it. There are more answers than simply making them illegal. If it were the case that making drugs illegal also made them unavailable, then the case for prohibition would be much stronger. Alas for simplistic approaches, this isn't true; availability is seldom much affected in the long term by prohibition and interdiction.

chemrox - 30-6-2012 at 12:49

I live in an area where the big boogie man is meth. We passed laws for the realtors that made precursors out of iodine, P, all sudafed or ephedrine cold tablets and added restrictions and penalties. Simple possession of meth is a felony and felonies are so common now they simply hand a ticket to the arrestee and send him on his way. Cui bono? The meth community is better off having gone from home baked poison to Mexican made d-methamphetamine HCl. On the other hand, life is increasingly hopeless for them because they nearly all have felony records. Mexico is now in utter gang war chaos ala Chicago 1930 with much better weapons. The US federal cops have much larger budgets and the average citizen has agreed to sacrifice more civil liberties to combat the 'scourge.'

turd - 30-6-2012 at 14:37

Quote: Originally posted by chemrox  
The "rave" scene and it's X use. (Is mdma a psychedelic?)

It's certainly not a classic psychedelic. But IMHO it has some minor psychedelic aspects - sometimes things get a little bit weird. Compared to real psychedelics, these aspects of the drug are of course complete kindergarten. So both kinds of drugs open up your mind - but to completely different aspects of the human psyche. I guess I'm a sick person, I prefer psychedelics. (But sometimes the absolutely superficial happiness of a night spent with friends on speed is nice as well. ;))
Quote:
I'd liketo see a lot more cook and taste going on.

Absolutely! The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. :) Just like lead block tests (or whatever they do) are an integral part of the science of energetic materials, so is tasting an integral part of the chemistry of the other-kind-of-energetic materials. ;) And what could be considered madder science than tasting various psychoactives? Not much me thinks.

The problem is that people here are simply not able to pull it off (and I'm not excluding myself). The first obstacle is to source the necessary materials and perform a multi-step synthesis. And honestly, apart from a few exceptions all I see here is lots of talk and little real chemistry beyond high school level. Then even if you manage to make some clean material, a taste test is of little worth unless you have a significant amount of experience with other materials. A naive person will be impressed by practically any psychedelic compound and not be able to characterize it correctly. And even if you have the necessary experience, you will need the time to do multiple sessions. The problem is that often at first you will mostly notice what the new material does _not_ have compared to the parent compounds that you have tasted. Only after a few sessions will the real characteristics of a compound manifest themselves. You have to know what to look for. And finally you have to be able to express all that concisely with the correct vocabulary. Everybody who thinks the work of the Shulgins et. al. is trivial is a complete fuckwit in my opinion.
Quote:
Many years ago there was a lot going on at the Hive and ADC. Some of the more paranoid members were sure DEA watched the sites; listening in. I talked with some "diversion control" cops from DEA about this. They didn't know about ADC or the Hive and expressed zero interest. Bees just aren't a big threat. A partcularly naive friend who used the nom du guerre of eleusis got in serious trouble because he was selling through the mail and admitted so when investigators visited his parents. It had nothing to with posting on ADC.

But times changed a lot since a.d.c! Unfortunately police aren't as internet-ignorant as they were back then.
Quote:
And what is the limit to what one can say in this context without massive group flaming?

Why bother? Let the whiners whine. *shrug*

chemrox - 4-7-2012 at 11:33

Bromic claims special knowledge from "living near the ghetto." The ghettos may present special situations. Just about everything there is toxic including sex, alcohol and air. Many feel that is a deliberate situation and that sales of ghetto drugs ie tar heroin and crack are actually encouraged. Contragate kind of proved that. Tragic as life there is this it is not a model of what happens with access to drugs. Indeed better examples would be the US in the Victorian era or California in the 1960's. The US crackdown on drugs was politically motivated. It was an effort to control a counter-culture more than anything else. What was most objectionable about the counter-culture was its opposition to war. Drug laws were not made for our health and well being. One way of defining a free society is one in which people make their own decisions about what goes into their bodies. The US has always wielded powerful influence in the world and the US has always been ambivalent about freedom. I fear that in the last two decades the anti-freedom forces in the US have gained overwhelming influence. South American peoples had psychedelics and shamanic traditions. The Conquistadors did everything they could to try and stamp these out. Some of the responses have read here have amazed and disappointed me. It's like there's a generation that grew up on "The Killer Weed" movies and took them seriously or are naive enough to believe, "we're from the government, we're here to help you." Puhlease! There's parallel to the 'what would happen?' argument in colonialism. The British have hung onto Ulster with the argument that if they left a bloodbath would ensue. Instead there's been a bloodbath since they colonized Ireland in 1400 or so. The British made the same argument against Indian home rule but Gandhi faced them down with sheer numbers. The partition resulted and after that the predicted bloodbath was over. After almost a half century of prohibition there would be some problems if it were lifted but much fewer than the hysterical den mothers imagine. Pot is legal in many places and is becoming legal in the US in increments. The situation with meth is that prohibition has created brutal gang warfare in Mexico as Cocaine has in South America. Before that the ways it was made caused 90% of the health problems. I believe legalizing would provide an opportunity to intervene in pregnancy situations which is where the greatest problems arise IMHO. I have to concede that before meth is put on the pharmacy shelf in the US, we should have a public health care system. The US is probably ten to twenty years behind civilized western countries in that regard. The psychedelics are another matter. Psychedelics have always been available and legal to those who want them. The argument that we have a benevolent health care system is for those who have taken Jesus as their personal savior. There's no point in trying to talk sense to them. The psychedelics the govt goes after are the ones that threaten it or initiate the jerk of the knee. LSD was a symbol of the counter-culture. MDMA became a party drug and was being made by unscrupulous exploiters of the young who put whatever was cheap in with it. Now that it's illegal its being made by cooks with varying amounts of skill using things like Hg amalgam. Thank heavens they caught that one and made it illegal. I don't know what threat 2CB was supposed to represent. Making people more loving?

[Edited on 4-7-2012 by chemrox]

watson.fawkes - 4-7-2012 at 13:21

Quote: Originally posted by chemrox  
The US crackdown on drugs was politically motivated. It was an effort to control a counter-culture more than anything else. What was most objectionable about the counter-culture was its opposition to war.
Well, no. I'd suggest learning some history. The "crackdown" goes way farther back than that; it started more than 100 years ago. It starts with the Pure Food and Drug Act, which amongst other things was going after opium-tinctured patent medicines. That was 1906. And after that the next few decades were principally racially motivated: opium as anti-Chinese and marijuana as anti-Mexican.

See The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States by Charles Whitebread, still one of the best introductory essays on the subject.

White Yeti - 30-7-2012 at 20:01

I think it's safe to say (and widely acknowledged) that most illicit drugs have some use or another in medicine. After all, the strongest painkillers, psychedelics, stimulants and depressants are all derived from presently illicit drugs.

As some have already said, it's a shame that these substances are illegal because it's making medical research more difficult and it's only through further research that we will better understand the effects of these substances and their derivatives. By fully understanding the effects of these chemicals, we will ultimately learn more about ourselves.

On the legal side of things, I used to think that only the most destructive drugs should be kept illegal (meth, cocaine, heroin). The sad truth is that legislation does not discourage drug use in the least, it merely gives a reason to throw someone into a jail. Since prisons in the US are privately owned, they welcome new people with open arms; more prisoners, more money, more profit. Business and government are tightly intertwined, so I don't see legalisation happening any time soon, no matter how much sense it might make.

Twospoons - 30-7-2012 at 20:44

Here in NZ we've had issues around synthetic cannabis. In a rather clever move the govt has banned all such products until the vendors have scientifically proven their safety. So they are not exactly illegal, but do have to meet certain standards. This puts the rather significant costs of safety testing protocols squarely on the shoulders of the manufacturers, just like big pharma. The result is that only 'safe' drugs make it into stores, instead of the random mixtures of crap usually peddled by the party drug crowd. And yes, I know there are plenty of pharma backed drugs released and then recalled due to problems.

So maybe thats one way forward - provided the drug meets all the safety standards applied to therapeutic pharmaceuticals then it could be approved for general consumption, with the testing paid for by the manufacturers. Instead of the knee-jerk drug = bad reaction we get well researched answers. Knowledge instead of ignorance. Knowledge useful to users and abusers too.

Now ask yourself just how many currently illegal substances would pass muster? Alcohol and tobacco certainly wouldn't.

[Edited on 31-7-2012 by Twospoons]

edgeofacliff - 23-8-2012 at 23:21

Science fiction rules in this discussion. If murder were made legal? Wake up, murder is legal for the establishment, and they practice regular like. And for those of you who actually believe society would crumble if all drugs were legal I say Hey, what planet do you live on? Society IS crumbling and one of the reasons is the people who use drugs are branded criminals, and in a society where one percent has all the money there are going to be large numbers of poor and they are going to use drugs/alcohol to ease their suffering. So why use up so much energy punishing these people who are already suffering? Do you want a utopian society where you can walk the streets at night and not worry about locking your home? Try Nazi Germany 1936.
So why not try an experiment? Legalise drugs in one state and see if it crumbles or decays into anarchy, or if it goes on as usual, or what? Because if you dont then your arguments are based on fiction and have no basis in fact.

edgeofacliff - 24-8-2012 at 00:38

I have to agree with watson.fawkes, everybody should read the essay he mentions. It is indeed priceless. I agree with some of it but not all,even still it is a well written and very informative essay on the subject.

SM2 - 24-8-2012 at 06:58

It is a crime to make drugs illegal, but without crime/black markets, where are the illicit profits? Yes, sarcasm.

Lots of good writings in thread here;)