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

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2    4  ..  7
Author: Subject: Kno3.com
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
*********




Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline

Mood: Waiting for spring

[*] posted on 15-8-2007 at 17:15


Any further posts not specifically relating to the thread topic will be deleted from here on. This applies especially to political discussion.

[Edited on 8-15-2007 by Polverone]




PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
tito-o-mac
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 117
Registered: 30-6-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-9-2007 at 05:38


What wil happen if one bought in excessive amount or in bulk, lets say more than 100kg+ any chemicals?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-9-2007 at 06:26


Quote:
Originally posted by tito-o-mac
What wil happen if one bought in excessive amount or in bulk, lets say more than 100kg+ any chemicals?


I would say it would depend greatly on what you purchased. If you purchased 100kg of a watched chemical and the threshold was less than that, you should expect a visit in the near future. If you purchased 100kg of an un watched chemical I wouldn't worry much.

Joe
View user's profile View All Posts By User
woelen
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 8011
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: interested

[*] posted on 7-9-2007 at 06:34


I would find buying 100+ kg of any chemical, watched or not, suspicious if the buyer is a private person. Only the most benign chemicals like NaHCO3, KCl, Na2SO4 and so on would not make me suspicious, but otherwise I would have certain thoughts about it. What business has a private person with huge quantities of a single chemical?



The art of wondering makes life worth living...
Want to wonder? Look at https://woelen.homescience.net
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
YT2095
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1091
Registered: 31-5-2003
Location: Just left of Europe and down a bit.
Member Is Offline

Mood: within Nominal Parameters

[*] posted on 7-9-2007 at 08:30


unless it was something like Water from your tap, or you were an Industry type, I can`t really think of Any chem that you would need 100+Kg of?



\"In a world full of wonders mankind has managed to invent boredom\" - Death
Twinkies don\'t have a shelf life. They have a half-life! -Caine (a friend of mine)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-9-2007 at 08:57


It largely depends on how you define "private person". My family are farmers and often purchased more than 100kg of chemicals. There are "private people" and not licensed and purchase from the best, least expensive source. They still do and the ATF or the DEA isn't knocking on their doors. ;)

Now if you purchased 100kg of anything from KNO3.com I suspect you have reason to worry.

Joe

[Edited on 7-9-2007 by joeflsts]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
jim20/20
Harmless
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 10-7-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 8-9-2007 at 13:21


Crystal meth accused released on bail

Article by David Cowan
video Video report by Daqvid Cowan

A Bo'ness couple who have been accused of fuelling the global production of the drug crystal meth have been released on bail after eight months in prison. Brian Howes and Kerry Anne Shanks were arrested in January at the request of American law enforcement agencies.

This morning a Scottish judge said they should be freed while their extradition case is dealt with.

Brian Howes and his partner Kerry Anne Shanks have spent 214 days in prison after the Americans requested their extradition. Brian Howes

Mr Howes has been on hunger strike for the last 30 of them - as these pictures from the time of his arrest show, his protest has taken its toll.

The Americans say the couple supplied chemicals to illegal drugs labs in the states, where they were used to manufacture six million pounds worth of the deadly drug crystal meth. The US agenices have tabled more than 80 charges against them - and they could face massive jail sentences if they're convicted.

This morning a judge grnated them bail as they continue to fight extradition. They will be Brian Howes when he was arrested reunited with their three children this evening - and will be back in court in October


http://www.stv.tv/system/modules/com.smg.copland/components/...
View user's profile View All Posts By User
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 8-9-2007 at 17:08


They are both Dumbasses. It is widely known that Red P is illegal to purchase in the US. They sold it to people int eh US anyway.

Joe

[Edited on 9-9-2007 by joeflsts]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Sauron
International Hazard
*****




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

Mood: metastable

[*] posted on 8-9-2007 at 20:06


The "defense" of ignorance of red P's application to methamphetamine production, falls apart as they had, we are told, information about such processes in their office.

So much for the "we were selling chemicals for fireworks" idea.

The attempted variation on the "CIA defense" (we were helping to track terrorists") is also lame as all it does is make them self described police informers.

Obviously, by that logic, they ought to have been ratting their customers out to the DEA station in UK, in which case they would hardly be in this pickle today - would they?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
jim20/20
Harmless
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 10-7-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 17-9-2007 at 13:42


Quote:
Originally posted by joeflsts
They are both Dumbasses. It is widely known that Red P is illegal to purchase in the US. They sold it to people int eh US anyway.

Joe

[Edited on 9-9-2007 by joeflsts]


illegal to purchase in the us

as i understand it it can be bought if the buyer has been authorized by the dea to do so
the responsibility lies with the buyer since those trade restrictions are applicable on us soil only

the seller was nevber selling in the us or im sure that would have been mentioned


2sauron
big name chemical companies are expected to rat out their customers
he was trying to look like a pro i guess

it could be argued that the pharmacists could be equally guilty of conspiracy for even selling the cold medications at all

Quote:
The Arkansas Meth Suit: Meet The Lawyers
August 2nd, 2007 3:06 pm By Ed Silverman

The litigation, which was filed last March against Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Perrigo and others, blames drugmakers for selling too many products containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. As a result, a bunch of Arkansas counties say the drugmakers should have known their meds were being used to produce methamphetamine.

“We feel that the pharmaceutical companies were putting more product on the market, than what the market called for,” Independence County Judge Bill Hicks tells a KAIT reporter. Hicks worked with a group of attorneys and county leaders to come up with a plan of action. “We didn’t just wake up overnight and say, let’s go after the big money. Let’s go after the big people. We saw a problem and we are trying to fix it.”

You can watch the 4-and-a-half minute report here and meet a couple of the lawyers who have succeeded in getting nearly two dozen Arkansas counties to work together. Interestingly, the report features a lot of melodramatic music, and doesn’t include any comment from the pharmaceutical industry.

http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/08/the-arkansas-meth-suit-meet...
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Sauron
International Hazard
*****




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

Mood: metastable

[*] posted on 17-9-2007 at 20:25


Sorry, you are wrong. Under the various methamphetamine control acts the burden is squarely on the seller to verify that the buyer is legitimate, and in case of doubt to notify DEA.

For a List One chemical like red P the buyer is required to produce his DEA registration document.

The penalties imposed on US lab suppliers for failing to be diligent are draconian. ENORMOUS fines and jail sentences.

Sellers outside of the US are not bound to the reporting requirements but they most certainly are prohibited from selling into the US as this prosecution amply demonstrates.

Furthermore, according to published information these sellers possessed details of red P's use in reduction of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine to amphetamines and allegedly discussed same with customers. I suspect this speaks to the conspiracy charges. Those are crimes in UK as well as US and thus enable extradition.

This is not a case of an innocent seller of pyrotechnic materials, but a profiteering repack shop that knew what red P was being used for and sold large quantities at enormous profit anyway. I say, fuck 'em. I hope the same happens to all who aid, abet, support and supply drug cooks, and I trust this has sent a strong signal to chemical sellers outside of the US not to sell restricted chemicals into the US and think they can scoff at US laws from their safe havens. There are NO safe havens.

I'm sad I can't buy red phosphorus for my own legitimate chemical work but, I blame the drug cooks for that state of affairs.

[Edited on 18-9-2007 by Sauron]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Slimz
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 123
Registered: 18-9-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: Inquisitive

[*] posted on 18-9-2007 at 08:37


there are ways to get red P

View user's profile View All Posts By User
Sauron
International Hazard
*****




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

Mood: metastable

[*] posted on 18-9-2007 at 08:42


Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs, son.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
jim20/20
Harmless
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 10-7-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 18-9-2007 at 11:16


you are comparing apples with oranges
they were in the uk not the us
the methamphetamine control acts are not part of uk law
they are still in the uk

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
Sellers outside of the US are not bound to the reporting requirements but they most certainly are prohibited from selling into the US as this prosecution amply demonstrates.


this prosecution demonstrates nothing of the sort
and they are still suspects at this stage

Quote:
Furthermore, according to published information these sellers possessed details of red P's use in reduction of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine to amphetamines


so it was said in a press report
assuming thats accurate you don't know how it got there any more than i

Quote:
and allegedly discussed same with customers.


first ive heard of it
whats your source

Quote:
I suspect this speaks to the conspiracy charges. Those are crimes in UK as well as US and thus enable extradition.


the 2003 us-uk extradition treaty no longer requires the us authorities to make a prima facie case in order to have suspects removed to the us
its seems to me the conspiracy charge is an effective bypass of due process
apparently none of the other 81 counts are extraditable

the scottish judge should take a stand and tell the us authorities to go fuck themselves for abusing a treaty that was supposedly amended to counter the threat from terrorism
maybe even invoke the human rights act
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Sauron
International Hazard
*****




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

Mood: metastable

[*] posted on 18-9-2007 at 16:43


Easy to tell what side of this controversy jim20/20 is on

Regurgitating my own statements with qualifications that I made myself is not responding to those staements.

@jim20/20 everything I "know" about this case I read in this thread or in press accounts linked to from this thread. I have no othe "sources".
View user's profile View All Posts By User
jim20/20
Harmless
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 10-7-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 19-9-2007 at 12:00


Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
Easy to tell what side of this controversy jim20/20 is on


im not on the side of the abuse of due process
im not on the side of the us authorities having free rein
to deprive someone in another country of their liberty on the
basis of an accusation and without providing any evidence


in relation to the thread i started now in detritus
Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
I agree with chromium. This is a non-topic. No one is discomfitted by this reg except perhaps a few tweakers in UK. Certainly no amateur chemists.

Good call, Dayster!


the policy of the uk authorities to control the precursor rather than the reagents most commonly used in meth production is of direct importance to uk amateur chemists since they will probably continue to be able to acquire chemicals denied to you
View user's profile View All Posts By User
chromium
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 284
Registered: 27-6-2005
Member Is Offline

Mood: reactive

[*] posted on 19-9-2007 at 12:34


Quote:
Originally posted by jim20/20
the policy of the uk authorities to control the precursor rather than the reagents most commonly used in meth production is of direct importance to uk amateur chemists since they will probably continue to be able to acquire chemicals denied to you


Unfortunately there have been cases in UK where homes are raided for buying RP and iodine and In US, its not that hard to buy RP as this KNO3 case clearly shows. Problem is the same in both countries - you can get into big trouble if you buy it. I do not see any reason to belive that after controlling ephedrine controlls on phosphorus and iodine are relaxed.




When all think alike, then no one is thinking. - Walter Lippmann
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MadHatter
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1336
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline

Mood: Enjoying retirement

[*] posted on 19-9-2007 at 13:47
Laws


There are no U.S. federal laws prohibiting the possession of List I or List II chemicals that
I can find in CFR 21(as of April 1, 2007). There are laws requiring the recording of the
transaction above the threshold amounts. BTW, there are no threshold amounts for:

(i) Ephedrine, its salts, optical isomers and salts of optical isomers
(ii) Red phosphorus
(iii) White phosphorus (Other names: Yellow Phosphorus)
(iv) Hypophosphorous acid and its salts
(v) gamma-Butyrolactone (Other names include: GBL; Dihydro-2(3H)-
furanone; 1,2-Butanolide; 1,4-Butanolide; 4-Hydroxybutanoic acid
lactone; gamma-hydroxybutyric acid lactone)

I wonder how black phosphorus fits into the requirements ?

Now some states make the possession of some, or any, precursors illegal. That we know.

As for going after the drug companies, that Arkansas lawsuit is trying to use the "sue the 3rd
party" standard that was tried with gun makers. The suit might have about as much luck
because most of the gun lawsuits were thrown out of court.

[Edited on 2007/9/19 by MadHatter]




From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Sauron
International Hazard
*****




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

Mood: metastable

[*] posted on 19-9-2007 at 15:52


@jim20/20, I know of a lot of US citizens who have been for decades harassed, indicted, prosecuted and convicted in the US at the behest of the UK for the 'crime' of raising money from their fellow Americans for something called NORAID, the Sinn Fein charity.

So the sword cuts both ways. When the UK govt wants its back scratched, the US obliges, and vice versa.

and No, I am NOT a supporter of the IRA!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
jim20/20
Harmless
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 10-7-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 20-9-2007 at 12:30


Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
@jim20/20, I know of a lot of US citizens who have been for decades harassed, indicted, prosecuted and convicted in the US at the behest of the UK for the 'crime' of raising money from their fellow Americans for something called NORAID, the Sinn Fein charity.


harassed, indicted, prosecuted and convicted in the us

if the operators of this company were being tried in the uk i would have no problem with it at all
there is a case to be answered
they thought they were in a neat little legal loophole
i very much doubt that

but they have no chance in the us imho

Quote:
Originally posted by chromium
Unfortunately there have been cases in UK where homes are raided for buying RP and iodine and In US, its not that hard to buy RP as this KNO3 case clearly shows. Problem is the same in both countries - you can get into big trouble if you buy it. I do not see any reason to belive that after controlling ephedrine controlls on phosphorus and iodine are relaxed.


maybe uk customers of kno3 have been raided sure
pretty dumb to buy from them in the first place

i disagree with your last point
the uk has gone far further than the us by limiting sales to a maximum of
760 mg per sale and one sale per customer
not only that but they have the option to make it prescription
only by 2009 or before if necessary
the much looser limits in the us almost wiped out meth
labs in some places so it obviously works
but because different states have different
controls the problem relocates to wherever is most favorable
the difference in the uk is that the mhra policy applies
everywhere and since there is no meth lab problem yet
the stable door is closed

ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are the weak link for the meth
cook

i still think those controls are probably good for uk amateur chemists
View user's profile View All Posts By User
woelen
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 8011
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: interested

[*] posted on 20-9-2007 at 14:21


In the Netherlands, ephedrine cannot be purchased legally. There are some smartshops (kind of shop, where different kinds of drugs are sold, many of them from natural sources), which seem to sell this stuff to the general public, but in the standard pharmacies and drugstores, this cannot be purchased without prescription.

Because of the lack of ephedrine and similar related compounds, there also is not much value for iodine and red P in the Netherlands for the meth cooks. So, such regulations definitely work and are good for the home chemist. It would be really good if the USA also put stronger regulations on the real drugs-precursors and not on all kinds of 'helper-chemicals', which have numerous other uses outside the drugs scene. Other chemicals, prohibited in the Netherlands are sassafras, gamma hydroxy butiric acid and direct precursors and a few more, but the list only contains chemicals, which the average amateur chemist does not need for his experiments.

[Edited on 20-9-07 by woelen]




The art of wondering makes life worth living...
Want to wonder? Look at https://woelen.homescience.net
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
chromium
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 284
Registered: 27-6-2005
Member Is Offline

Mood: reactive

[*] posted on 20-9-2007 at 22:54


Of course it would be good for amateur chemists if ephedrine is controlled instead of RP and iodine but i do not have any reason to belive that those states which already have controlls on RP and iodine intend to abandon them even if ephedrine is made completely unavailable. Modern fashion is such that new controlls are placed every day to something (for our safety, of course) but i can not remember when single thing that was once forbidden is let free again.

In fact controlls on red phosphorus and iodine are so illogical that it has always made me think that there are actually other affairs instead of drug problem.


[Edited on 21-9-2007 by chromium]




When all think alike, then no one is thinking. - Walter Lippmann
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Sauron
International Hazard
*****




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

Mood: metastable

[*] posted on 20-9-2007 at 23:08


The governments want RP out of the way so that terrorists will have more difficulty making PCl3, PCl5, POCl3 and their derivaties such as irimethyl and triethyl phosphite, hence methyldialkyl phosphonates, also methyldichlorophosphine oxide. All of these speak directly to GA, GB, GD etc.

There are already a few gaps in this coverage. But, all of the substances I mentioned are CWC and Australia Group listed, which mandates intergovernment communication about their shipments, and licensing of large quantities. Many countries have gone further, and require permits for import of even small quantities. That includes RP. But not I2, and so the motivation is not ephedrine reduction, despite the fact that there is a huge meth problem here and the origin of the ma huang plant is next door in Yunnan, China. So logically the sole concern about RP here is CW related.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Eclectic
National Hazard
****




Posts: 899
Registered: 14-11-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: Obsessive

[*] posted on 21-9-2007 at 13:25


But you assume the regulations are reasonable and logical! How logical is it to believe that someone who could fabricate a chemical weapon without killing themselves and their neighbors could not make WHATEVER they need from anything that contains the needed elements? :o
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Sauron
International Hazard
*****




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

Mood: metastable

[*] posted on 21-9-2007 at 15:48


Indeed, but they want to make things as difficult as possible, to place more hurdles in the path. Remember that internationally they (the governments who have signed CWC) have only agreed to controls on a small number of chemicals, and then really only in large quantities. The Australia Group countries want the list expanded.

I think the Aum incident (Tokyo subway sarin) scared them all badly. Not rational, as it was ineffectual, but there you are.

For decades, those of us who were sounding the alarm about terrorists and CBW/NBC - primarily Dr Joe Douglass of Edgewood, Neil Livingstone, Jack McGeorge and myself - were scoffed at by the rest of the intelligence community. (See the book "The Poor Man's Atom Bomb" by Douglass and Livinstone.)

But not after the Aum.

And that wasn't even a matter of terrorism, in any accepted strict definition of terrorism. Still, it was a wake up call for the policy makers, and now they have overreacted.

You are correct that the tactics employed by these governments are not always logical, rational, reasonable, or even effective. You are preaching to the choir about that. I am the biggest critic of the various lists and schedules and regimes. It does not work - demonstrably is a failure - for drug enforcement, where it is pretty much busywork. So how can it be expected to work for chemical terror?

Also it is important to remember that proposals for G to G controls on chemical warfare have existed ever since WWI and that is more than 90 years. The Aum case was what galvanized those perennial proposals. The Clintons shoved them through just before leaving office. (So you can imagine what the Clintons might do if the Hill & Bill Show gets back in.)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  2    4  ..  7

  Go To Top