Live data from Hacker News

Not-such-better-living through chemistry

science.org

131–140 of 232 posts

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol. This sentiment is confusing to me. I get that alcohol is bad. But how is that relevant to whether or not MDMA or LSD are bad? I see it come up in these conversations pretty regularly, so there's probably a point there I'm missing. But I can't help but read it as "this thing I like to do isn't bad because other people do a different bad thing…

The majority of the population accepts the risk associated with alcohol. So touting risks of other drugs as if they where somehow greater than that already by most accepted risk feels dishonest. Now you can say, well I don’t drink alcohol either, but that’s not the reality of most people.

There is another approach though. You can imbibe in any of these things and also acknowledge that they are probably a negative thing.

I'll have a drink occasionally, and (more rarely these days anyway) I'll occasionally have too many drinks. But I won't look at either of those as "well, I didnt do heroin, so that was a good choice".

I tend to look at it just as if I had eaten mcdonalds or taco bell or a tub of ice cream. It's something that I wouldn't do if I really wanted the best for myself (for some definition of best. Obviously everyone will have their own. Maybe your best is exploring your psyche, and damn whatever consequences may or may not come).

You don't need to justify it. Just recognize that you're probably trading off something else in your life for it, and in some cases that tradeoff may be sizable.

In any case, I think the comparative view isn't a great one. It implies that you have to have some kinda vice, and at least you kinda picked a lesser one. My own ideal would be to do very little of any of it, maybe even none. But if I miss that ideal, I don't have to rationalize it away.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (My organic chemistry is very rusty, and my knowledge of amphetamines is non-existant.) I'm assuming from what you wrote that the D- enantiomer is one you want. What does the L- enantiomer do, if anything?

The L-enantiomer is actually readily available for purchase over-the-counter. Vicks Vapor rub/inhalers and other decongestants use L-methamphetamine. The D-enantiomer causes CNS stimulation. The L-enantiomer causes only PNS (Peripheral Nervous System) stimulation, so it produces no euphoria or enjoyable effects. Only unpleasant side effects, like tachycardia and anxiety, etc. This is why racemic amphetamine/methamphe…

FWIW I find the Vicks Vapor rub fumes enjoyable and euphoria inducing. Edit: I think it's the eucalyptus oil that I am reacting to.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

LSD can mess you up big time even with a single intake in your life.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safe saline is the least of the victims worries, water quality isn’t that important to the extent that many safe injection packs no longer include it. Tap water is usually fine, puddle water is usually fine. In medical settings the law of large numbers mean that usually isn’t good enough but for one offs it’s ‘usually’ ok. It’s the action of adding chemicals to your brain that can and likely do have harmful long term…

The whole point of bringing up saline solutions was to point out that what you're describing is already illegal even for much less serious offenses. I'm not a lawyer so don't know what all crimes would be involved with injecting drugs into someone against their will but I'm willing to bet money it is breaking several. As for illegal drug sales persisting despite legalization, how many people are still buying illegal…

Despite being illegal forcibly getting someone addicted isn’t treated seriously at all. Unlike murder where there is a missing person or a body to show that a crime has taken place you with forced addiction you now have the addicts word which is considered inherently unreliable.

I’m more worried about organized crime/political corruption than I am about freely available drugs, but organized crime has all sorts of ways to make money so I don’t think we’ll be rid of it that easily. I think people underestimate the prevalence of how much corruption still exists. I even think it’ll get worse as fewer non-compromised people want to take police jobs.

Also prohibition ended 1933 but the major crackdown on gangsters was in 1970 due to a long period of federal government inaction.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#135

Great. Now I'm on a list. (Honestly, I find it interesting that things mentioned in the article seem like plot points in the Vince Gilligan universe of Netflix shows.)

There is a point in breaking bad where walt rants something like "since our synthesis isn't stereospecific, explain how our product is enantiomerically pure?"

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol. This sentiment is confusing to me. I get that alcohol is bad. But how is that relevant to whether or not MDMA or LSD are bad? I see it come up in these conversations pretty regularly, so there's probably a point there I'm missing. But I can't help but read it as "this thing I like to do isn't bad because other people do a different bad thing…

Smart, well adjusted drug people will frequently point out that most common drugs they use (LSD, MDMA, MDAA, psilocybin, etc) have an orders of magnitude better risk profile than smoking or drinking. The latter is essentially socially ubiquitous. That community has an ongoing bitterness about this double standard. Usually though, people making this point are not advocating for heroin or meth (although there's a reaso…

I think the reality with LSD in particular is the normal way of making it is fast & cheap anyways. I'm sure you _could_ cut some corners. But why? We're talking about a drug used in microgram doses. Synthesis several kilograms and you have basically created an annual supply for an entire continent.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#137
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"harm reduction" doesn't mean "good addiction" or even "risk reduction" . It means dying more slowly with less collateral damage. It means what the name says.

Unfortunately it doesn’t mean just one thing. People use a slogan like “harm reduction” to describe a wide array of beliefs and practices ranging from the very practical (don’t make sobriety a condition of care) to the very dogmatic (it’s not ok to discourage drug use of any kind, anyone who suggests otherwise is part of the problem). Most people will be somewhere in between those extremes. Once a slogan has been in…

> this is true about language more generally. There is no true meaning of any given string of words. Language is a communication tool (and a lossy one at that). History of use gives words and phrases additional contextual meaning beyond any dictionary definition. Feedback is often necessary to avoid misunderstanding.

Very insightful. It would be great if we all were a bit more aware of this.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol. This sentiment is confusing to me. I get that alcohol is bad. But how is that relevant to whether or not MDMA or LSD are bad? I see it come up in these conversations pretty regularly, so there's probably a point there I'm missing. But I can't help but read it as "this thing I like to do isn't bad because other people do a different bad thing…

I think the point is people disproportionately tsk tsk about the harms of drug use compared to the harms of alcohol. Personally I think most substances in moderate quantities taken only occasionally are no big deal. Yes there is probably some minute health impact visible in long term longitudinal studies but it's probably dwarfed by other lifestyle factors. I would rather be someone who exercises regularly, eats a he…

The worst part is that keeping them all illegal drives people towards whatever is available, and some of those choices are far worse than others.

A more flexible approach would see drugs regulated purely based on actual harm coupled with availability of a less harmful analogue (will fentanyl users pick heroin if it's more easily available than fentanyl? If so regulate one much more strictly than the other)

Incidentally that approach might well see tighter regulations on alcohol than several currently illegal drugs.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#139

Loved the author’s writing style. He strikes a nearly perfect balance of casual and humorous with precise domain jargon.

Read his other pieces... he's been writing for 20 years now... https://www.science.org/blogs/pipeline?AfterYear=2003&AfterM... His 'Things I won't work with' posts are classics. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-wor...

Thanks!

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#140
post #107
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your comment is an example of an important discussion we need to have around what are the consequences to our drug policies, whether they are tough-lovish or harm-reductionist. I can see value in both, in different circumstances. However, the video you link to is from a notorious far right propaganda outlet. I don't think people will get an honest perspective from TPUSA, who clearly have an axe to grind (and…

Do you react similarly to left wing propaganda, or is your “partisan sources do not provide honest perspectives” limited to right wing sources?

Yes, I do. I despise the far left.
Post reply on HN