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.<p>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.<p>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.
>The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance<p>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.<p>(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).<p>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.<p>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
I don’t think it’s fair to say we tried letting people access it for recreational or performance use. The insurance companies and doctors became drug pushers without an explicit acknowledgment of what was happening. Easy access to drugs without being able to discuss what was really happening is worse than prohibition sure, but that’s not informed consent. Informed consent is the patient tells the supplier what they’re doing and the supplier is trained to handle that. Our doctors are not drug shamen or addiction specialists, but we could imagine a situation where these are the people providing drugs, safe drug sites, and free counseling. Otherwise the solution is men with guns and weird geopolitical shit. Also the government gets to decide what drugs people can take which I disagree with in general. There has to be a better way.
"the Wiki page for the opioid crisis is quite clear that at least 50% of all deaths were due to perfectly legal, regulated opioids"<p>Are you talking about this page?<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic</a><p>Could you then be more clear where exactly your claim came from? I did not find it, but rather this:<p>"According to medical professionals, supervised injection sites are effective in reducing overdose deaths and the transmission of infectious diseases."
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...
The last time I looked up the Swiss program it was only servicing a small number of people. Around 1500 in a country if 9 million. It also wasn’t prescribed like a typical medication but part of a program where they received other treatment as well. There was some exception where some people could get 2 days of it at a time to take home, but it wasn’t a free for all prescription where they could just talk to a doctor and get their monthly desired supply from a pharmacy.<p>Many countries, including the US, use methadone for maintenance. As I understand it it’s not as enjoyable as some people’s opioids of choice but it’s still an extremely powerful opioid depending on the dose (easily fatal).<p>So it’s not only the countries you mentioned that provide pharmaceutical opioids as maintenance treatment. The US does too, though the form is different.
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.<p>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.
> 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.<p>That depends on the drug. Both it's addictiveness and its destructiveness. It's likely true for meth. I doubt it's true for weed. It's demonstrably not true for many of the OTC drugs that have been easy to get for hundreds of years without the collapse of society
Are you referring to the massive opiate abuse crisis that followed World War One?
WTF.<p>This is complete nonsense.<p>Opioids have never been made legal for recreational purpose. They were sold as painkillers by pharma corporations lying about their addictive effects and promoted through marketing campaign targeting doctors to prescribe them.<p>I has nothing to do with the topic of recreational drugs.
Many opioids, including opiates, used to be OTC. I personally know someone who used to smoke paregoric (camphorated tincture of opium), which was OTC in the US until 1970.<p>I believe 1970 was also the year when amphetamine (Benzedrine) inhalers stopped being OTC.
Not every drug is an opioid. We have prohibition laws designed for opioids blindly applied to any (in the western context) nontraditional drug. The German law on drugs is literally called "the painkiller law", for instance.
It’s not, the BtmG literally means narcotics drugs act.
<a href="https://www.bfarm.de/EN/Federal-Opium-Agency/Narcotic-drugs/_node.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.bfarm.de/EN/Federal-Opium-Agency/Narcotic-drugs/...</a>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotic_Drugs_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotic_Drugs_Act</a>
The Dutch law is literally called the "Opiumwet" or opiate law. [1] It involves (almost) all controlled substances.<p>1. <a href="https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001941/2026-01-28" rel="nofollow">https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001941/2026-01-28</a>
What if they were legal but hard to get? Say, we stop/arresting for possession or use in private, stop giving dealers and producers harsh sentences, but still give them moderate to weak sentences, stop proactively searching for dealers and producers, allow companies to produce with strict KYC, and don't allow retail sale in stores?
In California weed is legal but highly regulated. It's easy to buy weed in the legal market but very difficult to be licensed to sell or grow it.<p>The result is that the illegal market dwarfs the legal market. The legal suppliers simply can't compete with efficient and untaxed illegal or grey market sellers.<p>Note that the consumers who choose the illegal market are not in general socially excluded, habitual criminals or broken down addicts. Weed is widespread in almost all parts of society and probably less prevalent along dirt poor, mentally unwell or homeless drug users, who favour fent or meth.<p>People with jobs and houses choose illegal weed because it's both cheaper and easier to get hold of.
There are 193 countries, plus the Holy See.
Map Men: There are NOT 195 countries
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nB688xBYdY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nB688xBYdY</a>
As members of the United Nations. That says very little.
Why the down votes? There aren’t 300 countries.
Your opioid comparison is wildly apples to oranges. They were marketed and sold to consumers as safe, much more effective, and dramatically less addictive than it actually was. An industrial addiction machine ignored regulatory safeguards, built a 'pay for play' rewards structure to incentivize prescriptions, and a zillion other cartoonishly evil things .<p>There is a world of difference between something like that and government dosed methadone, meth, etc.<p>The problem was not in fact opioids. It was the profit structure behind the distribution network. Remove that and the bulk of the problems go away too.<p>If the drug is socially stigmatized only true addicts will use it. Those are exactly the people you <i>want</i> to have access to it because they can be gradually tapered off on a controlled dosage, they can be targeted for interventions, and it keeps them from stabbing you and stealing your wallet to get more meth.<p>Its incredibly counterproductive to just outlaw a thing that people <i>need</i> on a level that they will do almost anything to get it.
I think another under-discussed factor in the opioid crisis is that opioids are cheap, but (American) healthcare to treat underlying pain is not. You might not be able to afford six weeks of physical therapy, surgery, etc., but you can probably afford $11.23 a month for a generic prescription.
My view of a lot of the opioid crisis stuff aside from physical pain is psychological trauma - people self medicating as an alternative to doing the work.<p>That’s why I think the psychoactive legislation that’s introduced recently about psychedelics is so important because those things can rapidly accelerate processing and healing psychological trauma.<p>My view, is if this was done 20 - 30 years ago there wouldn’t be such a large demand for opiates. I take it further and say that probably some in the drug companies understand this already and were lobbying against the introduction of more curative psychedelic treatments so that they could sell subscriptions to painkillers.
Cocaine and Heroin (and LSD...) were widely available 20-30-40-50 years ago. Maybe this is a "It's the economy, stupid" thing?
Sorry what? What does ego death have to do with healing a back injury?
Chronic Back pain is correlated with emotional trauma. The physical body is a mere projection of the energetic and spiritual being. This is wahy meditative spiritual practices such as yoga and taiji are good for chronic pain, as the physical pain is a mere projection of a deeper trauma that needs released.
>Those are exactly the people you want to have access to it<p>Yes but that's different from 'every random person can buy some meth at 7-11 or the government store' though. I'm fine with a controlled program for registered, hardcore addicts- the 2% who do 50% of the drugs or what have you.<p>>The problem was not in fact opioids. It was the profit structure behind the distribution network. Remove that and the bulk of the problems go away too<p>I mean, states & countries that have completely state-run liquor stores still have alcoholism and serious alcohol problems though? If 'removing the profit structure' worked magically, more countries would do it. AFAIK rates of alcoholism aren't even different between state-run and private sector models
State run liquor stores in the US don’t prevent companies advertising alcohol on TV. The US is really bad at allowing drugs without then also allowing drug promotion.<p>A better comparison is probably countries where prescription drugs can’t be advertised to the general public. But, then you’re dealing with a lot of differences in other government policies.
> I mean, states & countries that have completely state-run liquor stores still have alcoholism and serious alcohol problems though<p>They have less of it. Reducing access and increasing price reduces consumption, as any economist would expect.<p>The main problem with government monopolies of this sort is that they usually lack democratic legitimacy (i.e. would be voted away in a single issue vote) are under constant PR attack from people who profit from the regulated product. Leading to concessions such as the Norwegian monopoly being run as a for-profit corporation.<p>> If 'removing the profit structure' worked magically, more countries would do it.<p>No they wouldn't, for the obvious reason: those who profit from it have a voice, and are better organized than the ones who suffer from it (many who are addicts and want easy access anyway).
That's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. The thing about for-profit prescriptions is that they incentivize doctors to prescribe opiates for people who don't need them, people who may not have even been interested in them. A for-profit retailer selling alcohol doesn't have that aspect at play at all; at most the for-profit aspect encourages flashy advertising and displaying alcohol more prominently, but nothing to the level of having a trusted expert in a one-on-one setting personally pushing for you to consume.<p>Instead the pressure to consume alcohol comes at a grassroots level. Social alcohol consumption is deeply rooted in human culture, and it's generally the people around you who will push you to consume. This pressure is independent of any profit motive, so removing the profit motive does nothing to affect it.<p>> AFAIK rates of alcoholism aren't even different between state-run and private sector models<p>Looking at some 2016 WHO statistics, the US seems to have ~3x the rate of alcholism as Iceland, but I recognise these are cherrypicked examples and I'm not interested enough to do a deep dive aggregating countries. Still, it seems plausible that government intervention can reduce alcholism rates. The fact that it's not 0% means nothing; nothing in the world is 0%, outlawing murder doesn't mean murder doesn't happen, but you can strive to reduce it as much as reasonably possible.
> Instead the pressure to consume alcohol comes at a grassroots level.<p>Lately the trend seems to be slightly decreasing, see : <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-alcohol-1890" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-alcohol-1890</a> (of course heavy dependent on the country and the timescale selected)<p>> Social alcohol consumption is deeply rooted in human culture<p>This is actually dependent on the culture and not all are the same, interesting paper on the topic (in cultures with higher agricultural interdependency alchool was not used as a tool for social cohesion): <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/404116345_On_the_Functional_Redundancy_of_Alcohol_Tolerance_in_Rice_Societies" rel="nofollow">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/404116345_On_the_Fu...</a>
Alcoholics (the really bad ones that we're presumably talking about here) don't consume because of social pressure. It's addiction and all the associated psychological and sociological complexity that implies.<p>I expect any comparison of alcoholism rates will need to account for social (particularly religion) and socioeconomic factors. An awful lot of addicts are engaging in escapism.
All Scandinavian countries except Denmark have some form of state-run monopoly on the sale of harder alcohol, and of these countries, Denmark is the country where people drink the most, in particular among the youth.<p>It is disingenuous to claim that something doesn't work if it doesn't eliminate it completely. It is pretty well recognized that tight regulation of alcohol sales and marketing together with taxation helps reduce overall consumption. Alcohol consumption was also not eliminated during the prohibition in the US.<p>It's also important to recognize that making a drug legal is not the same as regulating it properly, and just making it legal can very well bring more harms than keeping it prohibited if no regulation of its sale and marketing is introduced.
Lets not forget that in the US not only opioids get legalized, but they were given to people as a substitute for aspirins. And then retired without mercy. Did you get addicted? Well, you are on your own now, go get some fentanyl under a bridge.<p>I live in Spain. Alcohol is not tighty regulated here, and is cheap if we compare with nordic countries. But we, overall, have a culture of knowing how to drink, low proof drinks and in low quantities. The worst drinkers here are tourists from northern countries that binge on high grade alcohol because it is cheap. I had never seen someone chugging a liter of beer like it is water, or do that thing with a can of beer where you force the whole can, or that other thing with the funnel and a tube, like you were in a hurry to get drunk. You just drink a beer whenever you want, at slow pace. Spain, overall, consumes a lot of alcohol, but the consumption is so spread among the population that you rarely see adults drunk.<p>Our neighbor in the south, Morocco, allows for marihuana consumption and selling, and they have way less problems with it than any european country. But they have alcohol tightly forbidden, and it is a big problem there.<p>I went to Finland, and there were ships going from Finland to Estonia, carrying people just to buy cheaper alcohol there. They went back to Helsinki with shopping bags full of vodka. Makes you wonder how does it look Tallin in drinking statistics. I bet something similar is going on between Sweden and Denmark or Germany, whatever trip is shorter and cheaper.<p>The point is that a culture of taking drugs needs time to develop.
Yes, the swedes take the ferry to Denmark and the danes take the car over the border to Germany.<p>There has also been a movement to change the culture of drinking in Denmark, and the consumption has generally been going down, although it still remains high among youth. This also goes to show that there are many complex factors at play and that legal status alone cannot explain consumption patterns.<p>I do believe that prohibition makes it a lot harder to influence the culture around consumption compared to a legalized and regulated market.
We raised the drinking age from 16 to 18. The end result is more underage drinking but now illegal, more heavy drinking under 18, a rise in hospitalisations and a rise in problematic alcohol usage of the 18-23 group. The rise correlated strongly with the change in law. Let's see if it drops after a decade or so but I doubt it.
How many died because they were cut of from the supply that they had been told by doctors did not cause addiction?
> A shattering drug addiction crisis that at its height killed more people annually than the entire Vietnam War.<p>Except that you're wrong. The war-on-drugs kept drugs under control. It did not _eliminate_ them, but they also were not available on every street corner.<p>Once we stopped the war-on-drugs, the abuse rates skyrocketed. Not just opiods, but also meth. You can see it on the graphs in this article, the general wind-down of drug abuse policies started around 2008-2010.
This is complete rubbish. The peak years of the war on drugs had a variety of hard drugs available on street corners across all major cities.<p>At best it kept some amount of some drugs less visible in some suburbs and communities, while making it profitable for suppliers to cross those lines.<p>The main effect of the war on drugs was a level of incarceration outdoing almost any society in human history. The fact that the numbers jailed for victimless and quality of life 'crimes' kept going up is testament to the fact that there was hardly any effective deterrence.
I personally consider the war on drugs to be a colossal failure and there tends to be widespread agreement that the War on Drugs was somewhat effective at enabling enforcement, but ineffective or counterproductive at eliminating drugs or reducing long-term harm.<p>What America continues to ignore, intentionally or not, is the root cause of drug addiction which tends to be a more complicated and nuanced
Well, now the war on drug is over and we see that the harms from _not_ doing it are worse. In 2023, overdoses overtook gun and traffic deaths _combined_.<p>Surrendering to the drugs was a mistake.<p>Yeah, we should have changed tactics. Zero-tolerance policies were terrible nonsense, long prison terms were not helpful, and we should have clamped on prescription pills way sooner.<p>> but ineffective or counterproductive at eliminating drugs<p>It was effective in _controlling_ their level. And alternative approaches are just not working.
It seems like you've already made up your mind what to believe. In particular you've failed to critically analyze the broader context in which overdose deaths went up and I also have to question your suggestion that the war on drugs in the US ever ended.<p>Sure, marijuana is largely accepted at this point. Most other things you still buy from gangsters on a street corner or via the darknet and will still be arrested for having, frequently losing your job as a side effect.<p>To overdose deaths, those largely correlate to the Sacklers (ie medical professionals inappropriately pushing product with a veneer of legitimacy) and to fentanyl. The latter is particularly deadly due to the combination of accessibility to amateurs with the inherent difficulty of safely compounding such a potent chemical as part of a clandestine operation.
To me this reads as naive because I could get most any drug on many street corners easily any time within the last 30 years once I was old enough to realize what was going on and notice.
I think we're agreeing with each other?
> The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance.<p>The phrase “small amount” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this statement.<p>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)<p>> It’s not an evil drug per se - long history before it was criminalized<p>Dose makes the poison, the recreational users aren’t going to be satisfied with your government regulated small amounts.<p>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.<p>I should also mention that methamphetamine appears to be quite neurotoxic at recreational doses. Maybe even smaller doses too.<p>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.
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?
No, policy wise I appreciate you getting into the nuance, but I feel like you take the argument to polar extremes (with an attitude of confident, final certainty), when the expected outcome is across the middle. This smells more like ideology than practicality.<p>> These discussions always end up …<p>Before your comment i wouldn’t say anyone is lacking curiosity here. Tho your comment about fixing into a stereotype, seems the example of itself. I think it’s better to listen and discuss than assume the futures settle into a mischaracterization that you’ve already decided. That doesn’t seem very useful - except for ideology…<p>On the toxicity side, do you have any studies to cite? I wasn’t aware of toxicity, but it’s plausible.<p>Big picture tho, I’m not an expert in drug policy. It just sounds like a logical way to reduce harm overall. Reduce harm overall - worth repeating; on average, create a better society.<p>The conceivable parties who would lose out are: government funded agencies charged with fighting drug crime because their caseload and budgets would probably decrease; and on the other side the cartels and dealers. Although what seems to happen with the latter is once something is legalized, the supply chains morph into legitimate businesses somehow.<p>I still think it would work. I’m not convinced by what you said. Thank you tho
> On the toxicity side, do you have any studies to cite? I wasn’t aware of toxicity, but it’s plausible.<p>A typical therapeutic dose of amphetamines is around 20mg, topping at around 60mg for serious narcolepsy. Recreational doses can go up to around 1000mg for long-term users with 360mg as the median: <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40385390/" rel="nofollow">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40385390/</a><p>That's the area of crazy toxic side effects just from vasoconstriction. Never mind direct effects on the brain.
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.<p>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.
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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
> The world is obviously better of without drugs,<p>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.
> 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.<p>The article addresses this:<p>> 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.<p>Not saying they're right, but the author at least believes this hypothesis is contradicted by the data.
> I think it’s a contaminant issue that’s exacerbated by the drug use.<p>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?
Government does sorta regulate it. Desoxyn is (rarely) prescribed for ADHD when other meds aren't effective enough.<p>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.
> The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
The main idea indeed is usually "channeling consumption" to less harmful substances, dosages/concentrations and outlets.<p>A prime example is alcohol, where prohibition led to bad outcomes. This led to the regulated legalization model.<p>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.<p>> 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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.
Have you ever been an addict?<p>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.
> Drugs are not addictive in a sense that they make person to go out and buy more.<p>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.
It's a pretty bad drug, I can see only disadvantages over plain amphetamine.<p>If amphetamine isn't strong enough, you already have a serious problem.<p>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.<p>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.
> It's a pretty bad drug, I can see only disadvantages over plain amphetamine.<p>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.
Does history record whether Hitler was using the good ol' giggles-and-joy pseudoephedrine meth or the evil psychosis-inducing P2P biker meth?
Check out the book “The Fort Bragg Cartel” if you’re wondering why drugs are illegal even if legalization makes more sense from a harm reduction standpoint. The highest levels of the military are involved in drug trafficking. Use of drugs by clandestine colonial states goes all the way back to the opium wars. US is nothing new. The deep state funds off the books operations with drug money and possibly human trafficking as well.
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.
And I thought for a second they were talking about peer to peer meth but no that's what the DEA shut down by tightly controlling pseudoephedrine, where before meth using meth makers were making meth and distributing it.<p>It certainly seems like prohibition is just making things worse and making it more lucrative for the least ethical of black market producers.<p>Similar situation with fentanyl when compared to previous opiates.
> that's what the DEA shut down by tightly controlling pseudoephedrine, where before meth using meth makers were making meth and distributing it.<p>Phosphorus-ephedrine meth, aka shake-and-bake.<p>> It certainly seems like prohibition is just making things worse and making it more lucrative for the least ethical of black market producers.<p>I don't think P2P meth is any worse than what came before it. Prohibition is making things somewhat worse here for legal access to pseudoephedrine, though.
I thought it was going to be metaphor about exploiting a peer to peer network
Or maybe, just maybe, abusing even pure, pharma-grade meth causes schizophrenia.
Discussed at the time:<p><i>The main thing about Phenylacetone meth is that there's so much of it</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29027284">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29027284</a> - Oct 2021 (359 comments)
the problems with the meth epidemic are 3 fold. two problems are intrinsic to meth and one is a matter of public policy.<p>1) meth is highly addictive and there is no pharmacological intervention for that addiction. there is no clinically effective therapeutic treatment for it either<p>2) meth is neurodegenerative. heavy users end up with a permanent disability<p>3) at some point around 2010 a bunch of cities decided it was totally cool if dealing and public use were normalized/decriminalized in areas their most vulnerable populations hang out.<p>(3) is an incredibly stupid and expensive policy given (1) and (2)
Small towns in North America are are being decimated by meth. The drug dealers move in because there are no drug task forces, just underfunded and ill-equipped sheriffs and local police.<p>My wife and I live in the suburbs now but grew up in a very rural community. Last year we went to a wedding there. It was shocking how many people under the age of 50 were missing half their teeth.
Was "Interstate 60" scenario every seriously considered for dealing with drug use problems? I think it could make both parties happy, drug users would disappear from cities and they would have unlimited amount of drugs in their utopia.
The US in general would probably benefit greatly from delineating regions and having different sets of laws. The resulting ability to self segregate according to ideology would presumably reduce political conflict.<p>We could call the regions "states" and enshrine their right to self government in the constitution. You know, to make sure the federal government doesn't end up trampling on it at some point in the far future.
>..What evidence is there that these have a chemical difference?<p>3 lines later..<p>>.. The Drug Enforcement Agency tests the meth they seize to see how it was made.<p>quick answer!
> Ephedrine meth was like a party drug. […] You could normally kind of more or less hang onto your life. You had a house, you had a job. […] P2P meth was nothing like that. It was a very sinister drug. It brought you inside. You didn’t want to be around other people. You wanted to just kind of be alone with whatever bizarre thoughts your mind was now cooking up, and conspiracies.
That sounds a lot like the progression of many stimulant addictions.
Ephedrine isn't banned, not even behind a prescription, there's just rather strict limits on how much you can buy a month. I take a Bronkaid every morning with my coffee.
Is the P2P meth E2E
The insane thing for me is seeing how tightly meth purity correlated with the airing of Breaking Bad.
I was thinking the same thing, though I couldn't remember the timeline. Makes me wonder if there was something already in the zeitgeist, or if it was fueled by the obsession with purity in the series. I could totally see Breaking Bad causing chemists to want to up their game, or causing chemists to get clowned for having low purity.
yes, while the show probably popularized the idea of purity for meth, in general strict prohibition leads to increase in purity and potency. We've recently seen that with heroin/fentanyl. There is probably still no "fentanyl of meth", and thus so far only purity increase. Once a more potent, fentanyl-like, meth appears, it will probably similarly get into and displace a lot of classic meth trade.
The pyrovalerones are basically the fentanyl of meth. More potent, shorter lasting, more dangerous.
i'm a layman here, so just googled it:<p><a href="https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Pyrovalerone" rel="nofollow">https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Pyrovalerone</a><p>"Pyrovalerone is a DEA Schedule V controlled substance. Substances in the DEA Schedule V have a low potential for abuse relative to substances listed in Schedule IV and consist primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics."
What? Prohibition historically showed the exact opposite.<p>I suspect higher purity & potency of street drugs has much more to do with more sophisticated operators operating outside of the US than strict prohibition. Same with fentanyl.
The production case for a stronger stimulant is weaker. Heroin is a really complicated molecule. It is only made from a natural precursor. Meth can be made by two major pathways, and P2P can be made by at least four off the top of my head. It was the fentanyl equivalent for cocaine. For anything else, you balance the increased complexity of synthesis with any increase in potency.
It's not insane, and it's the other way around. The writers consulted directly with DEA agents, they were being told how the meth trade was changing and wrote reality into their show.<p>Pseudoephedrine restrictions drove the search for new chemistry and the new chemistry brought in the large scale labs.
The article was doing so well until the conclusion.<p>> 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.<p>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.<p>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.
The 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.<p>Heavy disclaimer: I am neither a chemist nor a doctor, so this is speculation on my part.
rectify 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
The article links the Rhodium site archive, which hosts recipes and chemistry lab setup for making P2P precursor and the real stuff
>He points out that “old” meth was made from ephedrine and that “new” meth is made from a chemical called Phenylacetone or P2P<p>the new is just the old that came back. The old meth, "biker meth", was P2P. Then was ephedrine, and with a crackdown on ephedrine - back to P2P.<p>Another noticeable thing - the recent shortage of ADHD medication while supposedly illegal meth production has been growing. Demand is present in both cases while the capitalism model of responding with supply seems to work very well only in one.
> Another noticeable thing - the recent shortage of ADHD medication while supposedly illegal meth production has been growing. Demand is present in both cases while the capitalism model of responding with supply seems to work very well only in one.<p>Capitalism isn’t the problem at all with prescription medications. The annual production amounts are regulated by the government. There has been an explosion in demand for ADHD prescriptions between the way it’s trending on social media and the recent shifts in how easily prescriptions are handed out.<p>I don’t agree that inducing artificial supply shortages is the right way to regulate it, but there is no “capitalism bad” story here. If anything this is a good example of how central command and control of production doesn’t work.
In the former case, you have government artificially suppressing supply and acting to dissuade pharmacies from keeping almost any extra stock, which is unfortunate.
Fantastic write up.<p>I think the biggest takeaway for me is just how insanely ineffective banning pseudoephedrine over the counter was.<p>Price went down, usage went up overdose went up, seizures went up, the production just changed quickly and there wasn’t even a blip.<p>Billions of uses of bullshit decongestant products that didn’t work at all… and to get the good stuff you still need to buy it from behind the counter and give ID.
Throwback to <i>A Simple and Convenient Synthesis of Pseudoephedrine From N-Methylamphetamine</i> [0] [1], a 2012 paper describing how to synthesize Sudafed from meth lol<p>[0] <a href="https://improbable.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Pseudoephedrine.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://improbable.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Pseudoephe...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/pseudephedrine-made-easy-kind" rel="nofollow">https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/pseudephedrine-mad...</a>
Human society has a massive issue with blindness towards n-order effects (they barely consider second-order effects, never mind thinking further out)
> insanely ineffective banning pseudoephedrine<p>Limiting pseudoephedrine need not have effect on overall quantity to have huge positive societal effects. More P2P in industrial laboratories means less DIY Birch reductions in a soda bottle.
That's all correct, and nobody seems to care. Nobody is ever going to improve the system, and us law abiding citizens are left with the consequences.
> banning pseudoephedrine over the counter was.<p>In many states it wasn’t banned. It just moved behind the counter and you could only by a limited amount per month.<p>Which was actually fantastically good for those of us who actually need it, because this made it available again instead of the empty shelves.
The other day I needed pseudoephedrine, so I asked for one box of instant tablets and one box of extended release capsules. The store said they’re only allowed to sell me one box so I had to choose.<p>I’m so glad these policies made it so meth isn’t super easy to find anymore.<p>Oh wait, meth is still dirt cheap fucking everywhere, but now I also can’t get effective cold medicine either. Can we please just admit this policy doesn’t have any effect on the meth supply curve and please put pseudoephedrine back in Dayquil?
P2P stands for Peer-to-Peer.<p>Now I can't say that I led a P2P network anymore.
Tried clicking the fivethirtyeight link halfway down the article, and was immediately reminded of what abc decided to start doing today. What an asshole move.
[dead]
Happy to see that meth is becoming more affortable, maybe inflation isn't so bad after all if we consider all the things we have access to and that have come down in price since few decades ago. /s
[dead]
[dead]
Thanks China.