3 ms·
I guess some people will still (try to) make it themselves, but last time it came up here someone posted about how mass production has just moved on to some oth
by maxerickson 3y ago
I guess some people will still (try to) make it themselves, but last time it came up here someone posted about how mass production has just moved on to some other synthesis that isn't dependent on buying a precursor in small retail quantities:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37499106 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37499106
- tptacek 3y agoAgain: the issue isn't that you can't mass-produce methamphetamine without pseudoephedrine; at scale, it's presumably far, far easier to produce it without using pseudoephedrine as a precursor. The issue is that pseudoephedrine-based meth production is a particularly damaging kind of production, in the sense of burning down buildings, causing distinctive kinds of crime, and producing an even more dangerous product.
- mindslight 3y agoIt is far far far easier, less hazardous, and less violent when methamphetamine is just made at an appropriate factory. But this simple approach is incompatible with the self-perpetuating authoritarian impulses of law makers and law enforcement.
- maxerickson 3y agoIs there reason to believe that restriction on pseudoephedrine is having a larger effect on shake and bake production than the relative cost? I'm not really paying a lot of attention to the issue, I think I bought one small package of pseudoephedrine in the last 5 years and the biggest issue I had is that the pharmacy tech didn't assume that I meant generic when I said I wanted the cheapest one.