Author Topic: DRUGS  (Read 7273 times)

Doktor Howl

  • Hostile Technology Geek
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 34082
  • Horrible Bastard
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #45 on: July 08, 2019, 04:48:31 am »
Okay, written off.
Come on, I didn't even bypass their points!
Of course you did.  You skipped past most of them.  I don't think you understand that a random response does not constitute an argument.  But I hate repeating myself in a written forum, and it's not as if I could compel you to answer, anyway.

Regardless, I've come to a pretty good understanding of how you think, so there's no point in my spending any more time on you.

I keep forgetting that you're not an old-timer here.  When this board was cooking, we'd get three new guys like this per week. 
"Daisy had syphilis, Tom died of genital warts, and Nick Carroway watched it all in mounting horror, then made off with the silverware and the maid."
~ The Good Reverend

Ecclesiastes 2:14, JACKASS.

nullified

  • A Pile of Soggy Bird Carcasses
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • I WILL EXILE VIOLATORS TO THE PISS-VOID
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #46 on: July 08, 2019, 05:51:15 am »
Since the fun is over, Iíll write that post up for you tomorrow, CNO. PM me if I forget and you care enough. Would do it tonight, but need to go to bed in a minute so I can do one hundred things tomorrow.
ďI am that worst of all type of criminal...I cannot bring myself to do what you tell me, because you told me

TastyCle

  • Known
  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #47 on: July 08, 2019, 01:43:34 pm »
Okay, written off.
Come on, I didn't even bypass their points!
Of course you did.  You skipped past most of them.  I don't think you understand that a random response does not constitute an argument.  But I hate repeating myself in a written forum, and it's not as if I could compel you to answer, anyway.

Regardless, I've come to a pretty good understanding of how you think, so there's no point in my spending any more time on you.

I keep forgetting that you're not an old-timer here.  When this board was cooking, we'd get three new guys like this per week.
Wait, I'm not unique? Who was it? WHO STOLE MY PERSONALITY?
Very painful to get rid of, why even bother.

chaotic neutral observer

  • not a real discordian
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • I saw what you did and I'm okay with it
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #48 on: July 08, 2019, 02:24:15 pm »
Since the fun is over, Iíll write that post up for you tomorrow, CNO. PM me if I forget and you care enough. Would do it tonight, but need to go to bed in a minute so I can do one hundred things tomorrow.
Whenever you're ready.
Come at me with the intent to kill.
"When I say 'engineering', I have unreasonable expectations.  It must - as you know - look good in PADS AND give you plenty of help ducking and weaving in meetings.  But it must also, at some distant point in time, function.  If it does not, then you must accept that you are not in fact an engineer but instead an MBA.  Hang your head in SHAME, sinner!"

nullified

  • A Pile of Soggy Bird Carcasses
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • I WILL EXILE VIOLATORS TO THE PISS-VOID
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #49 on: July 09, 2019, 04:25:10 pm »
So, I might be rushing this. If there are mistakes, please poke at them but donít burn me to the ground. Iím busy today and Iíll correct my slips given a chance.

There are a few problems when people bring up chemical weapons. These are problems that are mostly issues with not helping to propagate bad signal, rather than moral or logical ones, but those issues leave open great honking logical holes anyway.

First of all, the difference between a chemical that is a weapon and a chemical that is not is so small as to be invisible. Letís take an example so crazy it canít be weaponized, despite attempts by multiple world powers during wartime.

Fluorine gas will, in short order: set a carís paint on fire, set the metal the paint is on on fire, set the interior and the people within on fire, fill those people and every moist surface available with hydrofluoric acid, and poison everything full of hydrofluoric acid with around 25 different metabolic poisons that we know of ó for starters. Fluorine gas has a chemical formula of F. Trying to regulate chemicals on the basis of fluorine gas would lead to banning either all single-element chemicals, all chemicals containing fluorine, or both. Both single element chemicals and fluorine compounds are absolutely necessary for modern living, and single element chemicals have always been so.

Itís easy to say that you could base your criteria on reactivity, or on successful weaponization. Reactivity is a no-go, that bans fucking water. And hydrochloric acid, which is in your stomach now, for that matter. And a billion chemicals used in all manner of synthesis. Successful weaponization is a stupid idea too. That leads to bans after the fact, itís as ineffective as drug prohibition. I sure donít want designer chemwar.

You could talk about classes of compounds. No one would seriously help you there, though. Thereís almost no visible difference between a given compound that kills, and a totally inert counterpart. We canít even predict that a given analogue for a given chemical will work, we have to test it. Broader classes than that would prohibit natural chemicals in our own bodies and thousands of drugs and industrial chemicals.

Then you can come back to chemicals that have ever been tested for weaponization, or been successfully weaponized. Aside from the ineffectiveness, thereís a second issue.

Phosgene is used in industrial synthesis.
Chlorine gas is a weapon of war that cleans our pools.
Mustard gas gave rise to a whole class of chemotherapy drugs.
Sarin was an accidental discovery while producing organophosphate pesticides. Iím pretty sure it or a close relative is a natural byproduct of synthesis for modern pesticides as well.
Ricin is produced by fucking castor beans.

Attempting to ban chemical weapon production for ANY purpose is like saying that we should discard all our aerospace medical knowledge because itís based in Nazi human experimentation. Where it is feasible, it hamstrings us. And it is almost never feasible. Rather, you should ban weaponizing chemicals, period. If this seems to hamstring the engines of warfare, then fucking good.
ďI am that worst of all type of criminal...I cannot bring myself to do what you tell me, because you told me

Hoopla!

  • gives people the beeps, and most certainly
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 14935
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #50 on: July 09, 2019, 06:19:34 pm »
Okay, written off.
Come on, I didn't even bypass their points!
Of course you did.  You skipped past most of them.  I don't think you understand that a random response does not constitute an argument.  But I hate repeating myself in a written forum, and it's not as if I could compel you to answer, anyway.

Regardless, I've come to a pretty good understanding of how you think, so there's no point in my spending any more time on you.

I keep forgetting that you're not an old-timer here.  When this board was cooking, we'd get three new guys like this per week.
Wait, I'm not unique? Who was it? WHO STOLE MY PERSONALITY?

Poptard
ďSoon all of us will have special namesĒ ó Professor Brian OíBlivion

"Now's not the time to get silly, so wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns." ó Bob Dylan?

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes" ó Walt Whitman

TastyCle

  • Known
  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2019, 08:12:20 pm »
So, I might be rushing this. If there are mistakes, please poke at them but donít burn me to the ground. Iím busy today and Iíll correct my slips given a chance.

There are a few problems when people bring up chemical weapons. These are problems that are mostly issues with not helping to propagate bad signal, rather than moral or logical ones, but those issues leave open great honking logical holes anyway.

First of all, the difference between a chemical that is a weapon and a chemical that is not is so small as to be invisible. Letís take an example so crazy it canít be weaponized, despite attempts by multiple world powers during wartime.

Fluorine gas will, in short order: set a carís paint on fire, set the metal the paint is on on fire, set the interior and the people within on fire, fill those people and every moist surface available with hydrofluoric acid, and poison everything full of hydrofluoric acid with around 25 different metabolic poisons that we know of ó for starters. Fluorine gas has a chemical formula of F. Trying to regulate chemicals on the basis of fluorine gas would lead to banning either all single-element chemicals, all chemicals containing fluorine, or both. Both single element chemicals and fluorine compounds are absolutely necessary for modern living, and single element chemicals have always been so.

Itís easy to say that you could base your criteria on reactivity, or on successful weaponization. Reactivity is a no-go, that bans fucking water. And hydrochloric acid, which is in your stomach now, for that matter. And a billion chemicals used in all manner of synthesis. Successful weaponization is a stupid idea too. That leads to bans after the fact, itís as ineffective as drug prohibition. I sure donít want designer chemwar.

You could talk about classes of compounds. No one would seriously help you there, though. Thereís almost no visible difference between a given compound that kills, and a totally inert counterpart. We canít even predict that a given analogue for a given chemical will work, we have to test it. Broader classes than that would prohibit natural chemicals in our own bodies and thousands of drugs and industrial chemicals.

Then you can come back to chemicals that have ever been tested for weaponization, or been successfully weaponized. Aside from the ineffectiveness, thereís a second issue.

Phosgene is used in industrial synthesis.
Chlorine gas is a weapon of war that cleans our pools.
Mustard gas gave rise to a whole class of chemotherapy drugs.
Sarin was an accidental discovery while producing organophosphate pesticides. Iím pretty sure it or a close relative is a natural byproduct of synthesis for modern pesticides as well.
Ricin is produced by fucking castor beans.

Attempting to ban chemical weapon production for ANY purpose is like saying that we should discard all our aerospace medical knowledge because itís based in Nazi human experimentation. Where it is feasible, it hamstrings us. And it is almost never feasible. Rather, you should ban weaponizing chemicals, period. If this seems to hamstring the engines of warfare, then fucking good.
May I switch sides and propose we prohibit ALL chemical products, as there are plenty of natural alternatives?
Very painful to get rid of, why even bother.

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoomô
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 62358
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2019, 08:32:47 pm »

nullified

  • A Pile of Soggy Bird Carcasses
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • I WILL EXILE VIOLATORS TO THE PISS-VOID
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #53 on: July 09, 2019, 09:14:00 pm »
Itís shitty bait anyway. They deserve to know just how dumb they are.

No, you may not change your mind because everything is fucking chemicals. Your goddamn hands are chemicals. Thereís no natural substitute for chemicals because everything tangible that we interact with on the regular is chemicals. Including any and all natural substances. Banning all chemical substances is as impossible as banning time. No matter how hard you make believe, itís still there and will always still be there.
ďI am that worst of all type of criminal...I cannot bring myself to do what you tell me, because you told me

TastyCle

  • Known
  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #54 on: July 09, 2019, 10:31:06 pm »
Itís shitty bait anyway. They deserve to know just how dumb they are.

No, you may not change your mind because everything is fucking chemicals. Your goddamn hands are chemicals. Thereís no natural substitute for chemicals because everything tangible that we interact with on the regular is chemicals. Including any and all natural substances. Banning all chemical substances is as impossible as banning time. No matter how hard you make believe, itís still there and will always still be there.
Hear me out!

Well of course you cannot immediately make all the chemicals not exist. In the scale of the universe it would take at least 46.5 years. But who are we to tell the Andromedans what to do with their chemicals?

No, what I'm proposing is that we figure out a way to hurl this planet to the sun. That way we would be able to enjoy warm weather and chemical free lifestyle for the rest of the eternity. Not to even speak about driving down the oil industry with all the PURE ENERGY!
Very painful to get rid of, why even bother.

Doktor Howl

  • Hostile Technology Geek
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 34082
  • Horrible Bastard
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #55 on: July 10, 2019, 12:11:05 am »

Phosgene is used in industrial synthesis.


Also, it is almost fucking impossible to not generate any phosgene in the industrial use of chemicals.  You can minimize it, but there are simply too many interactions that can generate it.
"Daisy had syphilis, Tom died of genital warts, and Nick Carroway watched it all in mounting horror, then made off with the silverware and the maid."
~ The Good Reverend

Ecclesiastes 2:14, JACKASS.

Doktor Howl

  • Hostile Technology Geek
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 34082
  • Horrible Bastard
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #56 on: July 10, 2019, 12:12:00 am »
"Daisy had syphilis, Tom died of genital warts, and Nick Carroway watched it all in mounting horror, then made off with the silverware and the maid."
~ The Good Reverend

Ecclesiastes 2:14, JACKASS.

chaotic neutral observer

  • not a real discordian
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • I saw what you did and I'm okay with it
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #57 on: July 10, 2019, 01:32:47 am »
First of all, the difference between a chemical that is a weapon and a chemical that is not is so small as to be invisible.
Part of the reason I was fixated on Sarin was because I couldn't find any non-chemical-weapony uses for it, and that seemed like a sufficient basis for a distinction.  (But this falls apart, below).

Quote
Fluorine gas will, in short order: set a car's paint on fire, set the metal the paint is on on fire, set the interior and the people within on fire, fill those people and every moist surface available with hydrofluoric acid, and poison everything full of hydrofluoric acid with around 25 different metabolic poisons that we know of -- for starters. Fluorine gas has a chemical formula of F. Trying to regulate chemicals on the basis of fluorine gas would lead to banning either all single-element chemicals, all chemicals containing fluorine, or both. Both single element chemicals and fluorine compounds are absolutely necessary for modern living, and single element chemicals have always been so.
Forget about straight fluorine.  Chlorine trifloride is one of my favourite chemicals.  It causes spontaneous ignition in sand and asbestos, and makes water explode.  It's so dangerous that even the Nazis gave up on weaponizing it.  It was tested as a rocket fuel oxidizer at one point, but was rather too nasty to work with.  It is currently used as a cleaning agent in the semiconductor industry.

Quote
It's easy to say that you could base your criteria on reactivity, or on successful weaponization. Reactivity is a no-go, that bans fucking water.
I could have sworn I had noted water as a chemical weapon earlier in this thread, but going back, it appears I just listed it as a tool of torture and murder, and didn't draw the connection explicitly.

Quote
Mustard gas gave rise to a whole class of chemotherapy drugs.
Sarin was an accidental discovery while producing organophosphate pesticides. I'm pretty sure it or a close relative is a natural byproduct of synthesis for modern pesticides as well.
...and...boom.  There's the weak point in my argument.  I claimed that the only use for Sarin was as a chemical weapon, but...how would I know that?  I'm not a chemist.  Maybe it's an intermediate step in synthesizing something useful.  Maybe someone wants to study it to develop a treatment for people exposed to it.  And even if it doesn't have any peaceful uses right now, maybe it will in the future.

Was the synthesis of Sarin an immoral act the first time it was done?  Obviously not, if it was accidental.  What about subsequent times?  That depends entirely on its intended use.

Now, if whats-his-face had counterattacked along this line, he might have had to admit that morality lies in how something is used, rather than the thing itself.  But, if he had said that substances don't have any moral qualifications, that would give me another angle to attack the whole "molecules have rights" idea.

P.S.
Thanks.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 01:35:09 am by chaotic neutral observer »
"When I say 'engineering', I have unreasonable expectations.  It must - as you know - look good in PADS AND give you plenty of help ducking and weaving in meetings.  But it must also, at some distant point in time, function.  If it does not, then you must accept that you are not in fact an engineer but instead an MBA.  Hang your head in SHAME, sinner!"

nullified

  • A Pile of Soggy Bird Carcasses
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • I WILL EXILE VIOLATORS TO THE PISS-VOID
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #58 on: July 10, 2019, 04:16:15 am »
Fun fact: even if you were a chemist, you could not tell what a given compound would do by looking at formula, structure, X-ray crystallography... etc. You can make some very well informed guesses, but knowing? It HAS to be tested.

It sounds like youíve read In The Pipeline, since you know about CF3 in exactly the way I knew about it initially. Thereís an article on that blog about a terrifyingly nitrogenated compound that looks like the platonic ideal of boom. Turns out itís so stable you can smash it with a rock. Detonation testing failed to make it boom at all. It changes color when exposed to light ó reversibly. Chemistry is complex enough that once you get out of the realm of one or two atoms, you canít assume anything. Water: great example, since it breaks every goddamned rule about density, reactivity, etc.

Sarin does so far have no known use outside of being a weapon of war. I fact checked and it isnít actually a byproduct of any chemical synthesis, but itís use (as with most chemical weapons, surprisingly) is permitted in experimental bench chemistry amounts, and it and soman, a close relative, were used in the initial synthesis of a couple pharmaceutical drugs on the market today. For obvious reasons, they use different chemicals for production at scale.
ďI am that worst of all type of criminal...I cannot bring myself to do what you tell me, because you told me

chaotic neutral observer

  • not a real discordian
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • I saw what you did and I'm okay with it
    • View Profile
Re: DRUGS
« Reply #59 on: July 10, 2019, 04:29:57 am »
It sounds like youíve read In The Pipeline, since you know about CF3 in exactly the way I knew about it initially.

Actually, I became familiar with it via John Clark's Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants.  It's out of print, but apparently in the public domain.  An interesting read, if you're into that sort of thing: https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf

It also taught me the term "hard start" as a euphemism for "it blew up when we tried to turn it on."
"When I say 'engineering', I have unreasonable expectations.  It must - as you know - look good in PADS AND give you plenty of help ducking and weaving in meetings.  But it must also, at some distant point in time, function.  If it does not, then you must accept that you are not in fact an engineer but instead an MBA.  Hang your head in SHAME, sinner!"