Not-such-better-living through chemistry • Hacker News Board

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#61

Post by VLM » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 4:22 PM UTC

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 article that only chemists would "get" about the innovation of chiral resolution, I have to admit the first time I read about that I was like "you gotta be kidding" but after thinking, it makes sense.

I'm trying to think of a similar "you gotta be kidding" in CS/IT, but its too early in the morning.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#62

Post by cjbgkagh » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 4:22 PM UTC

GoldenRacer wrote: post #55

cjbgkagh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wor…

> Criminal gangs use this tactic fairly frequently as an alternative to killing someone but I believe it should solicit the same punishment.

Criminal gangs tend to take the more active holding people down and injecting people with drugs approach than the slow sneaky process. But once addicted the addict is now reliant on the gang for their continued supply and can be controlled. The real life instances I’m aware of was done on people who were preparing to testify against their family members in a gang. It was a speedball injection. But is has been depicted in fiction such as in the move ‘the town’.

My relatives were involved in sheltering them to get them clean, but as soon as they went home the gang found them and got them addicted again.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#63

Post by starkd » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 4:22 PM UTC

awillen wrote: post #27

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 lot of people who are against legalization make this argument that those who are for it ignore the negative consequences, but for large swathes of pro-legalization people, that's just not true. I know there are negative consequences, and I know that in a very small number of people marijuana can cause serious consequences (and in larger numbers of people, harder drugs like cocaine and heroin can cause more serious…

That's why it should be mostly about protecting the youth who are more likely to be uninformed about dangers. It is true that outright prohibition is pointless, but it can introduce a bit of friction that forces users to have to put in a little effort in order to try it. Because of the effort, it is more of a deliberate decision.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#64

Post by lrem » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 4:23 PM UTC

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…

> I don't know what to say to this other than nobody's ever established an even remotely plausible link between these two things, assuming you aren't being hyperbolic.

This one’s simple: unless they, or someone they know, grew the plant themselves, there is no practical way to know what really went into the joint. I’ve witnessed people having hallucinations after a joint, which seems unlikely with cannabis.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#65

Post by notamy » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 4:24 PM UTC

kevinmchugh wrote: post #23

hotpotamus wrote: post #14

I'm surprised to read that there are recent innovations in illicit techniques of making methamphetamine that mirror legitimate pharmaceutical methods, but only because I thought methamphetamine was already a legitimate pharmaceutical to some extent. https://www.goodrx.com/methamphetamine Other amphetamines are quite well represented at the average pharmacy at least.

I don't know chemistry but my reading of the article makes me think the pharmaceutical meth is just the decongestant (L) isomer

Prescription methamphetamine is Desoxyn, which is a CNS stimulant and thus schedule II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desoxyn

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#66

Post by cjbgkagh » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 4:25 PM UTC

lrem wrote: post #64

blanketlamp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I don't know what to say to this other than nobody's ever established an even remotely plausible link between these two things, assuming you aren't being hyperbolic. This one’s simple: unless they, or someone they know, grew the plant themselves, there is no practical way to know what really went into the joint. I’ve witnessed people having hallucinations after a joint, which seems unlikely with cannabis.

I’ve had hallucinations from pot that I’ve grown from seeds myself. As have others from the same pot. It was extremely strong hydro grown under stress, the bud glistened.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#67

Post by rlt » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 4:25 PM UTC

blanketlamp wrote: post #45

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…

> A sobering reminder that the negative effects of recreational drugs last long after the hangover. I’m seeing an alarming trend of young people reading “harm reduction” material online and assuming they know the full picture of the risks of drug use. I don't think that's ever been in question. Harm reduction isn't some utopian ideal that safe drug use == nobody ever suffers long-term negative effects. Conquering tho…

Harm reduction itself isn't a bad thing, the problem is if it displaces other forms of help for drug users, or ends up encouraging more drug use.

e.x. skip to 2:00 in this video https://twitter.com/sav_says_/status/1603512522509668352

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#68

Post by awillen » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 4:26 PM UTC

cjbgkagh wrote: post #33

awillen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people who are against legalization make this argument that those who are for it ignore the negative consequences, but for large swathes of pro-legalization people, that's just not true. I know there are negative consequences, and I know that in a very small number of people marijuana can cause serious consequences (and in larger numbers of people, harder drugs like cocaine and heroin can cause more serious…

* I did use the qualifier 'often' which is not 'all' and to my opinion it's not enough. People readily forget the downsides and need constant reminders. Edit: please note that the following includes the qualifier “most” and please understand that this does not mean “all”. I think alcohol is a bad example as alcohol for most people has a way of punishing abuse on its own and quickly thereby maintaining a tight associa…

I encourage you to actually do some research on alcoholism - both the number of people it affects as well as the way it prevents itself. You're dangerously uninformed on the topic to be presenting these kinds of opinions.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#69

Post by awillen » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 4:27 PM UTC

starkd wrote: post #63

awillen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people who are against legalization make this argument that those who are for it ignore the negative consequences, but for large swathes of pro-legalization people, that's just not true. I know there are negative consequences, and I know that in a very small number of people marijuana can cause serious consequences (and in larger numbers of people, harder drugs like cocaine and heroin can cause more serious…

That's why it should be mostly about protecting the youth who are more likely to be uninformed about dangers. It is true that outright prohibition is pointless, but it can introduce a bit of friction that forces users to have to put in a little effort in order to try it. Because of the effort, it is more of a deliberate decision.

Absolutely - education and regulation are much more effective strategies than prohibition along pretty much every dimension. We've drawn the very reasonable line that young people whose brains are still developing don't get alcohol, and of course we should extend that standard to other drugs.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#70

Post by starkd » Sat, Jan 07, 2023, 4:29 PM UTC

cjbgkagh wrote: post #33

awillen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people who are against legalization make this argument that those who are for it ignore the negative consequences, but for large swathes of pro-legalization people, that's just not true. I know there are negative consequences, and I know that in a very small number of people marijuana can cause serious consequences (and in larger numbers of people, harder drugs like cocaine and heroin can cause more serious…

* I did use the qualifier 'often' which is not 'all' and to my opinion it's not enough. People readily forget the downsides and need constant reminders. Edit: please note that the following includes the qualifier “most” and please understand that this does not mean “all”. I think alcohol is a bad example as alcohol for most people has a way of punishing abuse on its own and quickly thereby maintaining a tight associa…

I'm not so sure about that. If you've ever talked with a full-blown alcoholic, the allure of drinking is almost a reflex with no consideration for its effects. I don't think they even remember having to lie in their own vomit or the severe hangover they will have to endure. The hangover is enough of a deterrent for myself, but they don't even think twice about it. Its amazing, really.

I'm convinced the only reason alcohol is legal is because it is culturally embedded. If it were being introduced anew, it would be prohibited. Its far worse than most illegal drugs.