Baking soda: the latest target in the war on drugs

23536

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
Location
Stop resisting!
http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=6336785

In the latest move to fight the war on drugs, A Missouri lawmaker wants to put of all things - baking soda - behind the counter. You've probably already heard of similar laws to fight meth, this proposal is modeled after those.

Right now a state law requires cold medicines with pseudoephedrine be placed behind the pharmacy counter. Pseudoephedrine is the key ingredient in meth amphetamines. To buy pseudoephedrine, you have to be 18 years old, show a photo id, and sign a log book. Now lawmakers want to put the same kind of restrictions on sodium bicarbonate, or baking soda.

Baking Soda is a staple in every home, we use it for recipes, cleaning, odors...but some people use it to make crack cocaine. So, lawmakers say putting it behind the counter would call attention to the drug problem.

Many in the Heartland were shocked to hear about the latest anti-drug proposal. "I would think baking soda is an item you're just used to picking up," said Greg Colwick of Sikeston. "It's convenient to do."

Too convenient says Democratic Rep. Talibdin El-Amin. He's modeled his proposal after those similar to cold medicines with ingredients used to make meth. "That's maybe going overboard," said Colwick.

Local pharmacists agree. They say restrictions on cold medicines have been a headache for them, saying it takes away from other aspects of the job. Shoppers feel it might be just another bright idea. "I guess I never thought of it in that way," said Beth Langston of Gordonville. "I just always use it for baking."

Others feel it could be a positive move. "As long as they have to ask for it like they do pseudoephedrine," said Renee Mitchell of Morley. "If they have to ask for it to get it that would be okay."

Some point out the pharmacy might actually be an appropriate place for baking soda. "Actually it serves a lot of medicinal purposes," said Mitchell.

Drug agents say cocaine is second only to meth in rural areas. The measure was filed in March, but hasn't received a hearing.

http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=6336785
 
I kind of feel bad for the people who still think that making drugs and drug items less available will solve drug-related societal problems.

On the other hand this might make people go for Cocaine more often than Crack, which is harm reduction.

Its definitely not the worst I've seen.
 
Ho Chi, I'm sorry but that logic doesn't work here. You sound like a politician. Time and time again thoughtless lawmaking like this show that ease-of-access (or lackthereof) is not a deterrent of use.

States that don't have needle exchanges still have needle users, only difference is that they end up using dirty ones. In this case people will turn to more difficult, often more dangerous conversion methods... possibly hurting themselves or others. And if that doesn't work they will rob the stores and then what? Was it worth the store clerk getting shot? I'll let you answer that.
 
I am kind of a politician...

That is what I was saying. However I think that this situation is a little different since the drug itself is not being held back, only a way to make it more potent/damaging.
 
Ho-Chi-Minh said:
I am kind of a politician...

That is what I was saying. However I think that this situation is a little different since the drug itself is not being held back, only a way to make it more potent/damaging.
Click to expand...

I had to log in just to respond to this thread... This is a logical fallacy IMHO.
There are a lot more ways to convert cocaine powder to a crack base than by using baking soda.
Hell there's even some relatively famous people that have set themselves on fire using other methods in the past. ;)
So I wouldn't say that having people use these other methods rather than baking soda is harm reduction.
In fact most of them add considerably more risk to the conversion process.

Not to mention it is implied that it would reduce the "potent/damaging" aspects?
Again a logical fallacy in quite a few cases. I know in the group of people that I am familiar with if crack was unavailable or more difficult to convert
that the users would just IV the powder, or go through the trouble of converting it via other methods.
Most of them would go with the IV the cocaine rather than taking the extra effort to convert it via other methods.
Well they might convert some later but for the initial get go I'd say most of em would at least start off with a shot.
Not to stereotype but most of the habitual crack/cocaine users I know really don't need to be converting it via these other methods.

I know that personally if I wanted to smoke crack & didn't have access to baking soda I'd likely just IV the powder.
Though if I was in the mood I'd normally wash/purify the cocaine prior to IV in which case it's a bit of effort.
So if I was in that mood for crack I'd probably take the effort to convert it via alternative methods as IV powder usually requires effort on my part.
Though to the average user that doesn't wash or purify there product they would likely just IV it rather than do the extra work.

Hope that helps clarify the issue a bit as it seems to me that some less than logical conclusions are being drawn.
Or that at the least some of the possible repercussions are being ignored.
 
What happens when I want to bake some cake, and sodium bicarbonate is a fuckin sched 1 precursor?

All this is going to do is result in an increase in people using other alkalis, like lye, lime, and crushed eggshell...
 
naginnudej said:
ho chi, i'm sorry but that logic doesn't work here. You sound like a politician. Time and time again thoughtless lawmaking like this show that ease-of-access (or lackthereof) is not a deterrent of use.

States that don't have needle exchanges still have needle users, only difference is that they end up using dirty ones. In this case people will turn to more difficult, often more dangerous conversion methods... Possibly hurting themselves or others. And if that doesn't work they will rob the stores and then what? Was it worth the store clerk getting shot? I'll let you answer that.
Click to expand...
qft
 
Really fucking bright lmao Really easy to make baking soda but who'd need to? Not like people will just use ammonia or any of the other 100s of legal bases that'll work just as well.

Or at least I'd like to think that but we all know in some months there will be crack heads posting teks about trying to extract baking soda from kitty litter:|
 
IndustrialStrength said:
I had to log in just to respond to this thread... This is a logical fallacy IMHO.
There are a lot more ways to convert cocaine powder to a crack base than by using baking soda.
Hell there's even some relatively famous people that have set themselves on fire using other methods in the past. ;)
So I wouldn't say that having people use these other methods rather than baking soda is harm reduction.
In fact most of them add considerably more risk to the conversion process.

Not to mention it is implied that it would reduce the "potent/damaging" aspects?
Again a logical fallacy in quite a few cases. I know in the group of people that I am familiar with if crack was unavailable or more difficult to convert
that the users would just IV the powder, or go through the trouble of converting it via other methods.
Most of them would go with the IV the cocaine rather than taking the extra effort to convert it via other methods.
Well they might convert some later but for the initial get go I'd say most of em would at least start off with a shot.
Not to stereotype but most of the habitual crack/cocaine users I know really don't need to be converting it via these other methods.

I know that personally if I wanted to smoke crack & didn't have access to baking soda I'd likely just IV the powder.
Though if I was in the mood I'd normally wash/purify the cocaine prior to IV in which case it's a bit of effort.
So if I was in that mood for crack I'd probably take the effort to convert it via alternative methods as IV powder usually requires effort on my part.
Though to the average user that doesn't wash or purify there product they would likely just IV it rather than do the extra work.

Hope that helps clarify the issue a bit as it seems to me that some less than logical conclusions are being drawn.
Or that at the least some of the possible repercussions are being ignored.
Click to expand...

Did I say this was the only way to make smokeable cocaine?

As far as I am aware "crack" is in fact made with baking soda.

I see what you are saying, but I do not agree with your theory.

Crack is more addictive than intravenous cocaine. Plethoras of i.e. very hallucinogenically stimulating chemicals are creating when crack is combusted, resulting in increased nuerotoxicity. This is why I say it is most potent/damaging.

You are interpolating your group of friends' habits out to everyone. This may be construed as logical fallacy in the form of a hasty generalization, just saying.

Intravenous injection is an action which requires more sophisticated equipment and skill than smoking crack (which can be readily done with the tin foil and match a child has access to). I don't think many would go this route unless they are already addicted.

You have the right to call my opinion(s) illogical. As do I.
 
I meant I have a political mindset (opinions up the whazoo, though tempered and refined) as well as one day may aspire to be an elected official. I majored in political science. One of my close family members is a highly regarded (basically) local politician/activist. That enough?
 
For the love of baking soda... 8o

1014572.large.jpg
 
Ho-Chi-Minh said:
Did I say this was the only way to make smokeable cocaine?

As far as I am aware "crack" is in fact made with baking soda.

I see what you are saying, but I do not agree with your theory.

Crack is more addictive than intravenous cocaine. Plethoras of i.e. very hallucinogenically stimulating chemicals are creating when crack is combusted, resulting in increased nuerotoxicity. This is why I say it is most potent/damaging.

You are interpolating your group of friends' habits out to everyone. This may be construed as logical fallacy in the form of a hasty generalization, just saying.

Intravenous injection is an action which requires more sophisticated equipment and skill than smoking crack (which can be readily done with the tin foil and match a child has access to). I don't think many would go this route unless they are already addicted.

You have the right to call my opinion(s) illogical. As do I.
Click to expand...

Actually it takes much less 'skill' to IV cocaine than to cook up crack. (no real chemistry involved).

Fwiw, IV cocaine is arguably more addictive than crack. In that you almost always get a bell ringer.

$0.02
 
You are telling me it takes less skill to cook a substance in a receptacle with a lighter, tie a belt around an arm, find a vein, and inject this solution into a vein than it does to heat a substance on tin foil from under with a lighter and inhale, or rather use a pipe?

I think you will find most people disagree. The duration, peak, and chemicals involved concur.
 
In my experience it was far easier learning how to inject cocaine, than it was to cook (and even smoke) crack properly.

In terms if money alone. Cooking crack cost me thousands before I learned how to do it efficiently.
Whereas injecting was an almost instantaneously 'successful' endeavour.
 
Crack is more addictive than intravenous cocaine. Plethoras of i.e. very hallucinogenically stimulating chemicals are creating when crack is combusted, resulting in increased nuerotoxicity. This is why I say it is most potent/damaging.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to back this up? I'm no expect on cocaine but I've never heard anything of the kind.
 
Crack is more potent and damaging because nobody really weighs their doses out, it is incredibly compulsive, you're inhaling hot gas, and it reaches a peak blood level even faster and higher than IV injection.

The breakdown compounds from pyrolysis of cocaine ("smoking crack") are not "hallucinogenicaly stimulating"; they are mostly inactive in humans - but useful as markers for crack smoking as they are not produced in significant quantities from powder cocaine usage.

IMO, cooking and smoking crack is much easier than injecting cocaine. To inject you have to have clean water, a cooker/dish, needle, rig, tourniquet, and to be able to find a vein, which can be hard if you're fiendin'. Oh, and for safety's sake, alcohol wipes, lighter for sterilising, micron filter, sharps box, bandage.

If you want to do some crack, you need a metal dish or spoon, water, 'soda, lighter, brillo, and a crackpipe Most of those are easier to come by. You could even use spit in a pinch I bet. And nothing has to be sterile.
 
shit i heard they use water to make crack as well lets make that schedule 1 as well! They also make meth with batteries lets ban those fuckers as well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top