Originally Posted by nextlevelshit
You think pharm CEOs want to know how to make meth. Pointless to have this discussion.
This discussion is not pointless, it is actually very relevant to the topic in hand-I stated there are two "standard" ways to make meth one of which is very expensive and yields a relatively pure substance and the other is much cheaper and yields a final product that is more homogenous compound than pure substance. Any chemist knows ONLY ONE of the two methods can be used to make this given pure substance, the other yields something that has some value on the streets true, but it is not a pure substance. Then you told me there was no difference in final product, each process does the same thing, one is just a little better than the other. You are an expert on the matter, along with rum dick (he knows a chemist, a real one, in real life) and I just wanted to educate you on where you went wrong- logically ANY ceo of any major company (or small company for that matter) wants to save production costs right? What did you tell me? You said "meth is so easy to make" and you were essentially saying shake and baking meth is a proven method for production.
Why aren't pharma companies that produce methamphetamine spending way less and doing things the easy way as you described then dude? The first logical fail of yours is a big one- they would use your method *IF IT WORKED* and cut costs.
I say "if it worked" because, to be honest, if the chemists at xyz labs can shake n bake meth to like 70% purity vs $$$method, the cost savings only has to edge out 30% to be profitable, but I bet shake n bake is maybe 10% the cost vs phenyl-propanone. I am almost positive of that, lesser chemists can do the procedures the raws are way cheaper easier to get and less restricted I mean, logically there are a lot of reasons WHY companies should be using that method. So why don't they?
Re-read my post bro, some other page I think 8 the method used in shake n bake uses DIFFERENT STARTING MATERIALS to yield a DIFFERENT PRODUCT. Think of it simplistically- if A+B=C and you want C have to have C, will U+R+S+9=C? It is impossible to reach C by any direct means other than A+B BUT chemists being clever found you can mix U+R+S+9=cR2..& <---pretty much the bottom line here is this- one method yields a certain product, the other does not. Therefore it is not correct to say "meth is meth, doesn't matter if only 30% by weight is meth the rest is carbon IT'S ALL METH BRAJ" that's just ignorant. You can NOT yield pure meth from shake n bake methods, it's either impossible or requires so much cleaning and purifying in the end to be cost prohibitive.
Also Wong made an interesting point, mostly having to do with inert vs psychoactive compounds by weight in the final product and basically he was doing a much better job than you of stating why you were right, that essentially "meth is meth" and I think he's wrong conceptually, but literally he is right. A meth addict is going for their meth high and the only compound present that can produce this exact high is whatever amount of meth is present. the less meth by weight the worse it is, doubly so because like I said before the adulterants slow absorption into blood which makes the high different etc etc. Time to move on, anyway Bob you are right which makes Hoser right and rum dick you are wrong until you successfully make shake n bake meth inside of a walmart or back of a station wagon.
Threaded Mode
