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

161–170 of 232 posts

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#161

Post by _a_a_a_ »

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…

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

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#162

Post by sitkack »

VLM wrote: post #61

The teaser line about ibuprofen synthesis is interesting because he didn't put enough "tease" into it for non-chemists to understand the kind of funny analogy. Superficially, one would not expect that a "green" synthesis would start with HF acid, but here it is anyway and it works. A "you gotta be kidding me" moment that makes sense after thinking about it. I think that's the analogy he was trying to make in the arti…

That layout has more of an impact on perf than -O3 to -O1?

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#163

Post by pstuart »

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…

Preach!

Tax it, regulate it, educate on it.

Society is okay with harmful recreational drugs (i.e., alcohol and tobacco), so let's start having grown up conversations about the other ones too.

Yes, they can and will be abused but that is a health issue, not a criminal one.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#164

Post by sitkack »

starkd wrote: post #87
ck2 wrote: post #74

What if instead of all the money poured into law enforcement and prosecution we instead make treatment for addiction completely frictionless, effortless and guilt-less. Like walking into a supermarket easy. Of course progressives have been begging for that to happen with mental health in the USA for decades, so all this is a fantasy to try to help people in society.

That might work if drugs were as easy to stop than start. Addiction treatment has a very low success rate with high relapse rate, and its incredibly expensive per user. The best treatment remains not starting in the first place.

> The best treatment remains not starting in the first place.

This is not shown. Many many people try drugs like speed, marijuana, cocaine and do not become addicted, many only do them a handful of times.

Absolutist policies are the ones that encourage draconian laws and responses because by the very nature of your statement, the first time is the worst time.

How about a recreational drug driver's license? It is how we respond to a situation that matters, not getting into the situation in the first place, esp when that situation is so easy to get into.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#166

Post by _a_a_a_ »

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…

> and that's with a drug [...] that has established social rituals around consumption

You're missing something vital, that those social rituals are often supportive of alcohol consumption. In the UK "beer or queer" (= drink up or there's summat wrong with you"). Alcohol abuse is as much an embedded social problem as a personal one. Who hasn't tried to force another drink on someone who's clearly had too much? To my regret even I have.

On top of that, just look at alcohol advertising everywhere. It should be banned.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#167

Post by water554 »

porknubbins wrote: post #94
starkd wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarians tend to take potential solutions to the extreme, but seldom is anything so ideologically pure. Still, the idea that government can protect people from themselves is a noxious one. Drug legalization is an attractive one for that reason alone, but there are limits. Drug addicts are by definition not rational actors.

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.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#168

Post by photochemsyn »

jeltz wrote: post #150
photochemsyn wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree entirely with this viewpoint - alcohol is one of the most dangerous and addictive substances available, with serious long-term health consequences. While the opiate epidemic has made a lot of headlines, CDC data IIRC points to the alcohol resulting in the premature deaths of about five times as many people (not by direct overdose as with opiates, but via associated medical conditions like liver failure). A…

If alcohol is one of the most addictive substances around I do not think we need to worry too much. Alcohol is actually not very addictive. Most people can drink regularly drink large amounts of alcohol without feeling the least bit of addiction. Alcohol is very bad for your health and it is a horrible thing to be addicted to but it is not very addictive.

The mechanism of alcohol addiction is well known and studied, and alcohol is certainly in the same addictive potential class as cocaine, heroin, nicotine and amphetamines.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#169

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#170

Post by photochemsyn »

_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.

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.
Post reply on HN