phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
Thanks mac. Yep, you can be pretty sure anything that makes it to Rhodium has been proven. Good theoretical ideas may be included, but they are never listed as fact until either a paper is published (then open to discussion) or the technique/ idea is demonstrated by contributors/ readers etc.
The process mentioned may not be overcomplex chemistry, but I can tell you now, that for some of the same reasons people don't make MDMA, people won't be making mescaline from eucalyptus sawdust either.
That procedure calls for nitrobenzene, not the typical OTC chemical these days. It is used in the manufacture of aniline, an important industrial chemical and starting compound for many things. But with hightened world security, you can betcha boots, any consumer inquiry without a good reason for wanting it, would get looked into. It is a good compound for very easily making other, much more explosive nitro-compounds .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On topic;
To me the statement reads more that the first detection by police seizure of 2-CB was in Australia, where it must have been determined also that the drug was made locally. I see no reason to doubt this as being quite possible.
It's got to do with Australia's lag behind the US in establishing any form of precursor control, now fondly known as Chemical Diversion Legislation. In the US, 1992-1997 saw the degree of chemical supply monitoring carried out by the DEA increase subtantially.
Australia on the other hand had virtually nothing, with reform just coming in during late 96- early 97. From speaking to people within the industry, it is obvious that as recently 6-7 years ago, those in the know could get pretty much anything they wished for without attracting the slightest bit of attention. No dodgy back street peddling, but rather straight from the yellow pages. Even if they looked sus to the sales attendant, they weren't required to present any ID, and most trained Storepersons' in those days knew nothing of clandestine intent with regards to specific chemicals.
"Chemicals? huh?...they're just powders n' stuff in jars mate..."
BUT, by the late 90's local law enforcement incorporated awareness programs to chemical suppliers while preparing the diversion legislation. More paper work, and the fact that reporting was not compulsory, meant few smaller businesses would have completely conformed, especially with longer term customers. ultimately the chemical companies themselves got into the act, revising catalogues. You 'll have a hard time finding one listing safrole, for that you have to go the Merck Pharm Synthesis catalogue or equivalent. Safrole is made in their Switzerland high grade pharm lab, to a purity greater than 99% according to the specs.
So we can say with pretty good certainty that for some time back, it would have been tricky buying safrole or piperonal in Australia without attracting BIG EYES. But 2,5, dimethoxybenzaldehyde on the other hand hadn't yet raised any alarm bells. It certainly couldn't be used efficiently to make the worlds fastest growing drug of choice at the time. And besides the 2,5 pattern is used in many other areas, so why regulate or even worry about something if there's never going to be a need?
I'm sure there were plans to restrict all these chemicals eventually, even in the 70's. Reading some of the early DEA papers and reports indicates quite clearly that there was a recognised concern that one day other drugs, made from hundreds of available chemicals, would hit the streets and become popular.
The process mentioned may not be overcomplex chemistry, but I can tell you now, that for some of the same reasons people don't make MDMA, people won't be making mescaline from eucalyptus sawdust either.
That procedure calls for nitrobenzene, not the typical OTC chemical these days. It is used in the manufacture of aniline, an important industrial chemical and starting compound for many things. But with hightened world security, you can betcha boots, any consumer inquiry without a good reason for wanting it, would get looked into. It is a good compound for very easily making other, much more explosive nitro-compounds .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On topic;
To me the statement reads more that the first detection by police seizure of 2-CB was in Australia, where it must have been determined also that the drug was made locally. I see no reason to doubt this as being quite possible.
It's got to do with Australia's lag behind the US in establishing any form of precursor control, now fondly known as Chemical Diversion Legislation. In the US, 1992-1997 saw the degree of chemical supply monitoring carried out by the DEA increase subtantially.
Australia on the other hand had virtually nothing, with reform just coming in during late 96- early 97. From speaking to people within the industry, it is obvious that as recently 6-7 years ago, those in the know could get pretty much anything they wished for without attracting the slightest bit of attention. No dodgy back street peddling, but rather straight from the yellow pages. Even if they looked sus to the sales attendant, they weren't required to present any ID, and most trained Storepersons' in those days knew nothing of clandestine intent with regards to specific chemicals.
"Chemicals? huh?...they're just powders n' stuff in jars mate..."
BUT, by the late 90's local law enforcement incorporated awareness programs to chemical suppliers while preparing the diversion legislation. More paper work, and the fact that reporting was not compulsory, meant few smaller businesses would have completely conformed, especially with longer term customers. ultimately the chemical companies themselves got into the act, revising catalogues. You 'll have a hard time finding one listing safrole, for that you have to go the Merck Pharm Synthesis catalogue or equivalent. Safrole is made in their Switzerland high grade pharm lab, to a purity greater than 99% according to the specs.
So we can say with pretty good certainty that for some time back, it would have been tricky buying safrole or piperonal in Australia without attracting BIG EYES. But 2,5, dimethoxybenzaldehyde on the other hand hadn't yet raised any alarm bells. It certainly couldn't be used efficiently to make the worlds fastest growing drug of choice at the time. And besides the 2,5 pattern is used in many other areas, so why regulate or even worry about something if there's never going to be a need?
I'm sure there were plans to restrict all these chemicals eventually, even in the 70's. Reading some of the early DEA papers and reports indicates quite clearly that there was a recognised concern that one day other drugs, made from hundreds of available chemicals, would hit the streets and become popular.
