HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3 / HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso / drugs / faq-clandestine-chemistry < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 73KB | 1,742 lines

alt.drugs Clandestine Chemistry Primer & FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) Version: 2.7 (c) 1995 Yogi Shan <yshan@bnr.ca> "Give me an underground laboratory, half a dozen atom-smashers, and a beautiful girl in a diaphanous veil waiting to be turned into a chimpanzee, and I care not who writes the nation's laws." -- S.J. Perelman ------------------------------ Subject: 1. Introduction and Miscellanea Introduction ------------ It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. UseNet is one of the most amazing phenomenon I have ever seen: a dynamic synthesis of human knowledge, thought, and understanding. Where else but on the 'Net could I post a comment about an obscure line from the SF cult movie "Blade Runner" in the evening, and find half a dozen follow-up posts from fellow aficionados scattered across the globe, by the next day? But as the human spirit soars to unimaginable heights, so does it wallow in the gutter of depravity with equal, if not greater joy. As a high traffic newsgroup, alt.drugs generates about 130 posts a day. And according to news.lists estimates (Jan. 1995), has 120,000 daily readers, a possibly conservative figure. A topic of continuing interest -- enough to result in the 1994 spawning of its own subgroup, alt.drugs.chemistry -- is the subject of "underground" or "clandestine" chemistry: the covert manufacture of illicit drugs. In an undoubtedly vain attempt to stem the flow of wasted bandwidth arising from idiotic "How do you make <illegal_drug>?" questions on the alt.drugs* and sci.chem newsgroups, I have assembled this FAQ/ Primer. Copyright Notice ---------------- This document is Copyright (c) 1995 by Yogi Shan. This text, in whole or in part, may not be sold in any medium, including but not limited to electronic, CD-ROM, or print, without the express written permission of Yogi Shan. Permission is granted to reproduce for individual, personal, non- commercial use, in electronic form *ONLY*, provided that no part of this document is modified in any way, including this notice. I reserve the right to revoke this permission at any time (though I don't presently anticipate doing so). Any commercial, organizational, institutional, or governmental use is expressly forbidden without prior written permission. REWARD OFFERED!: If you know of any violation of this copyright notice, please show your gratitude to the author for making available this document, by letting him know. As well, I'll give you 25% of any damage award (net) I get from legal action. If you have found this document of use, a $5 donation is requested to any of the following: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Amnesty International, or any schizophrenia/mental health charitable organization. Please let the author <yshan@bnr.ca> know if you have made such a donation. It will truly brighten his day. Thanks! Where To Find This Document --------------------------- <http://hyperreal.com/drugs/faqs/FAQ-Clandestine-Chemistry> <ftp://www.damicon.fi/pub/mirrors/hyperreal.com/drugs/faqs/ FAQ-Clandestine-Chemistry> Revision History ---------------- Initial Draft...............................v. 1.0 950319 Major Revision............................. v. 2.0 950419 Added Synthetic Heroin and Amphetamine Impurities Sections.........................v. 2.5 950518 Acknowledgements ---------------- Thanks to Malcolm, Lamont, Pearl, KMH, and especially Denni, for their comments and input. Disclaimer ---------- Nothing in this document should [obviously] be construed as advocating or promoting the criminal violation of any laws. Neither does the author take responsibility should you poison, injure, or blow yourself or others to smithereens doing something alluded to in this document. ------------------------------ Subject: 2. Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Miscellanea 2. Table of Contents 3. Net.resources alt.drugs alt.drugs.chemistry sci.chem misc.legal & misc.legal.moderated Anon Remailers 4. Books: The Good, The Bad, And the Ugly Psychedelic Chemistry PIHKAL: A Chemical Love Story Marijuana Chemistry The Anarchist Cookbook Other Books Popular Culture 5. So You Want to Make <Illegal_Drug> The Merck Index Chemical Abstracts 6. Historical References on Underground Chemistry "No One Expects the Spanish Inquisition!" Speed Labs LSD Manufacturing: Boys -- and Girls -- in the 'Hood A Selected Bibliography on Synthetic Heroin 7. "You Have Greatly Misunderstood the Purpose of the Net" Trade Secrets Killing the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg "Please e-mail me the answer to my [Stupid] Question." "Why Didn't Anyone Answer my [Stupid] Question?" Is the DEA on the Net? Can I Rely on Net.answers to my Questions? 8. The Law: Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200,000 9. Morality & Ethics ------------------------------ Subject: 3. Net.resources "It's propping up the governments, In Colombia an' Peru, You ask any DEA man, He'll say, 'There's nothin' we can do.' From the Office of the President, Right down to me an' you. Me & you." -- "Smuggler's Blues" Glenn Frey/Jack Tempchin (1984) alt.drugs --------- A document listing a plethora of net.resources may be found at: <http://hyperreal.com/drugs/faqs/resources.html> <ftp://hyperreal.com/drugs/00-MORE.FILES> Other World Wide Web and other Net sites are: <http://www.lycaeum.org/> [an "entheogen" group] <http://www.paranoia.com/drugs/> <gopher://hemp.uwec.edu/> <http://www.sonic.net/~raptor/trakman/index.html> <http://www.csp.org/entheogen.html> [another "entheogen" group] <http://www.undcp.org/> [U.N. Drug Control Program] <http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/pblist.htm> [the U.S. DEA] <http://www.crl.com/~zbear/> [Owsley Stanley's artwork] There are a variety of FAQs and other documents, which range from excellent to not-so-excellent, available at the hyperreal.com site (the "official" alt.drugs site). In case it changes (making this reference stale), the pointer to the site is regularly posted to alt.drugs as the alt.drugs FAQ and the Net Resources FAQ. The "Australian Natural Highs FAQ" and "Chemical Extraction FAQ" are particularly note-worthy, since extraction of botanical drugs is the procedure most likely to be successful for the amateur. The chemical synthesis section of "PIHKAL" (infra) may also be found at hyperreal.com. The book "E for Ecstasy" (1993), by the Englishman, Nicholas Saunders <Nicholas@neals.cityscape.co.uk> is also available at hyperreal.com as well as at: <http://www.cityscape.co.uk/users/bt22/> There's an interesting piece in the Notes section (at the end), describing the trials and tribulations of clandestine MDMA manufacture as experienced by some English entrepreneurs. The appendix (by Alexander Shulgin) lists a number of synthetic references for MDMA, though it is incomplete. The MDMA FAQ at hyperreal.com has a good chemistry section too. Email <Cora.Belgique@agora.stm.it> for a regular e-mail report summarizing an extensive variety of newspaper reports on issues of drugs and drug control. Focus is on European newspapers by the anti-prohibition group. Not really clandestine chemistry related, but interesting nonetheless. As well, some very high quality chemical and pharmacological information is occasionally posted by some readers of alt.drugs. However, the signal-to-noise ratio is very low (< 1:100), so you have to pay close attention. Even worse are the idiots who have read a book or two and now fancy themselves as experts. They are not. As with the rest of the net, reputation is a good *indication*. Majority rules is not. Never gamble where issues concern health, safety, or freedom. In the interests of eugenics, feel free to ignore the previous statement. Though the focus is on "smart" drugs, alt.psychoactives is a related group with a much lower traffic level that you might want to check out/post to. Ditto for alt.drugs.psychedelic. alt.drugs.chemistry ------------------- Make it easy for the DEA: post your chemistry questions here. After all, we wouldn't want them having to wade through a lot of silly "I'm really baked! (Hi, Mom!)" posts. Less well propagated on the net (by half!) than alt.drugs, for obvious reasons. In order to maximize your audience, cross-post to alt.drugs if you're going to post here. sci.chem -------- Many a great mind will attempt to tap into the knowledge-base of *real* chemists in their glorious quest for riches, er, I mean enlightenment, by posting thinly disguised drug manufacturing questions to sci.chem. Usually related to the manufacture of methamphetamine, these queries generally fool only the totally naive. The questions are generally phrased around the topic of reducing agents, reduction of benzylic alcohols, reductive amination, or the ever-popular benzyl methyl ketone/phenylacetone, the archaic pre-IUPAC names for P-2-P, the notorious (and scheduled) amphetamine precursor. (P-2-P was mentioned briefly in the Harrison Ford movie "Witness".) Such questions seldom produce the desired result, though I suppose there's no harm in trying, as long as you don't mind being flamed, or having your name passed to the relevant civil authorities. On the other hand, I've also seen some craftily worded drug synthesis questions successfully run the gauntlet without detection. Posting anonymously tips off many people to the true nature of your (nefarious) motives, by the way. misc.legal & misc.legal.moderated --------------------------------- Get all your legal questions answered NOW. There's no Newsfeed in Leavenworth. Anon Remailers -------------- Anon.penet.fi is no longer available, but the many U.S. cypherpunks anon remailers are even better, and PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), for encrypting e-mail, should be _de rigueur_. The fact that these utilities are easily available (check out alt.security.pgp, alt.privacy.anon-server, alt.anonymous, and sci.crypt; or wait for the two different PGP FAQs to appear in news.answers or alt.answers; ask around if you need help!), but not widely used, is _de facto_ evidence that drug use impairs good judgement, if not the mental faculties, in general. For a current list of various anonymous remailers: <http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html> or alternatively: finger <remailer-list@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu> ------------------------------ Subject: 4. Books: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly "[It's] the last American folk adventure... the light in the moon...narcotics agents chasing you all over the land. It's a fantasy made real." -- George Marquardt, convicted drug chemist, on his profession As with the Net in general, there is a paucity of accurate information available on the subject of illicit drugs. Even the fact of publication is not necessarily a guarantee of any sort of technical legitimacy, particularly, though not limited to, "counter-culture" efforts. There are many reasons why people write books, but making money is one of the biggest. When the subject is of an illegal nature, the likelihood of inadequate, incomplete, or blatantly wrong information is even higher than usual. Companies like Paladin, Delta Press, and Loompanics are typical purveyors of such trashy misinformation under cover of the U.S. First Amendment. Ever seen the list of "underground" books by Ragnar Benson & Duncan Long? How many things can these guys be "expert" in? Not bloody likely. What's that maxim? If you can't do, teach. One of the more egregious examples of gross error in the drug book realm, was the "Cocaine Consumer's Handbook" by one David Lee (Berkeley, California: And/Or Press, 1976). In it, Mr. Lee flogged the notorious "Clorox [bleach] Test" for cocaine. This test, described in excruciating detail, and complete with color photographs, purported to detect not only eight different adulterants and diluents, but the relative percentage purity of the cocaine itself. Alas, several years later, the test was finally unmasked as utter nonsense by PharmChem, a reputable Menlo Park, CA street drug analysis organization. Their testing established that the orange color produced when lidocaine is present in the sample being tested was the extent of the Clorox Test's scope and usefulness. Undeterred, Mr. Lee -- shameless scallywag and possible shill for the Clorox Company -- came out in 1981 with a brand new book, "The Cocaine Handbook: An Essential [sic] Reference." Alluding coyly to the PharmChem "controversy", Lee continued to include the Clorox Test (now illustrated with black & white photos), but added an equally useless "foil burn" test (with color pics), along with the detailed procedure for home manufacture of freebase ("crack") cocaine. Cocaine use had by now begun to lose its cachet, as well as more than the occasional user, so the ever-helpful Lee covered his bases and assuaged his seemingly bullet-proof conscience by including a thirteen page (!) list of addiction service agencies. So it goes. There are many other such errors large and small that have made it into print. Books like the "Anarchist Cookbook" (infra) are ridden with them. For instance grafting a hop plant onto a marijuana root (debunked by Crombie & Crombie (1975) and Starks (1990), infra), and making meth from soft coal, ammonia, and bluing compound (described in "Complete Guide to the Street Drug Game" by Scott French. Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart (1976)) are all complete bunk. Militating against the writing of quality books is that the fact of the matter is that if you gain enough knowledge to be a competent underground chemist, you can snag good paying employment -- and not risk your freedom and mortal soul through involvement with the drug trade. (Then again, there's the infamous case of Michael Hovey, the young DuPont chemist gone feral ["Chem. & Eng. News", 851223 & 860310]. Working at DuPont's Delaware research facility in quiet desperation, and apparently inspired by lurid media accounts of Fentanyl analogue manufacture, out of the blue he decided to go into the synthetic heroin business. Unfortunately for him, he had no contacts for distributing his 3-methylfentanyl product. In a hopelessly amateurish attempt to make such contacts -- he approached a black DuPont janitor -- he was promptly turned in, arrested, convicted, and sentenced to an 18 year Federal prison term (Ouch!). For apostasy, more than anything else. Needless to say, Dr. Hovey was also promptly fired. Cf. "New Scientist", 930807, p. 21-22, for a different case at Parke-Davis Pharmaceuticals in England.) Nonetheless, reliable books on clandestine chemistry have been published. Below are some of the more accurate efforts I have seen. It is no coincidence that the "good" ones originate from the San Francisco Bay area, a center of politically-motivated underground chemistry since the early Sixties. These books may be "illegal" and/or subject to confiscation by postal/customs authorities in countries such as Canada and Australia. "Psychedelic Chemistry" ---------------------- M.V.Smith. Port Townsend, Washington: Loompanics (1981). <loompanx@olympus.net> (P.O. Box 1197, Port Townsend, WA 98368). Largely abstracted from the specialist literature, PC is the hands-down leader in a very small field. It's a classic. LSD, mescaline, psychedelic amphetamines, and THC are thoroughly covered, among others. One of the more interesting "recipes" is an actual underground one for the large-scale production of LSD; to wit, a two million (!) dose batch. M.V. Smith (a reference to the Martian messiah in Robert Heinlein's '60s SF classic, "Stranger in a Strange Land") is a pseudonym for Michael Starks, author of "Marijuana Chemistry" (infra). PC was originally published by San Francisco's RipOff Press, and -- unfortunately for the budding felon -- requires a thorough grounding in organic chemistry to make heads or tails of. Though out of date, it is generally accurate. There are two known serious mistakes. The first is an MDA synthesis where hydrogen peroxide is substituted for water, with possibly unfortunate results. This mistake was copied from the "Chemical Abstracts" (infra) abstract that was the source of this entry. The second error is the extension of the Ritter Reaction to MDA. According to a 1958 _Bull. Soc. Chim. Fr._ paper and others, apparently ring-substituted allylbenzenes will cyclicize to the 3,4-dihydro-isoquinoline. Loompanics also sells a few other books on clandestine chemistry, which range from trash to OK. An example is Jim DeKorne's "Psychedelic Shamanism", which is in the worthless trash category. DeKorne is apparently a devotee of botanical psychedelics -- though not devoted enough to bother accurately documenting chemical extraction procedures. [See the hyperreal.com web site for two reviews of DeKorne's book, as well as the two previously mentioned alt.drugs FAQs which are not only better, but free to boot.] "PIHKAL: A Chemical Love Story" ------------------------------ ("Phenethylamines I Have Known And Loved"), Alexander & Ann Shulgin. Berkeley, California: Transform Press (1991). (P.O. Box 13675, Berkeley, CA 94701). Authored by a published, legitimate, and respected chemist (his non-chemist wife is co-author), PIHKAL thoroughly outlines the synthesis of a couple of hundred psychedelic amphetamines (N,a- alkylarylethylamines and congeners), including MDMA. Many of these compounds, such as STP, were first synthesized, and/or pharmacologically noticed, by Shulgin himself, beginning in the mid-60s while working for Dow Chemical (Smith & Luce, infra). _PIHKAL_ was Shulgin's "going public" with the fact that his work continued long after government funding was shut off, Schedule I classification, and finally, the Analogue Act, had strangled the field this Ghost in the Machine advocated. PIHKAL is an expanded and metamorphosed version of a lengthy chapter by Shulgin in the "Handbook of Psychopharmacology" (11: 243-333 (1978)). Like PC, you have to be a chemist to understand the syntheses, since explanations of the synthetic routes are either sparse or non-existent. The "recipe" section is available at the hyperreal.com site. It is believed that Dr. Shulgin is less respected -- in more staid circles -- since publication of his _magnum opus_. In 1995, the U.S. DEA, in likely retribution, and displaying their trademark sense of humor, raided his Lafayette, California lab, stripped him of his license to handle Schedule I Controlled Substances, and fined him $25,000. "Marijuana Chemistry" -------------------- Michael Starks. Berkeley, California: Ronin Press (1990). (P.O. Box 1035, Berkeley, CA 94701). A detailed examination, written for the layman, of the world's most thoroughly persecuted peasant inebriant. Extensively covers potency issues in growing, home hash oil manufacture, and isomerization. Good discussion on the pros and cons of various extraction solvents. Contains an updated section on THC synthesis from PC, which Starks also wrote. Originally published as "Marijuana Potency" (And/Or Press, 1977). "The Anarchist Cookbook" ----------------------- William Powell. Secaucus, NJ: Barricade Books (1971) ($22 [includes S&H] from P.O.Box 1401, Secaucus, N.J. 07096). I mention the infamous AC because of its notoriety, popular appeal (over a million copies in circulation), and simply because it was the first. A veritable grab-bag of techniques for psychedelic urban guerrilla warfare, the AC contains recipe-style, how-to sections on the home manufacture of drugs and explosives, demolitions, weapons, and electronic eavesdropping, making the AC the first mass market publication created with the express purpose of subverting modern technology in order to overthrow the government. For this reason alone, the book is a classic. Unfortunately, the book is outdated and full of all sorts of mistakes, though most of the dangerous ones are confined to the explosives chapter. The DMT recipe will *not* work (you have to use anhydrous dimethylamine, not the 40% aqueous commercial solution that the AC implies), for instance, Aldrich won't sell you trimethoxyphenylaceto- nitrile, and the "bananadine" and peanut skin recipes are nonsense. Thus, I cannot recommend the AC except as a curiosity, a stepping stone to more serious works, or to impress cheap dates with your hipness. But then again, with its healthy dollop of revolutionary leftist ideology, I think that the AC was never meant to be so much an end in itself, but more a beginning. Other Books ----------- "Cannabis Alchemy" (by D. Gold), "Dr. Atomic's Marijuana Multiplier" (a comic by Larry Todd), "Basic Drug Manufacture", and "The Book of Acid" (by Adam Gottlieb) are several old, but reasonably accurate reprint pamphlets. Though technically accurate, they sprang forth from a time when chemical sales were much less strictly controlled. Use at face value is pretty much guaranteed to end you up in jail, rank amateur status notwithstanding. They are available from a number of '60s reprise, counter-culture suppliers (such as FS Book Co., P.O. Box 417457, Sacramento, CA 95841) that advertise in such drug publications as the mass-market "High Times" <http://www.hightimes.com/~hightimes/welcome.html> and the smaller, shoestring-budget "Psychedelic Illuminations" <http://www.lycaeum.org/~jkent/pi/> or (P.O. Box 3186, Fullerton, California 92634). There are other books available from Loompanics that I have seen mentioned in alt.drugs, however I off-loaded my rakish friends many years ago, and so haven't had the opportunity to borrow and review them (donations cheerfully accepted!). These include "Recreational Drugs" (by Prof. Buzz), "Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture" (4th ed., Uncle Fester), and "The Construction and Operation of Clandestine Drug Laboratories" (Jack B. Nimble). No word on whether a "Get Out of Jail Free" Card comes with purchase. The imaginative pseudonyms may give you some clue as to the quality of these books, which is quite uneven. Fester seems to focus on the Leuckart reaction, which though simple to do, has a rather low yield. It's obvious he was clever enough to locate the "Org. Synth. Collective Volumes", though this is not particularly clever, in my mind. He repeats the Ritter reaction error mentioned previously. Fester has also written "Practical LSD Manufacture" which is an interesting title given that unlike his amphetamine book, it seems highly doubtful that he has any actual practical experience in this area. His horn-tooting about having discovered the infamous "Operation Julie" LSD formula (Lee & Shlain, infra, p. 288) is utter nonsense: propionyl anhydride is a reportable precursor due to its utility in reversed ester synthetic opiate production. Popular Culture --------------- The underground chemist as pop icon. The incorporation of the clandestine chemist into popular culture has been limited with the unfamiliarity of the public -- and indeed the authors and screen-writers that entertain them -- with the highly technical nature of their work. With _shlock_ and mediocrity the norm, verisimilitude has certainly always been a rather rare commodity on the big screen, but particularly so in the case where technocriminal activity is portrayed. On the other hand, notable high-points in this genre are worth mentioning, since some of the scenes are quite memorable technically, with their own cult following amongst those in the know. They include "Three Days of the Condor" (1975) with Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway (phone phreak/wireman/assassin); "Thief" (ca. 1980) with James Caan as the safecracker with the thermal lance; and "To Live & Die in L.A." (1985) directed by William Friedkin, and starring Willem Dafoe as the deviant master counterfeiter (the legal info is inaccurate, the offset photolithography is bang on.). The first portrayal of an underground chemist in the mass media that I've seen, was in the 1971 Academy Award winning movie, "The French Connection" (also directed by Friedkin), a fictionalized account of an actual N.Y. City Police investigation that is more popularly remembered for its excellent car chase scene. Pat McDermott plays Howard the junkie chemist, making two brief appearances to test, for New York gangsters, the 60 kg. heroin shipment from Marseilles that is the subject of the film. In the first test, the chemist performs a "Thiele tube melting point test" to determine the purity of the heroin. An archaic, low-tech, but quite effective testing method for relatively pure organics, this test utilizes the fact that 100% pure heroin hydrochloride (aka "China White") melts at precisely 243-244 deg. C. The more "cut" (diluted) or impure the heroin, the wider the temper- ature range from initial to complete melting, and the lower the initial temperature of the melting range. In the scene, Howard fills the Thiele tube with mineral oil, places a tiny sample of the heroin to be tested into a capillary tube sealed at one end, and immerses it, tied to a thermometer, into the oil bath. The oil bath temperature is then slowly raised by heating with an old- style chemistry set alcohol burner as the chemist watches for the crystalline sample to begin melting, while he simultaneously monitors the temperature. His running commentary on the heroin's purity begins at an arbitrary baseline ("blast off") of 180 degrees Centigrade: "Blast off! ...One-eight-oh... Two Hundred: Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval... Two-ten: U.S. Government Certified... Two-twenty: Lunar trajectory; Junk-of-the-Month Club sirloin steak... Two-thirty: Grade A poison... "Absolutely dynamite. [It's] 89% pure 'junk' -- best I've ever seen. If the rest is like this, you'll be dealin' on this load for two years." In Howard's second appearance, he performs the crude but quick Marquis Reagent spot test as a final, last minute check before the smack shipment and buy money change hands. The Marquis Reagent, a formaldehyde/sulfuric acid mixture, turns purple on contact with opiates. [In at least some home-video versions of the movie this is not clear, and the purple color looks orange.] A sleazy, underwear-less biker "cook", replete with triple-necked, ground-glass jointed flask, is portrayed as a minor character in the 1991 movie, "Rush". He's the one that coerces the female undercover narc [Jennifer Jason Leigh] into dropping some sort of psychedelic following a drug buy. (The reason he French kissed her at the end of this scene, by the way, is to make sure that she had really swallowed the pill. She had -- rather than holding it under her tongue like most narcs would -- which no doubt saved her from some immediate grief.) "Beyond the Law" (1993, released in Europe as "Fixing the Shadow") stars Charlie Sheen in this somewhat cheezy "true story" of a narc infiltrating some bikers running a speed lab. In the fiction book category, "The Alchemist" by Kenneth Goddard (N.Y.: Bantam, 1985), is a cliche-ridden potboiler about a manufac- turer of PCP analogues. Gives the whole business a bad name [the fiction book business, that is]. A nice color poster showing a submachine-gun-totting, ninja-ed out raiding party member sporting a "DEA Clandestine Laboratory Enforcement Team" patch is available from Delta Press <deltagrp@eldonet.com> for $11.95 + 3.75 S&H. ------------------------------ Subject: 5. So You Want to Make <Illegal_Drug> "And then there came the night of the greatest ever raid, They arrested every drug that had ever been made, They took 82 laws, Through 82 doors, And they didn't halt the pull, Till the cells were all full, Cuz Julie's workin' for the Drug Squad, Julie's been workin' for the Drug Squad." -- "Julie's in the Drug Squad" The Clash (1978) The "Merck Index" ---------------- I can answer 90% of the technical questions posted to alt.drugs by merely leafing through the copy I have at home of this exceedingly useful book. It's truly the chemist's bible. The Merck is a dictionary of thousands of chemicals, listing their structure, basic chemical and pharmacological properties (though the angle seems to be more along the lines of a medicinal chemist), and pointers to synthesis and more detailed info. "The Merck" -- as it's referred to by those in the know -- will be in the reference section of any university science library, and any decent public library. No, it isn't available on the Net. The Merck -- not to be confused with the "Merck Manual" -- is a window to the scientific specialist literature. Expect to have to learn some chemistry to use it effectively. Your librarian can help you on locating the journals referenced. (Don't worry, I doubt she'll have the slightest clue what you're up to.) Most of the articles you seek will be well-thumbed. Some will have been razored out of their volume: living testimony to the "thermoplastic" morals of many a drug user, unaware that desecrating books is the mark of low-born barbarians, and a sin against God and Man. "Chemical Abstracts" ------------------- Most of the syntheses referenced in the Merck will be in old, obscure, and sometimes difficult to obtain journals, even if you do live near a university. [Side Note: A number of people may have been needlessly harmed by a poorly made batch of the synthetic opiate, MPPP, because a paper on a previous instance of this happening was rejected by the mainstream medical journals (it was finally published in a new and obscure journal, "Psychiatry Research", where it languished unnoticed).] Have no fear, Chem. Abs. is here! Though the actual paper is *always* best, abstracts of U.S. and foreign chemical patents and journal articles can also be found in this invaluable journal. Any chem student, or the reference librarian, can show you how to use it. You'll have to learn even more chemistry to effectively use Chem. Abs. (Hint: Me = methyl, Ac = acetyl). Chem.Abs. is also good if you only read English, providing a convenient translation of foreign language papers. (Personally, I have found that being able to translate German -- as well as the occasional French and Italian paper -- extremely useful in my forays into the literature). ------------------------------ Subject: 6. Historical References on Underground Chemistry "I had a number of projects that I wished to pursue in France. I wanted to learn to speak the language, I wanted to break my father loose from his grief over the death of my mother, and especially, I wanted to put a methylenedioxy group in place of two of the methoxy groups in Trimethoxyamphetamine." -- Dr. Alexander Shulgin "PIHKAL" Ah yes. History, "the lie that all historians can agree on." There is a dearth of historical information available on the subject of underground/clandestine chemistry. Considering the shadowy and covert nature of the business, this is really not surprising. If I've missed any noteworthy publications, please let me know. I could also have written sections on MDMA, Quaaludes, PCP/Angel Dust, and heroin (both natural and synthetic analogues), but for reasons of brevity, I won't (except for a selected bibliography on synthetic opiates). Interestingly, different drugs have radically different stories reflecting their unique origins, histories, markets, and pharmacology. Going back a few decades, the moonshining business in the rural Eastern U.S. provides an interesting historical antecedent to the modern day drug manufacturing business. Serious researchers are advised to examine this angle. I found the parallels quite fascinating, from the analogous precursor controls on sugar, to the flurry of Federal laws passed. (Ever wonder why U.S. liquor bottles are embossed with the warning "Federal Law prohibits re-filling"?) "No One Expects the Spanish Inquisition!" ---------------------------------------- "A little poison now and then, that makes for agreeable dreams. And much poison in the end, for an agreeable death." -- "Thus Spake Zarathustra" Friedrich Nietzsche Probably the best layman's overview of the chemistry of illicit drugs may be found in the ground-breaking paper, "The Clandestine Drug Laboratory Situation in the U.S.", J.For.Sci., 28(1):18-31 (1983) by Richard S. Frank, then Chief of the DEA's Forensic Science Division. Complete with chemical diagrams, and covering the detailed synthetic routes to methamphetamine, amphetamine, P-2-P, MDA, PCP, and metha- qualone (quaaludes), the actual literature citations are conspic- uously absent, no doubt to prevent amateurs from using the article as a cookbook. Nonetheless, publication of such a complete blueprint represented a significant shift in strategy for the DEA's Forensic Division, which apparently decided that underground laboratory activity had become so widespread (it had: see next section) that the advantages of dissemination in the open literature -- education of state, local, and international forensic scientists and investigators -- outweighed the disadvantages. However, at the same time, it is also interesting to note that this article deliberately provided clandestine chemists with a correction to a wrong procedure. An obscure method for producing methamphetamine involves the condensation of the Grignard, benzyl magnesium chloride, with other reactants. However the order of mixing of these reagents in one of the reaction's original literature cites (a Chem. Abs. abstract of a British Patent) is incorrect. This error was then reproduced in a shoddy underground drug-making guide. Unfortunately, even incorrectly mixed, instead of the reaction simply failing, a white, crystalline -- and toxic -- solid will still be produced ("Microgram" (1980), DEA, unpublished). Apparently the unusual step of open source publication was authorized with the knowledge that the information would reach clandestine chemists, and thereby avoid some potential deaths. No doubt this departure from the DEA's normal caginess must have sparked heated internal debate over its propriety. Speed Labs ---------- "Polydichloric Euthimal! Those stupid bastards are taking Polydichloric Euthimal! It's an amphetamine. Strongest thing you ever saw. Makes you feel *wonderful*." -- Dr. Lazarus "Outland" (1981) The amphetamines occupy a unique position in the world of underground chemistry, in that they are highly marketable, profitable, as well as easy to make, chemically-speaking. The rise of the speed lab during the early 60s is documented in "Love Needs Care" (David E. Smith & John Luce. Boston: Little, Brown, 1970), a chronicle of the travails of the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic during the 1967 Summer of Love, "The Speed Culture" (Lester Grinspoon & Peter Hedblom), and "Licit and Illicit Drugs" (Edward Brecher. Mt. Vernon, NY: Consumers Union, 1972). The first two books are out-of-print, but all three are classic works well worth locating for anyone interested in the sociological as well as the pharmacological and forensic aspects of drug use in society. The years 1979/1980 ushered in an explosion in the number of clandestine speed labs, and an eleven-fold increase in speed lab busts, as the DEA and State narcotics enforcement agencies became proficient in tracking them down (U.S. General Accounting Office Report GGD-82-8 (1981) and Frank (1983), supra). February 1980 saw the U.S. scheduling of the main clandestine precursor, phenyl-2-propanone (aka P-2-P). Within a few years the unregulated chemical l-ephedrine had replaced P-2-P as the main methamphetamine precursor, and was being openly advertised in drug magazines such as "High Times" by 1983. Since P-2-P produces the racemic mixture (i.e., dl-methamphetamine), and l-ephedrine the more potent d-isomer, this was actually a step backward, from a law enforcement and public health perspective. Tandem legislative efforts culminated in a 1989 Texas State Law (Texas Health & Safety Code 481.080 - .81) making it a felony to purchase a round-bottomed flask (and other glassware) without a license ("Science", 263:753 (1994) and "New Scientist", 941022, p. 88). As a result of the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, which appears to be centered in California and Texas, and is strongly correlated with the Big Four bike gangs (HA's, Bandidos, Pagans, and Outlaws), who both finance the labs and run the distribution network, what I call the "Golden Age" of underground chemistry (the period of time when outlaw chemical and logistic skills had matured, but before law enforcement tactics had had time to catch up) -- the late 60s to mid 70s -- is over. [One story I've heard was an HA method from the old days in Northern California. A 55-gallon steel drum would be filled with a mixture of P-2-P, methylamine, aluminum foil, etc. The lid was quickly sealed, and the drum rolled into a mountain stream for cooling. On returning after three days, if the drum had not exploded, it would now be filled with raw methamphetamine ready for purification.] The Sixties bred a generation of "hippie" chemists, smugglers, and high-level dealers at least superficially motivated by idealism and the radical rejectionist politics of those turbulent times. This change in attitude was not lost on the pursuers. As one DEA forensic expert commented with typically dry understatement: "It appears that the illicit production of dangerous drugs has become an intellectual and professional challenge to many individuals associated with their misuse." (Gunn et al., "Clandestine Drug Labs", _J.For. Sci._ 15(1):51-64 (1970)). Changing times and the maturation of law enforcement efforts to counter the drug threat invariably elicited a "changing of the guard", as these idealists retired or were busted, and their organizations dismembered. In a form of negative evolution, the idealists were replaced by common criminals, motivated solely by opportunism, and attracted from their normal anti-social pursuits solely by the easy, and outrageously high profit margins of drug trafficking, and frequently schooled in jail by the imprisoned old-timers. Ironically, the problem had been metastasized by the very efforts of society to stamp it out. The end result was an amoral business aggressively pursued by the government, which could dismantle organizations like a domino game, rolling over one defendant after another with ruthless efficiency. A business riddled with informants and marked by endemic internecine violence, rip-offs, and government-front chemical company sting operations. [For a detailed and eye-opening snapshot of the "negative evolution" paradigm, elaborated with respect to marijuana cultivation in Northern California during the '80s, see Yves Lavigne's "Good Guy, Bad Guy: Drugs and the Changing Face of Organized Crime". NY: Random House (1991)] The wary should note that the mere purchase or attempted purchase of laboratory equipment and/or chemicals of any type can be considered "suspicious" unless through an established, legitimate company or educational institution. The take-down from time to time of labs run out of university Chemistry Departments -- sometimes even by faculty members -- testifies to the danger of this sort of shenanigan even with access through legitimate channels. Sorry kids, trying to buy chemicals with cash or a money order, or using a fake letterhead just doesn't cut it anymore. It hasn't for years. As a result, the manufacture of controlled substances within the U.S. is almost exclusively controlled by organized professional gangs equipped with the financial resources and sophisticated logistics necessary to successfully challenge the government. The days of the basement cowboy chemist are long gone. Between 1977 and 1984, over a dozen papers -- mostly originating in Europe -- appeared in the literature (_J.For.Sci._ 22:842 (1976), _J.For.Sci._ 22(1): 40-52 (1971), _Arch.Krim._ 162(5-6): 171-175 (1978), _J.For.Sci._ 23(4): 693-700 (1978), _Bull. on Narc._ 36(1): 47-57 (1984)) on the impurities found in clandestinely-manufactured amphetamines. Focusing mainly on the Leuckart reaction, which is easy to find in the literature, and thus popular as a synthetic route, this research sought to "fingerprint" the output of these labs. A forensic technique first applied to illicit heroin, the idea is to quantitatively analyze impurities with a view to determining the source (ideally by batch, though in practice usually limited only to synthetic route or geographic locale) of the drugs. It was determined that the Leuckart reaction in particular was a veritable witch's brew of incomplete and side reactions, comprising up to 25% of the final reaction mixture: amphetamine dimers, pyridones, pyrimidines, pyridines, polycyclic compounds, and N-formyl derivatives. Unfortunately, the same legal pressure on precursors that seeks to root out clandestine production makes the large quantities of organic solvents necessary for proper purification harder and more dangerous to get, and forces the use of unsafe procedures, or short cuts that make use of the final product even more medically dangerous than it should be. LSD Manufacturing: Boys -- and Girls -- in the 'Hood ----------------------------------------------------- "Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals." -- graffito The clandestine manufacture of LSD is logistically complex, requiring a variety of difficult to obtain "watched" chemicals, and a comparatively sophisticated lab setup. Notwithstanding the previous statement, like any of the illicit syntheses I have examined, the reaction, if done in a typical organic chem laboratory, would be considered routine. The LSD trade is unique within the drug world, in that those who are involved seem to be motivated by genuine, if misguided, altruism. As such, there seems to be no violence associated with any level of the LSD trade, and acid chemists and dealers (and many users) typically have a semi-mystical, proselytizing reverence for the substance (cf. PIHKAL). As a result, laboratory busts are rare, and though user demographics have changed considerably, overall consumption has remained more or less steady (in the tens of millions of hits per year), since the late Sixties. The only detailed discussion I have found on LSD pharmacology from an illicit chemistry perspective, is "LSD Purity", <http://www.island.org/DOCS/purity.html> an entirely speculative January 1977 "High Times" piece by Bruce Eisner <bruce@mindmedia.com>, whose major flaw is its lack of hard data. Augustus Owsley Stanley III (also known as "Owsley", aka "Owl", aka "Bear"; he eventually changed his name legally to "Owsley Stanley") was the first major "acid chemist", and he is considered a legendary figure from that era by some. His quite colorful story is chronicled in "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" by Tom Wolfe (Bantam, 1968). Other substantial pieces on Owsley worth checking out are "The Creator" ("Newsweek", 680108), and, more recently, "Owsley & Me" ("Rolling Stone", 821125), as well as the chapter, "The Alchemist" in "Storming Heaven" (infra.). A recent and fairly lengthy interview with Owsley, in which he criticizes the accuracy of both "Storming Heaven" and the '82 Rolling Stone piece, may be found in "Conversations with the Dead: the Grateful Dead Interview Book" (David Gans, N.Y.: Citadel Underground (1991)). This interview mostly concerns Owsley's musical background and association with the Grateful Dead as their soundman and financial patron in their early days in the '60s. Another Owsley interview (haven't seen this one) may be found in the Dead fanzine, "Dupree's Diamond News" No. 25 (August 1993) and No. 26. Owsley, who first burst onto the public stage when his name was splashed across the front-page of the "New York Times" (670628 & 670803), was put out of business by his December 1967 arrest at his suburban Orinda, California lab site with a quarter of a million hits of LSD and a quarter kilo of STP ("Owsley Guilty: 67.5 Righteous Grams", "Rolling Stone", 691115, p. 14). Owsley passed the torch to associates Nicholas Sand and Tim Scully, of "Orange Sunshine" [ALD-52] fame, along with the mysterious Ronald Stark. All three were involved with supplying psychedelics to the Brotherhood of Eternal Love, a loosely-based California hash smuggling and LSD distribution ring founded in 1966. ALD-52, 1-acetyl-LSD, was actually the first major "designer drug", though it being technically legal did not save Scully and Sand from 20 and 15 year federal prison terms respectively, in 1974. As disclosed in a 1952 U.S. Patent to Sandoz Pharmaceuticals by the team of Stoll, Troxler, and (Albert) Hofmann, lysergic acid is first converted to the diethylamide (LSD) by any of the known routes, and then acetylated to synthesize ALD-52: acetyl'n Lysergic acid --> LSD --> 1-acetyl-LSD With a published potency of 90% of LSD, but at the time completely legal to possess, Sand and Scully came up with the tentatively brilliant idea of simply reversing the reaction order in order to make manufacture legal as well (Tendler & May (infra); "Interview: Michael Kennedy" [Sand and Scully's lawyer], "High Times" (Jan. 1977)). By performing the acetic anhydride acetylation first, followed by the preparation of the diethylamide, they avoided the illegal LSD intermediate: acetyl'n Lysergic acid --> 1-acetyllysergic acid -> 1-acetyl-LSD Though such reaction flipping is in general of uncertain utility (it's completely reaction and reactant-dependent), in this case it works (cf. Johnson (1973)). And as an unpublished route, effectively Sand and Scully had come up with a new synthesis of ALD-52 -- which they soon put to use by manufacturing large amounts of it at a farmhouse lab in Windsor, California in 1969. Millions of "Orange Sunshine" hits later, at their 1974 trial in San Francisco, initially incredulous government chemists quickly recovered from their shock at the duo's inventiveness, by countering that even if they hadn't: 1) made LSD, or 2) made LSD at some stage in the reaction, since ALD-52 was extremely unstable to moisture, and would decompose to LSD soon after tableting (and, of course, on intake), they were still criminally liable. (Though this might seem to be paradoxical to the 90% potency claim, it isn't if you consider that the Molecular Weight of LSD tartrate divided by the M.W. of ALD-52 tartrate is about 90%.) Either way, the Judge promptly threw the book at the hapless pair. (See Burton Hersh, "The Mellon Family". N.Y.: William Morrow (1978), p.480-495, for a detailed account of Sand, Scully, Billy Hitchcock, and his Millbrook estate playground for Timothy Leary). Like many 60s counter-culture luminaries, Owsley, and later Sand, allied themselves with fellow outsiders the San Francisco Bay Area Hells Angels, providing the motorcycle gang with their start in the lucrative business of synthetic drug wholesaling, and ultimately methamphetamine manufacturing as well. The move was quite propitious for the previously aimless sociopathic group, motorcycle gangs being hierarchically, sociologically, and logistically ideal for the purpose of large scale drug trafficking. The first to recognize and exploit this possibility was George "Baby Huey" Wethern, Vice-President of Sonny Barger's infamous Oakland chapter of the HAs. Wethern turned state's evidence in 1972, and testified at the '74 Sand/Scully trial among others. (See the somewhat self-serving "A Wayward Angel", by George Wethern & Vincent Colnett. NY: Richard Marek (1978); see also the Michael Kennedy interview (supra)). I know of only two books devoted to the nether-world of illicit LSD manufacturing: "The Brotherhood of Eternal Love", Stewart Tendler & David May. London: Panther Books (1984). Out of Print. (I haven't been able to get my hands on anything but brief excerpts of this book [and would love to hear from anyone who has a copy], but see "Acid Dreams" by Lee & Shlain. NY: Grove Press (1985) and "Storming Heaven", by Jay Stevens. N.Y.: Harper & Row (1987)). (Tendler covered the "Operation Julie" bust (infra) for the [London Sunday] "Times", but the "Times Educational Supplement" (840706, p. 23) roundly criticized this book as a shallow, simplistic, and inadequate effort.) (See also: "The Strange Case of the Hippie Mafia", "Rolling Stone", 721207 & 721221 and "The Brotherhood of Eternal Love: The Senate Report", "High Times", Fall 1974 for opposing viewpoints on the scope of the Brotherhood conspiracy.) "Operation Julie", Dick Lee & Colin Pratt. London: W.H.Allen (1978). Out of Print. Covers the tracking and 1977 take-down of the U.K. organization led by Richard Kemp that formed from the regrouping of the post-indictment remnants of the BEL. The Kemp ring allegedly manufactured 60% of the world's LSD at the time, amounting to tens of millions of hits over a several year period. The motive of the ring's leadership was the expectation that widespread use of LSD by Britain's youth would catalyze leftist Revolution, leading to the overthrow of the aging and morally bankrupt _ancien regime_. For the temerity of admitting this to post-arrest police, sentences totaled 170 years in prison. Their bust was immortalized in the delightful electric guitar/piano medley, "Julie's in the Drug Squad" by the Clash (on the "Give 'em Enough Rope" album). (For newspaper reports on the raid and ensuing trial, see the [London Sunday] "Times" 770328, p. 2, and especially 780309, p. 1, 8 & 17.) The most recent LSD bust of note occurred in Bolinas, California in July 1993, and was the largest seizure of LSD in U.S. history: 1.5 million dosage units bought over a four year period. Consistent with the unusual patterns associated with LSD trafficking, not only did the distribution ring consist entirely of women, including a grandmother in her fifties, but all refused to testify in exchange for reduced sentences. A Selected Bibliography on Synthetic Heroin ------------------------------------------- "T-Bird an' Georgie let their 'gimmicks' go rotten, So the died of hepatitis in Upper Manhattan, Sly, in Vietnam -- bullet in the head, Bobby O.D.ed on Draino on the night that he was wed. They were two more friends of mine, Two more friends that *died*. -- "People Who Died" Jim Carroll Band (1980) While speed lab busts were peaking at the end of the '70s, almost simultaneously two entirely new and different forms of "synthetic heroin" (synthetic opiates, actually) began appearing commercially in California, making their presence felt as junkies began dropping like flies for unknown reasons. A major public health threat had opened simultaneously on two fronts, and the term "designer drug" entered the vernacular of a horrified public. The "original" China White fentanyl analogue was alpha-methylfentanyl, which the DEA initially thought was the more potent 3-methylfentanyl. Fentanyl Analogue Refs: "Chem. Eng. News" 59:71 (1981) [before they realized it was alpha and not 3-methyl] "Fentanyl Program", GFR1-81-4044, DEA (1981), unpublished. "Control Recommendation for a-MethylFentanyl", DEA (1981) "Federal Register" 46:46799 (1981) [Notice of Scheduling: Final Rule] "Anal. Chem" (Oct. 1981) "Behind the Identification of China White" "Science" 224:1083 (1984) "Science 85" (March 1985) Baum, "Chem. Eng. News" 63(36):7-16 (1985), excellent cover story on designer drugs including fentanyl & MPPP. "JAMA" 256 (22): 3061-3063 (1986); fentanyl & MPPP. References on the even higher potency 3-methylfentanyl, whose initial appearance was in Pittsburgh, and which appeared separately and much later, than a-methylfentanyl, and also caused some O.D.s (and a 45-year sentence for the chemist). 3-methyl fentanyl was also the narcotic later made by both Michael Hovey and George Marquardt. Monastero in "America's Habit". President's Commission on Organized Crime (1986) "New York Times", 881225. "Eagle", lengthy Marquardt series "Newsweek", 930621, p.32, Marquardt Literature cites on MPPP, of Parkinson's Disease fame: "Psych. Res." 1:249 (1979) [the original paper, rejected by JAMA & NEJM] "Science" 219:979 (1983) Langston, "The Sciences" 25(1):34-40 (1985) "The Case of the Tainted Heroin" [by the guy who tracked it down] "The Case of the Frozen Addict", PBS "Nova", (1986), transcript of show Sanford Markey, ed. "MPTP - A Neurotoxin Producing a Parkinsonian Syndrome" Orlando, Fl.: Academic Press (1986) [haven't seen this one; book based on Centers for Disease Control investigation] "The Case of the Frozen Addicts" Langston & Palfreman. NY: Pantheon (1995). [You've seen the PBS show, now read the more detailed book!] There are lots of other scientific papers available, but the above-listed are some of the main ones of interest. ------------------------------ Subject: 7. "You Have Greatly Misunderstood the Purpose of the Net" "Don't get me wrong, Don Juan," I protested, "...but I also want to know everything I can. You yourself have said that knowledge is power." "No!" he said emphatically. "Power rests on the kind of knowledge one holds. What is the sense of knowing things that are useless?" -- "The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge" Carlos Castaneda UseNet at its best is a network of some of the brightest minds in the civilized world, getting together to discuss whatever strikes their collective fancy. Professors and academics, engineers and scientists, polymaths, and intelligent people everywhere, getting together to kick ideas, information, and scurrilous personal attacks back and forth. A synthesis of great minds and intellects, altruistically donating their time and effort in glorious cosmic synergy. However, it's sad to say that, as more and more people go online, the Net is beginning to reflect the tawdry conglomeration that is society at large. One mammoth, lowest common denominator, vainglorious, pseudo-intellectual whore-house. To put it simply, UseNet may already have peaked. Alas. Trade Secrets, Or "Where Can I get Oil of Sassafras?", "How Do I ------------- Extract Codeine From Tylenol #1's?", "Can You Isomerize Dextromethorphan to the Narcotic Levo Form?" Just because you ask a question on the Net, does not mean anyone's going to answer it. Or in particular on alt.drugs -- a newsgroup dominated by drug burn-outs, trollers, poseurs, and wannabes -- answer it correctly. You may get an answer to your question, but you can't realistically expect it when it amounts to a trade secret. Someone who poses such a question obviously has a recipe for making MDMA, aka E. The recipe requires oil of sassafras, or another source of safrole. Needless to say, the government is aware of this too, and it's somewhat difficult, though not impossible, to get. Broadcasting to the world, via UseNet, where to get it, is a good way to get the government to clamp down on that source of supply. Why on earth would you expect anyone to tell you how to get rich (illegally) anyway? Figure it out yourself, idiot! The codeine extraction question is another good one, commonly asked on alt.drugs. Tylenol #1's are OTC in Canada, Australia, and elsewhere. Someone was selling such a recipe for thousands of dollars in New Zealand a few years back. So why would someone give it to you for free? Your grasp of philanthropy is deeply flawed, pal. More importantly, to do that brings us the issue Number 2: Killing the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg ------------------------------------------ I guarantee that if a simple recipe was posted for something such as extracting codeine from OTC medications, within the year, codeine would be prescription-only everywhere. But then dopers -- being the narcissistic morons that they are -- have never been particularly known for foresight. Ditto for isomerizing dextromethorphan, the OTC cough medicine. Out of chemical interest, I've wondered that myself in the past. But I don't know the answer, never having been interested enough to explore the matter. The fact of the matter, however, is that widely publicizing certain things -- and the Net is as wide as it gets -- inevitably results in their negation through government action. I don't say this to stifle people from posting information, but there is such a thing as discretion, ya know. [I'm reminded of Abbie Hoffman's omission in his 1970 classic, "Steal This Book", of the "dead baby birth certificate" method for obtaining false ID. Hoffman feared that widespread publicity would spur government action to close what he viewed as an escape hatch for fugitive radicals. Indeed, by early 1974, Hoffman was himself on the lam from a cocaine trafficking beef. Hoffman's self-censorship only delayed the inevitable however -- the scam was out only a year later in Frederick Forsyth's 1971 best-selling thriller, "Day of the Jackal", and a more detailed underground how-to version, "The Paper Trip" by Barry Reid (Eden Press). Interestingly, a quarter century later, this latter volume is still available -- along with a host of sequels and imitators trying to cash in on the corrupt and the gullible -- even though the method is more-or-less defunct.] Coming in a close second, are those individuals who request "simple high-yield recipes requiring a minimum of trouble". Get serious, dudes! TANSTAAFL. More importantly, why would anyone tell it to you for free? "Please e-mail me the Answer to my [Stupid] Question" ---------------------------------------------------- ...Because I'm such a lazy putz that I can't be bothered to stick around long enough to wade through the regular traffic. Along with "tell me everything about <Insert_subject_here>" because you have a homework assignment due tomorrow and are too dumb or lazy to use the library, this probably ranks as one of my biggest net.peeves. "Why Didn't Anyone Answer my [Stupid] Question?" ----------------------------------------------- No, we're not too lazy or too arrogant. Er, well, maybe we are, but dammit, we're not sitting here waiting around to respond to whatever minuscule thought percolates through your tiny, 1/4 watt cerebrum. That's Lamont's job. Ever hear of a library? It's an amazing place. Medicinal chemistry is around RM315 if you've graduated past the Dewey Decimal System. I started posting to the Net on the premise that I should put back in, for what I've gotten out of the Net. Inspired by the venerable Bill Nelson, who presides over in rec.pyrotechnics, I began posting to alt.drugs primarily safety information, and corrections to inaccurate posts. Other than that, if a post interests me, time-permitting, I *may* respond. If it doesn't, I don't. _C'est la vie_. You're a lot more likely to get a response if you show you've done your homework -- made some sort of preliminary effort to investigate the question yourself. I think I first got fed up with the intellectual parasites that infest alt.drugs (and much of the rest of the net) when during a lengthy thread on petroleum ether, some nitwit posted the very same question we had just finished discussing. Yes, indeed. A fool's thoughts: the briny well that never runs dry. Is the DEA on the Net? ---------------------- The Internet is what the government-constructed and owned ARPANET has evolved into. Of course they're on the Net, fool! This was definitively confirmed in December 1994 by Lamont. No surprise here, except among the drug-addled. Of course, it is also the height of narcissism to think that the DEA gives a hoot whether you are a dope-smokin' degenerate. Believe me, they have more important things to worry about. State and local criminal investigators might, however, be a different matter. More importantly, the fact that you posted a message to alt.drugs such as, "I'm really baked!" [You're such a clever lad, aren't you?] may not concern you now. However you may wish to consider the fact that it's quite probable that someone somewhere is archiving *all* net traffic, and that in ten or twenty years when you do care, it may come back to haunt you. Such is the price of a dissipated youth. Can I Rely on Net.answers to my Questions? ------------------------------------------ No. Next question, please. The Net is a whore that takes on all customers. This is its bane, as well as its beauty. The nature of alt.drugs makes it particularly vulnerable to inaccurate, incomplete, and downright erroneous answers from an assortment of flakes: poseurs trying to elbow their way to the front of the intell- ectual line, wannabe-criminals trying to attract sponsorship by exaggerating their expertise, and pseudo-experts trying to pump up their flagging egos by marking a corner of the Inner Circle. After all, the One-eyed Man is King in the Land of the Blind. Such misguided and/or maladapted individuals are most dangerous when they provide partially correct answers or answers lacking the appropriate caveats. Elevating irascibility to an art-form, I've made it a personal crusade to flame such net.idiots on general principles alone. On the other hand, past and present alt.drugs Hall-of-Famers such as J<rest of name deleted by request>, [St.] Anthony Ankrom, and Lamont Granquist (with an honorable mention to Steve Dyer, Eric Snyder, Howard Black, Pierre St. Hilaire, Malcolm, and Eli Brandt), can usually be counted on to provide interesting, useful, and accurate chemical information. Their selfless dedication to, and pursuit of the Truth is truly the Net at its best, and should be an inspiration to all. Unfortunately, everyone but Lamont and Steve withdrew from posting, or post only infrequently. Make of that what you will. But the bottom line, after all, is that you get what you pay for. If you rely on net.information at face value without independent confirmation from a reliable source, you do so at your own peril. 'Nuf said. ------------------------------ Subject: 8. The Law: Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200,000 "Ain't got no picture postcards, Ain't got no souvenirs, My baby, she don't know me, When I'm thinkin' 'bout those years." -- "New Orleans is Sinking" The Tragically Hip (1989) Not surprisingly, it is a serious crime everywhere to make and distribute drugs. Even less surprisingly, this has failed to make much of a dent in the manufacture and traffick in such substances. Since the U.S. is at the forefront of the War on Drugs, I will concentrate on U.S. statutes only. I no longer follow U.S. law particularly closely, so some of this information may be out of date. The U.S. Federal criminal statutes are found in the U.S. Code (U.S.C.), located in any North American law library. The USC may be found in a collection of volumes ("Titles") called the U.S. Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.). The drug statutes (possession, conspiracy, and sale), including Schedules I to V of the Controlled Substances Act (listing all banned and federally regulated drugs and precursors) are in Title 21, Sections 800-900 (21 USC 800-900). (Interestingly, first offense drug possession is a misdemeanor in the U.S. under Federal law. Unfortunately, minor offenders are typically prosecuted under State Law, which usually makes drug possession a felony.) Other related Federal criminal statutes are CCE (Continuing Criminal Enterprise, 21 USC 848), RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, 18 USC 1962), and the Controlled Substance Analog Enforcement Act (21 USC 802.32). RICO and CCE are the legal bludgeons the Feds use against drug rings that achieve any sort of success. They are quite draconian in both scope and harshness. State law is an entirely different and separate affair from Federal law and jurisdiction. Each of the fifty states has its own body of laws, and you can be prosecuted under _both_ federal and state statutes, double jeopardy notwithstanding. California and Texas are two states which, in tandem with the level of local lab activity, have a fairly well developed body of statutes in this area. In particular, state precursor control laws preceded that of the Feds by well over a decade. For California State Law (the Health and Safety Code covers drug-related laws), see: <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html> The long-predicted (Maclean & Pournelle, unpublished (1972) & Brecher, supra)) rise of synthetic heroin analogues precipitated the passing in 1986 of the federal Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act. This closed what had become a major loophole in prior legislation, the so-called "designer" drugs (pharmacologi- cally similar, minor chemical variants of banned drugs). Analogues, however, were not a recent problem. The first open source mention was Gunn et al. (1970, supra) (cf. Baum (1985), supra). Finally, the 1988 Chemical Diversion Trafficking Act (21 USC 802.33 - 802.40) placed mandatory import/export/sales reporting requirements on a slew of precursor chemicals. Other legal manifestations of the politics of contraband include laws making money-laundering (18 USC 1956, including failing to report large cash transactions), and the transportation of dangerous chemicals on airplanes Federal felonies, as well as civil forfeiture (21 USC 853 & 881), allowing for the summary confiscation of a suspected drug dealer's assets with or without any related criminal conviction. Income tax evasion, and using the phone (or the Net) to violate the drug laws are also Federal crimes. However much you think that drugs are plentiful and peachy- keen, you would be well-advised to note that manufacture and organized trafficking are not looked upon kindly. Prosecution is vigorous and aggressive, and these people don't fool around. Don't say you weren't warned. Additionally, the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights was gutted by the Bail Reform Act of 1984 (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in _U.S. v. Salerno_ (1987)), to allow for pre- trial detention on the basis of "being a danger to the commun- ity", against the previous legal standard of mandatory bail except when there was "risk of flight". The USC is net.available: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode> <http://www.pls.com:8001/his/usc.html> <http://thorplus.lib.purdue.edu/gpo/> or as gzip compressed files (by Title): <ftp://etext.archive.umich.edu/pub/Politics/Conspiracy/AJTeel/USC/> Additions to the list of contraband drugs are announced in the "Federal Register", a U.S. Government periodical found in any U.S. or Canadian law library, as well as any U.S. "Federal depository" public library, or on-line: <http://thorplus.lib.purdue.edu/gpo/> Updated schedules and ancillary drug regulations may be found in Title 21 of the CFR, the Code of Federal Regulations. A current list of proscribed drugs may also be obtained by writing: Drug Enforcement Administration Attn: Drug Control Section 1405 "I" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20537 ------------------------------ Subject: 9. Morality & Ethics "And in between the moon and you, The angels get a better view, Of the crumbling difference, Between wrong and right." -- "Round Here" Counting Crows (1993) I've always been fascinated by the subject of outlaw chemistry. But radical chic aside, the more I've seen of things, the less and less happy I've become with the morality of it all. I've even begun to question the value of that relatively benign class of substances known as the psychedelics. (What was it that Ram Dass once said? "Psychedelics have a message to give, but once you get the message: hang up.") With the rest, however, -- narcotics, ups, and downs -- the answer is quite clear. And it ain't a good one. For no matter how delightful you find the chemistry or the prospect of easy money and free dope, the fact of the matter is that the drug business is a sordid, tawdry, and immoral one. Driven almost entirely by greed, it comes with its own grim toll of dead, destroyed, addicted, imprisoned, or impoverished humans: a constellation of suffering and misery which no decent man should ever want to add to. I'm not a particularly religious man, but to put it simply: can you imagine Jesus Christ giving his blessing to your crank lab? No matter how you rationalize it, there is no way to escape the cruel reality that drugs are about two things: money and power. Amassed through the corrupt exploitation of human weakness. And if they catch you -- and the odds are very much in favor of that -- you can expect no sympathy at all. Rank amateur or not, they *will* crucify your sorry ass. It's a looking glass world, with the dealers and chemists on one side, and an array of shameless, moral cowards: the demagogic Republican slime politicians, crooked and brutal cops, sleazy parasite lawyers, and hypocritical judges on the other. And they *all* profit to the detriment of society. Now, don't get me wrong: criminal sanctions against drug *users* are clearly not just wrong-headed, but more importantly, counter-productive. It is fairly obvious, as the Dutch and Swiss governments, and the highly respected "Economist" magazine see it, that drug use is a social problem and public health issue that should be dealt with as such. Unfortunately, too many have too much invested in the status quo. Sound public policy is built not through the cynical manipulations of politicians and two dollar moralists, but through a careful balancing of harm minimization to the individual, _as well as_ society at large. Until society comes to grips with that, the non-medical use of drugs will remain an intractable scourge that distorts entire economies, corrupts our institutions to the core, and frays the social fabric. However, the base hypocrisy of society cannot and does not provide moral justification for the manufacture and distribution of illicit drugs for personal profit. Sorry. ********************************************************* "How much is enough, when your soul is empty? How much is enough, in the Land of Plenty? When you have all you want, And you still feel *nothing* at all, How much is enough? Is enough?" -- "How Much is Enough?" The Fixx (1991) *********************************************************