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

51–60 of 232 posts

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#51

Post by gavinray »

logifail wrote: post #49
gavinray wrote: post #36

The optical resolution of racemic amphetamine/methamphetamine has been known for years. https://erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/amphetamine.res... What has surprised me is how infrequently it seems to be carried out, given the materials required for it. This is all you need: - D-Tartaric Acid (You can buy it from import sites in bulk for $30-60/kg) - Lye/Sodrium Hydroxide - Ethanol/Everclear (if you're convertin…

> 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/methamphetamine is so (comparatively) unpleasant, and the pure D-enantiomer is superior and "cleaner" feeling.

Racemic amphetamines have a much higher chance of inducing psychosis.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#52

Post by hgsgm »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #40

I have a friend who, fortunately, escaped the drug world and is happily recovered now. One of the many interesting things I learned through talking to him and his friends is the pervasive idea among addicted that street drugs were always better in the past. Everyone vividly remembers their drug being much better when they first got into drugs, with steadily declining effects over the years. Many of them had elaborate…

"harm reduction" doesn't mean "good addiction" or even "risk reduction" . It means dying more slowly with less collateral damage. It means what the name says.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#53

Post by cat_plus_plus »

Legislating morality is like casting pearls before swine, best to focus on helping those who want to live decent lives voluntarily. Part of that can be accomplished with designated methamphetamine or whatever dens where adults can get high and then sober up before being allowed into family neighborhoods. Without legal fears, it should be easier for addicts to get in touch with those who offer rehab services or harm reduction replacement therapies such as methadone. But mostly we want to enable parents who don't want their kids to be offered drugs keep it this way, and same for other deranged excesses of our days.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#54

Post by pantalaimon »

hgsgm wrote: post #52
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #40

I have a friend who, fortunately, escaped the drug world and is happily recovered now. One of the many interesting things I learned through talking to him and his friends is the pervasive idea among addicted that street drugs were always better in the past. Everyone vividly remembers their drug being much better when they first got into drugs, with steadily declining effects over the years. Many of them had elaborate…

"harm reduction" doesn't mean "good addiction" or even "risk reduction" . It means dying more slowly with less collateral damage. It means what the name says.

And all die we must

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#55

Post by GoldenRacer »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #43
GoldenRacer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only problem I see with legalizing all prescription drugs is that a lot of people would use them off label or in inappropriate context (ie taking antibiotics when you have a viral infection). I think this could be managed with an appropriate regularity framework that I think should probably apply to psychoactive drugs as well. This would be some sort of licensing system. Anyone can get a license to buy antibiotic…

surreptitiously - adverb in a way that attempts to avoid notice or attention; secretively. "Mary surreptitiously slipped from the room" i.e. it was something done to you without informing you. To use your analogy it would be like blind folding someone and pushing them off a cliff (with base jumping gear on) if they lived I'd consider that at least attempted murder. But with secretly giving drugs to someone there is n…

I thought you were implying companies adding addictive substance to their products in attempt to get people hooked which I thought a regulatory framework would fix. If coke puts cocaine back in their drink, it would require a license to buy so they wouldn't be able to do it without informing people.

Are you actually talking about something more akin to date rape? I'm really not sure if I understand how that might work. You slip someone opioids without them knowing until they're addicted and then you stop but reveal to them they're addicted to opioids hoping they continue that addiction? Or do you stop once they're addicted and just hope they figure it out? Or you just keep feeding their addiction without them knowing until you feed them a dose they OD on?

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#56

Post by chiefalchemist »

> But a human-designed synthetic process can always be human-redesigned. It happens constantly in the drug industry - the production of such a common drug as ibuprofen changed completely in the early 1990s, for example (a story for another time). For an illegal drug, that means that law enforcement will always be a step or two behind as new methods come on line. And it means that stopping the supply of such a drug will be difficult-to-impossible as well.

1) I wish he would have provided a link for the ibuprofen story.

2) With regards to the very last bit, You'll never stop the production. Ironically, "the war on drugs" has meant more and higher quality drugs.

What might be possible is mitigating the financial incentives.

It might also be a good time (read: long over due) to ask: why so many people have so much pain (i.e., physical or emotional) that they require a persistent altered state of mind (to defuse the pain)?

I'm not talking about prevention. I'm talking about a society / culture that is as good at generating customers for these substances as the producer are good at meeting those needs.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#57

Post by starkd »

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…

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.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#58

Post by taxicabjesus »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #47
taxicabjesus wrote: post #41

I don't have any personal experience with amphetamines, or any of the stimulants other than caffeine. But plenty of my passengers were struggling with substance addictions. I had a passenger who was whacked out on something. He disappeared real quick - I couldn't figure out how he got over that wall... One of my passengers, whom I helped get off alcohol, said her downward spiral started with stimulants. Her husband h…

Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1971. https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-on-drugs

Humanity has a long history of self-medicating distress. At first this was mostly with alcohol. America's prohibition efforts started in the early 1900's: prohibition, Harrison Narcotic Tax Act, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasing_the_Scream#Background_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#20th_century

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#59

Post by starkd »

blanketlamp wrote: post #29
cjbgkagh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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…

If I'm not mistaken, I believe there is a strong causal link between marijuana and schizoid type effects. I don't think this is even disputed. Maybe he was predisposed to it anyway, but the marijuana certainly did not help.
Post reply on HN