The main thing about Phenylacetone meth is that there's so much of it

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/the-new...

Of course, one might argue that it’s fine, because it’s the drug users themselves who would suffer from this. But, considering the current push to get people vaccinated against their will, for their own good, I don’t expect this argument to work for drugs either… who am I kidding, of course people should have a right to use as much drugs as they want, but should have no right to get a job if they are not vaccinated, it’s 2021 after all.

When in Canada a doctor told me to buy some pseudoephedrine pills to treat a clotted ear and I found the experience so nice, that when back in Germany I walked into a pharmacy to get some.

The looks...

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-drug-class/legal-requi...

I was in Vegas some years back and got some under the laxer US rules, and have enjoyed a few years of having it available, but alas my supply has run dry.

First time was in 2019: I went to Walmart for something for my ears on flights, after some back and forth the pharmacist recommended me pseudoephedrine.

Second time was in Sobeys last month (can fly again, yaaay) and I asked for it directly. The pharmacist had some trouble finding it, but sold it to me with no further issue.

Like, a drunk person might misinterpret someone accidentally bumping into them as aggression. And would be less likely to suppress the urge to respond in kind.

The same goes for strains of marijuana, beyond THC and CBD other psychoactive compounds are inconsistently present with uncertain psychoactive effects (if any). Further there may be complex nonlinear interactions (e.g. two compounds produce no effect but adding a third can change the experience, particularly if you consider reaction products from combustion).

In any case the uncertainty is good for marketing.

These are the theories mentioned in the article referenced in the comment you replied to. It might be the meth itself. Gin, whiskey, and tequila are different colors, and it's not because they are compositionally identical.

You’re not entirely wrong, but a splash of liqueur into a small cup of coffee is pretty different from dissolving caffeine pills in tall boys of malt liquor.

What about krokodile?

I used to believe that. It seemed obvious to me and a phd chemist friend of mine that - as you say - the different reputations were a cultural/social creation. The drink itself was just different amounts of ethanol.

Then one day that chemist friend of mine decided to get a bottle of Hornitos Reposado. We usually preferred a good bourbon or weird herbal stuff[1]. We drank most of the bottle, but that wasn't unusual for us at the time[2]. We were intending on a normal evening of video games. MTG, and/or VtES. Instead... we ended up spending the evening having the stupidest, most aggressive, pointless, childish, "macho" argument of our lives. It was shockingly out of character for us. The amount of ethanol consumption wasn't large, and we drank it at a normal rate. Both of us had been a LOT drunker in the past. The only significant difference was our unusual choice of tequila.

While I agree that the cultural preconceptions are probably responsible for most of the effect, there is at least some truth behind the reputations of different types of alcoholic beverages, because the actual drink isn't just ethanol. The different brewing/distilling/aging processes produce different amounts congeners[3][4]; their psychological effects might be small, but small effects amplified through social mechanisms are how "culture" is created.

> In many ways that makes these rumor filled, science light, unsubstantiated media stories about “this is the most dangerous drug ever” incredibly irresponsible.

Hear, hear!

> moral panic over Four Loko ... amaro and coffee

Yah, people have probably started putting whisky (Irish or otherwise) in their coffee the morning after they invented the whisky. Also, you probably have to drink the entire giant can of Four Loko to get the same caffeine in a typical cup of coffee.

> Yet it never caused moral panic until the “wrong type of people” started consuming it.

It's disturbing how often this kind of bs ends up just being a fancy form of racism/sexism/${targeted_group}ism

[1] e.g. Pernod, Herbsaint, Chartreuse

[2] Yes, we were regularly drinking WAY too much. 375ml/day/person minimum. WAY WAY WAY too much...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congener_%28beverages%29 "These substances include small amounts of chemicals such as methanol and other alcohols (known as fusel alcohols), acetone, acetaldehyde, esters, tannins, and aldehydes (e.g. furfural)."

[4] Also, the different amounts of sugars means different effects on bloodsugar/insulin/etc. The resulting effects are probably complicated and difficult to explain, but their contribution to the different reputations might be larger than we expect.

The infamous "meth mouth"? That's caused by not sleeping and by just overall letting one's life go to shit. Amphetamines do suppress saliva production, so they aren't great for teeth, but it's 95% the lack of sleep and other associated behavior patterns.

I've taken pharmaceutical adderall (which is 75% d-amp and 25% l-amp btw), and pharmaceutical dextroamphetamine (100% d-amp), and illicit, presumably cartel-sourced, and presumably very pure d-methamphetamine. When taken orally, d-meth is, in my opinion, simply a superior ADHD drug (it is much more dopaminergic than amphetamine, yet causes less peripheral stimulation, so you get a much more favorable ratio of positive cognitive effects to negative peripheral effects).

However, the moment someone starts taking (especially smoking, since the RoA of any drug makes a massive difference in addiction, doubly so for meth) hundreds of milligrams, it becomes a completely different drug. It becomes super deleterious to health through the sleep deprivation and risky behaviors alone. Furthermore meth has a unique property that amphetamine apparently doesn't, which is that it can become directly neurotoxic in large doses (meth has some serotonin release, like a much, much weaker form of MDMA, whereas amphetamine has virtually none, so it's possible that that's the mechanism). This is why in the research literature there's a lot about methamphetamine "neurotoxicity", but the papers conveniently omit that if taking oral doses comparable to what's given for ADHD, it's not neurotoxic whatsoever (and frankly may be neuroprotective, especially against traumatic brain injury).

So yeah, your analogy to Adderall is spot on. I've often seen people derisively refer to Adderall or other amphetamines by saying "we're basically giving kids meth!". Which is true in a sense, except it's really the other way around: meth is really not very different from Adderall. If someone were to smoke 100mg+ of amphetamine, their body would break down the same way it does in a meth user, except possibly for the direct neurotoxicity effect I mentioned.

Background: I'm prescribed 20mg/day of extended release Adderall, via a legitimate ADHD diagnosis. If we take the article's "meth is 2x as potent as Adderall" statement at face value, that would mean I'm taking 10mg equivalent of meth per day.

Now, since part of the reason I take this medication is to remember to take my medication (a joke, yes, but not without its kernel of truth!), I've accidentally double dosed myself before. I've also done the same previously when I was prescribed instant release Adderall. In either case, I've never experienced anything like a euphoric high, but I have experienced the kind of "uselessly driven"/tweaker sort of side of it. And, let me tell you, I do not like it when that happens. Although I'm in no hurry to find out, I honestly find it hard to imagine what the high must actually be like in order for people to voluntarily subject themselves to the negative effects of this drug. And, I don't even exceed the therapeutic range when this happens!

I wish there was some way to actually understand why people abuse meth without actually smoking meth myself, which I'm unwilling to do, for obvious reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton%27s_Pharmacopeia

Methamphetamine is very, very stable. It stays as methamphetamine when it's vaporized, regardless of whether we're talking d-meth or l-meth.

> There doesn't seem to be debate that P2P processes create l-meth and d-meth, and that l-meth was less common in earlier versions.

Not quite. p2p done naively creates racemic meth, yes, but the modern methods, which have been used for years, purify that to enantiopure d-methamphetamine. They do this by bubbling d-tartaric acid through the racemic mixture, which separates the two enantiomers thus yielding the desired pure d-meth.

Furthermore, historically racemic meth was much more common. AFAIK the infamous "shake and bake" technique creates racemic meth. I do know that there is a pseudofed route that yields d-meth, but I think it's different than shake and bake. So don't quote me on this paragraph, but at a minimum we know that in the last several years, almost all meth seized in the US is highly pure/potent d-methamphetamine. There is less l-meth than ever.

> I just don't think the evidence is so weak that we can discard the potential that l-meth is involved.

On the contrary, the evidence is so weak that we literally can discard that l-meth is involved. First of all l-meth is better studied than you say. I would bet to approve the l-methamphetamine-based vics vapo inhaler they had to at least do animal models with large amounts of pure l-meth.

Second of all, and this is what blows the giant hole in your argument, there is no surge of l-meth. There is less l-meth than there has ever been in the history of methamphetamine.

Thirdly - this ties into the second point - you seem to thikn that getting racemic methamphetamine is something particular to the p2p method. It's not. As a general rule, synthesis of any compound yields the racemic version (if we're talking a compound with two enantiomers). This is definitely true for meth, where almost every method yields racemic meth. AFAIK there's a pseudoephedrine route that yields straight d-meth, but like I mentioned above the current state of the art is just to do a big p2p synth route and then separate out the d enantiomer specifically.

Not all abstinence is the same. Just because one is free to try anything, it doesn't mean people have to try everything.

Once they got into weed they realized just how much of a lie abstinence teaching was, they then graduated to trying other drugs

The problem isn't abstinence. The problem is the lie. Give people the proper, accurate information, and many will simply decide to abstain themselves. I think you and I would agree on this point about information.

The lack of education is terrifying, really.

That's ultimately the result of lies, deliberate obscurity, and attempts at thought control. It's far better to trust people with accurate information and let them decide for themselves.

I was growing up in a neighborhood where most part of people above 14 were using something. Most adults were using something heavy and awful, like heroin or desomorphine or whatever. I grew up watching them every day, and I grew up with insane fear of what chemicals do to human body and brain.

I am 35 today, I have never in my life tried anything, even a cigarette. For me fear works perfectly as a reason to stay away from drugs.

But to be fair, it is self-induced fear, from life lessons and not from school lessons.

Correct. M30's are opiates pressed to look like percocet - when from the street, typically fentanyl or another potent opioid.

The pills they're referring to, 30 M (https://www.drugs.com/imprints/30-m-8232.html), are oxycodone pills (a powerful opioid), but he's likely actually specifically referring to pressed fent (or fent analogue) pills that are made to look like real oxycodone pills. Or perhaps a mixture of meth and fentanyl, such as what George Floyd was taking the day he died (see https://interactive.kare11.com/pdfs/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.... as well as the other evidence around the case)

There's a big problem where, now that the government has really cracked down on so-called "pill mills" - which like all of the war on drugs was the worst thing they could have done, because now the demand is being filled by fentanyl and fentanyl analogues that are pressed to look like oxy pills, but aren't. Oxy alone can be dangerous, but fent is another beast (particularly illicit).

As one anecdote I just had a friend-of-a-friend (I didn't know them personally) die of an overdose earlier this year. They took "oxys" orally which were actually pure fent analogue, and now they're dead. They are yet another fatality of the war on drugs (and also the war on COVID since the lockdowns were the proximate cause of them picking up their opioid habit again)

--

Oh, and to elaborate on the GP's point about overdoses being the result of running out of meth, methamphetamine increases respiration rate, which will theoretically counteract the respiratory depression induced by opioids (which are how opioids always kill, with the one exception that fent and related analogues can possibly kill by an addition mechanism of action known as wooden chest syndrome)

I don't think it did this. I'm in my early 40's and grew up with DARE. When we were younger, they really leaned into the danger factor and pretty much said you'll hurt everyone you know.

And then, you realize they are liars. I didn't have to actually do drugs to see that. Why would you learn that is a moral failure from lies? I didn't even worry about those sorts of things when I was a preteen/young teen, honestly.

Why? Do you think somehow things would be worse with legal, controlled drugs?

I will back the Tartaric Acid hypothesis. If it's being done, this is the only way it makes sense. It requires nearly nothing but the D-Tartaric Acid and Ethanol/Methanol + basic glassware.

Disclaimer: Am not a chemist.

In general when taking amphetamines for ADHD-type symptoms, you want to maximize the cerebral stimulation while minimizing the peripheral stimulation, because the latter causes [most of] the unpleasant side effects like inability to eat/sleep. Note that some degree of peripheral stimulation is unavoidable regardless of whether one is taking pure d-methamphetamine or not, and also probably some amount of peripheral stimulation is desirable because ADHD is not just difficulty in maintaining focus/attention but also getting the kick in the ass to start tasks in the first place. But in my experience relying on the peripheral stimulation (which, for example, Adderall produces more of than Vyvanse) simply doesn't work long-term, and just makes appetite regulation and the like get totally out of whack.

Downregulation is a natural homeostatic mechanism that happens with almost everything. Any time a certain receptor gets stimulated above baseline, over the long-term it's going to get downregulated. The actual neurobiology of how this works is enormously complicated and beyond my (and probably almost anyone's) understanding. I do recall that NMDA receptors have a critical role to play, given that NMDA receptor antagonists can attenuate some (presumably not all) of the down or up regulation

That said, I suppose in reality it's just a more in-your-face presentation of what's already in many organic chemistry textbook in any number of libraries.

Frankly, I reckon there's little that can be done to stop the illicit manufacture of these drugs for the logical reason that they're such simple molecules. Many are just minor variations on the basic d-enantiomer (dexamphetamine) which essentially is only a benzene ring with a single branch containing a CH3 methyl and a NH2 amine group. So it stands to reason that there are many comparatively simple ways to synthesize them and that more are likely to be found. Moreover, the more precursors there are, the harder it becomes to ban them all, as eventually we'll hit the point where certain precursors are too ubiquitous and or important to ban.

It seems to me that if we're to take harm minimization seriously then we need to take a more sophisticated approach. For staters, we need much more efficient public health measures to detect and separate out genuine self-medicatiors from the partygoers who take illicit drugs.

As we know, these sympathomimetic amines have been prescribed by the medical profession for decades for certain depressive illnesses, ADHD, etc., but because of their their potential for abuse - not to mention certain moralistic attitudes among many politicians - these drugs have a horrible stigma attached to them and that has stopped many undiagnosed people from being prescribed them legally. The consequence is that many of them self-medicate with illegal drugs and the outcomes are often dire.

I think that taking a serious approach to medicalizing the problem would help very significantly. This would also include distinguishing the amines from the opiates. Whilst the medical profession understands fundamental difference between these two classes of drugs, public policy often doesn't and the drug problem ends up as an amorphous mess that becomes even harder to sort out than it otherwise would have been.

Therefore, there needs to be a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding amongst the general community to the effect that someone who turns to illicit amines is likely doing so for fundamentally different reasons to another who has turned to opiates. A more sophisticated approach to the drug problem would lead to better outcomes for not only those addicted to drugs but also for society in general.

Despite its controversial title, the book is pretty boring unless you’re actually following/putting into action his various ‘recipes’. I suppose having read certain information therein that concerns me I’m obliged to say something about it if it might save someone from coming to harm.

Anyone who’s read various other posts of mine would know that I neither hold conservative establishment views nor am I an anarchist—except in the sense that I believe democracy needs urgent reform but not through violence. Thus, essentially, I’m against censorship, and usually it’s not my style to criticize anyone who puts an alternative view. So why am I acting as if I want to censor parts of Priesler’s book? It’s simply because some of the actions he advises are outright irresponsible.

First, my position is that [as stated] it doesn’t make sense to try to censor any of the chemical processes for any of the sympathomimetic amines whether they be legal-OTC, legal-on script or illegal, but it’s my opinion that they should be confined to a chemistry text or an adjunct to one—one which describes the chemistry at a commensurate level to the actual processes involved and that appropriate chemical nomenclature is used to do so.

Priesler’s cookbook approach is irresponsible for these reasons:

1. Whilst he states in very fine print on the ISBN/copyright page “Neither the author nor the publisher intends for any of the information in this book to be used for criminal purposes...”, as an attempt to cover himself legally, he does not emphatically state that the drug manufacturing processes he describes are covered by international treaty—in that the production of such drugs and possession of many of their precursors are illegal in almost every jurisdiction worldwide—that is, unless one is in some way ‘licensed’ to possess or manufacture them. Yes, those tempted to undertake such manufacture will almost certainly know this already, but the exact ramifications ought to spelt out in considerably more detail. More about this in a moment.

2. Priesler’s cookbook approach means that he’s written the text down to a level where he expects those who’ve either no theoretical or practical knowledge of chemistry or who have only novice-level chemistry skills to undertake what is essentially sophisticated chemical engineering/synthesis. In a practical sense, there’s much here that can go wrong for both the manufacturer and the drug consumer. Normally, such manufacturing processes would be undertaken by experienced chemists in a pharmaceutical company or research institutes, etc. where much of chemical engineering involved is specifically aimed at QA—ensuring that the manufacturing process proceeds safely and that the end product complies with proper purity and quantitative tolerances/standards, etc. Backyard manufacturing is usually not conducive to high standards or being highly consistent.

3. Despite Priesler’s warning that the "book is sold for informational purposes only, etc." it’s very difficult to conclude that he actually means it, for if he had done so, then he’d have written up the information in the manner that I've suggested above. Clearly, Priesler is deliberately goading authority to provoke a response and all indications are that he’s been very successful in doing so, especially given that he’s suggesting that chemistry neophytes take up the dangerous challenge.

4. One doesn’t have to look any further than Chapter One—Chemicals and Equipment to illustrate the issues. First, anyone experienced in organic synthesis of this caliber doesn’t need lessons in how to handle their glassware (thus my assertion he’s deliberately pitching at neophytes); second, the purchasing of almost any quantity of just about every one of the 32 precursor chemicals listed on pages 6 and 7 will draw the attention of the powers that be; and so will most of the Listed Essential Chemicals on page 7.

5. Moreover, the quantities of chemicals that Priesler is suggesting that one obtains are quite staggering. For example, under Imports and Exports we find 500 gal or 1 ,500 kg of acetone; 500 gal or 1 ,364 kg of ethyl ether; 500 kg of potassium permanganate; 500 gal or 1 ,591 kg of toluene just to mention a few of the more dangerous ones.

I understand his logic by suggesting that one’s likely to be less ‘exposed’ if one makes one large batch instead of lots of little ones but my mind simply boggles beyond belief that any neophyte drugmaker/chemist would be handling the mentioned quantities of those dangerous chemicals in ‘backyard’, less-than-ideal conditions—as three of those I’ve mentioned are highly volatile and their vapors dangerously explosive. Playing with such quantities in suboptimal conditions is living dangerously in the extreme not to mention that by purchasing such huge quantities one would be waving red flags to the world.

Any reasonable person would never recommend such a risky and dangerous undertaking.

Where it's made is one matter but I'd imagine its only significant precursor would be ergotamine tartrate (a la Hoffman), as ergotamine is a commonly available drug for migraine (although somewhat less so than some years back, as it's been largely superceded by sumatriptan).

The next alternative I'd imagine would be to get 'raw' ergot and process it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergot although I'd guess that gathering and refining the fungus would be no mean feat for any backyard manufacturer.

It's hard to imagine there being any other major human-manufactured precursor due to the complexity of the molecule. Moreover, refined ergotamine for medical use is a mixture of various ergot alkaloids. Presumably, this would complicate the synthesis but I've never bothered to think about how it would or to what extent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Leonard_Pickard

It turns out there are more than a couple LSD labs, some having a bigger internet presence than others.

Suppliers will not sell directly to random people, but as it turns out their approved resellers are happy to offer spoonfuls of LSD in powder form to anyone who asks!

https://imgur.com/a/r2FkJOD (not my picture)

In my opinion, this is a plausible hypothesis.

I know, comparing uppers and downers, not the same effects, etc.

They've been devastating for good reason, which is that with oxycodone the long proven, well established administration and monitoring protocols for narcotic opioids were not observed.

Essentially, every narcotic opioid ever discovered or used has addictive properties and thus they all have the potential to addict users. Opiate addition takes a very pernicious form because withdrawal makes the addict feel so absolutely rotten which is instantly fixed by restoring the level of drug to its normal 'maintenance' levels.

Opiates come in a huge range of types and strengths. Some are considered sufficienty mild or innocuous to sell OTC without a script, others are considered too powerful and dangerous to ever sell legally even though they do have legitimate medical uses, heroin (diacetyl morphine) falls into this category in most countries as it's considered too 'hot' to handle/administer - although the UK is one exception where it's used for intractable pain (as in terminal cancer).

(The UK struck out/did not sign the section that covered the complete prohibition of heroin in the international treaty on banned narcotic drugs because its doctors used the rationale that heroin is actually a more effective painkiller in terminal cancer cases over morphine (which in fact it is by a reasonable margin) - thus addiction was a secondary consideration in such dire circumstances. Whilst the UK, didn't ban heroin for medical use, it agreed to the other provisions of the treaty - those concerning its illegal trade, and possession, etc.)

As I said, ALL opioids that induce narcotic and pain-reducing effects have the potential to be addictive - even mild OTC ones. I'll use myself as an example here. Years ago, I used to take OTC painkillers for the occasional headache of the type that included both codeine and paracetamol (acetaminophen) and whilst they cured the pain I found the headaches becoming more frequent which then led me to take more tablets. Eventually, it dawned on me that the codeine was the reason for the increase in frequency of the headaches - not what caused them in the first instance. I then switched to the paracetamol-only tablets and the frequency of my headaches subsided to the frequency that they were originally.

Of course, in my case, withdrawing from the codeine was was trivial - just a simple matter of switching to codeine-free tablets, but it's anything but simple for a heroin addict - in most cases it's a fucking painful 'nightmare' of the worst kind.

Right, I've taken a long time to get to the point which is this: simply introducing a new opioid drug, especially so a powerful one such oxycodone, without keeping in place all the existing protocols that cover the medical administration of opoids which have existed for well over 100 years is a recipe for an unmitigated disaster - and that's exactly what happened.

We know that Purdue Pharmaceuticals and its owners - that ragbag mob the Sacklers - were the irresponsible pushers of oxycodone, but in many ways it's how we'd gotten to the point where oxycodone was so widespread that it's had such a devastating impact on the population that is so damning and it still must be explained in detail.

What's never been explained to me or, for that matter any other member of the public, why the FDA didn't nip this potential problem in the bud at the outset when it originally approved oxycodone. Moreover, why did the second line of defense fail so catastrophically - that is, why didn't the medical profession - all those doctors prescribing oxycodone - use their knowledge of opiate addiction (which is basic 101 pharmacy knowledge required for them to pass their medial exams), stop the opioid crisis before it took hold?

The opioid/oxycondone crisis is one of the greatest failings in public health administration in modern times. Purdue and the Sacklers started the crisis but why public health administration failed so catastrophically has never been answered.

But to answer, I think the term is used colloquially all of the time and of course is open to interpretation.

I would suggest it has nothing to do with a drug's pharmacology or chemical structure but rather the degree to which a drug when taken in easily-consumed quantities can shape our perceptions of the world, the likelihood of negative externalities due to consumer behavior and the probability of becoming addicted to the drug.

A mixture of those things makes a drug "hard" in conversational language e.g. something that dramatically changes a persons perceptions, frequently has negative externalities and can cause addiction with short-term sustained use is a "hard drug". Like alcohol.

When addicted to such a drug, the negative externalities typically expand in scope and severity and if the use scales to a significant portion of the population would generally be regarded as an undesirable state for society to be in.