…and this is a 
When chemistry is outlawed, only outlaws will do chemistry
Category: Politics • Science
Posted on: June 17, 2007 9:50 AM, by PZ Myers
Hank Fox has brought a significant problem to my attention, one that I've addressed before: one of the consequences of growing American cowardice and these trumped-up Wars on Terror and Drugs (let's call them what they are: a War on Civil Liberties) is that science and science education are collateral damage. Memepunks has an excellent post on this subject:
In an attempt to curb the production of crystal meth, more than 30 states have now outlawed or require registration for common lab equipment. In Texas, you need to register the purchase of Erlenmeyer flasks or three-necked beakers. The same state where I do not have to register a handgun, forces me to register a glass beaker. In Portland, Oregon, even pH strips are suspect. Modern off the shelf "chemistry" sets are sold without any of the questionable chemicals or equipment. For example, when a current company tried re releasing a kit based on the one marketed by Mr. Wizard himself back in the 1950s, they found that they could only include five of the original chemicals in the set. The rest of the items were replaced with inane things like super balls and balloons. Even a non neutered modern chemistry set like the C3000 from Thames and Kosmos is forced to ship without many key chemicals, suggesting to their customers that they acquire the missing ingredients elsewhere.
In the name of child safety, in order to inhibit drug peddlers, because we don't want to make things easy for terrorists, we have put up bureaucratic barriers to the purchase of laboratory glassware — while encouraging unimpaired, unchecked access to guns.
Is this a screwed-up country, or what?
The memepunks site has some suggestions for getting around the restrictions.
But there are some lights shinning in the darkness of this situation. Companies like United Nuclear, which continue to sell chemicals and lab equipment despite legal problems, and websites that support chemistry hobbyists. Like Readily Available Chemicals, which maintains a list of places where one can make an end run around the restrictions and purchase chemicals or lab ware. Or The Nitrogen Order, who provides a how to on building your own chemistry set, and provides lessons and experiments. And Science Madness who's forums give hobbyists a place to meet, compare notes, and exchange secrets of the trade anonymously. One of my favorites is the Society for Amateur Scientists, which just began a LABRats program, to match up youngsters that are interested in science with mentors that are practicing scientists.
That's right, people, this is what it is coming down to: you need to break the law to do science. We're criminalizing nerds.
At least making science dangerous and illicit and illegal ought to make us romantic outlaws look cool.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Thanks for the link, but the address is incorrect. It should be:
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/chemicals/
Posted by: hyperdeath | June 17, 2007 10:04 AM
And you called it hyperdeath? =8-|
Now that's what I call framing!
Posted by: Caledonian | June 17, 2007 10:10 AM
The next thing you know, the hysterical anti-drug paranoids will outlaw over-the-counter decongestants!
Oops. Too late!
Posted by: Zeno | June 17, 2007 10:14 AM
I've added HTTP redirects from the incorrect address. Anyone who clicks the link should now be able to get through.
And you called it hyperdeath?
I had the domain name (and the fairly decent website it's attached to) before I created the Readily Available Chemicals website. Perhaps my choice of name wasn't so wise in retrospect...
Posted by: hyperdeath | June 17, 2007 10:15 AM
i ♥ serendipity. i spent all night yesterday looking for a place that'll sell me the chemicals i need to make a few stains. that last blockquote is the most useful (to me) text i've read on scienceblogs yet.
Posted by: ~^#% | June 17, 2007 10:20 AM
What can I say? I'm stunned.
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 17, 2007 10:25 AM
I had the domain name (and the fairly decent website it's attached to)
Oops... That should be "fairly decent webspace..."
Posted by: hyperdeath | June 17, 2007 10:27 AM
You got it all wrong!
Remember "Ignorance = terrorism"?
(That's wrong too: it should be: "Enforcing ignorance = terrorism.")
This is nothing less than a thinly-veiled attampt to outlaww knowledge. Can't start with biology; people would notice. Chemistry, that's where it ain't!
Posted by: djlactin | June 17, 2007 10:28 AM
Wow. US of A, we need to talk. I know you've had years and years to think about civil liberties, gun laws and chemicals, I just don't think that the conclusions you have reached about it all is the same as the conclusion I have reached.
Your conclusion appears to be that hand guns are wonderful and magnificient tools anyone should own, regardless of his or her ability to use them responsibly and that harmless chemicals should be thoroughly regulated even if it doesn't make any sense whatsover. And that civil liberties should applied only where the strongest and best-funded lobby wants them to.
My conclusion is that all politicians who endorse such nonsense should be fired immediately and that all those lobbyists should be barred from entering any legislative building ever again.
But nonetheless, US of A, you never cease to surprise me.
Posted by: DCP | June 17, 2007 10:35 AM
A little music to go with this post from "The Arrogant Worms":It's great to be a nerd
Posted by: DustPuppyOI | June 17, 2007 10:38 AM
Having done quite a bit of chemistry when I was young, including the mixing of some serious acid baths for circuit board etching at a job I had when 16, I'm not quite sure I would label chemicals "harmless." I treated them with just as much caution as I did guns. Perhaps more, because their risks are more varied. A gun is relatively simple compared to chemistry.
Which isn't an endorsement of these absurd laws, but just a recommendation to play safe. ;-)
Posted by: Russell | June 17, 2007 10:45 AM
I'm sure Charlton Heston would weigh in for you. "The only way you'll get my pipette is when you pry it from my cold, dead hands".
Posted by: Jon Eccles | June 17, 2007 10:45 AM
Sigh; I'd heard about them removing everything that might cause any kind of liability from the chemistry sets (they were watered down when my children were kids) but was unaware of the laws requiring registration for basic laboratory glassware. I grew up with chemistry sets, microscopes, visible men (and women) and erector sets in the 50s and I am certain that playing with those "toys" was largely responsible for my interest in science, because I didn't have a really good science teacher until high school. I've made a living doing environmental geochemistry for a long time now and I wonder if the same piquing of the interest followed by a career path will no longer be available to young persons. Instead they'll just be taken to the Creation Museum and told what chapter and verse to read to understand "science," then they'll be appointed to a cushy theocratic position. What the hell has happened to this country?
Posted by: ChemBob | June 17, 2007 10:46 AM
Every time I get to thinking that Canada might be a little too touchy-feely weird for my tastes, something like this blog post comes along and reminds me that things could be a whole lot worse than "touchy-feely weird".
Posted by: Evolving Squid | June 17, 2007 11:09 AM
"When chemistry is outlawed, only outlaws will do chemistry"
Heh, reminds me of a cartoon I saw taped to the chem department walls...
"Analytical Chemists of the Wild West"
http://www.nearingzero.net/screen_res/nz093.jpg
Posted by: Thomas | June 17, 2007 11:17 AM
Home chemistry is where Charles Darwin (called 'Gas' as a child - not funny in his native English English) started his interest in science.
Posted by: Peter McGrath | June 17, 2007 11:25 AM
Of course a lot of chemicals aren't totally "harmless". For example drain cleaners are pretty hazardous. But regulating chemicals because they could possibly used by terrorists or to produce drugs and leaving guns alone is absurd. Most chemicals, especially in chemistry sets, aren't intended to cause harm or hurt anyone, but handled wrongly they obviously can. At least some. Guns on the other hand are designed for only one purpose: causing harm. Even if the use is legitimate, like hunting, guns ultimately cause destruction. I don't know any good reason for a decent human being to own an assault rifle privately. But good reasons for most chemicals and glassware are abundant.
Posted by: DCP | June 17, 2007 11:25 AM
It's not as though access to guns is exactly unfettered. There is considerable paper-work involved in buying that particular kind of tool as opposed to, say, a chainsaw or a powered nail-driver. Cars and gasoline (both of which are more likely to kill you than a gun or a chemistry set) are somewhat regulated but there are so many of them around that it's nearly impossible to prevent someone intent on causing harm with one.
The problem is that society doesn't do a good job understanding risk and our political leaders are cowards who manipulate the public by making a big show out of "solving" problems that simply aren't big enough to justify the effort spent solving them. Crystal meth would be vastly safer if it were produced in a proper lab - what is the exact problem we're trying to solve here?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 17, 2007 11:28 AM
Please, please, let no one tell our legislators about the protons, neutrons and electrons present in all of the most deadly and/or addictive substances.
Posted by: xebecs | June 17, 2007 11:32 AM
>I don't know any good reason for a decent human being
>to own an assault rifle privately.
How about: "Because I want one"??
That's exactly the same (and quite good) reason why people own SUVs, or eat pizza, or drive hybrids, or drink tea instead of coffee, etc. It's a matter of personal choice.
The issue is at what point society at large overrules personal choice for the common good. Right? We can argue that guns are inherently more dangerous tools if abused than chainsaws so let's regulate them - and that probably makes sense. But if society is going to do that, we need to understand the tradeoffs and they should make sense. That's where I have a problem with a lot of the "logic" that's going into regulating things today.
Does someone's choice to smoke crystal meth harm society at large? Not much, really. Of course, since crystal meth has been made illegal ("for the good of society"...) now it is a source of self-fulfilling criminal activity. But, otherwise, if it weren't illegal, some guy could sit at home and bake his brain with crystal meth and it's no skin off my a** at all as long as I'm not expected to pay his medical bills or share a section of freeway with him while he's high. Yet, we have alcohol, which is legal but regulated, and we have to deal with exactly those problems (medical bills and traffic) with a legal drug versus billions spent on interdiction programs that utterly fail to prevent the sales of an illegal drug like crystal meth.
PZ's title to this thread is precisely right - does making something illegal cause more crime than if you just left it alone?? Well, aside from the obvious tautology - what nobody seems to want to confront is that virtually all of the "victimless crimes" (drugs, prostitution, gambling...) are criminalized because of religious beliefs. Sam Harris nudges us obliquely toward this topic in "End of Faith" but it's one of the most important threads of that book that has not made it into the public debate about religion.
Now - back to assault rifles: who cares? What you don't want is people killing eachother. Whether they do it with a magazine-fed repeater or a muzzle-loader is utterly irrelevant to the victim and should be irrelevant to society at large, too. In fact, "assault rifle" is an aesthetic statement, not not a technical one.
http://www.a-human-right.com/looks.html
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 17, 2007 11:39 AM
True. But, at least in Europe, you have to go through a lot of driving lessons and you are requiered to take a first aid course. And in the end you've got to take two exams (one theoretical, one practical.). Afterwards you are allowed to drive, but you are the first two years under some kind of probation. That means offences are punished more severly in the beginning.
So, you see, it's still a far cry from the paper-work involved in buying a gun in the US, I think. (Don't get me started on gun laws in Europe. These laws are way too strict, in my eyes.)
Just on a side note, now that you mention it. In Austria, or Switzerland (I don't know which one. Somewhere in the Alps however) there's an iniative for people to let their drugs checked. They are told what's inside, it's anonymus and people can keep them.
Posted by: DCP | June 17, 2007 11:47 AM
"Now - back to assault rifles: who cares? What you don't want is people killing eachother. Whether they do it with a magazine-fed repeater or a muzzle-loader is utterly irrelevant to the victim and should be irrelevant to society at large, too."
Except for the fact that you can kill a hell of a lot more people with a magazine-fed repeater than a muzzle loader before the cops come and stop you. If I'm in a crowded mall and a crazy gunman comes in and starts shooting the place up, I'd definitely prefer the muzzle-loader.
Posted by: kellbelle1020 | June 17, 2007 11:50 AM
I grew up with chemistry sets, microscopes,
Yeah, me too, and in those days equipment for amateurs/kids was still good quality kit. Nowadays (Sargent Welch, Ward's, Carolina etc) it's all chinese crap marked up 1000%, if not more.
Science is for rich people :-(
Posted by: #~%^ | June 17, 2007 11:53 AM
At least making science dangerous and illicit and illegal ought to make us romantic outlaws look cool.
Indeed. We'll be seeing you with spiky hair, a leather jacket, and E V O - D E V O tattooed on your knuckles next.
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 17, 2007 11:57 AM
Personally, I believe this is the totally wrong way to stop people from committing dangerous acts that endanger national security and embolden criminals... I rather believe that the cause of all the evil in the world is all this doggone education. See, if people don't know how to read, they can not understand dangerous ideas presented in pamphlets, or dare I say, even books. Thus, the solution to all the internal national security problems of the United States lies in mandatory lobotomy at birth, as to eliminate any chance of ever accumulating dangerous knowledge.
After all, you are not paid to think... and if you are, well, tough luck :p
But, seriously, gimme a break, registering to purchase a glas beaker???? Given the sheer numbers of beakers I have destroyed in Chem class, I should be pretty high on the list of national security risks for having to buy the replacements. I just love paranoid dellusions in legislators...
Posted by: TheJerrylander | June 17, 2007 11:57 AM
I made chlorine gas when I was a kid. A minimal amount, to be sure, and it stayed in water solution (this was just electrolysis of salt water), but given that chlorine gas was actually used as a chemical weapon in World War I, you have to wonder what people would think these days.
Who else made WMDs in high school?
Another fun thing, of course, was the high school chemistry lab's small stash of sodium metal. I and a couple of friends tried out the obvious reaction -- though very safely (a BB-sized pellet, a 2 liter beaker of water, and a fume hood). Now go read the winning entry in Bruce Schneier's annual movie plot contest. If you want to try this reaction out, even with all the safety precautions, better do it soon...
Posted by: ColoRambler | June 17, 2007 11:58 AM
this is nothing less than a thinly-veiled attempt to outlaw knowledge
I don't think it's quite that bad. (Hanlon's razor: Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice.)
However it obviously never crossed the minds of the legislators that some people are interested in chemistry, and may wish to study it at home. This alone is a damning indictment of modern society. Many great scientists started out as home experimenters. If Linus Pauling was born today, he'd probably have gained a prison sentence rather than the Nobel prize.
I'm not quite sure I would label chemicals "harmless."
Saying that chemicals are dangerous is a bit like saying that animals are dangerous: It depends greatly on the context. There is definitely a case for restricting very dangerous substances, but the majority of laboratory chemicals are completely safe if used sensibly. In my opinion, a bottle of concentrated sulfuric acid is no more dangerous than a power-drill. Both are completely safe if used with appropriate caution.
Posted by: hyperdeath | June 17, 2007 12:02 PM
>Except for the fact that you can kill a hell of a lot
>more people with a magazine-fed repeater than a
>muzzle loader before the cops come and stop you.
Absolutely. But if I was going to kill people in a shopping mall I'd use a homemade FAE based on gasoline, laundry soap, and a black-powder bursting charge set off with an electrical igniter from a model rocket. Total cost - about $30 (gas is getting expensive!) All the ingredients are completely unregulated.
The point is that events in which someone goes crazy and decides to go kill a lot of people are actually extremely rare.
That doesn't mean we should ignore them, but it means that our ability to judge the effectiveness of countermeasures against rare events is impaired. For example, the "assault weapons" ban in Maryland had, what, zero impact on gun crime - that's an interesting observation. What does it mean? I don't know. And neither does anyone else. But I suspect it's because instances of gun-crazies are relatively rare; rare to the point where regulating a specific kind of gun has no effect on the problem at all. For example (I lived in Maryland at the time) I was fascinated - truly awestruck - to see John Allen Mohammed (the "gas station sniper")s bushmaster rifle described to the public as an "sniper rifle" because, well, it was being used by a sniper. I expected the press to be all over the fact that it was an "assault rifle" because it's magazine-fed. By the way, there are loads of magazine-fed semiautomatic rifles that are not "assault rifles" - presumably because they're not painted black, or something ridiculous like that. When you're evaluating weapons systems, you need to consider their use, not their appearance. Since the gas station sniper (and Lee Harvey Oswald, for that matter) weren't putting a lot of rounds downrange, they could damn near have been using blackpowder muzzle-loaders or bolt action rifles (Oswald did) and gotten the job done.
When you're looking at infrequent events like terrorist attacks or mad gunment it's easy to get completely screwed up by the improbability of the event and confuse that with the effectiveness of the countermeasure. If the Department of Homeland Security had told all air travellers that they had to wear their underwear on their heads on the airplanes it would, so far, have been 100% effective against terror attacks for the last 6 years. And, in fact, if we'd been doing it before 9/11 it would have been (statistically) damn near 100% effective, too.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 17, 2007 12:06 PM
That's a reason. But I don't consider it to be a good one, for it lacks... "purpose".
Yes, you are right. I simply used a broad and very common name for several kinds of weapons. So what?
Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate to ban weapons. I merely want people to prove that they can handle them responsibly. Oh, and about my comment concerning the assault rifles: it's just my opinion - like I don't see any good reason to smoke, but that doesn't mean I want to outlaw either one.
Posted by: DCP | June 17, 2007 12:11 PM
I have always been convinced that most of the politicians who vote for "drug war" laws are on the take from traffickers. It is a better investment than many.
If they wanted to do something for public health, they should outlaw the automobile, cigarettes, and alcohol--oh sorry, that last one has already been tried.
Posted by: bernarda | June 17, 2007 12:16 PM
It's our own fault for electing incompetent people into office. Feel good sound bytes; good hair; 'pumping that little forward-leaning-fist-gesture up and down for emphasis with just the right thoughtful expression' photo ops; interjecting 'God'--often; playing to the religious right; these are the things that get people elected. The election process has gone all Hollywood, in a Roman-decadence sort of way, and everyone knows it.
Also...one of the reasons the fight against drugs is not going well is that young people know they're being lied to. Crystal meth is a serious problem but the message that drugs are dangerous would have a lot more impact if the government agencies would stop putting marijuana in the same class as crystal meth. You can't feed kids lies and not expect it to bite you in the ass. I don't even use marijuana but everyone under 30 now knows, from the internet, that it's a natural plant that has actual medicinal benefits.
Lies piss me off, they lead to unintelligent decision making--anti drug message lies, counter productive 'feel-good-legislation' lies, creationist lies, mindless traditional belief lies...mumble, mumble, mumble...
Posted by: RamblinDude | June 17, 2007 12:17 PM
>That's a reason. But I don't consider it to be a good
>one, for it lacks... "purpose".
That, in a nutshell, is the problem. Should society regulate that I can only want something if it has a "purpose"?? Be careful - sex for entertainment (instead of purpose) is on the chopping block. :) The argument of things having relative value based on purpose or not will end up with bible-thumping if you really want to go there, since you'll have to fall back on externalities.
You're absolutely right that it's worth talking these things over and society needs to concern itself with these questions - I simply couldn't resist poking at you because you basically raised the question and then rushed to judgement on the topic in the same sentence. So, basically, did PZ in his initial post.
These are big and serious and deep questions and we're not going to solve them here. Or, maybe, ever. But leaping around taking unbalanced views of the utility/non-utility of various threats/countermeasures is not rational behavior, so I thought it was funny to see it in this particular blog.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 17, 2007 12:23 PM
Entertainment is a good enough reason ;)
You've got a very good point there, I admit. I basically agree with you. It's difficult (the language barrier doesn't help either) :)
Posted by: DCP | June 17, 2007 12:41 PM
"The point is that events in which someone goes crazy and decides to go kill a lot of people are actually extremely rare."
Yes, I am aware of this. However, my comment wasn't about the frequency of mad gunmen or even the legality of certain weapons. It was more to point out that the choice of weapon is NOT in fact irrelevant to the victim - not when they wouldn't have been a victim had a different choice been made. Sure, the person standing next to me is dead whether you kill them with a muzzle-loader or a home-made bomb. They don't care which you used - but I certainly do. It just seems kind of silly to me to say that choice of weapon is irrelevant, that's all.
Posted by: kellbelle1020 | June 17, 2007 12:44 PM
Ummm, in Texas; in a store or at a gun show, you DO have to register to buy handguns and must have a background check. I don't even know why he said that. It is a federal law.
Posted by: Brandon | June 17, 2007 1:18 PM
RamblinDude said: Crystal meth is a serious problem but the message that drugs are dangerous would have a lot more impact if the government agencies would stop putting marijuana in the same class as crystal meth.
Indeed, I get the impression this has trickled over into the adult world somewhat as well. By lumping crystal meth into the same category as all the drugs we've learned weren't so dangerous, many people seem to be glossing over the fact that crystal meth is extraordinarily dangerous, and is becoming more of a societal problem all the time. I would almost categorize it as a plague, and I would confidently state that it is more of a threat to us than all the other drugs AND guns combined.
Wander into a 24 hour pool hall or convenience store or restaurant at 3 a.m. and watch the comings and goings. You'll be amazed at the endless parade of human debris you will see, and the bulk of them (proportionately higher as you move west aross the U.S.A.) are on meth. Don't worry if you haven't seen it yet, it is coming soon to a town near you.
And no, I don't think idiocy like banning chemistry sets and registering beakers is the answer. But it's a much bigger question than most people realize.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 17, 2007 1:27 PM
One of the big issues with the drugs law is that they treat drug addiction as a criminal matter and not a medical one. The idea that someone who is in possession of drugs for personal use is treated as a criminal is just plain stupid. Do we treat people who are addicted to alcohol as criminals ? No, but alcohol can be more dangerous than some of the drugs that are illegal. Being addicted to anything is not really a good idea, be it nicotine, alcohol, crystal meth, heroin, cocaine ,,,,,,. But what is an even worse idea is thinking that some of those addictions are medical problems and some mean you deserve to be in prison.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 17, 2007 2:13 PM
I'm sure if the "home chemistry kit lobby" pumped as much money into Washington as the NRA, then purchasing glass beakers and chemicals would not be a problem.
As long as there is big money in politics, common sense will always get short-shrift from lawmakers.
Posted by: tacitus | June 17, 2007 3:19 PM
I tutor high school kids in chemistry over the internet. We are absolutely forbidden to help them figure out where and how to buy chemical supplies. It seems I'm walking a thin line by directing them to American Science and Surplus, purveyor of the most harmless nerd-toys known to man, when they come to me working on science projects. I'm told to refer them to their chemistry teachers for supplies. (Their chemistry teachers, overworked, underfunded, and as liability-shy as we are, most likely can't help them either.) Oh, and if I have the slightest inkling that they're trying to make something dangerous, I'm obliged to cut them off and contact the company lawyer.
Part of the chemistry set paranoia is that our kids have demonstrated that they're pissed off and potentially dangerous. The same paranoia got one of my high school friends called into the principal's office and interrogated because he wore a trenchcoat and went around all alienated. It clearly hasn't occurred to us yet that giving kids less reason to be pissed off could help fix this problem.
Oh, by the way, the "rogue chemist" (or the rogue scientist in general) is already a romantic outlaw image. I've seen it in a couple places in the literature. Rifts even has a rogue scientist character class. I've actually seen (set in the present day) a meth-brewing outlaw chemist as a kind of iconoclastic anti-hero in a fantasy novel whose title escapes me; I suspect there's more than one that fits that description. The outlaw scientist--especially the outlaw doctor--turns up all over the place. Unfortunately, they don't usually end up being very good scientists, though I suspect that's mostly because people who create literature usually studied the humanities. It's not an image projected to people who don't already think nerds are pretty cool, of course; but it provides a place for the nerd in the world of the rebel.
Posted by: lytefoot | June 17, 2007 3:32 PM
The trouble with crystal meth comes mainly from drug-war policy. Since the drug trade is illegal and de facto outside of the regulatory purview of the state, the incentive exists to make the most super-addictive drugs possible while virtually no incentive exists to make the drugs safe. Most Americans can't be bothered to understand history, but one can point out that the moonshine-underground that existed during prohibition wasn't exactly pumping out Mike's Hard Lemonade. People were mixing in paint-thinner, embalming fluid and all kinds of shit to give the whiskey (or what they were calling whiskey) an extra kick, all outside of any meaningful regulation (aside from the threat of corrupt prohibition officers, of course).
Like almost all drug problem, it's best treated with regulation and medical/public health approaches to addiction. Treating it as a crime only exacerbates the problem.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 17, 2007 3:50 PM
Yeah, the biggest thing that seems to be overlooked on all these "War on X" campaigns is an utter lack of attention to the source of the problem.
There is a REASON that people are turning to drugs
And no one ever thinks to look into the reasons, they just make it illegal to do, and act like that will make it all go away.
Seriously, I can't think of a stupider response than that.
It's scary how much work we will go through to not find out WHY something is the way it is.
Hmm... this could be a result of the lack of good science and logic education in our schools. I mean, you tell a scientist that there is something bad going on and he says "well, why is that?" But someone without those problem solving skills will just tell you to stop it.
sounds familiar neh?
Posted by: catofmanyfaces | June 17, 2007 3:52 PM
Wow - apparently I'm a primary suspect. I have organic chemistry lab training. I have all kinds of distillation glassware, flasks, and condensers at home. (bought on eBay) I could probably make meth if I really want to. But I have no desire to try. I use my lab glassware to extract essential oils from orange and lemon peels and such. Soon I may make plant extracts, and I'm dying to figure out how to make essence of honey.
Actually, because of how hard it is to get antihistamines (due to anti-meth-lab supply-side strategies), it may be worth my while to buy meth and reverse-synthesize antihistamines. Seriously, it is that hard to get Claritin for my allergies! (Note to feds: I am using hyperbole here, I have no actual interest in doing this.)
The problem is, going after beakers and chemicals won't do anything. You can make these chemicals yourself. You don't need beakers to make anything. There are plenty of COMSUMER PRODUCTS made from Pyrex. Condensers can be made frfom metal, PVC, Vinyl, etc. This will do nothing but hinder legitimate activities.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | June 17, 2007 3:58 PM
I have encountered these same ridiculous restrictions in my own profession: photography. I make prints in a variety of antique photo processes, these are standard methods that were taught in art schools for decades. But the processes are disappearing because purchasers of the chemicals must register with the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Dept. of Homeland Security. This is apparently a new restriction, I called my photo supplier to purchase some more chemicals, and they informed me of the new regulations.
I resent being treated like a terrorist just because I purchase insignificant amounts of chemicals. These substances used to be sold in camera stores worldwide, and presumably still are outside the US. But the DEA and DHS are killing my art media due to excessive paranoia.
Forgive me for posting anonymously, but I still have stockpiles of unregistered chemicals, I do not want to draw the attention of law enforcement for possessing art supplies that I've lawfully owned and used for 30 years.
Posted by: Anon | June 17, 2007 4:26 PM
Giving the government such widespread regulatory power doesn't look like such a bright idea once it starts to 'regulate' things you care about, does it?
Posted by: Caledonian | June 17, 2007 4:31 PM
Does anyone think this is an attempt to hinder science education? I bet the DI is involved to help "overthrow evolution". They would do something so ridiculous like this.
/joke...except the part where DI does ridiculous things. This is true.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | June 17, 2007 4:38 PM
They don't even put Meth in the same class as marijuana. Meth is Schedule II, marijuana is Schedule I (along with, oddly enough, mescaline and LSD).
So, kids, stay off the pot, and pick meth instead!
Posted by: Dustin | June 17, 2007 4:43 PM
Caledonian:
The problem isn't what is being regulated, it's why it's being regulated.
Attacking the crystal meth problem by making it harder to buy lab equipment and Sudafed is a bit like attacking the drunk-driving problem by raising taxes on gasoline. The one thing has nothing to do with the other, and those "solutions" only make it that much more inconvenient for everyone else to go about their business.
Posted by: Dan | June 17, 2007 5:07 PM
"The government"? We are talking about parliaments here -- elected parliaments. If there are no electable politicians, run yourself.
Oops, sorry, I forgot it's the USA, where only millionaires can run for political offices (and the richest one usually wins). Public campain funding would be a good thing.
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 17, 2007 5:24 PM
As your second paragraph points out, it's not why regulation is taking place that's the problem, but what is being regulated. You immediately contradicted your contradiction of me.
Posted by: Caledonian | June 17, 2007 5:39 PM
Let's just legalize it. That will decrease drug related crime dramatically.
Posted by: DCP | June 17, 2007 5:58 PM
Am I the only one here putting the dots together and seeing damn scary prospects for a neo-dark ages scenario in the not very distant future?
It's really disturbing to see this kind of concerted attack on civil liberties, public education, public creativity, innovation and science at just as we're going to need copious quantities of innovation and creativity to get through the double whacks of resource depletion and climate change with our hides relatively intact.
Now is the worst time to wage war against the capacity for technical innovation. Unfortunately, it's also the time when everyone from the intellectual property zombies to the security state and the religious whack lobby are pushing the hardest to stifle innovation. Where this goes is unclear but it's highly unlikely to be good.
Posted by: anon | June 17, 2007 6:21 PM
Yes, it's making science education more difficult, but there are other problems with this policy beyond the short-term impact it has on children's science projects. It's an open secret that a majority of professional chemists developed their interest in practical chemistry through extracurricular experimentation, including -- dare I say it -- small-scale experiments in explosive, or in more recent decades, drugs. Legendary experimental chemists like Cavendish got their start as children making home-made gunpowder (I'm not suggesting even remotely that I'm in his league, but that's how I got my start, too.) Dangerous and stupid? You bet. But this is also how so many creative children first get their taste for a field that is so powerful, yet far-too-often demonized subject.
Nowadays, I hate to think that perhaps many of America's 21st century equivalents of Cavendish's and Priestley's might be spending their entire early adulthood in prisons, with no hope of higher education on their way out. Yes, for far too many social reasons to enumerate here, some too-clever-by-half kids are going to try to something foolish like make meth at home, but the solution is not to destroy their lives forever. These extremist, tough-on-crime policies are going to deprive the world of some remarkable scientists and engineers, and all of humanity will be poorer for it.
Posted by: j.t.delaney | June 17, 2007 7:11 PM
>Entertainment is a good enough reason ;)
That's why I'd like to own military-grade weaponry: entertainment. Sometimes blowing stuff up is really fun!
If we start to let society require that we have "good reasons" to do the things we want to do, then we may as well let them outright regulate every aspect of our non-working free time. Right? And, pretty soon, life on earth will be just like I'm told it is in heaven: compulsory 24/7 prayer and hosannah-singing sessions.
Here's another interesting point to ponder: I am 44 years old, own loads of firearms and dangerous toys, know how to make loads of other dangerous toys if I choose to -- yet I've never hurt anyone in my life. Perhaps - just perhaps - society should be looking at me and saying "he's harmless; let him have whatever he wants" and taking a closer look at, oh, I don't know, mental patients - and restricting what they can have. Not that an intelligent mental patient couldn't figure out how to detonate a 250-gal propane tank - but he's a lot more likely to do it than I am.
If society is going to approach societal threats rationally (which I think it should) we need to first off discredit the religious dogma of "free will" and recognize that people are not 100% in control of their behaviors. Based on that, we could make huge strides forward in dealing with dangerous behaviors. But, in an organized manner. If you want to look at threats to society as a whole, teen-agers who think they are immortal and drive too fast are far more dangerous than psychos. After all, the reason psychos are news-worthy is because they are rare!!!
Remember - 99% of Americans (I just made that number up) formulate their assessment of risk based on what some talking head on TV tells them. That's why you get people refusing to swim in Florida because of reported shark attacks when, in fact, more people are killed by dogs every year than any other animal! Meanwhile, those same people get on the freeway, and drive 80mph without a seatbelt trying to get to the beach so they can sit on the sand where the shark can't get 'em.
Our brains evolved in an environment where there was no way we'd get a useful intuitive grasp on risk in the large-scale. In fact, it makes evolutionary sense to overreact to new threats because we're less likely to kill ourselves overreacting than doing nothing.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 17, 2007 7:18 PM
DCP:
I don't know who would have thought there was good purpose to me having a microscope at 10. Or to building boat models. And certainly not to building ham radios. That wasn't safe, either. The power supply can electrocute you, and stringing the antenna risks a nasty fall. Fortunately for me, my parents indulged my tinkering gene. I learned to shoot about the same time I learned microscopy. You likely won't believe that they exercise at least two skills in common, given that this was an old-fashioned microscope.
Posted by: Russell | June 17, 2007 7:45 PM
S'funny- my mom was a former high school chemistry teacher (my dad was a Ph.D. chemist, but he died before I was three and didn't have much effect on the family after that) and a chemistry set was the one scientific learning "toy" I wasn't allowed to have. I guess Mom was just a wee bit too familiar with what I might be able to get up to with one. She couldn't see any harm in my having a decent microscope or telescope, though, and she defintiely couldn't envisage any way that I could burn the house down by messing around with batteries and transistors and suchlike. That's how I wound up becoming an electronics geek.
These bureaucratic mom-wannabees seem to be determined to push us all into a society as locked-down, disarmed, surveilled and controlled as that of the Qin Dynasty. As to the likelihood of their succeeding, I have two words:
Liu Pang.
Posted by: Ktesibios | June 17, 2007 8:39 PM
Assault rifles are made for one purpose only, to kill people, and they should be banned for this reason.
If you think they look pretty, buy a plastic one and I would suggest, go see a psychiatrist at the same time.
Posted by: Gun Of Sod | June 17, 2007 9:12 PM
Slight tangent:
I have heard tales of gardeners being harassed when purchasing grow lights, hydroponic equipment and other indoor gardening stuff.
Posted by: khan | June 17, 2007 10:29 PM
#55, Ktesibios,
Fixed it for you.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 17, 2007 10:55 PM
Any legislator who falls for this should have 1% of their electrons removed as a precaution.
I'd advise everyone else to stand WAY back when this is done, however.
Posted by: Grumpy Physicist | June 17, 2007 11:18 PM
Well, I'm sure the outlaws selling crystal meth are going to dutifully obey the lab equipment laws, right? Right?
Posted by: Robert | June 18, 2007 12:42 AM
I totally agree with Alan Kellog's statement #58. That assault rifle looks pretty damned useful when law-and-order and civilization collapses. Hell, it is even quite useful when you're attacked in your own home by someone who wants to harm you.
For others who said that one could use a gun to murder innocents, well, one could murder even more innocents by using lab equipment to make explosives. The law isn't going to stop criminals from obtaining or making guns and explosives. The law is just a piece of paper if one can evade or destroy the army and police.
Posted by: Robert | June 18, 2007 12:49 AM
in fact, more people are killed by dogs every year than any other animal!
I think H sapiens has C lupus familiaris beat all to hell
Posted by: Graculus | June 18, 2007 12:51 AM
Let alone the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide!
Posted by: Chinchillazilla | June 18, 2007 1:42 AM
Fixed
Posted by: Gun of Sod | June 18, 2007 1:53 AM
Gun, I was just typing the same thing as you posted that.
Posted by: Dustin | June 18, 2007 1:58 AM
I think you've both watched too many Mad Max movies, please see previous point regarding being attacked in your own home, or you could refer to the gun contol laws and their effects on the civilised nations of the world.
Posted by: Gun Of Sod | June 18, 2007 1:58 AM
Since I can have all the guns I can afford, I have no objection to meth freaks having all the meth they can afford.I like guns. I would probably like meth too, but at my age it would give me a stroke of a heart attack. I am totally opposed to regulating other peoples private vices. I also oppose regulating any sort of self destructive behavior, so long as it stays self destructive. I have lots of guns. I shoot them frequently at my gun club. I am quite good. I don't really worry about substance abusers bothering me. I am a little bit drunk so please excuse my ramblings. And yes my guns are all put safely away,
Posted by: bill glover | June 18, 2007 2:03 AM
I used to work at this hardware store with a bunch of YECs. That was really fun. This was about the time the now defunct assault weapons ban went into effect (which I supported). One of the dipshits then said to me one morning, regarding a story in the newspaper, "Hey, some guy killed his wife with a hammer! I'll bet you think we shouldn't sell hammers any more!"
That's the thing with right-wing assholes -- to them "holed up in a clocktower with an assault rifle, shooting randomly at the crowd below" is the same as "guy kills one person with a hammer". And I'm pretty god-damned tired of this firearms version of mutually assured destruction, too. More guns does not mean less crime, unless you're really good at ignoring statistics and common sense. I'm not a gun-control supporter, in general. Against what I feel might be my better judgement, I'm not even against handguns. But assault weapons? No. You shouldn't be able to have those.
More to the point, the bans of lab equipment don't make a case against government regulation. To suppose that people are utterly incapable of making a descision as to what should and should not be regulated is to engage in a kind of cynical intellectual relativism which supports the idea that every last claim is every bit as true as any other claim, and which is fueled by a slippery slope mode of thinking which suggests that it was broad regulatory power, not a knee-jerk reaction and lack of oversight, which led to the ban in the first place.
Posted by: Dustin | June 18, 2007 2:16 AM
Something about the "rational" arguments made by people with lots-and-lots-and-lots of guns always leaves me doubting our ability to accurately judge our own rationality...
Posted by: j.t.delaney | June 18, 2007 2:22 AM
I don't disagree with the "I like guns" part... but I don't think that's comparable with the meth. I'm all for the de-scheduling and legalization of several drugs, but that's based on scientific evidence and clinical studies. Mescaline and Marijuana, in particular, are far less damaging than alcohol in many respects, and should probably be legal. Even tryptamines, like LSD and Psilocybin, even with some paper suggesting that large doses or long term exposure might damage the brain, aren't particularly dangerous or addictive.
But then there are drugs like PCP and Meth, which are a severe liability to not only the user, but the people around the user. Again, to simply suggest that these are every bit as benign and victimless as other drugs which should probably be de-scheduled is to engage in a kind of intellectual or factual relativism.
The best thing to do is to weigh all of the evidence on on a case-by-case basis. A cost benefit analysis would, very probably, suggest that regulation of mescaline, marijuana, LSD, DMT and so on is idiotic, while regulation of things like coke, PCP and meth are probably called for.
Posted by: Dustin | June 18, 2007 2:27 AM
Although I dont believe drug use is a good idea, I also dont believe it's any of the government's business. And the 'war on drugs' is little more than a goobermint jobs program. And it should be obvious to anyone that making it hard for honest kids to buy a chemistry set, or honest, law abiding citizens to buy decongestants, isnt going to stem the flow of drugs.
Where there is demand for a product, the market will supply it, legal or not. You cant make cocaine from chemistry sets and cold medicine, but despite that it is availible for sale most everywhere.
So whats up with the comment about "unimpaired, unchecked access to guns."? Are you ignorant of the fact that by federal law, anyone who attempts to purchase a firearm in ANY state must undergo a background check? Yet what difference would it make if guns were completely outlawed? If that were to happen, anyone who wished to obtain one despite the law would have little trouble doing so - the black market would operate at least as efficiently as it does for meth/coke/weed/MDMA. The vast majority of people who commit crimes with guns now are obtaining them illegally, and/or are legall