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."

Comments

Oh my god, it's full of information

[wonkey_monkey]

The internet has information on it. We'll bring you the latest as this story unfolds.

Re:Oh my god, it's full of information

[wonkey_monkey]

I am so like totally with you on that one.

Federal Analog Act?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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...)

Re:Federal Analog Act?

[Opportunist]

The problem I personally have with the analogue act is the other side of it: Considering that pretty much anything that you can somehow introduce to your body and that doesn't kill you outright has some kind of psychological effect on it. If only it simply eliminates your feeling of hunger, i.e. food. Now, considering how similar from a chemical point of view many things are, especially when it comes to things that contain benzene- or furan-rings, according to that catch-all act you can essentially outlaw whatever you see fit.

Half of the E-numbered additives should actually be on the banned list according to that rubberband law.

Re:Federal Analog Act?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Oh, it's an egregiously sloppy law, leaving the power of selective enforcement right in the hands of people who really shouldn't be trusted with safety scissors, much less discretionary state force; but that's part of why I'm skeptical that this exercise in analog production is 'legal'. No way is the multinational-supply-chain-chemical-industry going to approve of meddling DEA agents getting in the way of business, so it's probably pretty low risk; but it would take some serious doing to come up with a psychoactive variant of a banned substance that doesn't fall within scope, if somebody notices.

Re:Federal Analog Act?

[stenvar]

Brilliant! It won't actually do much to reduce recreational drug use, but it will mean a lot more restriction on companies developing legal drugs. Big pharmaceuticals should love that, because in the end, only a few of them will be left who are actually able to pay for the licenses and security associated with drug development under such restrictions. Crony capitalism at its best!

Re:Federal Analog Act?

[lucm]

You don't read the right kind of websites. The reason why the coke business is thriving is that it has the blessing of the Secret Government who has agents in South America injecting a DNA marker in the raw product so drug users can be detected and prevented from joining the Secret Government. This strategy was inspired by the bomb-sniffing dogs who actually can't detect bombs but rather are sensitive to a specific compound injected in the explosives for the purpose of detection.

As for designer drugs (aka the generics of the illegal drug trade): they are a shameful byproduct of greed and are standing in the way of chemical innovation by depriving mainstream drug labs from a large proportion of the revenue they should get. Like the Goophone.

Re:Federal Analog Act?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

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'?

In Australia where the story is based, maybe (Designer Drugs Legislation), but would it be enforced? No. Sythetic Cannabis analogs are illegal here under the same legislation, but before seizing them they have to be run through Lidcombe labs where there is a long waiting list, in the meantime the distributors are making a lot of money - and have legal heavyweights that can and have stalled the process.

One of the things the sensationalised story overlooked is that the same compound could be manufactured to order almost anywhere in the world - China just happens to give the story more zing.

It should also be noted that these and other "designer" drugs are not very enjoyable. The reality is that all the "good" drugs (relatively harmless, few unpleasant side effects) are either illegal or heavily taxed and subject to production and distribution monopolies.

In New South Wales they have laws in place that can make possession of a length of garden hose and a milk bottle illegal. The laws against drugs have a purpose and it's not to stop people taking them. Good luck banning them - I studied organic chemistry and pharmacology, everything on your spice rack, even your lawn itself has non-amine precursors. But that'd involve a bit of work and an outlay. Give me a truck, a woodchipper, a chainsaw, and malicicious intent and I can actually get paid big money to legally collect large amounts of (very) rich *amine* precursors for Alpha Methyl PhenEthyl Amines (MMDA and speed/Ice etc) - as could any number of people who likewise have no motivation to get rich from recreational drugs - or compete with very competitive existing marketers, and the host of "officials" who live off them. By rich I mean 5 - 8% and in semi trailer loads. Continuously.

The drug industry, the other industry that calls their clients "users".

Re:Federal Analog Act?

[Hatta]

It should also be noted that these and other "designer" drugs are not very enjoyable. The reality is that all the "good" drugs (relatively harmless, few unpleasant side effects) are either illegal or heavily taxed and subject to production and distribution monopolies.

We've only scratched the surface of what's possible. You're right, many of the current "research chemicals" are worse than their natural counterparts. JWH is absolutely less fun and more harmful than THC. Whatever they're passing around on blotter these days is no match for real LSD.

But for that matter, LSD was an unknown research chemical once. And it's at least as good as any natural psychedelic. I have it on good authority that MXE, discussed in the article, is more enjoyable than Ketamine. At this point we don't know what the side effects are, but it's possible that it's safe.

There are receptors in our brain that we don't even know what they bind. The receptors that we do know the ligands of, have allosteric sites that could bind novel chemicals. The drugs we know of could be improved upon, we don't know until we try.

So yes, don't take "spice" or bath salts. But don't be surprised if something new and amazing comes out of these basement labs either.

Re:Federal Analog Act?

[sudon't]

Look, it's just a fancy, science-y way of (preemptively) saying, "anything that gets you high, anything enjoyable, is illegal." That is the basis of all of our drug law. They came up with all this "safety" jive when racism went out of fashion, and because they can't say what they really mean, which is that, "we don't want to see people enjoying things we don't enjoy." It's the puritan ethic.

Why wait?

[Krneki]

Legalize everything and fight abuse with proper education, not the duck and cover shit!

Re:Why wait?

[kesuki]

"Legalize everything and fight abuse with proper education, not the duck and cover shit!"

that fails to satiate the power grab of being able to arrest dissenters at any time for having a tiny bit of drug planted on or near them by the Powers That Be.

Re:Why wait?

[girlintraining]

that fails to satiate the power grab of being able to arrest dissenters at any time for having a tiny bit of drug planted on or near them by the Powers That Be.

They can just plant a pirated movie. Stiffer fine. Point is, the arguments for criminalization are based on a lie: Properly regulated, there wouldn't be any more harm from most of these drugs than what you can do getting piss drunk.... which is legal. Until they ban alcohol, anything less dangerous than that is a disengenuous argument; It's hypocricy.

Re:Why wait?

[symes]

Exposure is an important predictor of misuse in a population. If you legalise (which decreases the costs of use) then there will be an increase in those using and therefore an increase in those suffering harm. Just like alcohol - the more bars there are in an area, the cheaper the alcohol, the more accessible the alcohol the more people drink. I am not against legalisation. But at the same time it is a policy that will probably reduce the criminal side of drug use (e.g. theft to support an addition) but also increase the number of those suffering harms because of drug use. It is hard to know what the best course of action is.

Re:Why wait?

[khallow]

So why should we buy that "hard" drugs are bad enough to ban them, based on the experiences of the Opium war? Wouldn't instead the conclusion be that the harsh ban caused more problems and societal weakness than the drug use did?

Re:Why wait?

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps you should try the drugs you write about first.

More or less everything you write about nicotine, meth, heroine and cocain (I asume that is what you mean with coke) is: wrong.

Re:Why wait?

[Procrasti]

The drug war leads to the cartels in Mexico being stronger than the government. When the mexican drug cartels start overtaking the US, the way the British drug dealers overtook China... then you will wish that they had have been defeated by the simple economics of regulation.

The drug war leads to children having easier access to illegal substances like meth and heroin than legal substances like alcohol. Drug dealers don't check ID, and have there is no disincentive to sell to them... they're already breaking the law. The three drug addicts I know all started these drugs when they were 15 or younger.

Drug wars cannot work, because drug demand is inelastic. This simply means that demand does not change very much with regards to price (including other costs such as legal consequences)... Where there is demand, there is supply... All the drug war does is line the pockets of violent criminals. Drug use does not decrease significantly as price increases, and conversely, does not increase significantly when it decreases... You would not expect everyone to start using heroin if it was made legal. Only an hypocritical idiot like you would claim you would begin using heroin if it was legal. Truth is, I really doubt you would.

Philip K Dick wrote most of his books high on amphetamines... Your statements about these drugs destroying focus are provably false.

The problems of addiction are merely exacerbated by the legal environment, the high cost and illegality leads to greater crime, mostly acquisitionary. You understand that addiction, once satiated, is no longer the concern of an addict? You are addicted to food, for example, if food was hard to come by, you will do anything to get it, including theft and violence... when it is easy to obtain, you have the ability to focus on other things. This is why the Swiss harm reduction experiments (giving heroin addicts heroin) seem to work so well... Addicts were able to return to work and function once their addiction was satiated.

There is no drug that is safer under prohibition. There are no gangs that are weaker under prohibition. There are police less corrupt under prohibition. There are no fewer victims of theft and violence under prohibition.

No one should be denied the right to do with their own body as they desire... until they harm another. If you don't regulate the supply side, you still deny that right... Portugal is only a step in the right direction.

Re:Why wait?

[Procrasti]

> every single problem you can find with fighting hard drugs is smaller than the negative effects of hard drugs themselves (heroin, cocaine, meth)

Every single problem with hard drugs (heroin, cocaine and meth) is smaller than the negative effects of fighting them.

You actually think that bloggers murdered by mexican drug cartels are worse than an individual who chooses to take heroin... That is stupidity of the highest level.

> we can of course find bad tactics in fighting hard drugs, and we should

There are of course negatives associated with being addicted to drugs, even if they were medically pure and provided free of charge... We should help those addicts who chose of their own free will to seek help.

> addiction to hard drugs destroys lives. this is the primary and ultimate problem. if you don't understand that problem as the root cause of everything else, you're an idiot on the subject matter

My experience has been that being forced into prostitution and being controlled by criminal gangs with no morality to obtain your drugs to be far worse than the addiction itself.

My property being stolen to fund prohibition prices is worse than addiction.

This is worse than addiction.

> no, the hard drugs are the real problem

Again... if you start with the axiom that addiction is the worst thing in the world, you will always end up with result that anything addictive is the worst thing in the world. Once you realise that addiction is easily satiated, then where are the real problems?

Remember, addiction simply means being willing to do anything to satiate that desire. You simply want addicts to crawl over more broken glass, then point to all the cuts and blood to prove the problems of addiction. Remove the glass and the problems of addiction become far less.

Some of my best friends are drug addicts, heroin, meth and crack... Their problems appear to come entirely from the current legal environment, that their suppliers are all criminal gangs, and the inflated prohibition prices requiring prostitution and theft to fund. When they have their drugs, they harm no one. If their drugs were available at pharmaceutical prices and purity, their problems would be diminished a thousand fold.

On the bright side, keeping drugs illegal keeps the illegal prostitutes desperate and cheap... This is what you want, right?

this is your brain on anti-drug policy

[stenvar]

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.

Re:this is your brain on anti-drug policy

[TubeSteak]

The opinion of the "chief of operations" at the DEA on decriminalization
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/dea-operations-chief-decries-legalization-of-marijuana-at-state-level/2014/01/15/17af548a-7e38-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html

"Every part of the world where this has been tried, it has failed time and time again."

This is why we're not going to offer support and treatment.
This is why there will not be less suffering in our society.

It's not just enough for there to be a change in public opinion, there has to be a change in political will and a massive bureaucratic upheaval to push out everyone who has invested decades in being afraid of the public's consumption of drugs.

Re:this is your brain on anti-drug policy

[meta-monkey]

Which is bald-faced lie. Case in point: Portugal. Other cases in point: the dozen-plus states that have medical marijuana laws on the books. It's too soon to declare Washington and Colorado's legalization experiments a success, but I would hardly be surprised if these states did not descend into anarchy.

He lies to protect his job, and to protect the powers that be. Without criminalized drugs, the prisons would be half-empty, and we've gotta keep those private prison contracts satisified. Also, we need to turn poor, stupid 18 year olds who make a mistake with drugs into felons so they will either be trapped in minimum wage jobs when they get out, or will become hardened criminals who will then scare the white middle class enough to justify the taxation required for the police state. Mexico might not be a blood-drenched narco state, and then why would their honest, hardworking people flee north to pick our tomatoes and clean our houses for cheap?

Just like every other war in history, the war on drugs is a racket. The poor suffer and die, the middle class pays for it, and the rich get richer.

Fucking druggies ruin it for everyone

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.

Its people with addictive personalities

[Viol8]

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*

Re:Its people with addictive personalities

[smallfries]

You know that you would and there is no point pretending otherwise.

Re:Its people with addictive personalities

[meta-monkey]

I dunno man. I'm on my third cup this morning, and if I were told I couldn't have my fourth without smoking some pole, I'd be tempted.

War on drugs = war on consciousness

[TractorBarry]

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.

Legalise! (or should that be 'Regulate!)

[PeerWat]

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