| Pages:
1
2 |
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7976
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  | | Drugs hurt less people then explosives, well at least the choice to be hurt by drugs is a personal one and just that a choice yet time and time again
i see people crying about biologically active chemicals yet no one bats an eye at the entire section dedicated to blowing shit up. Does this make any
sense? |
Drugs make far more victims than explosives! The Netherlands has a fairly liberal regime when it
comes to drugs, and at registered houseparties we have special checkpoints for assessing the quality and safety of XTC tablets so that people can
'safely' use these tablets, but even with those checkpoints, we have ten or so deaths of XTC every year at registered and legal parties. The last
large death-toll was at such a party in Amsterdam, where 4 people died because of (ab)use of XTC. And that is at a registered party, with checkpoints.
How many people die due to XTC abuse, but not known explicitly, at non-registered illegal parties? What about other drugs than XTC? What about slow
long-term degradation of the body, due to prolonged use of drugs? I think that in the Netherlands every year at least 100 people die due to drugs
(ab)use and many more maim themselves because of slow destruction of their bodies due to prolonged drugs use. No one cares, there is no media
attention to this.
On the other hand, the number of people, dying from explosions is very low. Maybe once per year. If such a thing happens, then the media are full of
it. It is more spectacular for the neighbourhood, hence the media attention.
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
Read what I said closer.
If I chopped off my finger would you feel sorrt for me? How about if someone else did it against my will?
[Edited on 12-1-2015 by Sedit]
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Please cite this. I find it extremely hard to believe that drugs harm fewer individuals than explosives. I am almost certain that cross-referencing
FBI UCR explosive statistics with DAWN hospital admittance per annum will contradict such a belief.
In accordance with the rationale that more individuals likely take drugs than expose themselves to a kind of morbidity range of an explosive
substance, making a simple law of averages possibly favor more people being injured by drugs, the most common pharmaceutical overdoses (both
supervised inpatient and out) tend to be the most commonly prescribed drugs.
Some data: http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/overdose/facts....
Compare the following claims"Every day in the United States, 114 people die as a result of drug overdose, and another 6,748 are treated in emergency
departments for the misuse or abuse of drugs. Nearly 9 out of 10 poisoning deaths are caused by drugs."
ATF apparently averages that only "hundreds of people are killed or injured by explosive devices, many of which involve black powder, black powder
substitutes, and smokeless powder. [In the U.S.]"
http://www.atf.gov/content/Explosives/explosives-industry
So an argument could be made about relative harm.
It's also worth noting that there are far more legal outlets for explosive use (amateur pyrotechnics and rocketry associations, permits, etc.) than
for narcotics. Filling out a DEA Form 225 requires you to submit experimental design protocols and educational background, among other criteria, for
narcotics research. Anyone who has had the bureaucratic pleasure of filling these out per class of drug used in experiments can tell you they are far
more strenuous than the ATF E-Form 5400.13/5400.16 appears to be, since it doesn't necessitate any prior synthetic knowledge, but merely appropriate
storage and associated locational and business aspects (which are also a concern to DEA registration). Thus anyone posting on narcotics should already
have experimental designs, synthesis, etc. planned out and approved, at least in most Western nations' following guidelines such as the INCB
standardizing various precursors along DEA regulations. This isn't necessarily the case for explosives.
Your view on the choice to be hurt by drugs may be valid, while entirely philosophical, though I respectfully find your phrasing a bit unconventional
(the choice to risk harm is more likely apt, rather than a stated willful decision to self harm using drugs). I disagree, however; any time an
individual uses a pharmaceutical in a manner not explicitly prescribed by a medical professional, or takes an unverified narcotic without physician's
advise... they consent to just as much risk as someone using an explosive, in my view... but that is not the only risk involved. Improper waste
disposal or synthesis of drugs can be very dangerous, just as with explosives, people under the influence of recreational psychotropics may operate
motor vehicles in an impaired manner, jeopardizing the safety of others, and not all individuals consent to drug use ('date rape' being one example.)
All reading, please note I am not arguing that one topic is any more appropriate than another here. Just trying to get to the facts in an area I'm
educated in.
Acronyms:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation
UCR: Uniform Crime Report
DAWN: Drug Abuse Warning Network
ATF: Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives
DEA: Drug Enforcement Agency
INCB: International Narcotics Control Board
|
|
|
Brain&Force
Hazard to Lanthanides
Posts: 1302
Registered: 13-11-2013
Location: UW-Madison
Member Is Offline
Mood: Incommensurately modulated
|
|
Sure explosives are more dangerous, but the sheer number of people who are irresponsible with drugs result in a larger number of deaths.
At the end of the day, simulating atoms doesn't beat working with the real things...
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
This is an interesting thread. I understand the opinion of the OP as well as the response of Admin., and all the others who have added to the thread.
This all sort of comes down to human nature, who has the right to censor, and when censorship is warranted.
It also begs the question if censorship is even morally right.
When (a) agrees to a set of "rules", and breaches this agreement a default cessation of contract should be effected. Understood.
When (a) agrees but the rules are not specific, what form of action can be effected? How do you determine (a)'s motive?
Play it safe, and cease (a)'s contract or allow at the risk of greater harm?
It's a fine edge, and there is no clear answer.
I agree that explosive shit creates an immediate threat to anyone in the vicinity. Depending on many factors the bigger the threat can be.
I also see that as amateurs there is no "real need" for developing these type experiments other than curiosity. If you need a stump blown up, call
"The TNT Stump Guy".
Same goes for drug manufacturing... It creates an immediate threat on a much broader range. A few grams of anything can change hundreds or thousands
of lives, and the result can effect generations to come.
Again there is no "real need" to make drugs at home. Call "The Local Rx Guy", and get your Dramamine.
I find that I fall into both arguments both for, and against. I like to blow shit up. Who doesn't. I also like some types of drugs. Everyone does,
whether it is Aspirin or Quaalude.
We have all needed to take something for some reason, and we have all been thankful it was there when needed.
My current interest is in learning about organic chemistry, and the physiology of the brain. More specifically in how organic compounds effect the
chemistry in the brain, and what these results really mean.
Right now I can't tell you what's in toothpaste (except Fluoride which I have recently learned is deleterious to certain higher brain functions) but I
wish to learn.
The sites that deal w/ the chemical compounds I am interested in do a wonderful job on "Trip Reports", and "J.B's Tek" or "Spore Sources" but they
contain next to nothing about the chemistry involved.
So to be clear... I wish to learn the chemistry involved in certain reactions. I wish to learn the how/why of what is happening, and not the how to
get high part. I already have decades of experience there.
In searching for a home site to learn these things I (hope) I have found what fits my bill here.
While there are a few topics here that are (IMHO) of questionable real world use, I understand there can be genuine reasons for researching the
methods, and the motive of the OP's can not easily be determined.
Therefore I feel it is best to keep human judgement out of my thoughts, and answer what I can as well as I can. In return I expect the same response
to my questions. Genuine answers without judgement. In essence (i believe) using this forum as it was intended. To be a bastion of information to help
enlighten the amateur scientific community. I have no way of knowing why someone wants to know about Potassium Cyanide, any more that you would know
why I wish to dilute Nitrous Acid .
Curiosity, enlightenment, a greater understanding of how things work? These are my motives.
I believe these are the motives of the owners of this site as well. At least that is my take on the response on this thread from management.
Hopefully I have not crossed any lines or deterred any potential friends here. Forums only work as a communal whole. Dissenting groups or judgmental
individuals are better suited for "Chat rooms" or "Blogs".
Great forum you have here.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
That goes back to, where is the line in the sand, and does it "shift" on how a question is asked?
Motives are deep inside the possessor. Judgments are on the surface of the perceive'r.
The two most volatile topics are drugs, and explosives, agreed. for most of the population neither needs to be explored any further than the yellow
pages. For the minority of us there are as many reasons for understanding/researching these topics, as there are shinning stars.
So again... Where is the line drawn? Should there even be a line?
The people that post/research these two particular topics are either
(a) sincere, and have their own reasons for thinking.
(b) Just plain curious.
(c) borderline.
(d) exploring where their passions may lie, and looking to develop a field of expertise.
(e) sociopaths.
(f) some combo of the above, or some that I have not listed.
There is a line. Clearly or not. This sites Admin. holds the stick that draws that line. The very bottom line (IMHO) is it has to be one F@cking tough
job to determine when, where, how to apply a "rule" when learning has it's own agenda, people have their own motives, and education will directly
effect "how" a question is asked.
I have to take a crap. Where's the shitter?
Excuse me... Is there a wash room nearby?
Respectfully... Z.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Mesa
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I think the current level of administration in regards to drug related topics is spot on. Discussion that is truly motivated by reasons outside of
illicit production of drugs are easy enough to differentiate in the way the posts are written.
Though the rules regarding such topics allows for a lot of flexibility, the judgement calls made by mods/admins has only rarely been out of line
enough for people to complain. I know quite a few of the staff (and userbase for that matter) come from communities where this problem was far more
prevalent, if any specific decisions were too lenient or strict someone would almost certainly bring it up in site matters.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
You should check out the "anoym" sections or the "complaints sections of some of the more "liberal forums.
A bigger batch of cry babies you will never find, and that's where less than accepted topics are the focus of the forum.
Nope! I like the way this site is structured. Everything from qualified scientists that are willing to share their time, and experience, to new comers
like myself that are expressing an interest in what is happening all around them, right down to a school kid that is trying to understand what he just
read, and has to submit a report on in 3 days.
I found the site by accident just as my curiosity in all forms of chemistry is blooming. In four or five days of reading threads here I have learned
more than I did in several months of trying to decide what I was really interested in.
I guess open mindedness, and wisdom will always shine thru the darkness of ignorance. (just impressed myself)
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Darkstar
Hazard to Others
Posts: 279
Registered: 23-11-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sleepy
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Zombie | The sites that deal w/ the chemical compounds I am interested in do a wonderful job on "Trip Reports", and "J.B's Tek" or "Spore Sources" but they
contain next to nothing about the chemistry involved.
So to be clear... I wish to learn the chemistry involved in certain reactions. I wish to learn the how/why of what is happening, and not the how to
get high part. I already have decades of experience there. |
Erowid is much more than just a collection of trip reports. (assuming it's one of those sites you're referring to) An enormous amount of information
on drug-related chemistry and laws, as well as the lab equipment commonly used and the various techniques utilized can be found on Erowid if you know
where to look. If drug chemistry is what you're interested in learning more about, Rhodium's Archive is a great place to start.
Rhodium's Archive
There's nothing wrong with simply being curious about that stuff or wanting to learn more about it. Many of those reactions are quite common and have
plenty of applications outside of illegal drug synthesis. Just don't let yourself get too tempted to try them once you realize just how easy some of
them actually are. 
[Edited on 19-1-2015 by Darkstar]
|
|
|
Mesa
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Zombie | You should check out the "anoym" sections or the "complaints sections of some of the more "liberal forums.
A bigger batch of cry babies you will never find, and that's where less than accepted topics are the focus of the forum.
Nope! I like the way this site is structured. Everything from qualified scientists that are willing to share their time, and experience, to new comers
like myself that are expressing an interest in what is happening all around them, right down to a school kid that is trying to understand what he just
read, and has to submit a report on in 3 days.
I found the site by accident just as my curiosity in all forms of chemistry is blooming. In four or five days of reading threads here I have learned
more than I did in several months of trying to decide what I was really interested in.
I guess open mindedness, and wisdom will always shine thru the darkness of ignorance. (just impressed myself) |
I have briefly checked out quite a few alternate forums with more restrictive rules. They also tend to be far too tolerant of laziness and
spoonfeeding which seems somewhat ironic to me.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
That is a very good point.
I tend to briefly explain whatever the question requires, and then lead to whatever link/site/book, whatever has more info than I can supply in a few
paragraphs.
People tend to learn more, when they can absorb at their own pace.
Something else that I DON'T see here is Parroting. You all know... One person says something, and it gets repeated as fact when the reality is so far
off from the statement that it makes your head spin.
I know, Off topic. Sorry.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Mesa
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The "UTFSE" culture has certainly made for a far less cluttered/redundant forum, thats for sure.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
Quote: Darkstar.
"There's nothing wrong with simply being curious about that stuff or wanting to learn more about it. Many of those reactions are quite common and have
plenty of applications outside of illegal drug synthesis. Just don't let yourself get too tempted to try them once you realize just how easy some of
them actually are. "
I believe this sort of sums it all up (for me).
I started looking into some of this home brew exotic drug thing, and found out it was the chemistry involved that interested me not the drugs.
That led to wondering why the brain reacts to compounds like N,N-Dimethyltryptamine, and what it is actually doing.
That in turn steered me away from the "other forums", and started me searching for one that is both tolerant of an individuals choice of subject, and
respectful of the rules of society.
Bring that this thread is sort of a question mark for many, and a warning post for others, I respectfully submit that I have nothing to hide, and my
motives are clearly posted for all to see.
If this is offensive to anyone in this community I understand BUT I do have to say that I feel my interest in this branch of chemistry is both valid,
and valuable. I also believe it falls well within the guidelines set for this site (I may well be mistaken).
Coming here to learn "Super Meth" recopies can be, and should be an offense to the owners, and members. I get that.
Coming here to learn how, and why things are what they are can be and should be a compliment to you all. It all comes back to motives, and the need
for No Tears's first post to start this thread. IMHO
Animal research... anyone?
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Aside from just the relative legal availability of amateur explosives, the science behind testing some explosives (Trauzl test, lead block, etc.) are
much more amenable to poorly funded researchers. Pharmacology is just not within the realm of amateur or hobby experimental science, which is what the
forum is about.
| Quote: Originally posted by Zombie |
Right now I can't tell you what's in toothpaste (except Fluoride which I have recently learned is deleterious to certain higher brain functions) but I
wish to learn. |
With respect, you should look into pharmacology/toxicology and epidemiology for making any determinations on such complicated matters. Assay
selection, or imaging technique, etc. all matter. Cohorts and sample sizing matter (and statistics can be manipulated or simply poorly used due to
ignorance).
Correlative studies are next to worthless without a mechanistic paradigm for investigation, and later dose-response challenging. Without a firm
mechanistic proposal, there is no reason to believe a correlation either faulty, or merely a statistically valid surrogate measure that has nothing to
do with causation. You won't learn this type of scientific rigor from a psychedelic forum or a quack with a clinical degree and no scientific training
selling their supplements, and a history of censuring from the FDA for dubious claims of efficacy.
Neuropharmacology is very complicated, and psychoneuropharmacology, as the name implies, can be even more complicated due to the design of metrics for
psychological effects (which often involve self-reported symptoms and surrogate behavior). As with all clinical trials, these often require bridging
science and clinical fields with large, educated, inter-disciplinary groups.
Take schizophrenia treatments, for example. The clinician with an understanding of the nuances among the Current
Global Assessment of Functioning, the Clinical Global Impression score, and the Nurses' Observation Scale for Inpatient Evaluation isn't the person
who determined how to monitor the maximum tolerable dose of a trial medication through either continual reassessment method or a 3+3 trial design.
They almost certainly weren't using cell lines or animals prior to that, either. And your average Joe probably can't even decide if a T-test or ANOVA
is more appropriate, or when to switch from gaussian to nonparamatric tests. The extreme complexities of biological systems require cooperation from
multiple educated specialists in complementary fields. One M.D. PhD Nobel laureate isn't changing the world just from playing in their garage.
Additionally, studies using animal models must be taken with a grain of salt because animal model selection is actually very complicated. I'm not an
animal model specialist, but I could name several examples of weaknesses in animal models that we have to deal with due to societal, legal, and
funding/space issues. Rodent epiphyseal plates don't ossify like humans, canine celiac disease models aren't mediated by major histocompatibility
class II complexes, stroke models favor younger animals, murine liver models have different transcriptional regulatory protein functions than humans,
the Zucker Diabetic Fatty rat and the Biobreeding rat don't model the same type of diabetes, etc. Misusing such animals due to ignorance on the part
of an amateur, or improperly caring for them via neglect of their unique needs, is animal cruelty.
The hobbyist, while free from the antagonism of bureaucracy, is also free from oversight in the form of an IRB or IACUC.
Science reporters/writers often aren't scientifically trained, and so in attempting to communicate may mislead the lay public. There is additionally
an incentive to sensationalize to sell articles or paper subscriptions.
Simply put, it's ridiculously easy for someone to misrepresent science, intentional or not, and to peddle their wares. A hobbyist couldn't ensure
adequate quality control of their chemical samples for pharmaceutical testing, much less culture their own appropriate cell lines in your standard
home with sterile media. Cell line selection isn't any easier than animal modeling, and I've talked briefly about some of those difficulties
elsewhere. Your most lauded drug cooks generally either repeat syntheses from the literature, which may be improved upon in a hobbyist setting, or
fantasize about impure, untested and potentially dangerous bioisosteres that they don't understand and won't understand without actual scientific
research, which unfortunately takes a great deal of funding in biomedicine.
At least peer reviewed papers are supposed to require conflict of interest statements, and publicly funded scientists generally have published
salaries. It's the quacks with their own fringe "health" organizations, website publications, and books that avoid scrutiny. It's just unfortunate
that with the vast expanse of knowledge through science, the individual is often completely incapable of interpreting results outside of their niche.
This is much less the case with explosives than drugs.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
Um... OK.
LOL, The funny part is I actually understood everything you said in one read thru. I could even figure out some of the definitions from the context.
IUt is posts such as yours that led me here, and who's to say where it will lead me in the future. If nothing else I just gave myself an A+, for
ambition alone.
Let's just say that if nothing else you very eloquently expressed the reasons this thread is valid. Now I'm not going outside to blow up a lead block,
any more than I intend to go on an 8 hour "trip" in my living room. but you supplied an entire banquet for thought.
That is a very helpful post for a fella like me. I'm sure the entire community here applauds your taking the time to write up a masterpiece such as
that. Personally I do thank you. Food for thought.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Random
International Hazard
Posts: 1018
Registered: 7-5-2010
Location: In ur closet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Energetic
|
|
Drugs are problem of the society not the individual. But as long as alcohol and xanax are legal they are as bad as illegal drugs. In fact, alcohol
also damaged the family not just the individual. Because of neglect. Neglect is as bad as the bad action itself.
Explosives are dangerous and especially dangerous when used in non humane ways. Besides, who would like to be near touch or light sensitive explosive?
Same as radioactivity. I would't want to have a neighbour messing with radioactive stuff. Rural ares aren't a place for this.
|
|
|
Nicodem
Super Moderator
Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I assume you meant dangerous when used in humane ways. For obvious reasons, the only safe use of explosives is their inhumane use.
|
|
|
Random
International Hazard
Posts: 1018
Registered: 7-5-2010
Location: In ur closet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Energetic
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem |
I assume you meant dangerous when used in humane ways. For obvious reasons, the only safe use of explosives is their inhumane use.
|
Yeah I expressed myself uncorrectly. Without explosives we would have a hard time getting rid of large rocks for example.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Random | | Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem |
I assume you meant dangerous when used in humane ways. For obvious reasons, the only safe use of explosives is their inhumane use.
|
Yeah I expressed myself uncorrectly. Without explosives we would have a hard time getting rid of large rocks for example. |
Hmmmm. No problem there.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
