6 ms·

The ephedrine (or pseudoephedrine) synthesis is a one step using phosphorus/iodine reduction directly to methamphetamine. It’s simple and clean in that only an

The ephedrine (or pseudoephedrine) synthesis is a one step using phosphorus/iodine reduction directly to methamphetamine. It’s simple and clean in that only an acid base extraction is required, and only one set of NP solvents. All these others syntheses with multiple steps up the chances of weird toxic solvents or contaminants creeping in. I think it’s a contaminant issue that’s exacerbated by the drug use. The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance. It’s not an evil drug per se - long history before it was criminalized. Plus that would neuter the cartels and protect people’s health more than pushing it underground.

therobots927 5mo ago
[flagged]
- fwipsy 5mo ago
  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Go read this book" ain't it.
  - jrflowers 5mo ago
    “I don’t feel like reading a book” isn’t a counter argument. That’s just a tidbit about how your day is going
    - nswango 5mo ago
      [dead]
    - fwipsy 5mo ago
      I've not refuted anything, but I still don't believe it. I'm just informing them of that.
      - jrflowers 5mo ago
        I think gp might’ve suggested the book because they weren’t expecting the claim to be accepted out of hand. I’m not convinced either, the book looks interesting though. I might watch the hbo adaptation whenever that comes out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/fort-bragg-cartel-murders-1235394302/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/fort-b...
  - serf 5mo ago
    'extraordinary claims' is laughable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_coca...
    - fwipsy 5mo ago
      Point, but the claim that this is driving civilian drug policy is still extraordinary.
whimsicalism 5mo ago
> I think it’s a contaminant issue that’s exacerbated by the drug use. I think the various pieces of evidence presented in the article basically all point against this. Is there a reason you think the evidence in the article is flawed?
- keepamovin 5mo ago
  I don’t take the article as authoritative. It’s argument against contamination is not strong. It doesn’t present any real evidence for it. You can elaborate if you like
  - nswango 5mo ago
    The original Atlantic article, which this one is trying to refute, also doesn't present any evidence for the theory that 'new meth' has significant different effects on health. After a fact dump about different types of meth, it's literally a collection of anecdotal evidence from meth users going "for the first 5 years of smoking weekly, I had a great time partying in a relaxed way with my best buds, now that I've lost my job, partner, family and home and smoke daily my mental health is fucked up". And people working in drug care and enforcement saying "when a few rich hedonists would spend $60 for the next level high, it didn't cause schizophrenia. Now that we have thousands of former crack and opiate addicts living in tents injecting $10 bags three times a day it seems to be contaminated with something that causes detachment from reality." The literal two most common and evergreen things in drug culture are users claiming that the old stuff was much better and would deliver a clean high without addiction for barely any money, and cops claiming that the old users were better, gentlemen fiends who did not sell their bodies or rob and exploit their own families, never bit or stabbed you when being arrested, and did not soil themselves or set fire to their own clothes while in custody.
    - keepamovin 5mo ago
      I really appreciate your take. I think it is correct and reads as accurate. Clearly a batch problem. Also, I'm glad that the read from someone who's been in the trenches and on the ground about this issue is alignment with mine. Thanks for sharing on this thread
Aurornis 5mo ago
> The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance. The phrase “small amount” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this statement. The government does regulate and control amphetamine and methamphetamine (Desoxyn) as prescription drugs. The former is not all that hard to access. For a while it was as easy as signing up for a service through a TikTok ad and filling out a form, after which you were guaranteed a prescription. Those mills got shut down but it’s not hard to find a doctor willing to write a prescription in your area with some Internet searching (Side note: Lot of people get surprised when they get a prescription from some random doctor and discover that all of their other doctors know about it. Controlled substance prescriptions go to shared databases and it will be on that record for a while) > It’s not an evil drug per se - long history before it was criminalized Dose makes the poison, the recreational users aren’t going to be satisfied with your government regulated small amounts. These discussions always end up with two parties talking past each other because one side wants to focus only on the ideal drug user who uses small amounts and has perfect education and self control, while ignoring that the meth users wouldn’t be stopped from seeking their larger quantities than a theoretical government regulated small amount program would allow. I should also mention that methamphetamine appears to be quite neurotoxic at recreational doses. Maybe even smaller doses too. We should also mention that the “long history” you speak of isn’t actually that long and was associated with small epidemics of overuse and addiction, too. It’s not like addiction is a modern phenomenon.
- throwaway27448 5mo ago
  Having to go through the medical system is why there's such a thriving black market. How do you propose changing things that this isn't the case?
  - keepamovin 5mo ago
    Well, in my proposal it would depend on case by case for each chemical, but basically follow a dispensary model with regulations and controlled access (ID swipe, nationally tracked, time-windows quotas), proportional to the dangers of over-use of the chemical. For instance, I could purchase psilocybin/mescaline/ibogaine treatment at a dispensary (obviously imagining a therapeutic commoditized future). I could also purchase mescaline/psilocybin/salvia recreationally. Some recreational access may be "psych tested", or at least "need to pass the monitored orientation session" using special assays to ensure people could handle a "solo flight". For the chem in question, it really is a more basic case I think of purity/quality/amount/regulation. I could walk into a dispensary and do a 50mg (is that correct?) line instead of a hit of espresso. Would I do this? I'd like to try, at least. The fact that I could, and know it was high quality and safe would be very cool. I'm probably a bit weird/sci-fi/psychedelic utopian but I love the idea of a menagerie of dispensaries dealing out all kinds of cool, useful and exploratory chemicals safely. There could even be a chain of PiHKaL/TIHKAL outlets. Perhaps affectionately named "Shulgin's Drug Store". lol :)
hash872 5mo ago
>The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance Famously, the US spent about 15-20 years attempting this with opioids. They were widely available to people via a pseudo-medical process, or via secondhand dealing. Opioids were/are manufactured by regulated, publicly traded companies with inspectors who controlled purity and production. The result? A shattering drug addiction crisis that at its height killed more people annually than the entire Vietnam War. (For people saying 'no, that was illegal heroin or fentanyl that did all that damage'- the Wiki page for the opioid crisis is quite clear that at least 50% of all deaths were due to perfectly legal, regulated opioids). When you make drugs legal & easy to get, lots & lots of people do them- who develop life-shattering addictions and OD en masse. They also build tolerance and then move on to even harder stuff. AFAIK out of the 300ish countries on the globe, there is not 1 that has decriminalized hard drugs in the modern era. And no don't say Portugal, contrary to widespread myth they forced people under threat of jail to attend drug rehab, and anyways they've recently curtailed even that. I realize this is not going to get a lot of upvotes on HN, but yes making it difficult to do hard drugs is a reasonable public policy goal. (Which again, is why literally every country on the planet does it). There's room to argue about the exact tactics, but the broad goal is perfectly legitimate
- KarlKode 5mo ago
  I think a astronomically better example would be programs in the Netherlands, Denmark or Switzerland, where people heavily addicted to heroine can get into programs that will provide them with pharmaceutical heroine. Still prescribed by doctors (although specialized ones), but not just for pulling a wisdom tooth with huge margins for the Sacklers...
  - vintermann 5mo ago
    A problem LAR programs have had since the start is that although methadone is less attractive as a drug than heroin, it's still attractive, and basically the only way to figure out how much a heroin addict needs is to ask them. Leading to users asking for extra, selling the excess (to users who were not in the LAR program) and buying other drugs with the profits. For some years, more people died from methadone overdose in Norway than heroin. Sure, you could demand injection on site to reduce this problem. But that just makes the program less appealing. You could also just hand out the users' drug of choice directly (heroin) rather than the less harmful substitute, but at some point that starts counting as physician-assisted suicide, really.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
DivingForGold 5mo ago
Except that you fail to mention that amphetamine abuse is strongly associated with Parkinson's and other neurological diseases, which are serious public health burdens, and likely contribute to the phenomena of high personal tax regions like the EU.
- keepamovin 5mo ago
  Yeah i didn’t know that. I guess tho with regulated supply we have more chance to handle abuse and addiction. The craziness of so many legal things being pretty bad for health is also something worth addressing (alcohol, cigarettes).
yojo 5mo ago
Oregon decriminalized drugs in 2020 and the experiment is widely viewed as a failure by both sides of the political spectrum. The Democratic legislature rolled it back four years later. It doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s impossible to have a legalized or decriminalized regime that works, but it is non-trivial to get right.
- tomjen3 5mo ago
  Its meaningless to decriminalize using it, since it does not give big benefit of replacing narco terrorists producers with pure, controlled stuff from legal pharma companies. The world is obviously better of without drugs, but given that is not going to happen, the question to decide is: is the world better of with drugs from legal pharmacutical companies, or (somewhat) restricted access to drugs through an illegal system? Decrimininalizing drug use is the worst of both worlds: you get more drug access, but it still happens through the illegal system and benefits narco terrorists. If you don't want to put drug users in jail (you cannot reasonably fine homeless people), you can offer drug courts and diversionary programs. You need the federal government to do what it did with Marijuana (which is still federally illegal), to be able to try the other choice.
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    > The world is obviously better of without drugs, You slip such a confident assertion in there seemingly without justification. Do you think (for example) that the world would be better off without alcohol? I certainly don't. Everything has downsides; that doesn't on its own justify eliminating it. It's analogous to the adage that the most secure computer is the one encased in a block of cement so as to render it entirely unusable.
    - cyberpunk 5mo ago
      The world would unambiguously be better off without alcohol.
      - CuriouslyC 5mo ago
cyberax 5mo ago
> The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance. The thing is, drugs are addictive. ESPECIALLY meth. How would you prevent people from just getting as much as they want and then becoming drug zombies? Fentanyl is similar. Cartels perfected its production, so now it's pure and widely available. It's even worse than meth in some regards. Once you start using fentanyl, you're going to become a hardened addict. And there will be almost no hope of recovery, the success rate of drug rehab treatments is in single-digit percentages. I guess the idea is that people will just keep using "safer" drugs like cocaine instead? I'm not sure it's working, we legalized cannabis and it made zero difference.
- dostick 5mo ago
  Drugs are not addictive in a sense that they make person to go out and buy more. The only thing about drugs is that they are the best thing in that person’s life at the moment. Blaming drugs is as outdated as blaming npm package for vulnerability that some bad actor pushed into it.
  - nswango 5mo ago
    Have you ever been an addict? I have, and the argument that everyone addicted had some other issue going on is pretty pointless imho. Yes, they had some other issue, and now before fixing that issue they also have to deal with being a drug addict.
  - autoexec 5mo ago
    > Drugs are not addictive in a sense that they make person to go out and buy more. Some are. Your life could be better than it's ever been but if you've got a physiological dependence on a drug and don't have enough of it in your system you're going to have a very very bad time until you get more. Some drugs will even kill you if you fail to get more and you need to be carefully weaned off them before you can stop taking it.
- jampekka 5mo ago
  The main idea indeed is usually "channeling consumption" to less harmful substances, dosages/concentrations and outlets. A prime example is alcohol, where prohibition led to bad outcomes. This led to the regulated legalization model. E.g. in some Nordic countries hard liquor is still only available in government stores and licensed restaurants, with exactly this logic. Not long ago bars could serve only one "unit" of alcohol at a time. Longer ago there were limits to how much alcohol one could buy in a week. > I guess the idea is that people will just keep using "safer" drugs like cocaine instead? I'm not sure it's working, we legalized cannabis and it made zero difference. Cannabis and cocaine are very different kinds of substances with very different uses and audiences. Expecting legalized cannabis to substantially reduce cocaine use is like expecting banning of coffee would substantially increase alcohol consumption. There can be some minor effects due to multiple illegal substances tending to have the same outlets, but this is likely a subtle at best. Also how much more "safe" cocaine is from methamphetamine is not that clear. Probably the largest effect is from very different demographics of methamphetamine vs cocaine users.
culi 5mo ago
Government does sorta regulate it. Desoxyn is (rarely) prescribed for ADHD when other meds aren't effective enough. The difference between most amphetamines and Desoxyn is that extra methyl group. That methyl group helps it cross the blood-brain barrier a little faster but the chemical that reaches the brain is the same in both cases.
- keepamovin 5mo ago
  [dead]
gwerbin 5mo ago
> All these others syntheses with multiple steps up the chances of weird toxic solvents or contaminants creeping in. I think it’s a contaminant issue that’s exacerbated by the drug use. The article addresses this: > Second, the evidence we have is against the idea of contaminants in P2P meth. Almost all meth was produced using P2P since 2012, before most reports of schizophrenia. And P2P meth synthesis has changed several times in the interim, resulting in higher purity than ever before. Not saying they're right, but the author at least believes this hypothesis is contradicted by the data.
- keepamovin 5mo ago
  Yeah, I just don’t think that’s very strong. The immediate precursor may not be the issue but the residues of routes to get to that precursor and what that precursor is contaminated with etc. that’s my point.
jona-f 5mo ago
It's a pretty bad drug, I can see only disadvantages over plain amphetamine. If amphetamine isn't strong enough, you already have a serious problem. I'm not saying that criminalization is the right way, just that I don't see a responsible recreational/performance use for methamphetamine. It's too strong and too toxic. The regulation should permit only use for addiction management imho. Also, the long history is not exactly in its favor, given how the Nazis extensively used it and Hitler was probably a serious meth-junkie.
- nswango 5mo ago
  Does history record whether Hitler was using the good ol' giggles-and-joy pseudoephedrine meth or the evil psychosis-inducing P2P biker meth?
  - jona-f 5mo ago
    I think they were using the racemate. But your "giggles-and-joy" framing of meth is bullshit. Not sleeping for 3 days is psychosis-inducing no matter how you achieve that and methamphetamine is much more neurotoxic than amphetamine no matter which enantiomere.
- jampekka 5mo ago
  > It's a pretty bad drug, I can see only disadvantages over plain amphetamine. The main "advantage" is probably the smoking RoA of methamphetamine. The RoA difference is likely a larger factor in methamphetamine vs plain amphetamine effects than the pharmacology of the molecule.
- keepamovin 5mo ago
  Not saying the risk profiles are the same, but some of the perception of different danger might be psychosocial normative informed by the differing criminalization. Plausible at least no? Important to keep that in mind.
gaiagraphia 5mo ago
I've bounced between viewpoints so many times in life regarding legalisation of drugs. It's a fascinating argument. Something which has always grounded my beliefs is the comparison to alcohol. Imagine we walked into bars and were presented with unmarked bottle of clear liquid, and had to order "1 alcohol, please!", where the alcohol % and quality of the drink was totally random. It'd be fucking chaos. I think I've settled on the "drugs should be legal" but heeavvviillyyy regulated and marked. I wouldn't mind going to a bar and ordering a very weak MDMA drink, or going to a shisha cafe with weakened opium, weed, crack, etc. Also, it seems the way drugs are punished criminally is totally wrong. Why not lock people up for false advertising rather than 'strength'? I.e if you're heavily cutting drugs, you should be strung up for manslaughter. It would put pressure on the manufacturers to label and regulate themselves.
- LoganDark 5mo ago
  I believe harm reduction is the answer. There are people who will be curious to try substances no matter what you do -- and no matter for what reason. Here is some of what the US has been doing ever since the "war on drugs" started: - Ban the sale of such substances, forcing users to resort to the black market. - Lock up anyone who uses or possesses such substances, training users that there is no help for them. - Lock up anyone who helps or intends to help anyone else use or possess such substances, training users that there is no helping others. - Censor information on how to reduce the risks of substance use, forcing users to put themselves in more danger. (Contrary to apparent popular belief, this does not dissuade users, only harm them.) - Censor information on how to produce or obtain such substances, preventing the discovery of reliable sources. - Engage in relentless fearmongering about how terrible and bad such substances are, encouraging users to entirely disregard all warnings about substance use. In my opinion, here is what one should actually do: - Regulate the production and sale of such substances. Don't force users to resort to the black market. - Encourage harm reduction and responsibility towards substance use. Don't train users that there is no help for them. - Warn only of the real risks and concerns about substance use. Don't train users to disregard very real dangers by flooding them with fake ones. - Offer reliable sources for such substances. Don't force users to resort to dubious leads. Recent research into psilocybin therapy, for instance, is very exciting. I've been using psychedelics at home for years, and I dream of a world where known quantities and potencies of such things can be reliably sourced over-the-counter for such use. I don't know if I'll live to see the day. Also note that none of this prevents helping users who genuinely need it -- users with less self-control, for instance, or harmful dependency. But forcing them all into terrible shame, withdrawal and eventually an utterly preventable death, is the same kind of bullshit that looked at building more homes and then invented anti-homeless architecture instead.
kilroy123 5mo ago
I have a wild idea. Why not spend that money on providing good mental health and rehabilitation services instead? I have multiple close family members who have struggled badly with drug and alcohol abuse. Good treatment is the way, not the government handing out drugs.
- keepamovin 5mo ago
  Except when psychedelics are a part of the good treatment.
- morkalork 5mo ago
  All the mental health treatment and resiliance training in the world isn't going to address root societal causes
ifwinterco 5mo ago
Regular amphetamine (speed) is relatively okay as long as you’re not one of the people who’s wired to absolutely love it and develop a problem with it. Meth on the other hand really is quite nasty, it’s directly neurotoxic to dopamine neurons in a way that regular speed isn’t
- keepamovin 5mo ago
  Interesting. Any studies that slam dunk it?
IAmGraydon 5mo ago
Do you have any memories that you cannot let go of? That play back in your head incessantly every single day without fail? That obsess nearly every waking moment? For addicts, that memory is the dopamine release of being high, and it definitely can happen after a single use. It doesn’t impress everyone in the same way, but for those who are vulnerable to it, it becomes nearly the only thought they can have until they scratch that itch. I used to think just like you, but after dealing with and truly understanding addiction in people close to me, I can never support legalization of certain super-addictive drugs. There is no one deserving of the torment that addicts are cursed with. We should try to ensure less people, not more, are ever introduced to it.
- keepamovin 5mo ago
  Hmm, i get why you’d reach that conclusion with your experience, but i dispute that given the same experience only that conclusion is valid. The “super addict edge case” is a problem but the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. Don’t discard, but manage. I believe access to drugs should be psych/(genetic if reliable)/“allergy type”/behavior tested. I won’t give you salvia if you will flip out per tests, but if you’re okay, you’re green. The advantage of state controlled access is that you can actually achieve that, in theory. Promoting the thing you’re against rn might actually help reduce the harm you want to remove.
keepamovin 5mo ago
Yes, i majored in chemistry.

therobots927 5mo ago

[flagged]

fwipsy 5mo ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Go read this book" ain't it.
- jrflowers 5mo ago
  “I don’t feel like reading a book” isn’t a counter argument. That’s just a tidbit about how your day is going
  - nswango 5mo ago
    [dead]
  - fwipsy 5mo ago
    I've not refuted anything, but I still don't believe it. I'm just informing them of that.
    - jrflowers 5mo ago
      I think gp might’ve suggested the book because they weren’t expecting the claim to be accepted out of hand. I’m not convinced either, the book looks interesting though. I might watch the hbo adaptation whenever that comes out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/fort-bragg-cartel-murders-1235394302/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/fort-b...
- serf 5mo ago
  'extraordinary claims' is laughable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_coca...
  - fwipsy 5mo ago
    Point, but the claim that this is driving civilian drug policy is still extraordinary.

whimsicalism 5mo ago

> I think it’s a contaminant issue that’s exacerbated by the drug use. I think the various pieces of evidence presented in the article basically all point against this. Is there a reason you think the evidence in the article is flawed?

keepamovin 5mo ago
I don’t take the article as authoritative. It’s argument against contamination is not strong. It doesn’t present any real evidence for it. You can elaborate if you like
- nswango 5mo ago
  The original Atlantic article, which this one is trying to refute, also doesn't present any evidence for the theory that 'new meth' has significant different effects on health. After a fact dump about different types of meth, it's literally a collection of anecdotal evidence from meth users going "for the first 5 years of smoking weekly, I had a great time partying in a relaxed way with my best buds, now that I've lost my job, partner, family and home and smoke daily my mental health is fucked up". And people working in drug care and enforcement saying "when a few rich hedonists would spend $60 for the next level high, it didn't cause schizophrenia. Now that we have thousands of former crack and opiate addicts living in tents injecting $10 bags three times a day it seems to be contaminated with something that causes detachment from reality." The literal two most common and evergreen things in drug culture are users claiming that the old stuff was much better and would deliver a clean high without addiction for barely any money, and cops claiming that the old users were better, gentlemen fiends who did not sell their bodies or rob and exploit their own families, never bit or stabbed you when being arrested, and did not soil themselves or set fire to their own clothes while in custody.
  - keepamovin 5mo ago
    I really appreciate your take. I think it is correct and reads as accurate. Clearly a batch problem. Also, I'm glad that the read from someone who's been in the trenches and on the ground about this issue is alignment with mine. Thanks for sharing on this thread

Aurornis 5mo ago

> The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance. The phrase “small amount” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this statement. The government does regulate and control amphetamine and methamphetamine (Desoxyn) as prescription drugs. The former is not all that hard to access. For a while it was as easy as signing up for a service through a TikTok ad and filling out a form, after which you were guaranteed a prescription. Those mills got shut down but it’s not hard to find a doctor willing to write a prescription in your area with some Internet searching (Side note: Lot of people get surprised when they get a prescription from some random doctor and discover that all of their other doctors know about it. Controlled substance prescriptions go to shared databases and it will be on that record for a while) > It’s not an evil drug per se - long history before it was criminalized Dose makes the poison, the recreational users aren’t going to be satisfied with your government regulated small amounts. These discussions always end up with two parties talking past each other because one side wants to focus only on the ideal drug user who uses small amounts and has perfect education and self control, while ignoring that the meth users wouldn’t be stopped from seeking their larger quantities than a theoretical government regulated small amount program would allow. I should also mention that methamphetamine appears to be quite neurotoxic at recreational doses. Maybe even smaller doses too. We should also mention that the “long history” you speak of isn’t actually that long and was associated with small epidemics of overuse and addiction, too. It’s not like addiction is a modern phenomenon.

throwaway27448 5mo ago
Having to go through the medical system is why there's such a thriving black market. How do you propose changing things that this isn't the case?
- keepamovin 5mo ago
  Well, in my proposal it would depend on case by case for each chemical, but basically follow a dispensary model with regulations and controlled access (ID swipe, nationally tracked, time-windows quotas), proportional to the dangers of over-use of the chemical. For instance, I could purchase psilocybin/mescaline/ibogaine treatment at a dispensary (obviously imagining a therapeutic commoditized future). I could also purchase mescaline/psilocybin/salvia recreationally. Some recreational access may be "psych tested", or at least "need to pass the monitored orientation session" using special assays to ensure people could handle a "solo flight". For the chem in question, it really is a more basic case I think of purity/quality/amount/regulation. I could walk into a dispensary and do a 50mg (is that correct?) line instead of a hit of espresso. Would I do this? I'd like to try, at least. The fact that I could, and know it was high quality and safe would be very cool. I'm probably a bit weird/sci-fi/psychedelic utopian but I love the idea of a menagerie of dispensaries dealing out all kinds of cool, useful and exploratory chemicals safely. There could even be a chain of PiHKaL/TIHKAL outlets. Perhaps affectionately named "Shulgin's Drug Store". lol :)

hash872 5mo ago

>The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance Famously, the US spent about 15-20 years attempting this with opioids. They were widely available to people via a pseudo-medical process, or via secondhand dealing. Opioids were/are manufactured by regulated, publicly traded companies with inspectors who controlled purity and production. The result? A shattering drug addiction crisis that at its height killed more people annually than the entire Vietnam War. (For people saying 'no, that was illegal heroin or fentanyl that did all that damage'- the Wiki page for the opioid crisis is quite clear that at least 50% of all deaths were due to perfectly legal, regulated opioids). When you make drugs legal & easy to get, lots & lots of people do them- who develop life-shattering addictions and OD en masse. They also build tolerance and then move on to even harder stuff. AFAIK out of the 300ish countries on the globe, there is not 1 that has decriminalized hard drugs in the modern era. And no don't say Portugal, contrary to widespread myth they forced people under threat of jail to attend drug rehab, and anyways they've recently curtailed even that. I realize this is not going to get a lot of upvotes on HN, but yes making it difficult to do hard drugs is a reasonable public policy goal. (Which again, is why literally every country on the planet does it). There's room to argue about the exact tactics, but the broad goal is perfectly legitimate

KarlKode 5mo ago
I think a astronomically better example would be programs in the Netherlands, Denmark or Switzerland, where people heavily addicted to heroine can get into programs that will provide them with pharmaceutical heroine. Still prescribed by doctors (although specialized ones), but not just for pulling a wisdom tooth with huge margins for the Sacklers...
- vintermann 5mo ago
  A problem LAR programs have had since the start is that although methadone is less attractive as a drug than heroin, it's still attractive, and basically the only way to figure out how much a heroin addict needs is to ask them. Leading to users asking for extra, selling the excess (to users who were not in the LAR program) and buying other drugs with the profits. For some years, more people died from methadone overdose in Norway than heroin. Sure, you could demand injection on site to reduce this problem. But that just makes the program less appealing. You could also just hand out the users' drug of choice directly (heroin) rather than the less harmful substitute, but at some point that starts counting as physician-assisted suicide, really.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

DivingForGold 5mo ago

Except that you fail to mention that amphetamine abuse is strongly associated with Parkinson's and other neurological diseases, which are serious public health burdens, and likely contribute to the phenomena of high personal tax regions like the EU.

keepamovin 5mo ago
Yeah i didn’t know that. I guess tho with regulated supply we have more chance to handle abuse and addiction. The craziness of so many legal things being pretty bad for health is also something worth addressing (alcohol, cigarettes).

yojo 5mo ago

Oregon decriminalized drugs in 2020 and the experiment is widely viewed as a failure by both sides of the political spectrum. The Democratic legislature rolled it back four years later. It doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s impossible to have a legalized or decriminalized regime that works, but it is non-trivial to get right.

tomjen3 5mo ago
Its meaningless to decriminalize using it, since it does not give big benefit of replacing narco terrorists producers with pure, controlled stuff from legal pharma companies. The world is obviously better of without drugs, but given that is not going to happen, the question to decide is: is the world better of with drugs from legal pharmacutical companies, or (somewhat) restricted access to drugs through an illegal system? Decrimininalizing drug use is the worst of both worlds: you get more drug access, but it still happens through the illegal system and benefits narco terrorists. If you don't want to put drug users in jail (you cannot reasonably fine homeless people), you can offer drug courts and diversionary programs. You need the federal government to do what it did with Marijuana (which is still federally illegal), to be able to try the other choice.
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  > The world is obviously better of without drugs, You slip such a confident assertion in there seemingly without justification. Do you think (for example) that the world would be better off without alcohol? I certainly don't. Everything has downsides; that doesn't on its own justify eliminating it. It's analogous to the adage that the most secure computer is the one encased in a block of cement so as to render it entirely unusable.
  - cyberpunk 5mo ago
    The world would unambiguously be better off without alcohol.
    - CuriouslyC 5mo ago

cyberax 5mo ago

> The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance. The thing is, drugs are addictive. ESPECIALLY meth. How would you prevent people from just getting as much as they want and then becoming drug zombies? Fentanyl is similar. Cartels perfected its production, so now it's pure and widely available. It's even worse than meth in some regards. Once you start using fentanyl, you're going to become a hardened addict. And there will be almost no hope of recovery, the success rate of drug rehab treatments is in single-digit percentages. I guess the idea is that people will just keep using "safer" drugs like cocaine instead? I'm not sure it's working, we legalized cannabis and it made zero difference.

dostick 5mo ago
Drugs are not addictive in a sense that they make person to go out and buy more. The only thing about drugs is that they are the best thing in that person’s life at the moment. Blaming drugs is as outdated as blaming npm package for vulnerability that some bad actor pushed into it.
- nswango 5mo ago
  Have you ever been an addict? I have, and the argument that everyone addicted had some other issue going on is pretty pointless imho. Yes, they had some other issue, and now before fixing that issue they also have to deal with being a drug addict.
- autoexec 5mo ago
  > Drugs are not addictive in a sense that they make person to go out and buy more. Some are. Your life could be better than it's ever been but if you've got a physiological dependence on a drug and don't have enough of it in your system you're going to have a very very bad time until you get more. Some drugs will even kill you if you fail to get more and you need to be carefully weaned off them before you can stop taking it.
jampekka 5mo ago
The main idea indeed is usually "channeling consumption" to less harmful substances, dosages/concentrations and outlets. A prime example is alcohol, where prohibition led to bad outcomes. This led to the regulated legalization model. E.g. in some Nordic countries hard liquor is still only available in government stores and licensed restaurants, with exactly this logic. Not long ago bars could serve only one "unit" of alcohol at a time. Longer ago there were limits to how much alcohol one could buy in a week. > I guess the idea is that people will just keep using "safer" drugs like cocaine instead? I'm not sure it's working, we legalized cannabis and it made zero difference. Cannabis and cocaine are very different kinds of substances with very different uses and audiences. Expecting legalized cannabis to substantially reduce cocaine use is like expecting banning of coffee would substantially increase alcohol consumption. There can be some minor effects due to multiple illegal substances tending to have the same outlets, but this is likely a subtle at best. Also how much more "safe" cocaine is from methamphetamine is not that clear. Probably the largest effect is from very different demographics of methamphetamine vs cocaine users.

culi 5mo ago

Government does sorta regulate it. Desoxyn is (rarely) prescribed for ADHD when other meds aren't effective enough. The difference between most amphetamines and Desoxyn is that extra methyl group. That methyl group helps it cross the blood-brain barrier a little faster but the chemical that reaches the brain is the same in both cases.

keepamovin 5mo ago
[dead]

gwerbin 5mo ago

> All these others syntheses with multiple steps up the chances of weird toxic solvents or contaminants creeping in. I think it’s a contaminant issue that’s exacerbated by the drug use. The article addresses this: > Second, the evidence we have is against the idea of contaminants in P2P meth. Almost all meth was produced using P2P since 2012, before most reports of schizophrenia. And P2P meth synthesis has changed several times in the interim, resulting in higher purity than ever before. Not saying they're right, but the author at least believes this hypothesis is contradicted by the data.

keepamovin 5mo ago
Yeah, I just don’t think that’s very strong. The immediate precursor may not be the issue but the residues of routes to get to that precursor and what that precursor is contaminated with etc. that’s my point.

jona-f 5mo ago

It's a pretty bad drug, I can see only disadvantages over plain amphetamine. If amphetamine isn't strong enough, you already have a serious problem. I'm not saying that criminalization is the right way, just that I don't see a responsible recreational/performance use for methamphetamine. It's too strong and too toxic. The regulation should permit only use for addiction management imho. Also, the long history is not exactly in its favor, given how the Nazis extensively used it and Hitler was probably a serious meth-junkie.

nswango 5mo ago
Does history record whether Hitler was using the good ol' giggles-and-joy pseudoephedrine meth or the evil psychosis-inducing P2P biker meth?
- jona-f 5mo ago
  I think they were using the racemate. But your "giggles-and-joy" framing of meth is bullshit. Not sleeping for 3 days is psychosis-inducing no matter how you achieve that and methamphetamine is much more neurotoxic than amphetamine no matter which enantiomere.
jampekka 5mo ago
> It's a pretty bad drug, I can see only disadvantages over plain amphetamine. The main "advantage" is probably the smoking RoA of methamphetamine. The RoA difference is likely a larger factor in methamphetamine vs plain amphetamine effects than the pharmacology of the molecule.
keepamovin 5mo ago
Not saying the risk profiles are the same, but some of the perception of different danger might be psychosocial normative informed by the differing criminalization. Plausible at least no? Important to keep that in mind.

gaiagraphia 5mo ago

I've bounced between viewpoints so many times in life regarding legalisation of drugs. It's a fascinating argument. Something which has always grounded my beliefs is the comparison to alcohol. Imagine we walked into bars and were presented with unmarked bottle of clear liquid, and had to order "1 alcohol, please!", where the alcohol % and quality of the drink was totally random. It'd be fucking chaos. I think I've settled on the "drugs should be legal" but heeavvviillyyy regulated and marked. I wouldn't mind going to a bar and ordering a very weak MDMA drink, or going to a shisha cafe with weakened opium, weed, crack, etc. Also, it seems the way drugs are punished criminally is totally wrong. Why not lock people up for false advertising rather than 'strength'? I.e if you're heavily cutting drugs, you should be strung up for manslaughter. It would put pressure on the manufacturers to label and regulate themselves.

LoganDark 5mo ago
I believe harm reduction is the answer. There are people who will be curious to try substances no matter what you do -- and no matter for what reason. Here is some of what the US has been doing ever since the "war on drugs" started: - Ban the sale of such substances, forcing users to resort to the black market. - Lock up anyone who uses or possesses such substances, training users that there is no help for them. - Lock up anyone who helps or intends to help anyone else use or possess such substances, training users that there is no helping others. - Censor information on how to reduce the risks of substance use, forcing users to put themselves in more danger. (Contrary to apparent popular belief, this does not dissuade users, only harm them.) - Censor information on how to produce or obtain such substances, preventing the discovery of reliable sources. - Engage in relentless fearmongering about how terrible and bad such substances are, encouraging users to entirely disregard all warnings about substance use. In my opinion, here is what one should actually do: - Regulate the production and sale of such substances. Don't force users to resort to the black market. - Encourage harm reduction and responsibility towards substance use. Don't train users that there is no help for them. - Warn only of the real risks and concerns about substance use. Don't train users to disregard very real dangers by flooding them with fake ones. - Offer reliable sources for such substances. Don't force users to resort to dubious leads. Recent research into psilocybin therapy, for instance, is very exciting. I've been using psychedelics at home for years, and I dream of a world where known quantities and potencies of such things can be reliably sourced over-the-counter for such use. I don't know if I'll live to see the day. Also note that none of this prevents helping users who genuinely need it -- users with less self-control, for instance, or harmful dependency. But forcing them all into terrible shame, withdrawal and eventually an utterly preventable death, is the same kind of bullshit that looked at building more homes and then invented anti-homeless architecture instead.

kilroy123 5mo ago

I have a wild idea. Why not spend that money on providing good mental health and rehabilitation services instead? I have multiple close family members who have struggled badly with drug and alcohol abuse. Good treatment is the way, not the government handing out drugs.

keepamovin 5mo ago
Except when psychedelics are a part of the good treatment.
morkalork 5mo ago
All the mental health treatment and resiliance training in the world isn't going to address root societal causes

ifwinterco 5mo ago

Regular amphetamine (speed) is relatively okay as long as you’re not one of the people who’s wired to absolutely love it and develop a problem with it. Meth on the other hand really is quite nasty, it’s directly neurotoxic to dopamine neurons in a way that regular speed isn’t

keepamovin 5mo ago
Interesting. Any studies that slam dunk it?

IAmGraydon 5mo ago

Do you have any memories that you cannot let go of? That play back in your head incessantly every single day without fail? That obsess nearly every waking moment? For addicts, that memory is the dopamine release of being high, and it definitely can happen after a single use. It doesn’t impress everyone in the same way, but for those who are vulnerable to it, it becomes nearly the only thought they can have until they scratch that itch. I used to think just like you, but after dealing with and truly understanding addiction in people close to me, I can never support legalization of certain super-addictive drugs. There is no one deserving of the torment that addicts are cursed with. We should try to ensure less people, not more, are ever introduced to it.

keepamovin 5mo ago
Hmm, i get why you’d reach that conclusion with your experience, but i dispute that given the same experience only that conclusion is valid. The “super addict edge case” is a problem but the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. Don’t discard, but manage. I believe access to drugs should be psych/(genetic if reliable)/“allergy type”/behavior tested. I won’t give you salvia if you will flip out per tests, but if you’re okay, you’re green. The advantage of state controlled access is that you can actually achieve that, in theory. Promoting the thing you’re against rn might actually help reduce the harm you want to remove.

keepamovin 5mo ago

Yes, i majored in chemistry.