The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it (2021) • Hacker News Board

Re: The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it (2021)

#231

Post by itsmek » Sat, May 16, 2026, 8:40 PM UTC

hash872 wrote: post #59

idiotsecant wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your opioid comparison is wildly apples to oranges. They were marketed and sold to consumers as safe, much more effective, and dramatically less addictive than it actually was. An industrial addiction machine ignored regulatory safeguards, built a 'pay for play' rewards structure to incentivize prescriptions, and a zillion other cartoonishly evil things . There is a world of difference between something like that and…

>Those are exactly the people you want to have access to it Yes but that's different from 'every random person can buy some meth at 7-11 or the government store' though. I'm fine with a controlled program for registered, hardcore addicts- the 2% who do 50% of the drugs or what have you. >The problem was not in fact opioids. It was the profit structure behind the distribution network. Remove that and the bulk of the p…

>The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance. It’s not an evil drug per se

>Opioids were/are manufactured by regulated, publicly traded companies with inspectors who controlled purity and production. The result? A shattering drug addiction crisis

>They were marketed and sold to consumers as safe, much more effective, and dramatically less addictive than it actually was. An industrial addiction machine ignored regulatory safeguards, built a 'pay for play' rewards structure to incentivize prescriptions, and a zillion other cartoonishly evil things

>I mean, states & countries that have completely state-run liquor stores still have alcoholism and serious alcohol problems though?

I tried to draw upon the main central point of each comment to this point. This discussion felt reasonably solid until this point where I feel like you failed to refute their main point. Your counter-example is still apples and oranges. State run liquor stores don't have the strong financial incentives to push alcohol and they don't downplay the addictive potential of their wares using fake science and they don't have authority figures give their patients official recommendations to take alcohol as a treatment with that fake science and financial motivation. Obviously people can and do still get addicted to all kinds of things without that scheme in place but I feel your initial example is pretty uniquely evil and not something we can learn generalizable lessons from, other than "don't do super evil stuff". Surely if your initial point is strong enough you can still make your case using other more generalizable examples.

Re: The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it (2021)

#232

Post by shellfishgene » Sat, May 16, 2026, 8:45 PM UTC

hash872 wrote: post #34

keepamovin wrote: post #10

The ephedrine (or pseudoephedrine) synthesis is a one step using phosphorus/iodine reduction directly to methamphetamine. It’s simple and clean in that only an acid base extraction is required, and only one set of NP solvents. All these others syntheses with multiple steps up the chances of weird toxic solvents or contaminants creeping in. I think it’s a contaminant issue that’s exacerbated by the drug use. The gover…

>The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance Famously, the US spent about 15-20 years attempting this with opioids. They were widely available to people via a pseudo-medical process, or via secondhand dealing. Opioids were/are manufactured by regulated, publicly traded companies with inspectors who controlled purity and productio…

The US is also currently rerunning this experiment with gambling/sports betting. Also does not seem to turn out so well...

Re: The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it (2021)

#233

Post by cyberax » Sat, May 16, 2026, 9:09 PM UTC

mx7zysuj4xew wrote: post #222

cyberax wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, now the war on drug is over and we see that the harms from _not_ doing it are worse. In 2023, overdoses overtook gun and traffic deaths _combined_. Surrendering to the drugs was a mistake. Yeah, we should have changed tactics. Zero-tolerance policies were terrible nonsense, long prison terms were not helpful, and we should have clamped on prescription pills way sooner. > but ineffective or counterproductive at…

Your numbers are wrong We're talking 48 thousand gun fatalities and 40 thousand traffic fatalities (98 thousand total) vs 80 thousand

They're not. In 2023 the overdose deaths were more than 100k. They have gone down a bit since then, for a very grim reason: they killed enough people to affect the statistics.

Re: The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it (2021)

#234

Post by cyberax » Sat, May 16, 2026, 9:21 PM UTC

jampekka wrote: post #161

cyberax wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance. The thing is, drugs are addictive. ESPECIALLY meth. How would you prevent people from just getting as much as they want and then becoming drug zombies? Fentanyl is similar. Cartels perfected its production, so now it's pure and widely available. It's even worse than meth in some rega…

The main idea indeed is usually "channeling consumption" to less harmful substances, dosages/concentrations and outlets. A prime example is alcohol, where prohibition led to bad outcomes. This led to the regulated legalization model. E.g. in some Nordic countries hard liquor is still only available in government stores and licensed restaurants, with exactly this logic. Not long ago bars could serve only one "unit" of…

> A prime example is alcohol, where prohibition led to bad outcomes. This led to the regulated legalization model.

The problem is that addicts are not going to be satisfied. Canada tried "safe supply" programs, where addicts are provided with medical opiates. Some addicts ended up selling pills because they were too weak and buying stronger street drugs.

It also apparently failed to improve long-term outcomes, although it's a bit early to tell that for certain.

> Expecting legalized cannabis to substantially reduce cocaine use is like expecting banning of coffee would substantially increase alcohol consumption.

Well, it did not reduce opiate consumption either.

Re: The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it (2021)

#235

Post by jjfoooo4 » Sat, May 16, 2026, 9:47 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #219

hash872 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance Famously, the US spent about 15-20 years attempting this with opioids. They were widely available to people via a pseudo-medical process, or via secondhand dealing. Opioids were/are manufactured by regulated, publicly traded companies with inspectors who controlled purity and productio…

> Famously, the US spent about 15-20 years attempting this with opioids. They were widely available to people via a pseudo-medical process, or via secondhand dealing. Opioids were/are manufactured by regulated, publicly traded companies with inspectors who controlled purity and production. There is a pretty decent argument that this was still a result of pseudo-prohibition, which goes like this: Opioids were easy to…

Surely both manufacturer and convenience store have incentive to push the addictive product in this scenario.

In any case, drug dealers really don’t need to do any pushing, the drugs sell themselves. Have you ever taken an opioid? The idea that unfettered access would result in less addiction and death is a pretty remarkable POV

Re: The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it (2021)

#236

Post by cyberax » Sat, May 16, 2026, 9:48 PM UTC

fc417fc802 wrote: post #113

cyberax wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, now the war on drug is over and we see that the harms from _not_ doing it are worse. In 2023, overdoses overtook gun and traffic deaths _combined_. Surrendering to the drugs was a mistake. Yeah, we should have changed tactics. Zero-tolerance policies were terrible nonsense, long prison terms were not helpful, and we should have clamped on prescription pills way sooner. > but ineffective or counterproductive at…

It seems like you've already made up your mind what to believe. In particular you've failed to critically analyze the broader context in which overdose deaths went up and I also have to question your suggestion that the war on drugs in the US ever ended. Sure, marijuana is largely accepted at this point. Most other things you still buy from gangsters on a street corner or via the darknet and will still be arrested fo…

The prescription pills epidemic was largely over by 2018. And yes, then fentanyl started picking up speed.

> suggestion that the war on drugs in the US ever ended.

It has not happened evenly across the country, but it happened on the Pacific coast. Drug use stopped being punished, with people openly consuming drugs in front of the police. Oregon even made that official.

This is an important point. Drug enforcement operations did not stop, because no large-scale bureaucratic system can stop at once. But they became a futile theater.

Curtailing cocaine/opium traffic was hard, but not impossible. Cocaine had to flow from growers high up in the mountains, through multiple countries and transportation modes. Each step increased the price for the end-consumers. And cocaine/opiates are relatively bulky, so smugglers couldn't just do one high-risk operation, they had to build a robust supply chain.

Fentanyl upended that. It can be cooked in a lab in Mexico just outside of the US border. The precursors aren't particularly expensive either. It's also highly potent, so that one milk jug of pure fentanyl powder can supply a large-ish state in the US for a year. So high-risk high-reward one-off smuggling operations are much more feasible.

Re: The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it (2021)

#237

Post by jrflowers » Sat, May 16, 2026, 10:25 PM UTC

fwipsy wrote: post #186

jrflowers wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I don’t feel like reading a book” isn’t a counter argument. That’s just a tidbit about how your day is going

I've not refuted anything, but I still don't believe it. I'm just informing them of that.

I think gp might’ve suggested the book because they weren’t expecting the claim to be accepted out of hand.

I’m not convinced either, the book looks interesting though. I might watch the hbo adaptation whenever that comes out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/fort-b...

Re: The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it (2021)

#238

Post by amanaplanacanal » Sat, May 16, 2026, 11:56 PM UTC

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #209

SequoiaHope wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s fair to say we tried letting people access it for recreational or performance use. The insurance companies and doctors became drug pushers without an explicit acknowledgment of what was happening. Easy access to drugs without being able to discuss what was really happening is worse than prohibition sure, but that’s not informed consent. Informed consent is the patient tells the supplier what they’r…

Doctors prescribed drugs and everyone became addicted, do you seriously think Nestle is going to pull their punches when they can sell people crack? They’ll be outside funeral homes, outside schools, offering free graduation crack. Ads on every bus, hot women handing it out in the street.

Selling it in adults-only dispensaries, along with banning advertising seems like the best idea. I'd ban tobacco, liquor, and gambling advertising too while we are at it.

Re: The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it (2021)

#239

Post by IAmGraydon » Sun, May 17, 2026, 12:09 AM UTC

keepamovin wrote: post #10

The ephedrine (or pseudoephedrine) synthesis is a one step using phosphorus/iodine reduction directly to methamphetamine. It’s simple and clean in that only an acid base extraction is required, and only one set of NP solvents. All these others syntheses with multiple steps up the chances of weird toxic solvents or contaminants creeping in. I think it’s a contaminant issue that’s exacerbated by the drug use. The gover…

Do you have any memories that you cannot let go of? That play back in your head incessantly every single day without fail? That obsess nearly every waking moment? For addicts, that memory is the dopamine release of being high, and it definitely can happen after a single use. It doesn’t impress everyone in the same way, but for those who are vulnerable to it, it becomes nearly the only thought they can have until they scratch that itch. I used to think just like you, but after dealing with and truly understanding addiction in people close to me, I can never support legalization of certain super-addictive drugs. There is no one deserving of the torment that addicts are cursed with. We should try to ensure less people, not more, are ever introduced to it.

Re: The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it (2021)

#240

Post by temp0826 » Sun, May 17, 2026, 12:12 AM UTC

dev_hugepages wrote: post #120

trhway wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm a layman here, so just googled it: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Pyrovalerone "Pyrovalerone is a DEA Schedule V controlled substance. Substances in the DEA Schedule V have a low potential for abuse relative to substances listed in Schedule IV and consist primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics."

He's talking about the derivatives (nicknamed Pyros because they're related to Pyrovalerone) like α-PVP, MDPV and others.

More commonly "bath salts"