> In fact, the quest to learn more about these [consciousness-altering] substances has been one of the things driving progress in organic chemistry over the centuries.
Wow, didn't know this.
Not-such-better-living through chemistry
201–210 of 232 posts
Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry
#202Loved the author’s writing style. He strikes a nearly perfect balance of casual and humorous with precise domain jargon.
Whenever chemistry posts pop up on the front page, if they’re from science.org they’re probably by Derek Lowe and I know that I’m in for a great read, even if I understand nothing in the article.
Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry
#203Earlier 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…
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.
It's also well known as a miracle cure to various demographics of grandmas.
Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry
#204As a soon-to-be PhD graduate, I'm perversely curious as to how much these clandestine chemistry jobs actually pay . . .
Well before you earn your PhD I would expect you to be able to make other types of chemicals which are not illegal, even though they may be equally as toxic and only about 10X less profitable.
But you could sell more than 10X as many kilos of legitimate materials and not be limited to only a clandestine supply chain, so the financial upside alone is way better by comparison.
Criminal organizations are limited to the clandestine activities and prefer them anyway, you've got to figure they're making lots more money per kilo, but sometimes I would think they might only be coming out ahead by not paying any taxes. I do think they spend a lot of money on "insurance" but it's not going to legitimate insurance companies either.
As a professional you'll never need to stoop that low, and they'll never be able to reach as high as your actual baseline.
Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prohibition doesn't work at all at stopping people from starting in the first place. It has over a hundred years of failure. Switzerland hugely reduced an endemic heroin problem in part by making it a health issue instead of a criminal issue. And Portugal has shown a lot of success in decriminalization of most drugs. Illegal drugs are perhaps the 2nd largest business globally, after petroleum. Prohibition is an abjec…
Yes. I was not claiming prohibition did anything.
So how do you suggest "not starting in the first place"? How would you implement that if not prohibition? Keeping in mind that the parent comment made a concrete suggestion on what could replace prohibition.
If prohibition didn't do anything then we should surely drop it. And then?
Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry
#206Earlier 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…
Is this the difference between Adderall and Dexedrine?
Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry
#207Earlier 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.
People with ADHD don’t get “high” on Adderall taking therapeutic dosages in the Milligrams. They take it to turn the noise down in their head so they can focus and be productive.
The comparison to meth “addicts” is absurd. People with ADHD are not taking Grams of prescribed amphetamine pills to get high like some one blasting their brain with a bag of street meth with the intent of feeling euphoria.
Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry
#208> ... Methamphetamine has a chiral center, so you can produce the pure (D) isomer, the pure (L), the exact 50/50 racemic mixture, or anything in between. (L) methamphetamine is a pretty good decongestant, but it is otherwise unenjoyable and has no market as a drug of abuse. The classic P2P reductive amination will of course give you the racemate; there’s nothing chiral about the synthesis at all. At the other end of…
I'm sure they used real chemists to help with the screenplays, but it's more akin to Michael Crichton levels of sophistry.
I also recall reading that they had someone at the DEA to vet each episode to make sure they never gave out a workable recipe, but I can't find a source for that, that isn't SEO clickbait.
Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
I have on accident it just gives you a massive headache
Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry
#210Earlier 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…
You don't become addicted to therapeutic doses of amphetamines. There is some degree of physical dependency, but it's safe to stop taking them cold turkey and would only take ~a week-a month to return to "baseline" after that.
This is actually not true of the non-stimulant ADHD drugs like Intuniv; you have to taper that one off over a few weeks or unpleasant things happen to your heart rate.
And, of course, ADHD patients constantly forget to take their drugs, and the system where you have to get a new prescription every month isn't even something they can reliably do, being ADHD patients.