Slashdot Mirror
How the Web Makes a Real-Life Breaking Bad Possible
gallifreyan99 writes "The real revolution in drugs isn't Silk Road—it's the open web. Thanks to the net, almost anyone with a basic handle on chemistry can design, manufacture and sell their own narcotics, and in most cases the cops are utterly unable to stop them. This piece is kind of crazy: the writer actually creates a new powerful-but-legal stimulant based on a banned substance, and gets a Chinese lab to manufacture it."
The internet has information on it. We'll bring you the latest as this story unfolds.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Obviously enforcement of every bespoke chemical being synthesized to order is impractical even by the standards of the drug wars; but are substances such as the one described in the article actually 'legal'? My (admittedly layman's) understanding of the Federal Analog Act was that it was a fairly blatant blanket ban on 'absolutely anything that looks like something illegal and has some recreational potential'. A rather expansive law; but one that you can't just wiggle past on a technicality (though, obviously, you can wiggle past on sheer logistical impracticality; but so can ~40 billion dollars worth of cocaine, so that isn't really a legality test...)
If we can't see the internet, it can't hurt us!
Legalize everything and fight abuse with proper education, not the duck and cover shit!
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
You might want to read up on Monsanto's novel organisms...
The "traditional" drugs are known risks with known treatments; we should simply legalize them and offer support and treatment to those who want it. There would be less suffering and as a society, we'd be a lot better off.
However! this doesn't mean that listening to recreational (medical uses not included here) music is a positive experience. It can be relatively harmless, as with the occasional listen of Beethoven's 9th, but ultimately it's about escaping reality. And, if you're trying to escape reality, it means you have some problem with reality. Deal with that.
FTFY.
Seriously, you're clueless if you think recreational use of drugs is ultimately about "escaping reality". You're equating "fun" with "escaping reality".
See, there are two sides to this story and they always talk past each other. One side says drugs are cool, and everyone should do a little, just to see what it's like and if it's not your thing then it's OK. They only see the positive effects. The other side works in emergency rooms and treatment centers and only sees the negative effects, and warns everyone to stay away, don't even try drugs once because we hear that story everyday of the guy who tried it once, liked it, and ruined his previously promising life.
What do these two views have in common? Fucking druggies. People who are wholly incapable of controlling themselves so they ruin it for everyone. There is a certain kind of person that freaking loves drugs. They'll structure their entire lives so that they can do drugs, and they don't care about who they harm in the process. They will steal from and hurt people they love. Hunter S. Thompson said, "You can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back on a drug," and he knew what he was talking about. Other people don't care for drugs at all. I've known veterans who have been prescribed the best sorts of opiates for legitimate medical reasons, and all they do is complain about how their minds "feel fuzzy and can't think straight". This fuzzy feeling is exactly what pleases druggies the most.
So, what do you do? Legalize drugs and let druggies run wild? Put them all on an island where they don't pay rent, eat for free and get all they drugs they want? Hell, why should I work for a living when I can just do that? Keep drugs illegal and scare away most of the good people? Who knows, maybe I've been looking all my life for methamphetamine and just don't know it yet because I've never tried it because I'm scared of going to jail. The main problem that both sides have is the fucking druggies. If it weren't for them, we could have safe, legal drugs and it wouldn't be a goddamn problem.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
As if there are not other ways to escape reality. There are enough legal means to get away from this hellhole if you really want to, so please don't tell me we need to ban drugs as long as we have Alcohol, Social Networks and MMOs.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
With designer drugs, scientists can't agree on what exactly a 'drug analogue' means, so an analogue law would be unenforceable. All drugs invented after, say, 1950 without FDA approval could be banned; but then trade of the drug wouldn't be prosecutable until it were proven that it's artificial and invented; if it were naturally occurring (say, from Psilocybin mushrooms) then it can only be discovered and not invented. The drug scheduling works as a blacklist, but could be reworked to only allow whitelisted drugs.
A law targeting artificially-created drugs or GMO-created drugs would be unenforceable. Many pharmaceuticals are mass-produced nowadays with genetically-engineered organisms (fungi, often) that secrete the target chemical. There's no way to always distinguish a GMO from a crypto-organism, or in other words, an artificially-created drug factory from a naturally-occurring drug factory. Therefore, there'd be no way to prove that a drug was made artificially rather than naturally. So White-listing could still stop trade, but that'd only work until...
Homebrew. As genetic modification tech gets cheaper and easier to use, there will be cheap DIY kits to make your own designer drugs and the organisms to produce them. Later, easily-obtainable underground apps will help you design drugs with certain target effects, based on (but sufficiently modified from) existing recreational drug molecules. Once the international effort to use supercomputers to model the human body's physiology gains open access, people can submit potential molecules to the system and see their effects (and side-effects). No 30-year studies with methodology errors mixed with decades of FUD and hand-wringing, just the truth in black and white for everyone to see. New molecules that aren't simply modified versions of existing chemicals can be brute-forced that have certain effects, avoiding any existing analogue laws. This will enable an explosion in the effectiveness and safety of designer drugs, as there's an uncomfortable (to some) overlap with the effects of medicinal pharmaceuticals, leading to the end of support for drug restrictions.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Some become addicted to drugs, others drink or gambling or base jumping. They're part of the human spectrum and you'll never get rid of them. Some would argue (and I'd agree) that a healthy civilisation needs all types of personalities to function. However because of their type of personality they need to be protected from themselves when it comes to really dangerous stuff and drugs comes into this category. Whats the solution? I don't know. Complete prohibition never works , but then a free for all would be a disaster for all concerned too. *shrug*
Joking. Interesting read. Clearly some drugs, by all means not all, should be legalised - better quality, increased safety, less incentives to invent untested and often hazardous chemicals and, last but not least, PROFIT for the country's budget! Old school politics and the WOD nonsense have caused enough damage already. Even the head of UK Police is saying it: End war on drugs, says Durham police chief Mike Barton
[sarcasm]
Obviously we need more legislation, not just against these insidious drugs, but also against bad weather and sharp corners on furniture. Zeus forbid we stop for a moment and consider why people throughout history take drugs. Cue King Cnut. Personally I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on a more productive excercise than pissing up a rope.
[/sarcasm the lowest form of wit... except for the witling fools (f* wits) it's aimed at]
Oh, and kudos and more funds to Caldicot, the man in the middle of this stupidity.
Trying to stop people altering their consciousness with chemicals is a waste of time. As long as people aren't driving around under the influence, or otherwise endangering third parties, who gives a shit ? If someone is stupid enough to get addicted to something that's their problem. Give it to them free and give them free treatment until they get clean (i.e. don't force them to become petty thieves to sustain a habit)
The real problem with drugs is that they can cause people to lose their societal conditioning and they will no longer play the game and act like a good sheeple.
Not forgetting that prisons and the court system are a great money spinner for the privileged classes.
Look at Victorian England. Laudenum, Cocaine, Opium, Heroin all available over the counter from the local chemist. High society parties where people would have a good dinner then sit around sniffing glue and ether. Did society collapse ? Did people spend all day high doing nothing ? No. A myriad of wonderful mechanical inventions came about, amazing stuff got built and people got on with their lives.
If that's what happens when people can get high in peace bring it on.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
Interesting argument. But listening to music causes chemical reactions. Playing vidya games causes chemical reactions. Eating food causes chemical reactions. Drinking coffee causes chemical reactions.
All of the above involve those wonderful little receptors that you're so adamant about existing only for escapism purposes.
Oh, and dropping LSD often involves a hell of a lot more cerebral skill than watching Duck Dynasty.. Smoking some weed causes chemical reactions, and generally involves a hell of a lot more social interaction than sitting behind a keyboard in a dimly lit room.
You really can't make the argument that drugs exist solely for escapism, unless you're willing to admit that the vast majority of things humanity does exist solely for escapism. That even includes eating, as the average person does it - there's plenty of completely bland food you can consume that will allow you to survive, without the reward centers of your brain lighting up like the sky on the 4th of July. Drop that chocolate, yo.
TFA is worth reading.
The part with the Chineese lab is in the middle, search "I decided to get one made myself"
Also:
A single gram of 25i-NBOME contains up to 10,000 doses; it is as potent as a chemical weapon in the wrong hands.
A typical line of a powdered drug might contain around one hundred milligrams—for Bjerk, that was enough for a thousand-fold overdose. He died quickly in the street.
I really don't get it: how people can trust anyone selling such drugs ?
Even when the dose is correct, pills can contain so many other unknown substances...
It's only because drugs are all banned that the problems exist. If someone wishing to get high could take a drug which has been regulated, they would be less interested in taking any old crap their mate recommends, in what could be a completely incorrect dose.
Surely, as technology improves the number of drugs will increase? Just banning every single drug is barely feasible now, as the article makes clear, and the problem is just going to get worse. If society is going to tolerate the consumption of any kind of mind-altering substance, we will have to learn to investigate and regulate them.
PeerWat
There's a picture of the Beatles not even most of their fans have seen, which we will prevent you from saving conveniently through the RMB because although it's your culture, it belongs to us. Had to save the whole article just to get the images.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So please, 3D printing fans, show me where we can 3D print molecules.
In a lab.
No thanks I don't want drugs that make my legs fall of in two years and turns me into Hannibal.
I'll stick with the Methadone Clinic I wish there was a better way to feel normal, unfortunately I never found out how without narcotics. People wake up and go hell yeah it's going to be an awesome day should be happy with that because I would. The first true happiness I experienced was at 8 when I woke up after having my tonsils removed pumped full of morphine. "and no I had a great childhood by most standards" The next more permanent came at 15 after 3 years of failed anti-depressant trials and extremely costly doctor bills and hanging myself which led to a 17 day coma "go figure I couldn't even kill myself correctly". It was in the form of powder "heroin" which led to me living pretty normal for a very long time without anyone knowing.
I heavily regulated my usage just enough to be happy so I could go on about my normal day and it went on like that for 11 years. I woke up, did my shit, went to work and worked my ass off for my family, hung out with normal "clean" friends, paid my taxes, and trying to be a good citizen.
Then I was busted which led to some hard times like losing my job, family, and pretty much everything else which is way too long of a story to get into. Luckily a few years ago I tried going to a clinic which I'm very glad I did because they gave me everything back and now I'm finally living a normal life again.
That said drugs are necessary for people like me and they can actually do a lot of good when carefully regulated.
Ahh, but NOW you are wrong. Now that they get subsidized health coverage, and doing these drugs can cause medical issue, and I pay taxes, I get to have a say on the issue.
You don't get to have me pay for your treatment then say I shouldn't be allowed to have a say on why you can't ruin your life. You begged for me to pay your way, well I think if I pay your way I get a say.
Tip of the iceberg. I'm waiting for someone to start taking advantage of azaborine chemistry to make new stuff. Just replace a C=C bond in a carbon ring with a N=B. It's recently been applied to indoles, which opens the door to a couple dozen psychoactive chemicals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...
Whoever invented that method of reading a web page should be banned from the internet.
http://www.beatlesbible.com/fe...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
....for existing pharmaceuticals?
How difficult is it to create a series of shell companies in various third world countries in order to more or less legitimately obtain narcotics or precursors at wholesale quantitites through global pharmaceutical or chemical supply chains?
I imagine that the likely places of manufacture, like India, have pretty strong controls on domestic wholesale, but what about international sales? If you're a wholesaler in Nairobi buyng from India and reselling to Paraguay, how closely is that monitored and by whom? How do the exporters in India vet who they sell to as distibutors overseas? And how much vetting is done by distributors to overseas end users?
Given the level of corruption in most of these places, it seems like it wouldn't be very hard to see this exploited, especially if the USA or other first-world country wasn't part of the list of transaction partners.
The legal definition of a "Controlled Substance Analog" hinged on the concept of "substantial similarity" to an already scheduled substance. Alexander Shulgin, the AUTHOR of the book you cite has made his feelings about the stupidity of the analog drug laws quite clear:
http://bitnest.ca/Rhodium/chem...
http://www.opendemocracy.net/c...
There is NO clear definition of "substantial similarity" that all chemists will agree on. And I certainly wouldn't want to have my freedom depend on a typical US jury being able to sort it out either (It must be an analog drug--it's made of the same types of atoms as heroin, cocaine, and meth!)
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
It can be relatively harmless, as with the occasional puff of cannabis, but ultimately it's about escaping reality. And, if you're trying to escape reality, it means you have some problem with reality. Deal with that.
Really?
10 years ago (when I was 40) I had brain surgery and a small, slightly damaged part of my brain was destroyed (intentionally) to keep it from killing me down the road. Unfortunately, it was the part of my brain that tells the rest of my brain to go to sleep.
For 8 years I had to take sleeping pills every night. And the effects of the sleeping pills got less every year, so I was taking either more or different prescription drugs every year.
About two years ago someone introduced me to marijuana as a sleep aid. That night I slept like I hadn't slept in years. It was wonderful. I started doing it just on weekends to help catch up on sleep, but I took the officially prescribed medicine during the week. I got SO MUCH more done on weekends that last year I started smoking just a couple puffs of weed an hour before bedtime during the week. I cut out the prescription pills entirely, except when I travel.
Since then I have slept well nearly every single night and my productivity at work (and home) has doubled, even with screwing around on the Internet like this. My health is better, my blood pressure is lower, my sex life is way better, my stress levels are laughably low and people say I'm much more fun to be around.
So tell me doctor: Is the reality of poor sleep, low productivity, health issues, stress issues, etc. something I should just "deal with" or should I continue my "escape" of smoking a little weed every night?
Exposure is an important predictor of misuse in a population.
I don't think so. Exposure does not mean an automatic path to misuse or addiction.
The percent of the population who are truly alcoholics will remain the same whether alcohol is banned or available. If alcohol prohibition does not work, how do you expect banning/prohibiting drugs will work? Banning/prohibiting will help only the criminals and the LEO types who get their paycheck from 'drug war'...not anyone else.
Tat Tvam Asi
There is NO clear definition of "substantial similarity" that all chemists will agree on.
Yes. But don't confuse that legal interpretation with "an inability of pharmacological chemists to agree upon what analog means". It's just an example of the inadequacies of the people who interpret legislation. "analog" != "substantial similarity". (simple is a synonym for ?) I stand by what I said
- we can predict the effects of an analog, but while the analog may have "substantial similarity" it's "specific similarities" that determine the "similarities of effect".
e.g. predicting the potency of methylthio-phenylethylamine using the principles of activity. [*2]
Perhaps you haven't actually read Sasha and Anne's work (PIHKAL, TIHKAL, etc), or simply lack a background in organic and pharmacological chemistry. Certainly you conflate legislative language with that of the science.
"substantial similarity" is an interpretation of
(emphasis mine). IANAL
And I certainly wouldn't want to have my freedom depend on a typical US jury being able to sort it out either (It must be an analog drug--it's made of the same types of atoms as heroin, cocaine, and meth!)
Agreed (absolutely), three-dimensional structure is unlikely to be properly considered by lay persons (let alone evaluate the coefficients of octanol-water partitions) - but then, the laws and not intended to protect citizens (votes and commerce). Particularly given my comments earlier in the main thread about non-amine precursors on your spice rack.
[*1] Much of that knowledge comes from the work of the Shulgins, Nichols, and Alles
[*2]A. Leo, C. Hansch, and D. Elkins, Chem. Rev., 71, 525 (1971)