It's a political hack, it's making the point that it is easier to synthesise pseudoephedrine by buying crystal meth (the reason pseudoephedrine is so heavily restricted) than it is to go out and buy pseudoephedrine. It's an effort to change the law. That's the 'hack'. Chemistry enthusiasts will have to judge if it has been successful on its claims about the method outlined or, rather, if the hack is in fact exploiting our expectations that journals generally say intelligent and correct stuff, so the claims made in this journal article are correct. If we are either deceived by it being correct and cheap chemistry, or if we believe the claims within the article, the hack works (it's intent being to change absurd legal controls surrounding pseudoephidrine, not necessarily to show how to synthesise pseudoephidrine). It's necessary for the hack to work, to change our beliefs. If it does this with the truth, all the nicer.
This is a classic - even if the claims in the paper are bullshit. :-)
Aren't there clear links between availability the of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, and the availability of meth on the street?
There's some greta charts somewhere showing drops in purity of meth (along with increased prices) against time, compared to measures taken to reduce the supply of pseudo-ephedrine. There's also some correlation with increased numbers of people seeking treatment.
I'm carefully trying to avoid traditional drug arguments, but to make clear: I am generally in favour of legalisation of drugs.
Drugs are like any industry I would guess, in that, economy of scale will eventually win the race by using industrial practices. Much like how cocaine went from high quality to low quality as demand skyrocketed and the scale of production was more important to producers than quality. But, as the industry scaled to the demand, the quality climbed due to better production practices.
I guess my point is that meth's growth is probably the leading cause of any drop in purity as opposed too any action by the government to limit small distributors. As the big players in the industry scale their production the trend "should" reverse?
There are clear links with availability of ephedrine, yes, but the links are counter-correlated with the availability of the cold pills.
Keep in mind that most any doctor or nurse will tell you for sinus congestion, pseudoephedrine works while phenylephrine is essentially no better than placebo.
From the timeline linked in other comments, it's clear the media and government are indulging in "drug war theater". Every time you hand over a driver's license for decongestant, you are supposed to thank your government for keeping you safe.
From the timeline:
1990s:
The Amezcua cartel in Mexico develops an additional source for ephedrine, buying bulk ephedrine powder overseas from some of the same nine factories (in Germany, Czech Republic, China, and India) from which the American pharmaceutical industry buys their supply of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine for cold medicines. Meth's purity doubles, and a flood of meth spreads eastward from the West Coast. The number of people entering rehab for meth skyrockets.
Robert Pennal, head of the Fresno (Calif.) Methamphetamine Task Force, starts seeing large meth labs in California's Central Valley. Four out of every five hits of meth consumed in the United States are coming from these industrial-scale labs.
"The Amezcua brothers revolutionized the meth trade. They turned it from a small mom-and-pop backyard operation to an industrial-scale production line. They made possible the super lab, which is capable of producing 1,500 times what an ordinary user can make for himself." - Steve Suo, investigative reporter for The Oregonian
This is followed by a bunch of misleading stats, such as "blister packs of pseudoephedrine will be found in 47 percent of seized meth labs". They're calling every mom and pop a lab, and failing to seize the mega labs, but by juking the definitions, they can claim they're closing so many labs. Of the 3 guys in a condo "labs" they find, less than half have any Sudafed in the house.
Meanwhile, as the timeline notes for 2004:
Mexico legally imports 224 tons of pseudoephedrine -- twice as much as they need to make cold medicine. The extra 100 tons is cooked into meth, then smuggled, like other drugs, across the border into the United States. As a result, meth on American streets is as pure as it's ever been.
2005:
The Mexican government admits that drug cartels artificially inflated demand for pseudoephedrine and agrees to reduce imports to a level legitimately needed for cold medicine.
2009:
The Mexican government recognizes there is a huge oversupply of pseudoephedrine coming into the country, and most of it is being diverted to the U.S meth trade.
Then they talk about how that realization turned the mega labs into small labs, and how much less meth there is. But now it's...
2011:
Other states struggling with the problem begin using electronic tracking systems to monitor behind-the-counter sales. Kentucky is the first to use the system and more than two years in, officials say it’s failing to bring rates down.
Imagine that. Despite the best efforts of media sales driven hysteria and government drug war theater, it turns out that preventing Americans from readily purchasing inexpensive sinus medication doesn't stop professionally imported meth.
If the US government can't keep meth out of an ultra max prison, how much freedom do you think you'd have to give up before they can keep it out of your state?
I realize it's meant to be funny and the journal title is fake, but is the synthesis valid? I'd be curious to know if this is good organic chemistry in service of the joke or not.
I can't say whether the synthesis is actually valid, but I did see a few rather exotic reagents were required, making this not even remotely something an amateur would be capable of doing. Butyl Lithium and "MoOPH" especially are rather specialized and rather dangerous materials, for example.
What an odd sentiment. There's nothing illegal about looking that up, or knowing how people do it. Honestly, I don't think I've ever met a good chemist that hasn't looked it up -- the kind of ingenuity in synthesis that is born from not having access to a laboratory (or good precursors / solvents) is fascinating. Very MacGyver.
Out of curiosity, what do you think happens if you look it up? How did you come by this information without having similar concerns?
(Although I have heard of room 641A, I honestly don't know very much about this)
They find the pdf on your computer at the border, lock you in a room, shout at you for hours, tickle your prostate just for fun and then send you home?
There have been multiple cases of licensed MDMA researchers being denied entry to the US for having such materials, or for having admitted that they took the drugs once. I wish I could find the link, maybe I'll be back with it later.
Hmm. So while I admit you can find examples of people receiving such harassment, I don't think you can make the case that such events are common or likely the experience you will have. People generally get angry when they hear about stuff like your link. It's newsworthy for a reason (rare + outrageous). Government employees are people too, it's not like anyone acts deliberately oppressive.
Besides, that cost benefit ratio sounds worth it. (very rare chance of harassment and molestation) vs (very real chance of learning something awesome)
I guess I'm curious how much money you'd charge to store such pdfs on your hard drive forever -- more than $100? more than $1000?
I'll do it for $10 :p
BTW it sounds like you really should look up Room 641A -- this conversation and your IP were logged. Talking about evading security is probably way worse than taking about meth.
This is a classic - even if the claims in the paper are bullshit. :-)