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

171–180 of 232 posts

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#171

Post by worik »

Methamphetamine is a troubling drug. As difficult as vodka socially, and much easier to consume. As a example of "better living through chemistry" it is really a counter example. (I think that was the point)

But there are so many better examples:

* MDMA

LSD

Viagra

* Methylphenidate

MDMA in particular revolutionizes social interaction in the same way as alcohol, with fewer health consequences, albethey not zero.

For some people Methylphenidate is a wonderful brain tonic. (Ritalin)

Better living through chemistry is possible. Professional labs, quality control et etcetera are required, not prohibition and sketchy underground chemists

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#172

Post by _a_a_a_ »

photochemsyn wrote: post #170
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The amphetamines are all similarly addictive" oh, you mean like pseudoephedrine (sold as sudafed) and crystal meth? Blatantly they are not.

I think the comparison you want to look at is Adderall vs. methamphetamine. Incidentally, addicts can't tell the difference between the two drugs if ingested in pill form at the same relative dosage. This is comparable to how opiate addiction works; an addict can't tell the difference between morphine and heroin, it just takes twice as much morphine to get the same effect.

I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Have you any actual experience with drugs? Because I can tell the difference between MDMA and various somethings sold as MDMA but aren't, and I'm hardly a drug expert.

Again, have you any decent experience with drugs?

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#173

Post by worik »

sterlind wrote: post #148
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…

> 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. This varies with the drug. MDMA is notorious for losing its "magic" after six or so trips. There's a special empathic, soul-opening quality to it - the kind of thing that…

The champion of pointless addiction is tobacco

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#174

Post by worik »

blanketlamp wrote: post #45
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…

> 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…

Also "harm reduction" is patronising to users.

People use drugs for there benefits

Addiction is a symptom, generally, of alienation. To the addict the drug is helping. As the addicts loved ones that can be hard to belive, and demonstrably untrue. But still.

A much better paradigm is "benefit maximisation"

Ask ourselves what social policies will help maximize the benefits of drug use.

Leads to the same place with the harm, but without patronising users, and allows us as a society to explore the upsides of these drugs

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#175

Post by klipt »

gavinray wrote: post #51
logifail wrote: post #49

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…

The active ingredients in Vicks Vapo Rub are just:

Camphor

Eucalyptus oil

Menthol

Perhaps you're thinking of a different Vicks product?

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#176

Post by nobody9999 »

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…

>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 is make drug consumption and production dangerous and needlessly expensive.

Absolutely. As is made pretty obvious here[0][1].

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/07/health/fentanyl-xylazine-...

[1] Archive link: https://archive.is/Sv27y

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#177

Post by gavinray »

klipt wrote: post #175
gavinray wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The active ingredients in Vicks Vapo Rub are just: Camphor Eucalyptus oil Menthol Perhaps you're thinking of a different Vicks product?

Ah it's just the inhalers then, my mistake

Another interesting one found in inhalers is Propylhexedrine, from Benzedrex inhalers

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#178

Post by nobody9999 »

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.

My step-mother noted that she was prescribed amphetamines during all three of her pregnancies (late 50s, early 60s) for "weight control."

Which, these days, seems crazy.

That said, I'd note that none of my step-brothers seem to have been negatively affected by in-utero exposure to amphetamines.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#179

Post by nobody9999 »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #109
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…

There have been countries like China in the Opium Wars period that had limited restrictions on drug consumption. It ended up with a substantial fraction of their population being addicted to opium and basically non-productive. HN is full of smart people who (wrongly I think) assume that because they have the self-control and discipline to either avoid drugs or to use them relatively safely that the rest of the popula…

>HN is full of smart people who (wrongly I think) assume that because they have the self-control and discipline to either avoid drugs or to use them relatively safely that the rest of the population does too. This does not seem true in my experience. I forget the exact stats but roughly 1 in 20 Americans is an alcoholic, and that's with a drug that humans have been consuming for thousands of years and that has established social rituals around consumption. It seems likely to me that increasing access to and decreasing stigma of highly addictive drugs like opioids or amphetamines will lead to substantial increases in addiction rates.

IMHO, that's a little reductive. The primary issue isn't use/abuse of such substances. Rather, it's the criminalization of use/abuse that's the biggest problem.

I say that because putting someone in jail because they have a problem with substance abuse doesn't make any sense. I'd add that providing comprehensive treatment for those who have such issues would be less than half the cost of interdiction, enforcement and incarceration.

What's more, both the substance abuse and legal issues/incarceration limits the economic potential of those who have resolved their issues due to stigmatization of those with criminal records.

I'll go even farther and say that drug prohibition (as we saw with the 18th Amendment[0]) creates black markets, and since there are no legal avenues to address disputes, and begets violence on a wide scale, further depressing economic output and social cohesion.

I don't disagree that substance abuse brings misery to many -- but penalizing those who use such substances without them negatively impacting their lives with legal issues and potential violence seems way too extreme.

If we invested USD$10-15 billion a year (as compared with ~USD$50 billion on "drug enforcement") into the resources required to provide treatment for anyone who wants/needs it, and legalize/regulate all "drugs", will save money, increase economic output and improve social cohesion.

It's a win/win/win if you ask me.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#180

Post by jeffreyrogers »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #159
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been countries like China in the Opium Wars period that had limited restrictions on drug consumption. It ended up with a substantial fraction of their population being addicted to opium and basically non-productive. HN is full of smart people who (wrongly I think) assume that because they have the self-control and discipline to either avoid drugs or to use them relatively safely that the rest of the popula…

> It ended up with a substantial fraction of their population being addicted to opium and basically non-productive. Do you have any evidence of this? I don't believe this to be true from general reading, but can't back it up. My rcollection is that the workers would work hard during the day then smoke opium in the evenings.

This article claims 27% of the adult male population were addicts in 1906 (5% of total population): https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/s10571-007-9225-2.

They don't specifically mention work output but I find it hard to believe that opium addicts were particularly productive in most jobs. I don't think China was very industrialized at the time so I doubt what we would today conceptualize as a "worker" was a substantial fraction of the population at that time.

Post reply on HN