DMT doses and pricing

The leitmotif of the majority of this thread's posts is such that their implication isn't unnoticeable. Free synthetic organic compounds, those which cannot be found in nature, and some chemist giving away his product are inextricable scenarios.

The lack of a price on a man made commodity is an interconnected factor and inevitable concomitant of the commodity maker's free distribution of said commodity. Synthetic things are not free unless a manufacturer ascribed no price to it.

One can logically and effortlessly extrapolate this to synthetic hallucinogens. By arrant necessity, the chemist would have to sell his compounds for nothing. If he sells it at even $1, the middle man would make -$1 if he sold it freely; a loss of money, which is presumably worse than making nothing (e.g., gifting the commodity). A chain of distribution has the characteristic of something known as a margin percentage that's added to the purchasing price of a commodity at each of its points within it. This margin percentage is economically necessary if a buyer of a commodity is to A) cover his price paid for the commodity that was charged by the seller and B) ensure he obtains a net profit exceeding $0.

NEK bought 1kg of cocaine from PEK for $10,000. For NEK to make a profit, he'd have to take the $10,000 and increase that by his personal margin percentage. Let's say it's 40%. 10,000 + 40% = $14,000. NEK will sell the kilogram with this 40% margin percentage and acquire a net profit of $4,000.

This isn't irrelevant. It's to expound on a sometimes abstruse and scantly considered intricacy idiosyncratic of economic supply chains. My point is that if the chemist sells his stuff for something at all, the guy who buys it, insofar as he's a dealer, will have to sell it at an equal or higher price to cover the costs or make a profit, respectively. For this not to happen, the chemist would be forced to set a price of $0 in order for everyone down the supply chain to be able to do the same without accumulating debt. Whether the chain of dealers choose to continue selling the product at $0 is, as should be obvious enough, contingent on the degree to which they need/want money.

It's not my cardinal intention with this post to elaborate on basic economical tenets that should be common sense to all but the most profoundly dimwitted among us, but it's instead to show the absurdities of the notion of free synthetic drugs, as well as to clarify the devastation underground markets would necessarily incur through an implementation of that absurd notion.

 

Yeah, that point was talked about extensively earlier on in the thread, which is why I was confused when you brought it back up. I think cosmo was commenting about an idealistic world where psychedelics would be free. I don't think anyone misunderstands the basic economics of the matter.

 

Really? I think most do. Like with emotions, people's fervent desire for free shit sometimes muddles their reasoning and incapacitates their higher faculties. The result, in this case, is a buffoon with his hand out and his head up his ass.

 

everything you said is true for drug dealers, ergative, as well as a grocery store.

but not everyone who provides another with LSD, or a thanksgiving turkey, is doing so with the intent to make money. i'm not talking about giving away sheets of L, just a few of my personal hits. if i were to get 20 hits of LSD, i'd probably eat 10-15, maybe sell a couple hits for $10 a piece, and give a few away to my close friends.
i would lose money on LSD, but that is quite ok with me. it is a commodity after all

 

I don't think anyone in this thread fits that description, and to whomever that comment is aimed it's pretty insulting. I think it's fairly obvious that products and services are traded for money. This is all very basic economics. Products, like drugs, or services like producing drugs, are all things that must necessarily require the transfer of money. This is your point yes?

It seems like you keep going off on ridiculously over complicated ways of making a very simple point.

Edit: I just noticed the stuff that you added to that earlier post. I'm very confused as to where you're getting the idea that anyone is suggesting that a chemist should give away all of his product. That's a ridiculous idea, and I still think that you're over complicating your explanation needlessly. You're arguing a point that is already understood.

DMT costs money, this is a fact. No one is arguing against it. The fact that one must pay money for something does not require that they feel it's right to pay money for it. It's an individual's choice whether or not to buy some DMT or to go through the process of extracting it. If they don't feel comfortable paying for it, it's not another option to demand that a chemist give you his supply for free, so the point of whether or not he should is moot. Not to mention that no chemist would anyway, and that no one has suggested that they should.

 

Split it up into 100 mg portions. Sell em for 30 - 40 each. It'll probably be enough to break through. And take a pic for me please

 

I think the thing that some don't understand, when they are responding to the idea that some things should not be sold in that way, is that (as has been pointed out) not only does everyone understand that, BUT:

The idea that you shouldn't sell DMT doesn't mean that you can't be fairly compensated, it's that you must be very careful with such things, and avoid them falling into the wrong hands simply because you wanted money.

If I have drugs, I do share them, and I do enjoy sharing them, and I did work for them in the first place. If I share with friends, they might throw me a buck, they might buy me lunch in an unrelated situation, they might be a good friend and always there, they might share their drugs with me-I would attempt to do all of those to them. I would NOT simply sell many of those same chemicals for an inflated price to strangers who I do not know or strongly believe to be ready and responsible enough to handle, pass on, or take those chemicals.

The point is not that DMT can't be traded, it's that when we talk about selling drugs money grubbing shits who can't imagine doing something fair or generous start bellyaching about how everyone wants something for nothing. I say no, but you fellas seem to want something for next to nothing.

At least to me. I guess there's probably people who don't view it my way. But I have no problem with making a fair price and making a responsible sale, with DMT the complicating factors are the difficulty of selling in a way that one knows will be responsible, and the difficulty of ascertaining the value of a dose.

 

It was a jocular remark, and one couldn't possibly make the inference from it that it was directed at anyone on this forum. The emoticon adjacent to the remark itself was intended to express that the remark was in jest. I earnestly apologize to anyone who may have taken umbrage with what I've said in my last comment. I'm not here on this forum to be a bully or to deride fellow forum members. So, as a fellow Uni friend of mine always retorts when someone's unreasonably offended, "it's all copacetic, man".

Yea, and that's why I don't find it not very bizarre to discuss even a hypothetical, quixotic alternative. You surmised earlier on the following:

"I think cosmo was commenting about an idealistic world where psychedelics would be free. I don't think anyone misunderstands the basic economics of the matter."

****This is an excellent illustration for why my previous comments herein this thread were such that they were solely remonstration of arguments in what I presumed to be a non-hypothetical discussion. Why would I presume such a thing? Because my brain couldn't permit me to accept the possibility of such an inconsequential and time-wasting idealistic discussion. It simply couldn't compute. Now, I think I've garnered a valuable life lesson in all this: some dialectics are only ostensibly meaningful; most are just "what if..." type pseudo-philosophical opportunities to share pipe dreams.

Sorry, perhaps I presume too much.

It's because I'm a pedantic asshole, eatlysergicacid! :bigcry:
I'm joking. But can you give me some examples of this so that I can avoid it later? The way I'm writing in this thread is an exemplification of both my IRL locution and formal writing style. I've only really received criticism for it on forums. But are forums significant?

A response to these two paragraphs would be superfluous. I think I've addressed the crux of them further up this comment. The four asterisks should guide you to it.

 

It may not further any particular cause to make an idealistic statement, but there is value in it as there is value in many statements that don't accomplish a certain goal. I don't think it's any stretch to say that most people would be happy if things they desired were freely available, so I don't see any fault in expressing that ideal. Sure it's not going to suddenly become reality, but there's nothing wrong with wishing.

As for examples of where you're over complicating things.

This was meant to clarify, but in that whole passage of text which, to be quite honest, takes a few reads to fully understand the relationships between the variables, you've only managed to prove that extracting DMT is not the same as synthesizing or "making" it, which is something that seems pretty obvious.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to insult your diction. It's exceptional, and it certainly makes conversation more interesting. There are just certain points that I think need a lot less explanation than your providing.

 

In my opinion, the example I had given to illustrate the differences between syntheses and extractions is straightforward. In all sincerity, I couldn't see where the confusion could've arisen. Was it in the following?:
B ∊ A + Y = B
That symbol between the first variable B and the second variable A is used in set theory to express that the variable to the symbol's left side is an element of the variable to the symbol's right side. It's simple logic. The above equation simply means that B is an element of set A. It could be defined as the following:

A = {X, P, N, B} thus B ∊ A or X ∊ A, etc.

The addling nature of the illustration is circumstantial in that it's concomitant on how familiar one is with its underlying logic. But to be sure, your point is well-taken. After all, what's the point of communication if you aren't really communicating anything? Thus, I'll avoid such parlance in the future.

I apologize. If my audience fails to comprehend whatever it may be that I'm saying, the fault is my own and not theirs. An earmark of the effective orator is the ability to adapt their use of language to their audience. If my phraseology fails, I fail as a speaker or as a writer. So, again, your point is well-taken.

 

You're right that your analogy was perfectly straightforward, it's simply that upon reading through something like that where three variables are shown to relate to each other in several different ways which come together to prove a point, it's quite easy to get bogged down trying to piece together the variables and assign the necessary meaning to each so that you can reach the final point.

I read through it once without realizing what it was getting at until the point was stated outright at the end, which is why I feel like the analogy didn't serve much purpose.

I don't mean to say that the way you write is difficult to understand, it's just a few little things like this. Like, when the straightforward explanation is easy to understand, then an analogy is kind of superfluous. Really though, I like the way you write. It's a refreshing break from most of the writing on the internet.

 

Don't finish one o-chem class. Audit them, and do not graduate. Otherwise you get put on a list.

Go to the middle of nowhere and align with Merry Pranksters, Hell's Angels, and/or Rainbow Family. The rest comes easily after one or all of those lifetime commitments. Some parts of the world actually welcome this business.

Well, if you're indocrinated into one or all or any combination of those three groups, you learn the bartering system used within, and you take money from folks outside. So moolah is really just rocks and paper to us. In some parts of the world, nobody bats an eye at hydrogenerators and the like. The DEA, like Highway Patrol, County Sheriffs and Deputies, and other LEOs are folks you probably should have on your payroll if your op is big enough. You should know that this is commonplace within the high stakes game playing fast and loose as a drug cook. Confiscations are the pits, but that's just things; like cash and gold and silver. Just pick up sticks and start all over. Every hippie has amazing stories to tell.

Deeply enough in the game, shit like safrole, acetic anhydride, chloroform, ethyl acetate, ether, nitric acid, sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, sixth filtered butane, clean heptane, lye, hydrated lime, etc. are quite easy to come by through industry folk aligned with or on the payroll of said cook whose ultimately protected by groups that span the globe. There's power within the underworld homes. Feds would love to fuck with cooks, but there's always a fallguy whose being paid royally to take the fall and get protection in the joint. You sound like the fuzz, are you a cop sir?

This is ridiculous. Get HAZ-MAT gear, aquaint yourself with HAZ-MAT protocol, and you'll withstand major explosions generated by magnesium igniting, awful stenches of borine or chlorine, heat from heating naphtha or whipping lye and purified water together with a magnetic stirrer, or the corrosive capacity of sulphuric acid, glacial acetic acid, and the like. And if you are still harping on the law, know your Health & Safety codes, your local law enforcement codes, your rights as an American under the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Amendments to it. You should also be aware of the backhanded misuse of power by those hypocrites in public office. Again, though a lifetime commitment, and with Family it involves a pledge of allegiance to LSD either puddling or thumbprinting, it's worth it because these groups have long-standing relations with everyone and they span the globe. Dude, you obviously ain't no baller nor do you seem to know Jack about the game. Wassup homey?

I'll say it again, we barter within and sell to outsiders. Of course we need cash, but dude, I'll say it again: psychedelic people should get psychedelics for free. That's our motto, sort of. What's yours? Make loads of cash, be greedy, and start a Ponzy Scheme? It's all perspective yo.

Oh sooo wrong. Everything is organic or stone, etc. Therefore, since all is derived through processing of natural elements and compounds, everything is truly organic, not synthetic at all. And there ain't not a one pseudo shit, let alone goddamn New Agers. Shaman, yes. Shaman have been scientifically proven to astral project and perfectly map out the topography of the moon. DMT and mescaline fascilitate well to aid in mental telepathy and meeting God. It really sounds like you need a trip. Take a thumbprint homes, frighten yourself by confronting your demons, everything is easy from there on out. Then, live life like a flowing river and don't accept coincidence, accept fate, destiny, serendipity, and the turning of the wheel of time. But truly get right with God (whatever that means to you). Peace.

 

Alright, I apologize to you for going half-cocked and deriding your character. You are obviously as well-schooled, or well-read and deeply imbedded in the game as me. You do have your head on straight, and probably are a Hell's Angel, Merry Prankster, or Rainbow Person. Perhaps not, but surely if you're synthesizing dimethyltryptamine from precursors that you're making from precursors, you know the drill.

Although one little criticism. Say methamphetamine hydrochloride production. Let's say you garden a mass of Ma'Huang. You then extract a massive quantity of ephedrine using a simple A/B Conversion, like with extracting mescaline from peyote, only not for comsumption nor sales, but as a precursor. This draws much less attention, and is actually quite rewarding. It will take time and patience, a major virtue IMO. Hell dude, here in Humboldt I don't keep track of time, days, or even the month. I do watch the stars. And I do still hold true to my beliefs about all being natural and the idea of processed goods as synthetic is ridiculous. Butane runs of loads of kif from trim through a surgical galvanized stainless steel enclosed tube ran with sixth filtered butane produces the best honey oil that mixed with a 220 50/50 dry ice/bubble run of kif hash makes bombass earwax dude. Take just one hit through an oilrigger and marijauna just became super psychedelic. But I'm sure you see where I'm going here. Grow a coca field and khat field in a country that doesn't extradite, have a clean or unsmudged record, stay anonymous, and pay off LEOs in your area. Smuggle in your cocaine and mephedrone produced from the coca and the khat, the khat being the source of the cathinone. Use a A/B conversion, it's just simpler if you plan it out right. With this method, the MHRB ---> DMT method is actually lucrative. You just need to think on a global scale homey,

 

Ergative, I do like your style, and thank you for the illustrative mathematical equations to discertane between bologne and reality. You and I likely don't see *exactly* eye to eye, but close enough. It is a fact, however, that all precursors come from nature at their very base. In fact, why not grow a massive field of Canary Reed Grass, and rather than extracting DMT, extract plain tryptamine and have the basis for all tryptamines; like extracting mescaline, breaking it apart for it's phenethylamine, or converting ephedrine ---> amphetamine ---> psychedelic amphets. This way, using say sodium or flourine acquired from friends mining this shit for you from the earth and the atmosphere, you may be the oddball in town, but you don't attract attention. Fuck even growing opium just looks like really big pretty flowers even to most Forestry and LEOs. But refine that shit clandestinely, like your ephedrine or mescaline, and you've got diacetylmorphine HCl, 2C-B, and TMA-6 if you want. You follow?

 

A viable way to circumvent being put on the list would be in obtaining an organic chemistry degree rather than merely attend classes, right? I'm not too keen on the intricacies of the law. Not to presume, but you seem more astute than I in this regard and could perhaps expound on this further.

I wouldn't want to become encumbered by commitments I can't hold to groups I couldn't trust, nor could I say I'm athirst to join any clubs, groups, gangs, clans, or coteries. If the offer is extended, and the scene isn't too loud, I couldn't definitively say I'd turn it down, however.

Well, you've piqued my interest. There are many seemingly insuperable legislative obstacles in my way that are the sole reason why I cannot expand as I'd like, operate as I please, and become more proficient at what I like to do–which is cook. A chef cannot reach his full potential nor perfect his craft without a sufficiently furnished kitchen, you know? To operate practically unfettered from prohibition and with immunity from those who want to shut me down the most is enough for me to sign up. Where's the membership form that I need to fill out?

Sounds appealing. Though assuming that's no rhetorical question you've asked, I will say that I am a little fuzzy at times, perhaps even a tad flaky too, but am I the fuzz? Yea, so freeze motherfucker! Step away from the keyboard and put your hands where I, well, can't see them because we're on a forum for Jebus' sake.

Nothing is "up" with me. I'm just your prototypical, innocuous and law-abiding forum-goer. I don't "know jack about the game" because I honestly don't know what game you're talking about. Is it Bingo? Great. What time does it start?

My motto is: "if what I'm doing doesn't put food on the table, I stop doing it". You're speaking with a lone wolf here, not a cartel member. I provide for myself the only way that a sole person can in a capitalistic society. If you take umbrage with that, then there are surely other things you can do to occupy your time other than to write verbose and condescending harangues denigrating a complete stranger's way of subsistence. This world runs on fiat money, just like everyone else (save a few uncontacted tribes scattered throughout the tropics).

OK....Don't panic! As we speak, a doctor is on his way to your location to administer your missed dose of Thorazine. Thereafter, the psychosis should be mitigated and the proclivity to spew incoherent psychobabble should subside.

 

The adulation is nice, but with all due respect, cosmoknot, you strike me as abnormal. This is disconcerting and worrisome. You' are, with utter precipitancy and conspicuousness, advising me on the how to properly conduct activities that are such that, if they were to be carried out, could potentially land me in jail and ruin me academically. This entire conversation makes me uncomfortable and wary of your intentions for appearing out of the blue to have this conversation on a public forum of all places. You also strike me as insolent and uncaring for having chosen this particular platform for discussion in lieu of PMs.

Feel free to respond, but do know that those responses will not be met with any further comments from me.

 

Cosmo, I thought your original charictarization as fuzz was pretty accurate.

He calls this sort of chemistry "cooking"....

And he sees no greater profit than money and his personal enjoyment of "cooking".

This is not a picture of a legitimate psychedelic chemist that I'm seeing.

 

How is that characteristic of fuzz? Calling yourself a chemist when all you do is follow syntheses and have no degree in chemistry is egregiously arrogant. "Cook" seems a more apt and realistic description. Shulgin and David Nichols are chemists. That guy making MDMA in his house who hasn't published even one peer-reviewed article, lacks the appropriate academic credentials to justly call himself a chemist, and hasn't contributed an iota to chemistry is a cook. Perhaps you don't view modesty and realism as considerably as I do.

Diversity in peoples' motives for doing an activity is an accompaniment to every activity that people could be doing. Your idea of the quintessential clandestine chemist is irrelevant and patently unrealistic.

Then congratulations, you've got perfect vision. A psychedelic chemist is different from a psychedelic cook; the former is a verified scientist conducting legitimate scientific research–that's usually subsidized by academia–into psychedelics, and the latter is someone who can only veraciously be described as someone who illicitly synthesizes psychedelics for distribution, personal consumption, or hobby.

It's disappointing that the only source of your incredulity and slanderous, inaccurate accusations–such as labeling me "fuzz"–is your imprecise stereotype that you irrationally believe applies to anyone doing "psychedelic chemistry". Your beau ideal "psychedelic chemist" and your paranoid delusions of cops running around on forums waiting to throw the book at any poster of any comment containing a mere tinge of a tenor of illegality is the stuff of fiction and very bizarre notions of how the law really works.

 

"cook" is someone who makes meth or whatevers because he needs meth or money.

In the post that I am quoting you made several attacks on my idea of a psychedelic chemist, but I never said what my idea of a psychedelic chemist is.

While chemist is not a term that I would usually use, either, it could be aptly applied to one synthesizing psychedelics, there are many ameteur chemists, from those making LSD to those making aspirin or fabric dye. A chemist does not need to be harvard material, it's someone who tinkers with chemicals. You seem, yourself, to have a very unrealistic idea of what a chemist is.

As for the fuzz running around forums and entrapping people, yes, we actually know this quite well, a lot of the DEA's own info on new drugs and chemicals comes from sites like these, such as their somewhat-recent order to schedule 5 synthetic cannabinoids, which you may read on their website at this moment if you so desire. There's also been busts, like one involving a steroid forum. I never knew the specifics, it was before my time, but I got the idea that the somewhat mythical "overgrow" went down because of legal troubles, etc etc etc. HOWEVER, nowhere did I say anything of the sort, about anyone doing psychedelic chemistry (or "cooking") being the fuzz, I said someone with your beliefs and behaviors may well be the fuzz.

If you're not the fuzz, you're an utter fool, with what we all know about the internet and privacy and the fuzz's need to bust little guys to make it look like they're doing something. The biggest LSD bust since pickard wouldn't need to be that big, but it WOULD be a great talking point, a "saving the kids" point.

So, fuzz or fool, your choice.

 

You remind me on individual, only you are annoying about drugs, and not politics.

You realize it's a pita, and then some, to answer a long post full of divided quotes, because this forum does not carry over second generation quotes.

Your posts, including this most recent one, are mismashed straw-man arguments interspersed with red herrings and the occasional red-straw-herring.

For two examples (from before I gave up reading in disgust):

1-you went on a little tantrum about how it's a traversty (or something like that) to consider people with an interest in chemicals and their use "chemists" because they are not pushing anything farther, and in order to consider someone an authority, acedemic, scholar, professional, etc, they must have a paper that says so.

Well that's all and well, but no one said that. I said all you need to do to be an ameteur chemist is to monkey around with chemicals. All you need to do to become an amateur linguist is have a hobby based around language. The same for biology. Your argument here was basically A+B=/=F, whilst hoping to make it look like my original premise was A+B=F by implication.

2-you said that scheduling is not based on internet forums, or something like that.

Go read the fucking order, and other similar recent documents. A large chunk of evidence (evidence the lazy and unverifiable way, just how they like it) for hospitalizations, arrests, negative effects, compulsive use or patterns of abuse, and the like is "self-reported" on "internet message-boards".

As to you being fuzz, it's simple: you claim things about your opinion on psychedelics that are non sequitor to your claim that you "cook" psychedelics. If you saw no inherent value to them other than being drugs, you could make any number of chemicals that are not legally regulated, and have JUST as much fun doing it. One who chooses making psychedelics as a hobby will generally see a special value in them, and as they're not worth much money, it will not be the ecenomics that attract these "cooks", and you're obsessed with drug ecenomics and "cooks".