Not-such-better-living through chemistry • Hacker News Board

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#31

Post by nibbleshifter » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 3:34 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #19

There used to be a very active forum on clandestine chemistry (The Hive) that eventually got shut down when Strike (who ran the forum) got busted. I cant remember the details (it’s been almost 20 years) but I think 60 Minutes did a report on it and he was anonymously interviewed? He also wrote a couple books on it. The Rhodium archives were also a nice collection of scientific papers on synthesis routes combined with…

There were a great number of successor forums to the Hive. Some are still active, some even are clearnet sites you can find when searching for archives of the Hive.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#32

Post by alpineidyll3 » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 3:35 PM UTC

brookst wrote: post #24

alpineidyll3 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adderall anyone? There's a panoply of legal ways to obtain amphetamines, but the US medical system is far less competent at customer service than the black market due to regulatory capture. I think it's critical to appreciate that Physician Regulations, the AMA, etc. are the main culprits here. How they avoid getting properly blamed for things like the opioid epidemic, I have no idea.

I suspect that most people who understand the role AMA plays in prohibition and drug abuse also aren’t super interested in focusing on blame. The whole thing is a complicated system of perverse incentives and counterproductive policies. It doesn’t really matter if the AMA is 20% or 60% to blame.

Blame is a poor choice of words. Ideally we could stop letting physicians write their own regulations, and instead have at least one mechanism with incentive to promote national health, rather than the medical industry complex.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#33

Post by cjbgkagh » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 3:37 PM UTC

awillen wrote: post #27

cjbgkagh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that if we legalize dangerous addictive drugs then we might as well legalize all medications/drugs by which point the medical establishment loses a big chunk of the income that it gets from being a monopoly supplier. I wish society was mature enough for full legalization, but often those pushing for legalization underplay the negative problems associated with drug use. Particularly for that 'harmless plant' m…

A lot of people who are against legalization make this argument that those who are for it ignore the negative consequences, but for large swathes of pro-legalization people, that's just not true. I know there are negative consequences, and I know that in a very small number of people marijuana can cause serious consequences (and in larger numbers of people, harder drugs like cocaine and heroin can cause more serious…

* I did use the qualifier 'often' which is not 'all' and to my opinion it's not enough. People readily forget the downsides and need constant reminders.

Edit: please note that the following includes the qualifier “most” and please understand that this does not mean “all”.

I think alcohol is a bad example as alcohol for most people has a way of punishing abuse on its own and quickly thereby maintaining a tight association between the high and the hangover. The aversion to the hangover means that for most people it's a self correcting problem. Most other drugs don't come with this and the association between the high and negative consequences are more remote and infrequent.

I think alcohol, despite the obvious and extensive damage it causes, is a great training drug that teaches most people moderation through first hand experience and encourages caution with other drugs.

Using alcohol as an example kinda makes the case for prohibiting alcohol as opposed to legalizing other drugs.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#34

Post by PragmaticPulp » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 3:38 PM UTC

j_m_b wrote: post #13

It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became more prevalent. Then in order to stamp out illegal production, the precursor chemicals were monitored. So what happens? Production becomes more dangerous. Solution: Just make every kind of drug legal to produce, but regulate the purity. Be very explicit about the dangers. The only thing prohibition does…

> It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became more prevalent

This is an extreme example of “correlation does not equal causation”

The regulation came from the expanding popularity of these drugs. It didn’t cause it.

Likewise, regulating precursor chemicals wasn’t some causative factor in further drug use. It was the next level of regulations added in response to the increasing drug use.

Regulations and limited availability don’t cause more people to use drugs. That’s not only an illogical conclusion, it ignores the order of how things happened.

The increased availability of fentanyl has been a driving force in more people using opioids in general. Note that most people aren’t seeking out fentanyl (though many are), they believe themselves to be purchasing more traditional opioids. The increased availability of fake pills has definitely increased opioid use. The idea that opening the floodgates to more access will somehow decrease usage is inconsistent with evidence and inconsistent with reality. It also just doesn’t make sense.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#35

Post by pantalaimon » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 3:39 PM UTC

cjbgkagh wrote: post #25

j_m_b wrote: post #13

It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became more prevalent. Then in order to stamp out illegal production, the precursor chemicals were monitored. So what happens? Production becomes more dangerous. Solution: Just make every kind of drug legal to produce, but regulate the purity. Be very explicit about the dangers. The only thing prohibition does…

I think that if we legalize dangerous addictive drugs then we might as well legalize all medications/drugs by which point the medical establishment loses a big chunk of the income that it gets from being a monopoly supplier. I wish society was mature enough for full legalization, but often those pushing for legalization underplay the negative problems associated with drug use. Particularly for that 'harmless plant' m…

> those pushing for legalization underplay the negative problems associated with drug use

But those problems already exist and are amplified by the prohibition.

I don’t understand how prohibitionists still believe that the ban on drugs would make drug use disappear when the last 80 years of prohibition completely failed at that.

It’s clear that prohibition does not work. But if we just try long enough it might? That’s not science, that’s ideology.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#36

Post by gavinray » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 3:42 PM UTC

The optical resolution of racemic amphetamine/methamphetamine has been known for years.

https://erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/amphetamine.res...

What has surprised me is how infrequently it seems to be carried out, given the materials required for it.

This is all you need:

- D-Tartaric Acid (You can buy it from import sites in bulk for $30-60/kg)

- Lye/Sodrium Hydroxide

- Ethanol/Everclear (if you're converting meth, you'll also need Methanol)

- Glassware

- Distilled Water

The process is stupid-simple and takes a matter of hours, any idiot could do it, and the difference it makes in effects (racemic vs optically-pure D-Amphetamine vs D-Methamphetamine) is obscene.

It seems like many of the clandestine chemists are behind the curve in the same way that LAMP-stack shops are in terms of the HN crowd in tech.

Source: Originally was an organic chemistry major with an intent to pursue psychopharmacology

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#37

Post by anonymoushn » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 3:42 PM UTC

djha-skin wrote: post #26

j_m_b wrote: post #13

It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became more prevalent. Then in order to stamp out illegal production, the precursor chemicals were monitored. So what happens? Production becomes more dangerous. Solution: Just make every kind of drug legal to produce, but regulate the purity. Be very explicit about the dangers. The only thing prohibition does…

This implies that the dangerous production is the fault of the government. It is the fault of those who want to produce it. They are making bad choices. A responsible government should not make it easy to make bad choices.

Sure, and prohibition also didn't cause any harm to people who didn't drink, mandating the addition of poison to rubbing alcohol using legislation doesn't cause anyone to be poisoned, etc.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#38

Post by cjbgkagh » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 3:45 PM UTC

pantalaimon wrote: post #35

cjbgkagh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that if we legalize dangerous addictive drugs then we might as well legalize all medications/drugs by which point the medical establishment loses a big chunk of the income that it gets from being a monopoly supplier. I wish society was mature enough for full legalization, but often those pushing for legalization underplay the negative problems associated with drug use. Particularly for that 'harmless plant' m…

> those pushing for legalization underplay the negative problems associated with drug use But those problems already exist and are amplified by the prohibition. I don’t understand how prohibitionists still believe that the ban on drugs would make drug use disappear when the last 80 years of prohibition completely failed at that. It’s clear that prohibition does not work. But if we just try long enough it might? That’…

Prohibition on supply just increases the prices which encourages more people to jump into the market. For prohibition to be effective there needs to be strong punishments on consumption.

As someone who consumes quite a large amount of gray and black market medicine I'm actually pro-legalization of all drugs. I hate the medical monopoly and the overbearing government. But I also think people need to be very honest and frank about the consequences of legalization.

My concern, beyond what happens to other people, is that I'll have to check the ingredient label for a longer list of substances I don't want in my body. We have enough food fraud as it is with suppliers lying about the content, I want it to be an extremely serious crime to add drugs to food.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#39

Post by GoldenRacer » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 3:47 PM UTC

cjbgkagh wrote: post #25

j_m_b wrote: post #13

It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became more prevalent. Then in order to stamp out illegal production, the precursor chemicals were monitored. So what happens? Production becomes more dangerous. Solution: Just make every kind of drug legal to produce, but regulate the purity. Be very explicit about the dangers. The only thing prohibition does…

I think that if we legalize dangerous addictive drugs then we might as well legalize all medications/drugs by which point the medical establishment loses a big chunk of the income that it gets from being a monopoly supplier. I wish society was mature enough for full legalization, but often those pushing for legalization underplay the negative problems associated with drug use. Particularly for that 'harmless plant' m…

The only problem I see with legalizing all prescription drugs is that a lot of people would use them off label or in inappropriate context (ie taking antibiotics when you have a viral infection).

I think this could be managed with an appropriate regularity framework that I think should probably apply to psychoactive drugs as well. This would be some sort of licensing system. Anyone can get a license to buy antibiotics but it requires taking class and passing a test that demonstrates you understand the risks and agreeing to follow certain rules and procedures. A procedure for antibiotics might be that you agree you'll only purchase them if you have tested positive for a bacterial infection. All drugs should only be purchased for yourself (unless you have a distribution license which should be more difficult to get). If you get caught breaking any of those rules, you lose your license for some period of time and are subject to other penalties.

I think for something like antibiotics, no one would bother getting licenses as it's not worth the time of getting and keeping your license up to date (licenses would likely require annual renewal and continuing education). You'd just go through your doctor the couple times a decade you need them. But this could be hugely beneficial for a diabetic person that doesn't want to go to a doctor once a month to get their insulin prescription renewed. Or women that want birth control without paying doctor fees. Yes, it would result in less revenue going to our medical system but that seems like a plus side in those cases.

I don't deny that some drugs are incredibly dangerous but our society allows a lot of dangerous activities. If I want to buy a BASE jumping rig, I could do that and then start legally jumping off of cliffs with it as soon as it arrived. My chances of dying doing that are far higher than my chances of dying while taking most drugs (maybe some like fentanyl are exceptions). Would you consider whoever sold me the rig a murderer? Or do you think I'm an adult and should be allowed to make my own decisions as long as they're well informed?

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#40

Post by PragmaticPulp » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 3:50 PM UTC

I have a friend who, fortunately, escaped the drug world and is happily recovered now. One of the many interesting things I learned through talking to him and his friends is the pervasive idea among addicted that street drugs were always better in the past. Everyone vividly remembers their drug being much better when they first got into drugs, with steadily declining effects over the years.

Many of them had elaborate theories about changing synthesis or chirality or cutting agents or active impurities. They would even have theories about modern prescription Adderall or prescription opioids being 1/4 as powerful as in the past due to conspiracies by manufacturers.

The drugs may have changed slightly over the years, but the sad reality is that the real change was their accumulated tolerance and long term damage from drug abuse had blunted their response so much that they could barely feel the drugs any more. For some, this blunted reward response carried over to daily life, with depression and a hedonic being pervasive among the long term users.

A sobering reminder that the negative effects of recreational drugs last long after the hangover. I’m seeing an alarming trend of young people reading “harm reduction” material online and assuming they know the full picture of the risks of drug use. Seeing addicts (most of whom assumed they were using intelligently and practicing “harm reduction”) discuss their long term effects is a sad look into the realities of drug use. There is no free lunch.