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

191–200 of 232 posts

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#191

Post by sciencemadness »

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…

You can find it here, minus the posts from the private forums:

https://the-hive.archive.erowid.org/

also see https://archive.erowid.org/

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#193

Post by novok »

photochemsyn wrote: post #105
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…

The amphetamines are all similarly addictive, it's just that methamphetamine is more active at smaller doses. This general class of drugs is widely prescribed to children and adults to treat ADHD in the United States (many argue over-prescribed). People who use amphetamines 'recreationally' seem to mix it with alcohol, with very bad long-term effects on health. It also seems to drive people towards reckless and poorl…

IMO I think addictiveness is a matter of dosage. A lot of ADHD people who have these medications can forget to take them, stop taking them for days in a row, don't want to take them because of side effects and stop taking them for years after years of usage or only take them during school & work days, which all doesn't sound like addictive behavior to me. In practice junky addiction comes from junky usage patterns and behaviors.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#194

Post by novok »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #172
photochemsyn wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are a lot of nerdy people with ADHD on this website, ADHD procrastinating time away. I would actually trust them on this specific drug class actually, you can get prescribed meth with an ADHD diagnosis, just most don't.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#195

Post by novok »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #38
pantalaimon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

IMO I think legal prohibition is not the way to reduce consumption of a bad thing in a society, but to do what was done for smoking. You have to treat them as a public health issue, make it culturally distasteful and more and more annoying & expensive, but legal, to do so. That is what effectively reduces usage vs. straight out police prohibition.

And when people talk about legalization, they are not saying get rid of the entire doctor supervision & prescribing system, which creates a legal outlet.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#196

Post by novok »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #46
blanketlamp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A university acquaintance went acute schizophrenic shortly after developing a pot habit, that could be a coincidence but the timing is suspicious. Early adulthood is when mental illness often sets in, especially illness like Schizophrenia. You're implying cause one way without considering the other likely alternatives: 1) Your acquaintance started smoking a lot of pot because of the onset of early schizophrenia sym…

"that could be a coincidence" is a qualifier that includes the points you brought up. A friend of my 2nd cousin smoked a joint from the same stash and no such effect so it's clearly a combination of marijuana and the individual. Unfortunately such experiments are hardly repeatable in a clinical setting, he's not the only one, it's happened to number of people. One of the other mothers was collecting stories to try to…

A plant allergy gone wrong?

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#197

Post by novok »

worik wrote: post #171

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 s…

Really? You can't take a higher does of ritalin to get a similar abuser profile as meth at lower doses?

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#198

Post by BTCOG »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #161
photochemsyn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amphetamines are all similarly addictive, it's just that methamphetamine is more active at smaller doses. This general class of drugs is widely prescribed to children and adults to treat ADHD in the United States (many argue over-prescribed). People who use amphetamines 'recreationally' seem to mix it with alcohol, with very bad long-term effects on health. It also seems to drive people towards reckless and poorl…

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

The dose and the purity is what makes all the difference here. When someone takes Adderall orally, they are taking racemic amphetamine and dextroamphetamine at a dose typically around 10-20mg per day. When someone smokes pure d-methamphetamine, they are typically smoking 50-70mg in one or two large hits. Now, I do not condone or suggest this, but imagine taking 50-60mg of instant Adderall in the morning.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#199

Post by refurb »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48
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'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…

Tens of millions of people in the US are prescribed amphetamines. They don’t spiral into a cycle of addiction and loss of self control.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#200

Post by pixl97 »

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…

Alcohol is incredibly easy to produce from almost any available organic matter makes it difficult to ban.
Post reply on HN