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

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2
Author: Subject: pyridine prep help
Sauron
International Hazard
*****




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

Mood: metastable

[*] posted on 2-3-2007 at 07:49


My recollection was that FDA had unrelated reasons for replacing those compounds in OTC decongestants.

You seem to be arguing that DEA did it to inconvenience cold sufferers.

I think that is erroneous; this is what we call collateral damage.

DEA didn't do it, FDA did, because they and not DEA are the cognizent authority. And their reasons had nothing to do with law enforcement issues. I specifically remember a big flap about health issues surrounding PPA.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
pantone159
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 571
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Online

Mood: desperate for shade

[*] posted on 2-3-2007 at 08:26


I remember (do not have references now, however) peer-reviewed studies of the pseudoephedrine replacement that conluded that it did not work, as well as multiple less-rigorous reports indicating same.

I've never heard of health concerns about pseudoephedrine, unlike e.g. acetaminophen which is actually quite dangerous in many cases.

I think the reasons for eliminating pseudoephedrine are nearly entirely about meth production. As always, when public health and the Drug War conflict, the Drug War wins.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage 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 2-3-2007 at 08:45


There was a public health issue about PPA, not only in US but in EU and worldwide, even in Thailand.

Those reports indicated PPA was dangerous.

Your reports merely question whether or not the replacement was effective.

Replacing a dangerous decongestant with an inneftive one, is not good public health policy?

Admittedly, replacing it with an effective sunstitute would be better.

I don't have any references either, which makes us even.

I really don't think the absence of an OTC cold remedy ingredient, or three, constitutes a threat to the public health.

Whereas methamphetamine most assuredly does.

Now don't misunderstand me. I don't think banning sudafed etc is an effective countermeasure. It is just as asinine as the meth cooks who were buying cold pills in bulk to get pseudoephedrine a few mg at a pop. Stupid.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
LoKi
Harmless
*




Posts: 27
Registered: 27-2-2007
Location: the state of denial
Member Is Offline

Mood: manic

[*] posted on 2-3-2007 at 22:32


Sauron, no I don't feel deprived of p-fed to make meth. I have no desire to make it, use it, or be around people who use it. I am not mistaken about the DEA however. This regulation falls under the "Combat Mehtamphetamine Act of 2006." It is not the FDA, but the DEA who pushed for the bill and are responsible for its regulation. Personaly I don't even use cold medications, but my mom loves Drixoral, and buys several packages of the strongest stuff at a time, and I know she is not to happy. Of course they didn't do this merely to inconvienence law-abbiding citizens, but that is likely the only thing that will happen. Meth is practicly non-existant here, what is around comes from Mexico (I am going off of what the DEA says on their website), and as you said, if one wanted to make meth, they would make it regardless of any regulations. BTW, this might only apply to Ohio.

[Edited on 3/3/07 by LoKi]




\"They who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.\"
-- Benjamin Franklin
View user's profile View All Posts By User
pantone159
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 571
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Online

Mood: desperate for shade

[*] posted on 3-3-2007 at 07:54


Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
"watched but not listed" is just druggie paranoia.


This is false.

See this link, from the DEA website, that has a "Special Surveillance List Published Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 842(a)(11)", specifying the following chemicals, including pyridine... (a couple of these have moved up to the official List I)

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/chem_prog/advisories/surve...

* Ammonia Gas
* Ammonium Formate
* Bromobenzene
* 1,1-Carbonyldiimidazole
* Cyclohexanone
* 1,1-Dichloro-1-fluoroethane (e.g. Freon 141B)
* Diethylamine and its salts
* 2,5-Dimethoxyphenethylamine and its salts
* Formamide
* Formic Acid
* Hypophosphorous Acid
* Lithium Metal
* Lithium Aluminum Hydride
* Magnesium Metal (Turnings)
* Mercuric Chloride
* N-Methylformamide
* Organomagnesium Halides (Grignard Reagents) (e.g. ethylmagnesium bromide and phenylmagnesium bromide)
* Phenylethanolamine and its salts
* Phosphorus Pentachloride
* Potassium Dichromate
* Pyridine and its salts
* Red Phosphorus
* Sodium Dichromate
* Sodium Metal
* Thionyl Chloride
* ortho-Toluidine
* Trichloromonofluoromethane (e.g. Freon-11, Carrene-2)
* Trichlorotrifluoroethane (e.g. Freon 113)
View user's profile Visit user's homepage 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 3-3-2007 at 08:34


A lot of those are scheduled chemicals on the Chemical Warfare Convention, and DEA says they watch them because of that.

Another waste of time, of course.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
*****




Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Enhanced

[*] posted on 3-3-2007 at 15:25


Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
A lot of those are scheduled chemicals on the Chemical Warfare Convention, and DEA says they watch them because of that.


Oh? Where exactly do they say that they watch them because of the "Chemical Warfare Convention"?

That is an odd interpretation of "Special Surveillance List of Chemicals, Products, Materials and Equipment Used in the Clandestine Production of Controlled Substances or Listed Chemicals". Each and every chemical on that list, and in lists 1 and 2, is on the list because of potential for utilization in drug manufacture. Really.


Yes, it was inevitable that as soon as the discussion turns to the DEA and legal issues, I magically appear.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage 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 3-3-2007 at 18:57


Thionyl chloride AFAIK is not a specific drug precursor. It's a specific CW precursor, for one route to "mustard gas" and that's why it is on CWC - because Saddam bought so very much of it.

It's a general reagent for acyl chlorides. And alkyl chlorides.

Phosphorus pentachloride isn't a specific drug precursor. It is however a specific CW precursor (OPs) and that's why it is on CWC.

It's a general chlorinating agent and dehydrating agent.

Dimethylamine is a specific precursor for GA. That's why it's on CWC. I can only think of a single drug preparation where it is used and that is DMT. How much of a DMT cottage industry is there? I would guess, not much. Not compared to many other more popular abuse drugs.

Don't misunderstand me, I think this is silly shit, both CWC and this list and all the lists. All Grignard reagents, Mg turnings, as if amyone doing a Grignard must be making drugs. Now which one of these is true?

Anyone performing a Grignard MUST be making drugs

Anyoen performing a Grignard PROBABLY is making drugs

Anyone performing a Grignard MIGHT be making drugs.

Anyone performing a Grignard COULD be making drugs.

The only fairly meaningful statement is the last one, and it is insufficient in the absence of collateral information, to make an assesment. Because the simple fact is that someone performing a Grignard COULD be making damn near anything. Because the Grignard rxn isn't about drugs, it's about making C-C bonds.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
*****




Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Enhanced

[*] posted on 3-3-2007 at 19:15


SOCl2 is highly useful in making drug precursors and reagents. Also the P chlorides. The chemicals placed on the DEA lists did not get there by accident.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage 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 3-3-2007 at 19:51


Enumerate the specific drug preps in which thionyl chloride plays a part. I'm all ears.

Not meth, not PCP, not the substitutes amphetamines, that I know of. I do not claim (nor do I aspire to) an exhaustive knowledge of the subject, but, I draw a blank.

On the other hand, I do know what it's all about in CW. And of course the really silly thing there is that the "German methos" for making mustard is far from the best methos. And even within the German method, there are many other chlorinating agents, other than SOCl2, that can and have been used, including conc Aq HCl. I can think of at least 3-4 alternatives for chlorinating thiodiglycol. SOCl2 has simply been demonized because it's how the SAddam regime elected to do it. Also their counterparts in Iran. Money clearly was no object to them and neither did they strive for self sufficiency or they would have gone in for ethylene + SCl2.

How about HgCl2? That's a mystery to me. Used to activate Al for pinacol prep from acetone, which makes it vaguely in the CW thing on the way to pinacolyl alcohol but, drug preps?

Some things on that list are quite specific. o-toluidine, OK, methaqualone. They have the other requisite, anthranilic acid covered elsewhere, half-assedly.

Cyclohexanone is a no brainer, along with bromobenzene, PCP.

And formamide, formic acid, N-Meformamide, all speak to the Leuckart.

Not that these are hard to make anyway.

But some of the others are less transparent, and seem to me to be mostly, or solely, CW concerns (and lame ones at that.)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
*****




Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Enhanced

[*] posted on 3-3-2007 at 20:52


thionyl chloride
mercuric chloride

As for the original question, pyridine synthesis has come up here before. Hard to believe.

[Edited on 4-3-2007 by S.C. Wack]
View user's profile Visit user's homepage 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 3-3-2007 at 21:23


Okay, point taken.

However, they are still general reagents for thousands, or tens of thousands of perfectly legitimate synthetic and technical applications.

Are they not? Of course they are.It is long evident that the war on drugs is a rout. Every year the supply increases and the price goes down. This is a dismal failure.

Within the larger picture of this dismal rout, the attempt to cut off access to precursors, reagents and solvents is a counterproductive waste of time and manpower. It amounts to busywork for the LE people. It might inconvenience the wannabe drug cooks, but not the more significant ones who always know how to evade such efforts, are resourceful and have the means to obtain what they need.

In my part of the world, acetic anhydride is banned and has been for a long time, however this has obvious done nothing to stop heroin from being manufactured - just shifted it across the border to Burma and Laos where it is essentially a government enterprise. Meanwhile diplomats wheedle with the Burmese and the Lao trying to entice them to kill the fatted calf. Little chance of that happening. So what good is the ban on Ac2O? None that I can see.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
visitation123
Harmless
*




Posts: 34
Registered: 25-8-2006
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 29-4-2007 at 14:46


The pseudoephedrine replacement phenylephrine doesn't work, try it. It wont unblock a single nose or get you high (albeit just a little) :D

http://www.formularyjournal.com/formulary/article/articleDet...

Pseudoephedrine had off-label uses too, it was good for chronic bronchitis and hayfever in my experience, now I have to rely on steam. It's been banned in Australia too.

'Pseudoephedrine may relax bronchial smooth muscle by stimulation of b -adrenergic receptors

phenylephrine causes a reduction or no change in cardiac output, that's what psuedoephedrine was good for getting you high, you can't get high of phenylephrine, it's useless for all purposes it's like taking a placedo.



P.S. You can buy pyridine from a chemical supplier, acetone' suspicious too, but they don't have the resources to nag everyone who buys any of these chemicals except the most suspicious chemicals, and pyridine ain't one of those mate. Besides, your an innocent, curious individual like me, so if they do come, who cares?


[Edited on 29-4-2007 by visitation123]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  2

  Go To Top