4 ms·
The article was doing so well until the conclusion. > Does this rule out the idea of contaminants? No. Even if it’s 97% pure d-meth, there could be something v
by zephen 5mo ago
The article was doing so well until the conclusion.
> Does this rule out the idea of contaminants? No. Even if it’s 97% pure d-meth, there could be something very nasty lurking in that last 3%. But I don’t see the need for such an explanation. We know there are many more heavy users, so there’s no need to go beyond the idea that quantity has a quality all its own.
It's fine if the author finds it an uninteresting problem because the probable answer is staring us in the face, but still, he only has a plausible hypothesis.
If Sam Quinones is correct in that there is a fundamental difference in meth then and now that is causing major issues for addicts, it would certainly be in society's interest to figure that out and rectify it.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- cybercatgurrl 5mo agorectify it how? the only thing society is really good at with regards to drugs is prohibition. you can’t impose regulations on an unregulated market
- zephen 5mo ago> the only thing society is really good at with regards to drugs is prohibition. Really? Seems to me that, in general, we suck at it.
- bbor 5mo agoIt does feel like that sometimes, but alcohol use plummeted during US prohibition.
- ulrikrasmussen 5mo agoInitially, yes. But as illicit supply chains were established, usage crept back up. It didn't go all the way up to pre-prohibition usage, but it got pretty close. Just look at the graph in Figure 1 in this article: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf
- fc417fc802 5mo agoIf we carpet bomb a city and there's nothing left, does that count as a good job suppressing the guerilla insurgents? It's effective, sure ... although I don't know that drug prohibition has been particularly effective either.
- ulrikrasmussen 5mo agoThe author points out a synthesis route that includes lead in a reducing agent, and I think that other routes also depend on reducing agents that contain mercury (aluminum amalgam). Heavy metal exposure is cumulative, so even small amounts over a long time could be significant. They also disrupt the same dopaminergic system that heavy doses of stimulants disrupt, so the effects could be hard to find if we only look at the population that uses illicit stimulants. Heavy disclaimer: I am neither a chemist nor a doctor, so this is speculation on my part.
- zephen 5mo agoYes, if there are multiplicative effects from the different disruptors, that could certainly have a large effect.
- ulrikrasmussen 5mo agoIndeed, and for a layman like me it even sounds quite plausible that this could be what is making people go "mad as a hatter": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erethism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erethism Add to that that the routes of administration preferred by heaver users (smoking and injection) are also those that maximize the harms of mercury exposure.
- zephen 5mo agoSome tested samples had mercury. Others, formic acid. Neither one great to inhale. https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2025-09/CY%202023%20Methamphetamine%20Annual%20Report%20PRB%202024-35.pdf https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2025-09/CY%202023%20...
- ulrikrasmussen 5mo agoThanks! Only about 2-3% of their samples seemed to contain mercury though, so it is not as prevalent as I could fear. As far as I understand the report, the vast majority of P2P syntheses use a Leuckart reaction and so do not depend on a heavy metal containing reducing agent.