| Pages:
1
2 |
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The Restriction of a Chemical Element
Iodine is one of the basic elements on the periodic table. It is neither radioactive, nor excessively toxic.
For those involved with chemistry, experimentation with the whole range of iodine compounds is impossible without access to either iodine or sodium
iodide.
Yet governments in many different countries are essentially making it illegal to buy iodine, just because it happens to be one of many other
ingredients used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine.
In the USA, many chemical supply stores have stopped carrying the element because of all the paperwork and excessive fees required to comply with the
law.
| Quote: |
This rulemaking moves iodine from List II to List I; reduces the iodine threshold from 0.4 kilograms to zero kilograms; adds import and export
regulatory controls
regulatory controls that will apply to iodine crystals and iodine chemical mixtures that contain greater than 2.2 percent iodine.
Persons handling regulated iodine materials are required to register with DEA, are subject to the import/export notification requirements of the CSA,
and are required to maintain records of all regulated transactions involving iodine regardless of size.
|
| Quote: |
In 2007, federal regulations were passed strictly regulating the chemical. Wallace said the new rules mandated that he had to pay a $1,200 regulatory
fee, get federal and state permits, keep track of exactly who was buying his product and report anyone suspicious.
to comply, the state Department of Justice fingerprinted the couple and told Wallace he needed to show them such things as a solid security system for
his product.
|
Many states in the USA have added their own ridiculous laws, which essentially allow a person to be fined or arrested for transportation of "drug
precursors" (including the elements iodine and phosphorous) without a specific license. California, New Mexico, and Texas have the worst laws.
| Quote: |
Iodine, for many years used by walkers and mountaineers to disinfect water, will be banned in the European Union from autumn.
The ban means that, from 25 October retailers will no longer be allowed to sell or supply for use the substance. Some equipment manufacturers will
also need to modify their gear in response to the ban. The ban affects all 27 EU countries.
Generations of outdoors enthusiasts, military personnel and travellers have used iodine, producing its telltale yellow colouring, to kill bugs in
drinking water. Alternatives include chlorine tablets, though these produce an unpleasant taste in the water. The main risks from drinking untreated
water come from bacteria, viruses and parasites such as giardia and cryptosporidium.
|
This is just ridiculous. The only precursors that need to be regulated are ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenyl-2-propanone. Preparation of
methamphetamine without these three precursors is essentially impossible, so why the need to regulate so many of the other chemicals? Unlike these
three precursors, iodine, phosphorous, and methylamine have a wide range of other chemical uses. All these restrictions just add unnecessary or
impractical burdens on everyone else that works with chemicals.
I urge civil disobedience in response to these excessive regulations that are limiting our freedoms. When it comes to basic elements on the periodic
table, I am going to do as I please, regardless of what some ignorant unelected bureaucrats say.
[Edited on 27-11-2011 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes, banning I2 and P while still selling ephedrine is batshit insane. I've said so a couple of times.
| Quote: | | Yet governments in many different countries are essentially making it illegal to buy iodine, just because it happens to be one of many other
ingredients used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. |
Actually, I know only one country (+ maybe a few subsidiaries). I can buy a kg each of P and I2 without raising an eyebrow.
| Quote: | | Iodine, for many years used by walkers and mountaineers to disinfect water, will be banned in the European Union from autumn. |
The only thing I found on the web was that I2 was banned for water treatment. I don't know if this is a fallout of the US methamphetamine
paranoia (first PCP then crack then methamphetamine, these people are clearly addicted to fear and should try some therapy), but it doesn't say
anywhere that you can't buy iodine.
| Quote: | | The only precursors that need to be regulated are ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenyl-2-propanone. Preparation of methamphetamine without these
three precursors is essentially impossible, so why the need to regulate so many of the other chemicals? |
What about the classic benzaldehyde + nitroethane route? Most people will just reduce to amphetamine, but if needed it can be methylated. Or one pot
benzyl cyanide + MeMgBr + reduction! It should also be possible to make it from bromophenylpropane with a large excess of MeNH2. I think the
possibilities are practically endless. And I'm glad that they are. 
|
|
|
Adas
National Hazard
Posts: 711
Registered: 21-9-2011
Location: Slovakia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sensitive to shock and friction
|
|
Goverments simply don't know what they are doing, they know shit about chemistry. And that limits our possibilities.
I hope European Union will fall apart soon 
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by turd  | | What about the classic benzaldehyde + nitroethane route? Most people will just reduce to amphetamine, but if needed it can be methylated. Or one pot
benzyl cyanide + MeMgBr + reduction! It should also be possible to make it from bromophenylpropane with a large excess of MeNH2. I think the
possibilities are practically endless. |
Then benzaldehyde, benzyl cyanide, bromophenylpropane, or any other benzene derivitive that can easily be used to make methamphetamine should be
regulated. These types of compounds have few (or no) practical uses outside of illicit drug making. But leave nitroethane alone!
In their quest to stop methamphetamine makers, they have also, in many ways, made home organic chemistry illegal. You cannot make an element illegal
(or put so many restrictions on it that it is effectively), unless it is potentially very radioactive, and non-naturally occuring, such as plutonium.
Yes, chemical reduction can be used as part of the process to make methamphetamine. But should that mean the chemical reduction itself should
effectively be made illegal? Of course not. That would be like saying that cars can be used to transport drugs, so the government should make cars
illegal. Chemical reduction is one of the basic reactions of chemistry. The only reason governments are getting away with putting all these
impossible regulations on home chemistry is the fact that it is an uncommon, and often misunderstood, hobby. Society would be outraged if it was
something like computers, petrol fuel, or electric power being so restricted.
[Edited on 27-11-2011 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
a_bab
Hazard to Others
Posts: 458
Registered: 15-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Angry !!!!!111111...2?!
|
|
Turd, being "glad" about the multiple possibilities of your cooking ingredients only confirms you are indeed the kind of chemists I hate. But then
again, there are enough of you on this forum, so it doesn't make any difference to me. You are like the bugs and other critters that run all over when
you lift an old rotten log. The more I read this forum the more I find.
As about the country where you can buy kilos of I or P (for ridiculous prices may I add) it WOULD raise more then an eyebrow, especially in the light
of that nordic country events. Just check your usual providers, you may have a surprise.
|
|
|
turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Maybe some psychoactives could help you work on your hate problem?
Unfortunately I still have ~500g I2 for which I don't even have much use, so I have no incentive to prove my point.
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I hope the government realises that anyone can order restricted drugs from Russia or China, where the governments have little ability to enforce their
regulations, and where there are plenty of illegal drug factories operating. I ordered some anebolic steroid tablets (as a precursor for another
compound).
It is just like carbon dioxide emissions. It makes no sense to regulate it so much here, when we can easily buy something made in a heavily polluting
Chinese factory. Similarly, why put so many restrictions on organic chemistry when there are so many factories in China churning out cheap
methamphetamine for illegal export. The Chinese government does not care about anything except increasing exports (and national "stability" of
course). They see it as retribution against the west for the opium wars.
|
|
|
kmno4
International Hazard
Posts: 1495
Registered: 1-6-2005
Location: Silly, stupid country
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
You do not realise how boring you are.
Unreformable case.
|
|
|
turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland | | Then benzaldehyde, benzyl cyanide, bromophenylpropane, or any other benzene derivitive that can easily be used to make methamphetamine should be
regulated. These types of compounds have few (or no) practical uses outside of illicit drug making. But leave nitroethane alone!
|
Bullshit. These compounds have an enormous amount of uses. Benzaldehyde, banzyl cyanide, etc. are the "elements" of organic chemistry ("synthetic
equivalents of simple synthons").
The solution is very simple: legalize amphetamine, control production, regulate sales and tax it like crazy. Less money for the mafia, more for the
welfare state. I don't know where this crazy idea comes from that amphetamine (well known since the 1950ies) is some magical substance that
immediately hooks people and turns them into meth zombies. It's a bland stimulant - yawn. No sane person is going to risk losing job or friends over
indulging this substance. People who do have other issues anyway and will use any drug to destroy themselves. This is not opiates. I can understand
that society fears drugs like LSD that makes people see the ridiculousness of all, but speed? Come on. </offtopic rant>
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7976
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
@AndersHoveland: What you are telling is old news and ONLY applies to use for water disinfecting. It already was mentioned in 2009 on other forums. It
looks like you did a selective copy and paste from this forum:
http://immortalhair.forumandco.com/t1382-27-eu-countries-ban...
In the EU you still can buy iodine, iodates and iodides for the purpose of experimenting. There even are eBay sellers, who sell iodine at 100 gram or
250 gram amounts, e.g. in the UK, in Poland, Estionia, Latvia and I also have sources for iodine in the Netherlands (but these only ship to dutch
addresses).
The ban, mentioned above, is not due to concerns about illicit drug manufacture, but due to concerns about adverse health effects of prolonged
exposure to moderate iodine levels. Such exposure can affect the workings of the thyroid and it can make you really ill.
[Edited on 28-11-11 by woelen]
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I'm getting really tired of these borderline conspiracy theory threads about the UN, EU, you name it. What's next? The illuminati are conspiring to
decrease the yield of your reactions?
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
zoombafu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 255
Registered: 21-11-2011
Location: U.S.
Member Is Offline
Mood: sciencey
|
|
Ive been able to buy potassium iodide and sodium iodide
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
We must assert our rights. As soon as the government starts making ridiculous regulations, it will only get worse.
When several countries began putting restrictions on common incandescent light bulbs, most people never imagined that some governments would go all
the way and make them illegal. But that is exactly what Argentina did!
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/ban-again...
Australia has also effectively banned normal incandescent bulbs, but fortunately not yet the halogen type.
This makes me very very unhappy. I hope the left does not make any concerted efforts to try that here- I would be liable to go Brevik on them! [angry]
Not to change the subject, but here are just a few of the reasons why I hate those compact fluorescent bulbs they are trying to push on us:
http://stoppingatthegreenlight.wordpress.com/
The truth is that compact fluorescent bulbs DO NOT SAVE ENERGY, are MORE EXPENSIVE (despite slightly lower electric costs to
the consumer), and cause MORE HARM to the environment when one factors in realistic lifespans of the lower quality bulbs, differences in
production (virtually all fluorescent bulbs are made in China since our countries cannot compete because of out much stricter environmental
regulations and the bulbs mercury content), and disposal related issues. They also give off an unpleasant quality of light.
[Edited on 30-11-2011 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
strontiumred
Harmless
Posts: 36
Registered: 6-7-2007
Location: Southern England
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delocalised
|
|
I'm with you 100% on the "Compact Fluorescent Lamp" issue Anders. It's absolutely outrageous that we are forced to use them.
I hate the lack of shadows, the totally unnatural feel of the light and the utterly depressing wait as they slowly brighten up. Who wants to wait 30
seconds before they can have a piss for the crappy CFL to get going.
You cannot do chemistry under them either. Salts all look either washed out or totally the wrong colour (Holmium Oxide looks yellow under all other
lights, halogen, sunlight, incandescent Etc, but bright PINK under CFL).
They are the work of the Devil and no mistake.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
It seems this thread has gone in two directions. One is the legalistic element of why certain objects are restricted and the other is the differing
societal agendas that bring about varying responses.
Anyone who had been a soldier or Marine remembers halozone tablets for drinking water (and putting Kool-Aid in with them to mellow the taste).
Therefore the conception that the gentleman's "invention" is something unique is not accurate. The issues with "List chemicals" are a multi-fold
agenda. The legality of the chemical is MOST often used for Prosecution padding so that a Plea Bargain can climb higher due to extraneous legislation
giving the Prosecution more room to push a case through, etc. The other issue is a simple interpretation of legislation being a substitute for common
sense: allowing society (supposedly) to protect someone from themselves.
While the merits of this could be discussed in-depth, history has shown that in general that type of governmental intervention rarely effective.
You can't cure "stupid". Someone will always attempt to synthesize a pharmaceutical in a restroom. And another even stupider individual will ingest
it.
"Listed" chemicals from the DEA and "Watched" chemicals from DHS are myriad. Most people don't even know what the current lists ARE! The majority
don't even know that threshold levels are no longer in existence!
*{YES, a prosecution & conviction can be achieved for whatever amount of Listed or Watched chemicals are found in concurrence with perpetration of
a related agenda. USA vs Watson, Velroy, See DHS CHEMSEC} If the revised Patriot Act has not been read; comment should be reserved until such time as
the facts are known.
There are several differing reasons why restrictions on materials are in place & they also change as does the demands of the present local and
Geo-politics change. However that does not have convoluted conspiracy issues at it's helm. Believe me, the Masons, Jews, & Rastafarians are not
out to control the world (nor do they now). However I would discourage anyone from attempting to buy Listed or Watched materials. That comment was not
made from a sense of paranoia but a logical understanding of the way local and national politics affect the Judicial System.
The reality is that we live in a world with a percentage of jerks & pathological misfits [that] make headlines via tragedy & that reflects
itself in the legal system just as politics itself is simply marketing.
* If you are not familiar with the two agencies allowance and flexibility in light of both the Homeland Security's List of Watched Chemicals and the
DEA's List 1 chemicals, you had better get tight on the current laws! Currently DEA removed "Threshold" levels in prosecution & both agencies add
to their lists at will. The Precursor Act's flexibility makes prosecution very easy now and Homeland Security has pulled private industry's attempts
to monitor many chemicals. They also have the ability to use a VERY flexible agenda for their continually changing "Watched" list. I strongly suggest
doing some research on "CHEMSEC", CSAT, & related DHS material. Laws are not written in an un-amendable format.
Commentary regards legislation within the USA.
[Edited on 30-11-2011 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
Can anyone give an example of a non-drug manufacturing amateur chemist being prosecuted for mere posession of a DEA listed chemical? I am not aware
of any examples and I believe it occurs very rarely, if ever.
As Polverone has noted: | Quote: Originally posted by Polverone | | In some instances, prosecutors may build a case for intent to manufacture with flimsy evidence (including mere possession of certain chemicals with no
evidence of controlled end products ever being created), but plain-and-simple possession of safrole or any other List I chemical is not a crime.
|
Please refer to Polverone's original post for detailed discussion.
I worry a little about running afoul of the Fire Marshall or the Environmental Protection Department. I don't lose sleep worrying that the DEA will
come after my Iodine.
[Edited on 1-12-2011 by entropy51]
|
|
|
Rogeryermaw
National Hazard
Posts: 656
Registered: 18-8-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
the reason that the precious chemicals and elements are restricted and not the epedrine or pseudoephedrine is because of money. plain and simple. two
of the biggest controlling factors over the us government are oil and big pharma. pharma pays a lot of money to have beneficial(to them) legislation
passed and the lawmakers don't want to bite the hands that feed them. so they say screw you all and your chemicals too. if you want it turned around
then give up the cash.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5102
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If you are in that much of a hurry then perhaps you should make other arrangements.
Seriously, you are saying that you want to carry on using something that's only 3% efficient.
|
|
|
bbartlog
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 27-8-2009
Location: Unmoored in time
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | | The solution is very simple: legalize amphetamine, control production, regulate sales and tax it like crazy. Less money for the mafia, more for the
welfare state. |
They sort of did that. It's called Adderall. Though I think most of the money goes to Teva or other corporations rather than the government.
|
|
|
Vogelzang
Banned
Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
One thing I was wondering about iodine is that if you want to be on a low sodium (including salt) diet and don't use any salt, including iodized salt,
where do you get your iodine from? Maybe you could get a doctor's prescription or eat/use kelp/kelp suppliments.
[Edited on 5-12-2011 by Vogelzang]
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang | One thing I was wondering about iodine is that if you want to be on a low sodium (including salt) diet and don't use any salt, including iodized salt,
where do you get your iodine from? Maybe you could get a doctor's prescription or eat/use kelp/kelp suppliments.
|
The human body does not need much iodine, but it is an essential nutrient. Eating fish twice a month will provide enough iodine. Seaweed is a
very rich source of iodine, even more than fish. I think roasted nori, for example tastes good. Milk, and to a lesser extent eggs, also
contain iodine. Yogurt contains more iodine than milk. Strawberries contain lesser quantitites of iodine. Cheese, however, contains even less iodine
than strawberries.
Iodine overdose is also possible from nutritional supplements (but if you eat seaweed every day there is nothing to worry about). Eating more than 1
gram of sodium iodide can result in burning in the mouth, throat and stomach and/or abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, dirarrhea, weak pulse, and even
coma.
|
|
|
Mister Junk Pile
Hazard to Self
Posts: 70
Registered: 2-7-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
@turd "Yes, banning I2 and P while still selling ephedrine is batshit insane. I've said so a couple of times."
Although I disagree with banning pretty much anything, I must say that this is not "insane". Ephedrine is useful to many magnitudes more people than
I2 or P.
"They sort of did that. It's called Adderall. Though I think most of the money goes to Teva or other corporations rather than the government."
Good point, though I see a huge difference between what most people consider "legalization" and requiring a prescription and placing it in schedule
II. Morphine, methamphetamine and cocaine are "legal" in this way (and heroin in the UK) but most people would not consider it "legal" per se.
It's funny that most of the major "illegal" drugs are really legal subject to the whim of a doctor.
[Edited on 12-8-2011 by Mister Junk Pile]
"If the freedom of religion, guaranteed to us by law in theory, can ever rise in practice under the overbearing inquisition of public opinion, then
and only then will truth prevail over fanaticism." -Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It is also amazing how many doctors abuse prescription drugs. One study suggested as many as 1 out of 5 !
I personally know a doctor who I stongly suspect is abusing. I found a bottle of Lomitol on his desk. The writing on the bottle clearly showed that he
had written the prescription to himself. He also had intense shackiness to his bodily movements, suggesting the effect of atropine, which is an
additive to the medication to discourage abuse. Either he had chronic explosive diarrhea, or he has dependancy issues.
[Edited on 8-12-2011 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland | It is also amazing how many doctors abuse prescription drugs. One study suggested as many as 1 out of 5 !
I personally know a doctor who I stongly suspect is abusing. I found a bottle of Lomitol on his desk. The writing on the bottle clearly showed that he
had written the prescription to himself. He also had intense shackiness to his bodily movements, suggesting the effect of atropine, which is an
additive to the medication to discourage abuse. Either he had chronic explosive diarrhea, or he has dependancy issues.
[Edited on 8-12-2011 by AndersHoveland] |
Only a jerk would assume that someone who had an anti-diarrheal
medication like Lomotil was abusing it to get high. If a physician wants to abuse prescription drugs he can do much better than Lomotil, trust me.
|
|
|
Mister Junk Pile
Hazard to Self
Posts: 70
Registered: 2-7-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I was thinking the exact same thing, entropy. With all the hundreds of different opiate/opioid drugs at his disposal (most of which do not contain
atropine) why would he choose that one? However, almost all opiate medications are either schedule II or III (except for codeine but it's so weak I
don't know if that's an option for a dependent person). Maybe he has to use the schedule V Lomotil to stay "under the radar"?
Ugh... gossiping about whether or not someone we don't know is abusing drugs just seems... wrong.
"If the freedom of religion, guaranteed to us by law in theory, can ever rise in practice under the overbearing inquisition of public opinion, then
and only then will truth prevail over fanaticism." -Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
