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

211–220 of 232 posts

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#211

Post by astrange »

BTCOG wrote: post #198
_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.

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 think when most people say they're taking Adderall, they actually mean Dexedrine or Vyvanse, which are both D-amphetamine.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#212

Post by astrange »

sizzle wrote: post #207
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.

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.

Do you actually feel "euphoria" taking more than the prescribed dose of Adderall? I've been encouraged to try increasing the dosage by psychs before and I just can't. It feels more like a panic attack than anything.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#213

Post by astrange »

worik wrote: post #173
sterlind wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Nicotine is a very effective nootropic, better than almost all the well known ones, and it's also a remarkably good schizophrenia treatment. It gets a bad rap because of the delivery mechanism, but there's a reason people like smoking.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#214

Post by astrange »

sterlind wrote: post #154
w1nst0nsm1th wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you have a family history of psychosis, it can trigger schizophrenia or bipolar. If you're not predisposed to psychosis, can it really do anything besides give you a bad trip? Bad trips are traumatizing and may take a while to work through, psychologically, but it's not permanent damage. Personally, I had a very bad trip that led me to stop doing drugs and, ultimately, to a lot of very positive changes in my life.

The problem with advice like this is, how do you know you're not predisposed to psychosis if you haven't tried it yet? It needs to be more actionable.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#215

Post by astrange »

latchkey wrote: post #124
eternalban wrote: post #60

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...

Someone finally made thioacetone recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmAG8-V_WQY

But I'm still waiting to find out what isocyanide smells like. His old posts tend to just be flowery without actually explaining anything.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#216

Post by _a_a_a_ »

novok wrote: post #194
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which fails to answer the question, or acknowledge I have some experience with this type of drug. Neat.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#217

Post by klooney »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #25
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 think that if we legalize dangerous addictive drugs then we might as well legalize all medications/drugs by which point the medical establishment loses a big chunk of the income that it gets from being a monopoly supplier. I wish society was mature enough for full legalization, but often those pushing for legalization underplay the negative problems associated with drug use. Particularly for that 'harmless plant' m…

> A university acquaintance went acute schizophrenic shortly after developing a pot habit,

That's the age most people find out they're schizophrenic

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#218

Post by klooney »

w1nst0nsm1th wrote: post #153

I don't know about where street drug trafficking were heading these last 8 years since I didn't met a real life drug dealer since 2014, I only heard from (ex)-drug users, social workers, ex-dealer, and of course, the press. That in northern europe... The current thing on the rise here seems to be ketamine, according to a social workers. There was in local news papers article about gangs shooting (and launching grenad…

Meth is super common in Northern California, I live on the outskirts of silicon valley and the local paper's police blotter is always "meth, drunk, meth, drunk, stolen property from car".

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#219

Post by gavinray »

sizzle wrote: post #206
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…

Is this the difference between Adderall and Dexedrine?

Yeah, Adderall is "Mixed-isomer amphetamine salt", it's a "proprietary" blend of 80/20 dextro/levo.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#220

Post by annoyingnoob »

loeg wrote: post #88
annoyingnoob wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is any regulation considered an act of 'war'? I pay taxes, do you call that a War on Income? If so, when did it start?

Federal income taxes in the US started around the beginning of the 20th century.

Taxation is built right into the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution (the "Taxing and Spending Clause"), specifies Congress's power to impose "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises".

No one ever called this a War on Income. My point is to the OP that claims the War on Drugs has been going on for a hundred years by pointing to any regulation of drugs. Lots of things are regulated and we do not generally call regulation a 'War on' something. It is okay to tone down the hyperbole.

Post reply on HN