METH

File: EasyAsMeth.png (732KB, 897x506px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 897x506px

I doubt most meth cooks have actually studied chemistry lol

At least 10 years. Krokodil cooks in Siberia were all professionals in their field for at least 5 years and had doctorate degrees.

>>9155793
Some people would say the time it takes to learn sophomore-year organic chemistry, but imo the answer is zero.

If you really care about the mechanism by which you're adding a methyl group, as well as the chemical information by which the mechanism is determined, go ahead and read an O-Chem textbook. I think you'll find the knowledge you've gained will not help at all, and maybe those dealers were onto something when they decided to make meth in a garage instead of a real lab.

There are guides online. Go to Erowid. It's not illegal to memorize the steps. I even printed some out just to look at them. Neat stuff.

>not being good enough to follow a fucking recipe

Brainlets get out

File: 1484596352180.png (294KB, 1574x514px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1574x514px

What's the difference between these? I see a lot of times people saying they are the same but how true is that?

>>9156434
They are related (they are both versions of amphetamine) but not the same thing.

>>9156434
>different chemical structure
>different psychoactive effect
>different street price
>one is used to treat ADHD
>other is used by junkies and murican truckers to stay awake for days

>same

are you literally retarded?

>>9155793
Not an expert, but it seems that it's fairly simple to make given that you have the simple precursors available. But the problem is that most of those precursors are now restricted and difficult to obtain in large quantities. So that's where having a strong chemistry background would help. You need to find other ways to get to the final product using what's available in large enough quantities. But that's only if you care about making it somewhat pure and not contanimated with a bunch of bad shit. Guaranteed most meth producers don't care about that and have probably never touched a chemistry book.

File: 000000110.jpg (4KB, 244x206px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 244x206px

>>9156654
>one is used to treat ADHD
>other is used by junkies and murican truckers to stay awake for days

ding ding ding found the retard over here

>>9155793
It's not the chemistry that makes it difficult, it's the fact the you can't easily purchase large quantities of pseudoephedrine anymore.

File: mth.png (24KB, 672x225px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 672x225px

>>9156434
>>9156654
very similar except for a few exceptions
>The N-methyl group that differentiates amphetamine from methamphetamine decreases the polarity of the molecule and allows better penetration of the blood-brain barrier.
>Methamphetamine has higher (mood-altering) activity and less peripheral nervous system and cardiovascular stimulation compared with amphetamine.
there's more but i dont have patience for any more


also relevant
"
It is often asked if AMPH and METH differ in effect. The
two drugs show no differences in terms of changes in
dopamine release in the striatum, elimination rates, or other
pharmacokinetic properties (Melega et al., 1995), and equal
doses of the two drugs are not distinguished in human
discrimination studies (Lamb and Henningfield, 1994).
There is, however, a subtly greater dopamine release by
AMPH than METH in the prefrontal cortex, and likely as a
result, some subtle differences in effects of the drugs on
working memory and behavioral tolerance (Shoblock et al.,
2003a, 2003b). AMPH can elicit somewhat more locomotor
activity in rodents than METH, perhaps due to indirect
effects (Shoblock et al., 2003a). The occasional statement in
the literature that METH is more addictive, favored by drug
addicts, a more potent psychostimulant, or has diminished
peripheral activity appears to be unfounded (Shoblock et al.,
2003a). By tradition, studies on mechanisms of action are
generally on AMPH, and studies of neurodegeneration on
METH. "