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

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#181

Post by nobody9999 » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 10:15 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #142

GoldenRacer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 antibiotic…

Antibiotics would be far worse to deregulate than even the hardest recreational drugs, because widespread flawed use would harm other people at scale by promoting drug resistent strains. I think legalisation ought to be driven largely evidence of harm, not just by abuse of the drugs, but systemic harm both of legalisation vs. criminalization, but with a reasonably high level of ability to take personal risk. E.g. for…

>Antibiotics would be far worse to deregulate than even the hardest recreational drugs, because widespread flawed use would harm other people at scale by promoting drug resistent strains.

That particular cat is well out of the bag as, according to the WHO[0], a full 1/3 of antibiotics users obtained their last doses without a prescription. In fact, many countries (unlike the US) don't require prescriptions for antibiotics.

Which really sucks, as antibiotic resistance will (barring some serious scientific breakthrough(s)) likely be a huge problem over the next century or so.

I don't have a good answer WRT that, but agree with much of what you wrote.

[0] https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/21-11-2022-1-in-3-use-a...

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#182

Post by nobody9999 » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 10:22 PM UTC

cjbgkagh wrote: post #33

awillen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 associa…

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

We tried that[0] in the United States, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

[0] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-18/

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#183

Post by _a_a_a_ » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 10:24 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #180

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 frac…

Thankls. I'm a little cautious if this as it relentlessly uses he word 'abuse' instead of 'use', as if it has made up it's mind already.

I also found this, which may disagree: https://academic.oup.com/book/32900/chapter-abstract/2766221...

The ‘Problem’ of Opium Smoking in Canton Virgil K.Y. Ho

Abstract

Both the causes of opium consumption, and the allegedly calamitous social, political, economic, and cultural impact of opium smoking on Cantonese society were greatly exaggerated in official propaganda and scholarly writings. Opium served Canton and its urban inhabitants many positive social, cultural, economic, and political purposes, making it difficult to over-simplify the phenomenon of opium smoking as nothing but pernicious.

"but I find it hard to believe that opium addicts were particularly productive in most jobs"

well maybe, but do you have any experience with this other than feeling? Same has been said of dope smokers, but many are productive. Also in china a few centuries ago there was no welfare state and for most, no work = no food = beg or starve. So as a non-productive person, you didn't live too long (edit: to be fair, this is just my assumption. I may be wrong).

Abit more, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Recreational_use_in_Chin... that suggests something very different:

It is important to note that "recreational use" of opium was part of a civilized and mannered ritual, akin to an East Asian tea ceremony, prior to the extensive prohibitions that came later.[50] In places of gathering, often tea shops, or a person's home servings of opium were offered as a form of greeting and politeness. [...] The image of seedy underground, destitute smokers were often generated by anti-opium narratives and became a more accurate image of opium use following the effects of large scale opium prohibition in the 1880s.[50][51]

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#184

Post by porknubbins » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 10:26 PM UTC

water554 wrote: post #167

porknubbins wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ten…

So you've decided to support an ideology that restricts the freedom of all people to do as they please because you think it's harmful for them. I've decided >20g per day of carbs is harmful for people that choose to do it. Watch out buddy I'm going for bread pasta etc... I don't think people should be able to eat it. I'm coming for your rights.

I think that as a policy matter it is better for society to create an exception to the rule of complete bodily autonomy, mostly because of harm to people around the user. I don’t think users should get jail time but some penalties are ok. This is partly based on personal experience and partially on stats like increasing DUI rates post cannabis legalization. I don’t see much of a slippery slope argument to be made from psychoactive drugs to carbs, which are a basic nutrient anyone can find anywhere.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#185

Post by nobody9999 » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 10:28 PM UTC

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…

>The point is that we should have a coherent policy in the US around how we treat drugs.

But we have had a coherent policy around drugs in the US:

1. Identify a potential issue with a particular drug;

2. Investigate the issues and examine the evidence;

3. Create a set of policy solutions to address the issues;

4. Pick the least effective, most harmful policy solution and implement that.

5. Profit!

All you have to do is look at all the major drug legislation over the past 130 years or so to see that such is, in fact, the case.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#186

Post by jeffreyrogers » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 10:53 PM UTC

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #183

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 frac…

Thankls. I'm a little cautious if this as it relentlessly uses he word 'abuse' instead of 'use', as if it has made up it's mind already. I also found this, which may disagree: https://academic.oup.com/book/32900/chapter-abstract/2766221... The ‘Problem’ of Opium Smoking in Canton Virgil K.Y. Ho Abstract Both the causes of opium consumption, and the allegedly calamitous social, political, economic, and cultural impact…

> well maybe, but do you have any experience with this other than feeling? Same has been said of dope smokers, but many are productive. Also in china a few centuries ago there was no welfare state and for most, no work = no food = beg or starve. So as a non-productive person, you didn't live too long

Not with opium smokers but I have some familiarity with opioid users and they are generally not good workers. Of course maybe there are tons of opioid users who pass as totally functional people and so I don't recognize them, but I doubt that. Marijuana is also clearly not addictive in the same way as opioids are (perhaps it is slightly addictive and maybe more so now that it has become stronger). It seems to be more like caffeine where its use is ritualized but people don't have a very hard time with cessation if forced to. I would bet daily users of cannabis are significantly less productive than the average population, but I know a couple in high performance jobs, so it's certainly not guaranteed.

I imagine in the China of the early 1900s many of the opium users did die just as many heroin/fentanyl users today do. I have talked to addicts who expect to die of their drug addiction and openly say so.

Edit: I thought about it a bit more and I am aware of some functional addicts addicted to (legally proscribed) pain meds. So I suppose it is possible opium users/addicts were more like this group. I doubt it though because China went to extreme lengths to eradicate opium from the country after the communists came to power.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#187

Post by _a_a_a_ » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 10:59 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #186

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thankls. I'm a little cautious if this as it relentlessly uses he word 'abuse' instead of 'use', as if it has made up it's mind already. I also found this, which may disagree: https://academic.oup.com/book/32900/chapter-abstract/2766221... The ‘Problem’ of Opium Smoking in Canton Virgil K.Y. Ho Abstract Both the causes of opium consumption, and the allegedly calamitous social, political, economic, and cultural impact…

> well maybe, but do you have any experience with this other than feeling? Same has been said of dope smokers, but many are productive. Also in china a few centuries ago there was no welfare state and for most, no work = no food = beg or starve. So as a non-productive person, you didn't live too long Not with opium smokers but I have some familiarity with opioid users and they are generally not good workers. Of cours…

A fair and measured answer, thanks.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#188

Post by mxkopy » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 11:20 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #34

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…

To steel-man OP's argument,

> Regulations and limited availability don’t cause more people to use drugs.

All else held equal, all this does is increase the price of doing drugs.

There are arguments to be made about the history of the demand for drugs. I think we can safely say, though, that it stays at a stable 'Some people really want to do them'. Whether or not that means growing a plant or potentially getting shot depends on the regulations.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#189

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 11:42 PM UTC

There's an amusing hyperlink ("drastically wrong") in his post -- the replies from the chemist who runs the blog at that link are hilarious.

I won't post it here because it goes to a page describing exactly how to cook meth, but it's amusing enough to be worth following the bread crumb left by Derek.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#190

Post by hinoki » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 11:48 PM UTC

gavinray wrote: post #141

gpcr1949 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed the process is very simple. The innovation that makes the resolution worth it is (as Derek also mentioned in the blog post) an efficient way to re-racemize the L-meth to DL-meth, which can then be resolved again. With steady state production and pooling this means it can be done using just one batch size (and not ever smaller "brsm" style bathces). If these steps are efficient enough you definitely get much mo…

Oh wow, now this is interesting. To ELI5 this, what the commenter is saying is that you can take the "useless" L-Meth, and convert it to racemic, mixed D/L Meth. Which you can then perform a second resolution step on, to convert/purify further, to the opposite chirality and get D-Meth. The very interesting thing about this (if I were a clandestine chemist, or someone who wanted to get high at home), is that: - AIBN i…

To further ELI5, racemic means a mixture of left handed (Dextrorotatory) and right handed (Laevorotatory) versions of the same compound. Some molecules can have two different shapes that are mirror images of each other, and these different shapes can interact differently with our biology.

In this case, the right handed version is available in stores with no prescription, while the left handed version is a very controlled substance.