Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Not-such-better-living through chemistry

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 232 posts

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#91

Post by glerk »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #83
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #40

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…

> an alarming trend of young people reading “harm reduction” material online and assuming they know the full picture of the risks of drug use Is anyone attempting to harm-reductively try meth?

Methamphetamine has a bad rep, but taken orally in small quantities it is not much more dangerous than adderall, and has pretty much the same side effects. It can be legally prescribed for ADHD (brand name Desoxyn).

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#92

Post by jagraff »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #23
hotpotamus wrote: post #14

I'm surprised to read that there are recent innovations in illicit techniques of making methamphetamine that mirror legitimate pharmaceutical methods, but only because I thought methamphetamine was already a legitimate pharmaceutical to some extent. https://www.goodrx.com/methamphetamine Other amphetamines are quite well represented at the average pharmacy at least.

I don't know chemistry but my reading of the article makes me think the pharmaceutical meth is just the decongestant (L) isomer

You can buy the L isomer OTC as a decongestant, but desoxyn is the D isomer, a stimulant, perscribed for ADHD and narcolepsy.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#93

Post by cjbgkagh »

starkd wrote: post #70
cjbgkagh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* 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 associa…

I'm not so sure about that. If you've ever talked with a full-blown alcoholic, the allure of drinking is almost a reflex with no consideration for its effects. I don't think they even remember having to lie in their own vomit or the severe hangover they will have to endure. The hangover is enough of a deterrent for myself, but they don't even think twice about it. Its amazing, really. I'm convinced the only reason al…

I didn’t think I’d have to follow up a post on using a qualifier “often” with another post about using a different qualifier “most” which obviously doesn’t encompass “all”. Counter examples are clearly presumed necessary given the aforementioned damage.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#94

Post by porknubbins »

starkd wrote: post #57
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm generally in favor of drug legalization and/or decriminalization, but I'd draw a line at meth. There is a reason for the "Meth, not even once" PSAs and memes. The drug is really just that addictive that it can ruin people's lives by getting them hooked after just one session. Even if you disagree with my stance, I think it would be a grave mistake to not acknowledge that different drugs have different capacities…

Libertarians tend to take potential solutions to the extreme, but seldom is anything so ideologically pure. Still, the idea that government can protect people from themselves is a noxious one. Drug legalization is an attractive one for that reason alone, but there are limits. Drug addicts are by definition not rational actors.

Yes as libertarian who was offended by the idea of regulating what adults can put in their bodies at home, I have changed my mind after seeing real world consequences. As a young college student its easy to believe some kind of naive model of humans as basically well-intentioned or rational or at least a blank slate. Experience tells me that most illegal drug (and heavy alcohol) use has negative externalities and tends to harm the character of the user over time. An assertion younger me would have probably found offensively moralistic (what is “character” anyway?) but here we are.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#95

Post by photochemsyn »

VLM wrote: post #61

The teaser line about ibuprofen synthesis is interesting because he didn't put enough "tease" into it for non-chemists to understand the kind of funny analogy. Superficially, one would not expect that a "green" synthesis would start with HF acid, but here it is anyway and it works. A "you gotta be kidding me" moment that makes sense after thinking about it. I think that's the analogy he was trying to make in the arti…

"Green synthesis" in chemistry should probably be renamed. "Closed-loop synthesis" is closer to what it's about. The fundamental concept is that you're not producing any waste products or unwanted side reactions, and all the reagents and catalysts are recycled back to their original state at the end of the reaction.

This typically involves synthetic routes that start with small molecules and build larger molecules from them in a specific manner (rather than say, cleaving a large molecule and then having to throw away part of it as waste). With something highly reactive like HF acid, it might mean generating the HF from a fluoride salt, using it in the reaction, then converting any leftover HF back to the salt at then end of the process.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#96

Post by gumby »

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…

> 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.

Do you seriously think this is why medication is regulated?

In most developed countries prescribing and dispensing are separated (doctor/pharmacy) in part to prevent this. Japan is a notable exception and guess what: more drugs are prescribed per capita there than the rest of the OECD.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#97

Post by pantalaimon »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #75
blanketlamp wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I don't think that's ever been in question. Harm reduction isn't some utopian ideal that safe drug use == nobody ever suffers long-term negative effects. Conquering tho…

> I don't think that's ever been in question. Harm reduction isn't some utopian ideal that safe drug use == nobody ever suffers long-term negative effects. To you, maybe, but it only takes a cursory glance at drug-related subreddits to see numerous people suggesting that you just need to follow harm reduction websites, stick to some arbitrary rules (e.g. only do MDMA every N weeks and take X, Y, and Z supplements), a…

What negative consequences are there to doing MDMA or LSD a couple times a year?

Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol.

The argument that any drug use is bad is pretty blown out of proportion.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#98

Post by starkd »

awillen wrote: post #79
starkd wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh, come on! I think you're right on this issue, but since when are opinions dangerous? He's giving his honest opinion of the issue according to his experience. You will be much more effective if you simply try to enjoy the conversation than trying to call out people for having "dangerous opinions".

You put quotes around "dangerous opinions" - you're wrong to do that, because I never used that phrase. I said he was dangerously uninformed. There are times when people can have valid, personal opinions and times when there's just objective reality. Some people these days say that their opinion is that the 2020 election was stolen. That's not a valid opinion - it's just wrong. Saying that hangovers make alcohol self…

I just think you would enjoy the conversation more if your experience was not dependent on someone else's opinion. You are also assuming something about another person that is more than likely untrue. Sounds like a horrible way to live.

No offense to you, but who named you the arbitrator of "valid opinions"? I doubt you are that arrogant in person, but you sure are coming off that way.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#99

Post by GoldenRacer »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #62
GoldenRacer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought you were implying companies adding addictive substance to their products in attempt to get people hooked which I thought a regulatory framework would fix. If coke puts cocaine back in their drink, it would require a license to buy so they wouldn't be able to do it without informing people. Are you actually talking about something more akin to date rape? I'm really not sure if I understand how that might wor…

> Criminal gangs use this tactic fairly frequently as an alternative to killing someone but I believe it should solicit the same punishment. Criminal gangs tend to take the more active holding people down and injecting people with drugs approach than the slow sneaky process. But once addicted the addict is now reliant on the gang for their continued supply and can be controlled. The real life instances I’m aware of w…

Gotcha. I guess I don't understand why you'd expect that behavior to become more common as a result of drug legalization.

All that would still be very illegal (I imagine injecting someone with even a completely safe saline solution without their consent would be considered assault in most jurisdictions). The type of people that are comfortable doing that clearly don't care about the law. I just don't see drugs being illegal as a limiting factor on crimes of that nature in today's society.

I'd also like to mention that a major source of funding for many criminal gangs is the black market sale of drugs. If we legalized and regulated drugs, they'd lose that source of money and I'd personally expect to see a decline in organized crime.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#100

Post by cjbgkagh »

awillen wrote: post #85
cjbgkagh wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most =/ all. For some it doesn’t work this way and that is very costly to us all. Hence the great deal of damage that it causes. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, is alcohol too dangerous therefore we must legalize more drugs?

The point is that we should have a coherent policy in the US around how we treat drugs. Either we should accept a certain threshold of danger around drug use and allow all drugs under that threshold to be used (with appropriate regulation), or we should not accept the use of dangerous drugs and should outlaw them. Right now, US drug policy is that a fairly dangerous drug (alcohol) is not legal, while other clearly le…

If anything I think perhaps reducing the legal age for drinking in the US. Where I’m from getting black out drunk is considered immature and people are expected to grow out of it, but then we start a lot earlier. Plus we learn how to handle alcohol * before we learn how to drive so it’s not considered matcho to drink and drive. I think cigarette companies like the 3 year gap of being able to buy cigarettes but not alcohol.

I’m pretty pro legalization, I think it’s probably best handled at the cultural level, but until society matures there is going to a fair bit of collateral damage and I think we should be honest about that.

* it’s a generalization… obviously it doesn’t work out this way for everyone.

Post reply on HN