| Pages:
1
2 |
Cou
National Hazard
Posts: 958
Registered: 16-5-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad Scientist
|
|
Research to find an alternative to pseudoephedrine, and totally ban sudafed
Right now, the current method of stopping meth production is limiting sudafed purchases, and the DEA regulating useful workhorse chemicals such as
sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid and acetic anhydride, to make sure that some curious fellow doesn't try to make his own batch of meth from a box
of sudafed.
It would be far better for amateur chemists if sudafed was completely banned, which immediately makes meth production impractical for the trailer home
kooks who just want to make one batch for themselves. This also allows the deregulation of chemicals in the DEA list 2, as well at red phosphorus and
iodine. If anyone is determined and skilled enough to make meth from the P2P route, they likely have the capability to make precursor reagents as
well, regardless of their banning.
Problem is that there is no known alternative compounds that's as effect as pseudoephedrine in treating a cold. Considering how much the DEA and war
on drugs wants sudafed gone, it's not gone, which really says something... The home chemistry society should work together to discover an alternative!
[Edited on 7-4-2016 by Cou]
|
|
|
Darkstar
Hazard to Others
Posts: 279
Registered: 23-11-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sleepy
|
|
The vast majority of meth in the United States is produced by Mexican cartels using diverted shipments of pseudoephedrine, not by small-scale domestic
cooks. Banning d-pseudoephedrine and l-ephedrine in the US would probably remove less than 20% of all illicit methamphetamine on the streets.
Besides, the pharmaceutical companies make way too much money selling pseudoephedrine to meth cooks for it to ever be banned. There's a reason these
same companies were also up in arms when pseudoephedrine was taken off the shelves and put behind the counter and its sales limited not too long ago.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
.. aaaaaaaand ... it's Cou again.
Please, please Do something in Chemistry other than speculation.
Fuckit.
I had better do some basic chem with photos, calcs, writeup etc before this is All of SM.
|
|
|
ziqquratu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 385
Registered: 15-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Cou, hate to tell you this, but it's actually pretty tough to develop a drug. There are thousands of medicinal chemists working in
pharmaceutical companies, universities, government labs and other private institutions all around the world. Every day these people (all with years of
training and many with decades of experience) churn out some large number of new compounds (heck, let's say one a week each - that's thousands per
week. And I can usually do better than one new compound per week), based on a variety of sources - lead compounds discovered in high-throughput
screening of libraries containing hundreds of thousands of compounds; compounds isolated from natural sources like plants or marine snails or
bacteria; computer modelling of cellular receptors; or just hunches based on extensive experience in their fields. And yet, each year, only a few tens of compounds become approved drugs. Most medicinal chemists will probably never work on a project which results in an approved
drug; almost none of them will be the ones to synthesise a compound which eventually gets approved. With all that in mind, may I suggest you take a
look through the SM archives and count up how many compounds (most of which are already known in the literature and well characterised) have been
prepared by every member of SM combined over the last 14 years - I'll even let you count where two different members prepared the same
compound by the same method, if you like - and see how close you get to the number needed to have even a reasonable expectation of success even if
every one of them was novel?
Now, of course, that's not an entirely fair statement - some ideas are better than others, some targets easier to hit, many of those new compounds are
little more than slight tweaks to existing ones, sometimes known compounds are found to have unknown properties, and ultimately some compounds
do end up as approved drugs. But it certainly demonstrates a large degree of hubris to suggest that we could just "work together to discover
an alternative". I mean, just with respect to pseudoephedrine - there are a hell of a lot of adrenoceptor agonists out there, because the adrenergic
system (peripherally, at least) is one of the best and longest studied pharmacological targets, many compounds with adrenergic activity have been
thoroughly investigated, and there are many approved drugs targeting the system in various ways. But, as yet, pseudoephedrine has not been effectively
replaced by any of those compounds, despite the strong political motivations (in addition to the normal medical and financial ones) for doing so.
Personally, I worked on (very early stage) drug discovery during my PhD - with a very well characterised system and promising preliminary results from
our leads, and our compounds failed miserably because we simply could not make compounds which had the necessary affinity for our target. I
spent thousands of hours making compounds, starting from a good position, that didn't bind their target well enough to bother even investigating any
other pharmacological properties - let alone even dreaming of putting them into animal studies! To add insult to injury, the bar for success
in the area I was working - diagnostics - is remarkably low, because they're generally given as a one-off, very low dose in a carefully monitored
environment, so toxicology and so forth is much more forgiving as compared with a drug where millions of doses will be self-prescribed by sick people
every single day...
Don't let me discourage you - if you want to find a replacement for pseudoephedrine, go right ahead and give it your best damned shot! There's a large
and willing market that would jump all over it! Just be realistic about it - you need a heck of a lot more than just an idea of what is needed (i.e. a
replacement drug) and a whole lot of optimism to develop a new drug.
---
Darkstar, I have to ask you... you say that banning pseudoephedrine would make bugger all difference to the amount of meth in the
States (I agree, and would say that I think your 20% estimate is way too high - in fact, I would suspect that the change, given a few months for
suppliers to adjust, would be, at best, in the number of meth labs, not in the amount of meth available). But then you follow this by claiming that
"pharmaceutical companies make way too much money selling pseudoephedrine to meth cooks for it to ever be banned". Surely these two statements are
contradictory! According to this "pro-ban" article, $300 million are unaccounted for after the "average" sales to legitimate patients (I think those numbers are likely bogus, but I've not
time to check further and I'd rather overestimate the amount that meth cooks are contributing than underestimate). There are many companies selling
those products, so that $300 million - spread between them - is pocket change to companies with revenues in the tens of billions of dollars!
Furthermore, just because pharmaceutical companies make lots of money off a product doesn't mean it won't be banned - many profitable drugs have been taken off the market (Vioxx, for example, brought Merck $2.5 billion in revenue just in the one year prior to its voluntary withdrawal from the market!).
Sure, companies are going to fight restrictions being placed on their products - the purpose of a company is to care about profits! And putting a drug
behind the counter will almost certainly have an effect on sales to legitimate customers (whether or not it affects the dodgy ones). I mean,
it's harder to get - you have to go to the pharmacy rather than picking it up at the supermarket, you have to wait for and justify yourself to the
pharmacist instead of just grabbing it off the shelf, you might have to hand over your ID and wait for them to check that - so legitimate users face a
disincentive to buying it, and of course the sellers of the product are going to complain about new restrictions on sales (particularly when they
almost certainly know, better than you or I, how little overall effect those restrictions will have on the availability of meth). But that doesn't
mean that Big PharmaTM controls the government such that they can make sure pseudoephedrine will never be banned! If someone comes up with
a viable alternative drug, you can bet your backside that a "tough on drugs" politician will be up there making sure it happens (and the majority of
politicians, not wanting to look soft on drugs - meth in particular - will go right along with that). After all, they haven't been shy about
restricting sales without a good alternative - why do you think they'd hold back from outright banning it (as ephedrine was banned) if
something was developed which could actually replace it?
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
I do believe that banning ephedrine and pseudoephedrine would have measureable impact on the supply of methamphetamine, but I suspect that the impact
would be short-lived. Unless equal or better replacement drugs are available to the public, I don't think banning pseudoephedrine is a good idea.
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6218
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Unmoved
Member Is Online
Mood: Organised
|
|
@aga
In Cou's defense, he is asking higher quality questions than he was a while ago. He has, I believe, taken some steps to purchasing some glassware so
that he can have a properly set up lab. And he has been doing some work on isolating some acetyl salicylate from aspirin. Cut him a little slack.
|
|
|
NedsHead
Hazard to Others
Posts: 409
Registered: 9-12-2014
Location: South Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Pseudoephedrine is practically inaccessible in Australia yet it hasn’t done anything to stop meth cooks, all it has done is remove a proven and
effective medication from sick people (like me occasionally) who benefit from it, sudafed has been replaced with "Sudafed p.e" an ineffective
substitute that should never have passed the clinical trial phase, I'm pretty sure the p.e stands for placebo effect, in fact, I don't think there’s
anything left on the "chemists" shelves that isn’t just a herbal placebo.
Maybe I should reverse engineer some meth back to pseudoephedrine so I can get some relief the next time I'm ill, do you think the police will believe
me if I'm caught buying the meth? haha
[Edited on 8-4-2016 by NedsHead]
|
|
|
Darkstar
Hazard to Others
Posts: 279
Registered: 23-11-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sleepy
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by ziqquratu  | | But that doesn't mean that Big PharmaTM controls the government such that they can make sure pseudoephedrine will never be banned! If
someone comes up with a viable alternative drug, you can bet your backside that a "tough on drugs" politician will be up there making sure it happens
(and the majority of politicians, not wanting to look soft on drugs - meth in particular - will go right along with that). |
Perhaps, but you also have to admit that there's a bit of a conflict of interest when Big Pharma just so happens to be making rather large campaign
donations to many of those very politicians. And then there's also the fact that the DEA has become little more than a for-profit policing agency,
particularly since they get to keep all of the money they seize in their drug raids. If that's not an incentive to make sure there's always a steady
supply of illegal drugs being trafficked into and within the United States, I don't know what is. It's no coincidence that they tend to focus more on
which busts can yield the most money recovered rather than which ones can yield the most drugs recovered. Which is precisely why the DEA is so against
marijuana legalization, and tends to focus the majority of its efforts and resources on marijuana busts and not the more dangerous drugs like cocaine,
prescription opiates, methamphetamine, heroin etc.
The vast majority of the DEA's revenue is generated from busts involving organized marijuana trafficking across the Mexican-US border, so it's no
surprise then that the vast majority of its budget also happens to be spent on marijuana eradication programs. The DEA is a large agency that employs
over 10,000 people, so it would be in their best interest to keep highly profitable drugs like marijuana Schedule I, regardless of what doctor after
doctor and study after study say about its effects and safety. Why would an agency that employs that many people, an agency whose main source of
revenue is generated through marijuana busts, get rid of their cash cow? How many of their employees would they have to let go if the illegal
marijuana trade that many of their employee's jobs depend on disappeared over night?
And it's for this very reason that I don't ever see the DEA completely banning pseudoephedrine. You can't deny that there's a pretty significant
conflict of interest when a profitable organization's entire existence depends upon the continued existence of the very thing it claims to want to
eradicate.
|
|
|
ziqquratu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 385
Registered: 15-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by NedsHead | Pseudoephedrine is practically inaccessible in Australia yet it hasn’t done anything to stop meth cooks, all it has done is remove a proven and
effective medication from sick people (like me occasionally) who benefit from it, sudafed has been replaced with "Sudafed p.e" an ineffective
substitute that should never have passed the clinical trial phase, I'm pretty sure the p.e stands for placebo effect, in fact, I don't think there’s
anything left on the "chemists" shelves that isn’t just a herbal placebo.
Maybe I should reverse engineer some meth back to pseudoephedrine so I can get some relief the next time I'm ill, do you think the police will believe
me if I'm caught buying the meth? haha
[Edited on 8-4-2016 by NedsHead] |
Ned, if you've not seen it, check out this article - "A Simple and Convenient Synthesis of Pseudoephedrine From N-Methylamphetamine", by O. Hai and I. B. Hakkenshit...
I also agree with you regarding the annoyance of getting pseudoephedrine-based medicines in Australia (although, I will say, most pharmacies around me
don't argue when you specifically ask for what you want - although I have seen one reasonably unwell looking guy [who went on to buy the phenylephrine
product, further suggesting he was actually unwell rather than just faking] refused because he'd "bought too much recently"), and with phenylephrine's
lack of efficacy. And don't even get me started on the vast range of magic potions that they all insist on selling...
---
Darkstar, please let me be clear - I don't for a second deny that corruption exists, or that campaign donations have an impact on politicians'
actions. I agree that there's a big problem with placing an issue which is at least partly medical almost entirely in the hands of the
criminal justice system, and recognise the significant conflict of interest inherent in a system where the DEA (or whoever) benefits directly from a
bust that they pull off. I also agree that special interest groups do have a major hold on various political candidates and parties, which
cripples their ability to modify their positions on various issues. But that doesn't mean I agree that some entity (Big Pharma, the DEA, or whatever
other special interest group) can actually control the government to the point that pseudoephedrine would never be made illegal.
First off, you kind of undermine your own argument. You state that "the DEA is so against marijuana legalization" because that's where they make their
money; and yet, many states in the US are legalising (or at least decriminalising) marijuana. Don't get me wrong - the DEA is almost certainly
contributing to how slowly the change is taking place - but they clearly aren't able to completely prevent it from happening, because it is
happening. Likewise, as in the Vioxx example I gave, just because Merck was making gobs of money didn't mean that the product wasn't removed from the
market (and the same is true of all the other drugs listed on the Wiki page I linked).
In addition, the DEA doesn't have to be the ones to ban pseudoephedrine - as a therapeutic drug, that decision would probably fall to the FDA.
Certainly the DEA could lobby in favour if it, but I'm not sure if they even have the authority to outlaw (as opposed to restrict and monitor sales
of) a drug which is approved by the FDA for medical purposes.
Beyond that, however, this type of statement ("the DEA makes too much money for it ever to be banned") always strikes me as problematic. "The DEA" is
not some monolithic entity which exists only to secure funding to ensure its continuing existence. It's a bunch of people, most of whom
aren't that different from you or I, and the majority of whom think that they're doing something valuable - protecting the public, saving
lives, and so on. Now perverse incentives can easily arise - they do have a vested interest in keeping their jobs, and thus in securing
enough funding, and (under the system you describe) in seeking out the most lucrative busts. But that doesn't mean they're against legalisation of
marijuana (or other drugs) because they want the money - you probably don't join the DEA unless you think drugs are a bad thing, and so I think it's
more reasonable to assume that DEA agents are probably against marijuana legalisation because they think marijuana is bad, and who see the
revenue from those busts not as job security but as the recognition of a well-done job, and funding for doing more good work in the future.
As always, some bad apples and so on, but when you look at the DEA as a bunch of people who think they're doing good, rather than some big scary
entity, I think that the "people trying to do the right thing the best way they know how" is a far more likely explanation than "dodgy bastards trying
to keep everyone down just so they're not out of a job".
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
I will quote a dea agent "we go after local growers because they don't shoot at us."
|
|
|
semesa
Harmless
Posts: 21
Registered: 13-10-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Somehow I think the issue of jurisdiction and international borders is a significantly larger factor in the decision.
As an aside, isn't (pseudo)ephedrine meant to be a fairly important ligand for asymmetric synthesis? I think that alone precludes it from the higher
scheduling(potential for abuse with no legitimate uses?)
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2692
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
Not only is "chemistry" not even a close approximation to "drug development", there's a fundamental misunderstanding here about pseudoephedrine:
It's not the only chemical that treats colds.
It's not even the best, nor is it the cheapest.
It's off-patent.
See the problem? By inventing something "new", it becomes patentable, which means it becomes expensive, which means it doesn't compete with
pseudoephedrine. The whole enterprise is doomed by design from the start.
| Quote: | | As an aside, isn't (pseudo)ephedrine meant to be a fairly important ligand for asymmetric synthesis? I think that alone precludes it from the higher
scheduling(potential for abuse with no legitimate uses?) |
Ephedrine alkoxides (i.e. deprotonated ephedrines) are good asymmetric bases for e.g. enantioselective dehydrohalogenation. I dunno about "ligand",
but it is useful. Amphetamine itself can be kinda useful.
[Edited on 11-4-2016 by clearly_not_atara]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5102
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
If we somehow managed to remove all the meth from the market people would just choose to get off their heads on something else; speed would be the
obvious candidate but it's not really important what they would use.
The war on drugs is a propaganda stunt- restricting US sales of some chemicals doesn't work very well simply because it's a legal restriction and the
people making drugs are not concerned about breaking the law.
The removal of various chemicals from the OTC market is designed to give the illusion of control. The people are happy because they see that the
government has "Done Something" and they are not really in a position to see how pointless the something actually is.
What would be interesting would be a government programme to actually give people better things to do than get high. Somehow I don't see that idea
making it into any party manifesto any time soon.
|
|
|
arkoma
Redneck Overlord
Posts: 1761
Registered: 3-2-2014
Location: On a Big Blue Marble hurtling through space
Member Is Offline
Mood: украї́нська
|
|
A HUGE amount of cartel "meth" is this this crap
*edit* It's so prevalent, I bought my sister Marquis Reagent for Christmas (don't ask LOL)
[Edited on 4-11-2016 by arkoma]
"We believe the knowledge and cultural heritage of mankind should be accessible to all people around the world, regardless of their wealth, social
status, nationality, citizenship, etc" z-lib
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by clearly_not_atara | Not only is "chemistry" not even a close approximation to "drug development", there's a fundamental misunderstanding here about pseudoephedrine:
It's not the only chemical that treats colds.
It's not even the best, nor is it the cheapest.
It's off-patent.
See the problem? By inventing something "new", it becomes patentable, which means it becomes expensive, which means it doesn't compete with
pseudoephedrine. The whole enterprise is doomed by design from the start.
| Quote: | | As an aside, isn't (pseudo)ephedrine meant to be a fairly important ligand for asymmetric synthesis? I think that alone precludes it from the higher
scheduling(potential for abuse with no legitimate uses?) |
Ephedrine alkoxides (i.e. deprotonated ephedrines) are good asymmetric bases for e.g. enantioselective dehydrohalogenation. I dunno about "ligand",
but it is useful. Amphetamine itself can be kinda useful.
[Edited on 11-4-2016 by clearly_not_atara] |
What would you suggest using as a decongestant?
|
|
|
Loptr
International Hazard
Posts: 1347
Registered: 20-5-2014
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Grateful
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JJay | | Quote: Originally posted by clearly_not_atara | Not only is "chemistry" not even a close approximation to "drug development", there's a fundamental misunderstanding here about pseudoephedrine:
It's not the only chemical that treats colds.
It's not even the best, nor is it the cheapest.
It's off-patent.
See the problem? By inventing something "new", it becomes patentable, which means it becomes expensive, which means it doesn't compete with
pseudoephedrine. The whole enterprise is doomed by design from the start.
| Quote: | | As an aside, isn't (pseudo)ephedrine meant to be a fairly important ligand for asymmetric synthesis? I think that alone precludes it from the higher
scheduling(potential for abuse with no legitimate uses?) |
Ephedrine alkoxides (i.e. deprotonated ephedrines) are good asymmetric bases for e.g. enantioselective dehydrohalogenation. I dunno about "ligand",
but it is useful. Amphetamine itself can be kinda useful.
[Edited on 11-4-2016 by clearly_not_atara] |
What would you suggest using as a decongestant? |
My thoughts exactly. What is a better decongestant? I know the substitute feel like nothing more than a placebo.
The drug issue is more complicated and convoluted than anyone of us could imagine since there are multiple sides for every angle on the issue. It is a
self-perpetuating machine that ensnares all that engage in such discussion because there is no solution that can be found in a simple thread on a
forum.
Decreasing drug use requires an evidence and metrics based approach because the underlying mechanism varies so widely from person to person. There is
no one solution, only changes that can be made to make it better or worse. There isn't the ability to eliminate it, but only ways to mitigate the
potential of majority drug use.
[Edited on 12-4-2016 by Loptr]
|
|
|
CuReUS
National Hazard
Posts: 928
Registered: 9-9-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
calm down everyone,don't make a mountain out of a molehill
the government and pharmaceutical companies discovered long back that they could not ban sudafed completely.So they came up with an ingenious
solution.
Mix a certain filler with the sudafed so that the moment it hits NaOH(when the cooks try to extract it) it immediately turns into a gooey mass which
is impossible to work with.
problem solved.
EDIT: wait a minute,I just realised, Wasn't the shake 'n' bake method invented to overcome this very problem 
In that case the only solution is to go for herbal remedies
[Edited on 12-4-2016 by CuReUS]
|
|
|
Loptr
International Hazard
Posts: 1347
Registered: 20-5-2014
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Grateful
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by CuReUS | calm down everyone,don't make a mountain out of a molehill
the government and pharmaceutical companies discovered long back that they could not ban sudafed completely.So they came up with an ingenious
solution.
Mix a certain filler with the sudafed so that the moment it hits NaOH(when the cooks try to extract it) it immediately turns into a gooey mass which
is impossible to work with.
problem solved.
EDIT: wait a minute,I just realised, Wasn't the shake 'n' bake method invented to overcome this very problem
In that case the only solution is to go for herbal remedies
[Edited on 12-4-2016 by CuReUS] |
I think the shake n' bake is the result of a cook finding a paper and having a death wish. I am not exactly sure what you mean by it turning into a
gooey mass.
After recently seeing a friend from school in a newspaper after apparently getting caught up in a heroin ring bust, I found out a little more about
what he did after school. Shake and bake cook. I had casually heard about this in the news, but I finally looked into it just recently. Holy hell.
What the f*ck are they thinking?! And how the hell does adding water to the mixture not screw up the in-situ lithium compound (lithium bronze is what
I have seen it referred to--who came up with that name, by the way, it's not bronze)?
Does this even work at all, or are they just ingesting cleaned pseudoephedrine?
[Edited on 12-4-2016 by Loptr]
|
|
|
Cou
National Hazard
Posts: 958
Registered: 16-5-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad Scientist
|
|
Or start a campaign to boycott Sudafed by telling everyone to toughen up and take their cold like a man.
|
|
|
arkoma
Redneck Overlord
Posts: 1761
Registered: 3-2-2014
Location: On a Big Blue Marble hurtling through space
Member Is Offline
Mood: украї́нська
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Loptr | | Quote: Originally posted by CuReUS | calm down everyone,don't make a mountain out of a molehill
the government and pharmaceutical companies discovered long back that they could not ban sudafed completely.So they came up with an ingenious
solution.
Mix a certain filler with the sudafed so that the moment it hits NaOH(when the cooks try to extract it) it immediately turns into a gooey mass which
is impossible to work with.
problem solved.
EDIT: wait a minute,I just realised, Wasn't the shake 'n' bake method invented to overcome this very problem
In that case the only solution is to go for herbal remedies
[Edited on 12-4-2016 by CuReUS] |
I think the shake n' bake is the result of a cook finding a paper and having a death wish. I am not exactly sure what you mean by it turning into a
gooey mass.
After recently seeing a friend from school in a newspaper after apparently getting caught up in a heroin ring bust, I found out a little more about
what he did after school. Shake and bake cook. I had casually heard about this in the news, but I finally looked into it just recently. Holy hell.
What the f*ck are they thinking?! And how the hell does adding water to the mixture not screw up the in-situ lithium compound (lithium bronze is what
I have seen it referred to--who came up with that name, by the way, it's not bronze)?
Does this even work at all, or are they just ingesting cleaned pseudoephedrine?
[Edited on 12-4-2016 by Loptr] |
Done PROPERLY shake and bake works like a CHARM, and when your done the reduced substrate is already in the organic layer.
A dry non polar org solvent, ammonium nitrate, lithium, and the substrate in a 2 litre bottle. Small amounts of DRY sodium hydroxide are added. In
situ prep of anhydrous ammonia>>solvated electrons>>reduction of said substrate.
Chemistry, NOT magic.
And on the subject of ephedrine, the California desert is LITTERED with Ephedra Viridis. It's low in actual l-ephedrine but contains significant
amounts of ephedrine isomers such as nor-psuedoephedrine (phenylpropanolamine, which reduces EASILY to d-amphetamine).
"We believe the knowledge and cultural heritage of mankind should be accessible to all people around the world, regardless of their wealth, social
status, nationality, citizenship, etc" z-lib
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
What does the 'nor' bit mean ?
I've seen ortho, meta, para, iso etc, but never 'nor'.
|
|
|
Metacelsus
International Hazard
Posts: 2531
Registered: 26-12-2012
Location: Boston, MA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Double, double, toil and trouble
|
|
It's a prefix that means the compound has one fewer carbon atom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nor-
|
|
|
CuReUS
National Hazard
Posts: 928
Registered: 9-9-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
what I mean is that when you add the sudafed HCl into NaOH,the whole mixture turns into a jelly like substance from which it is impossible to extract
the free base.
| Quote: | | Does this even work at all, or are they just ingesting cleaned pseudoephedrine? |
like arkoma said,It works quite well(from the number of soda bottles littering the highway sides and forests  )
from what I said above,it is difficult to get the freebase from the goo.So what did the cooks do ? They came up with a way to get meth without going
through the pseudo extraction step.
result- the SnB method
actually the SnB is not a new method.The birch reduction of pseudo to meth has been around for a long time
the advantage of SnB is that you can do the whole reaction in a coke bottle instead of using different containers and you don't need to make liquid
NH3 using dry ice.It forms in-situ due to the pressure inside the bottle
here is a video showing the SnB method ( educational purposes only)
https://youtu.be/FC_xWQzHW4Q?t=254
it is an acronym for the german word "N-or radicle" which means that the compound has a N atom without a radicle(most commonly an alkyl group) which
it had before.It is the Nitrogen version of the word "desoxy" when you want to say the same thing for O.
this explanation is from shulgin's book - PIHKAL
[Edited on 13-4-2016 by CuReUS]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5102
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It's from the German for "nitrogen without radicals" or so I'm told.
It implies a primary amine group (slightly ironically).
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Thank you for the explanationsof 'nor'.
I kinda get it, but my OC knowledge isn't good enough yet to really undestand.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
