Libertarian Lion

Drug Prohibition Kills

2010-11-30T10:53:00.000-08:00

I walked into the chemist and asked for 10 grams of MDMA.HCl (as 100mg capsules), 50 vials of diamorphine (20mg/vial) included with which was a smoking apparatus, 200 vials of LSD tartrate in soln (100microgram per ampoule) - I brought my cooler, 250g of Alprazolam which came with the smoking device - see patents.

I approached the front desk and was "instructed" on the safe use of my items; If the LSD is making you feel too bad take Alprazolam to calm yourself. I was required to listen to this fellow's lecture and then sign that I understood. I was also informed that the law stated that I could not use drug use as a defence for any crimes.I could not drive while intoxicated - I was instructed as to the reasnoble period of time that must pass post taking each drug and when I would be able to get behind the wheel again.

As my employement involves working with dangerous machinery - I was also informed how long it would take before I could once again use such.

All was reasnoble - as in it wasn't excessive - but realistic. Based on unbiased scientific research, the time was appropriate. Of course I'd been here before but I didn't mind as this was the small price of my right which for want of a better expression was god given; my right to do with My Body as I Pleased.

As I turned to leave I looked at all the other available items; Ketamine.HCl, Phencyclidine.HCl, DMT in a delightful smoking device but they would all be there tomorrow, the next day and thus until I entered my grave - Life was finally worth living. My chronic pain was under control and my work was an unqualified success. My partner and I were raising two beautiful daughters for whom We were responsible - NOT the government.

As I left I looked towards the clouds which glowed a beautiful amber in this period just before sunset. What a beautiful world this now was as opposed to those unconstitutional and Punitive Paternalistic periods before the responsibility of citizens was placed on them - not on others. I enjoyed my rights and would gladly have died in a war defending them. I thought of all those who had died because of a sin law and felt temporarily blue. But the freedom represented by my purchases brought me back to my homeostasis (now on a life is worth living setting) and I wondered - how on earth did people live without freedom and especially without the freedom to treat themselves with genuinely effective drugs. How did scientists learn to make the current breakthroughs when it was impossible to research if that research involvedthe scientific method - one had to prove that drugs were inately evil; a scientis must be completely impartial and allow the results to speech. The good guys wom for the first time in well over a century. All the freedom hating Republicans and Democrats had been long ago dispersed - there diaspera taking them to China where their barbaric policies were embraced. The diarchy had been replaced by a new, multi-party system which oporated according to the constitution (thus the secession of New Hampshire - after threatened Federal intervention - which had trigered the death of drug prohibition). Only those powers specifically given to the Federal government were exercised, all else we the citizens, the rulers of this land, determined through our State Legislatures. Much like the European Union. Kansas briefly left the Union in oppossition to the repeal of drug prohibition, but at the following election the people voted such that Kansas finally came on board and re-joined the VOLUNTARY UNION.

It felt good to live in a free country - no longer did the words 'land of the free' make a mokery of our country, but for once the land of the free was so by it's actions. What a pity it took so long and so much misery trailed in its wake.

Finally, having left the kids with a sitter, my partner and I went on a holiday where we enjoyed our purchases. It was an unforgetable weekend, but then again it could be so whensoever we chose - because we Western people were finally free.

Write No More

2010-06-10T19:35:00.001-07:00

This is my last post - not that it matters. Diseased. All my days are done. My advice; when you are young grab hold and don't let go. Then end it before you get old and life is terminal.

Cold Water Extraction and opium growing and extraction

2010-04-16T21:17:00.000-07:00

As a scientist this is a crappy method but watch before I give you better details for entertainement. If you're religious why don't you believe God put Opium poppies, Coca, Marijuana and Mushrooms on earth to make our lives better?

and this

this

www.lewrockwell.com

2010-04-16T19:54:00.000-07:00

This is a fantastic ws for libertarians. I urge you to read it. I plan a large pice of the failure of the American (and Human experiment) and lewrockwell.com along with the wonderful Thomas DiLorenzo (watch this; http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo132.html) whom Ron Paul Quotes. It will take some time but I trust real libertarians will like it. BTW Ron Paul's low vote demonstrates how far we've come from the libertarian days of the early republic.
Check out this embedded vid

South Africa is a ONE PARTY STATE - death of eugen terreblanche

2010-04-08T06:03:00.000-07:00

The brutal murder of Eugene Terreblanche is a stark reminder that South Africa is becoming like Zimbabwe; attacks on white farmers (the blacks can't run the farms) which destroy the economy. Whatever you think of terreblanche (and his impotent Nazism), he didn't deserve to be beaten to death - what is South Africa? A barbaric through back. Shooting him might have been more tasteful

NO government - or regime as in South Africa - has the right to STEAL land from its owner - that is tyranny.

Apartheid is long in the past. The "Rainbow Nation" is horseshit. Britain could have offered the whites sanctuary - they are being persecuted -but said fuck you because it would give the impression that Mandela was not a God and that Blacks could be a threat to a small White minority. Margaret Thatcher opposed sanctions on SA rightly so because she saw the future (I hated her anti-drug nonsense but the Labour party is not reformist anyway). Not one African country has run a democracy - they all fell to dictators and civil war on a brutal scale.

As for Whites in Europe; Oh how this issue pisses me off. Whites safe in Europe deifying Mandela (who NEVER spoke out against Mugabe) and criticizing anyone who even hints at whites being treated badly in South Africa (there are very poor whites who the regime admits it doesn't care for because of Apartheid era wrongs - But Apartheid is long gone!). They must be racist. Well you get out of your safe White Europe and try living in South Africa. You Fucks.

Racism per se is wrong, but demographically SA was always going to be a disaster for whites as a "democracy". And the Blacks don't seem to have the capacity to vote for anyone but the ANC. A one party state is not a Western liberal democracy. Just because of Apartheid don't ignore the present. That is now in the past like communism. Farmers are being massacred. It's appalling. South Africa will be the next Zimbabwe.

Poor souls, those whites stuck in that hideous country. And poor liberal blacks who can't criticise the ANC for fear of being called traitors. Only the wacky left communist whites still suspend disbelief and support the farcical "Rainbow Nation".

In Europe it is - for now - a white Utopia. Everywhere in Europe I meet non -white people who are delighted to have been given citizenship because it is the most free part of the world. The most wealthy and protected. It is factual; that when the white colonies were "freed" and given to the natives to rule they all became vile despotic states where murderous scrambles for power alternated with anarchy.

My solution would have been to put Political Correctness (a favorite of the nanny staters) to death and give the white South Africans' (A Nation they built and kept the economy going!) a homeland suitable for their population.

BTW land re-distribution is another way of saying theft of land by a regime. A regime which can't be removed unless Blacks in SA learn to vote not on the color of their skin but on issues;
a very doubtful prospect.

Liberal whites in the Free world shut up. Mandela is a fraud, SA is going towards Authoritarianism and give up your passport and go live there if you feel differently.

White South Africans - many people are with your cause - FIGHT for a free state for yourselves because you will be wiped out if not. Arm yourselfs.

A Quick Review of The Film Caligula Part One

2010-04-05T20:08:00.000-07:00

I've been fascinated by this film since seeing snippets on youtube. So I decided to watch the whole thing.

This is an incredibly bad film; like something a film student made. It's inconsistent and the sets are poor.

We begin with Caligula (Malcolm McDowell) and his sister Drusilla (Teresa Ann Savoy - basically just a porn actress) groping in the woods. The fascinating thing is that we see all of Savoy's bits - her twat, tits and even her asshole. Meanwhile McDowell is sliding his leg between hers. Why a "good" actor would lower himself to doing a film where he essentially engages in real foreplay with a porn actress I do not know - certainly I think this film rightly fucked his career. I mean if you're a real actor would you agree to a film made and financed by Penthouse? I'll get to the porn later but let's just say that if you enjoy it you're deranged.

Then comes the title - not bad. Over a genuine looking coin the titles run and Caligula makes his best speech (I have existed from the dawn of the world etc). The trouble is he is called Caius Caligula on the coin and throughout the film. This is farcical; in life he was Caius (pronounced Gaius I think) Ceasar. He is also alternatively called Caligula and little boots by the other players. That is equivalent to calling him little boots twice (Caligula IS little boots in latin). Hello Little Boots. Hello Little Boots. It's stupid.

Next Caligula is again groping his sister in bed - McDowell must have had an erection even though Savoy isn't that attractive. In walks Macro and Drusilla runs away while Caligula fakes sleep with a pillow to hide his erection. Macro informs him he must go to see Tiberius.

Caligula is carried in a litter along a road with naked men breaking rocks (lots of cocks). He has a rather perfunctury conversation with Nerva before entering Tiberius' harem.

In real life (from Suetonius) we know that Tiberius had pre-pubescent boys and girls swim with him and nibble his genitals like minnows. But beyond repulsive - and the film doesn't spare us this - is that he had babies trained by wet nurses to suckle on penises. In the film (I don't know how many in the audience knew the reason for the babies) we see babies being suckled on penis shaped objects. The film could have left this out because there is no redemption in Caligula; what did the mothers of those babies think when they saw their newborns touching fake penises? What are those baby actors doing now? Do they put this on their CV? Disgusting and the lack of explanation makes it worse.

The "little fishies" who were pre pubescent children are now replaced with shaved young people and they simply swim around Tiberius - played by Peter O'Toole whom I've always disliked.

Caligula is greeted by Tiberius and told to dance - while the little fishies dive in the water so we see a lot of clams.

Next is the most repulsive part of the film. I'm against most censorship but this was too much. Tiberius orders Macro to tie a soldiers bootlace around his penis and fill him with wine. The torture being ended when Tiberius stabs the guard in the stomach releasing blood and wine and offel. In real life he may have done this but given the power of the Preatorian Guard the torture and killing of one is likely to have led to a rebellion and Tiberius' balls would be on the floor. Once again it is an unneccesary scene which doesn't advance the plot. Yes Tiberius was a monster but this scene overshadows the real theme of the movie - which can't break through. You'll remember this scene not the good bits.

Extraction and Purification of Morphine from Opium

2010-04-05T03:22:00.000-07:00

I'm attempting to simplify this patent; thus a Work in Progress from US Pat 6,054,584. I also want to present you with inhalation devices for bezodiazepines and fentanyl.

Fentanyl Patches

2010-03-13T15:10:00.001-08:00

Been off line for a bit but in the interim I had the chance to do something stupid; injecting fentanyl patches.

Fentanyl is very easy to synthesise and is to morphine what LSD is to psylocibin. It is very potent but has a very short half life meaning that it lasts for a very short time. Analogues like Carfentanil, Sulfentanyl are also interesting synthetic targets.

Have you tried Fentanyl? Well if you've ever had twilight sedation you would have. I first experienced it when undergoing an Endoscopy. I was extremely nervous but suddenly (just before I went under) I felt a joyous explosion that rendered the room fuzzy and me quite happy.

Now, each fentanyl patch has a huge quantity of the drug in it as it works by a simple gradient; so if there's a large amount of fentanyl on one side of your skin it will balance out by crossing over to the other. Most will not get into systemic circulation that leaves a large dose in the patch. But this is the free base, not the water soluble fentanyl citrate that can be injected. (Pharmacologically acceptable salts thereof is often quoted in journals but I'm not sure why Heroin HCl is OK but Fentanyl HCl is not?) But this free base is also bound in a gooey matrix which makes it very hard to extract. If one had a fully equipped lab it would remain thus. But some have succeeded - allegedly - even extracting enough freebase to smoke. This is ideal as it avoids getting the dangerous gooey matrix in your body.

I heard that people were (prohibition is responsible for this desperation) cutting patches up, placing them in a spoon with vinegar (acetic acid) and heating. Then diluting and shooting up with variable results from bad to excellent. So I thought - being a scientist - I could go one better and extract in a conical with boiling water and citric acid. I even checked the pH (around 3.5) which was correct. I then sucked up the liquid through a small wheel filter (smallest size 0.20 micron(?)) and plunged in. Well it got me stoned for certain, I sat with another barrel in hand staring into the distance not certain what to do. But the next day I had a terrible headache and my liver was damaged. I know this from my response to other medications. This is the real fly in the ointment - damage of the liver. What is in the matrix can be found out but it's not for the body. In addition, my yield must have been very low.

Without prohibition these stupid risks could be avoided - and read my other posts to see why prohibition is the antithesis of freedom and deserves the blame for those who die simply for wanting to have a good time. But I warn you all - don't use patches IV. Even smoking - if anyone has ever really succeeded is iffy. A claim that 70% IPA will extract the freebase for smoking was tried and failed - but interestingly a green oil came out as well as some solid which would be very difficult to purify.

It is always frustrating to see how close you are to that wonderful substance yet the manufacturers have made getting it out so difficult. Better not to try because it rarely doesn't end in tears of dissapointment at least.

LSD - it's shelf life

2010-01-15T08:43:00.000-08:00

Just a brief note about storing LSD blotters; I shied away from LSD for many years but had bought some trips. So I decided to keep them safe for when I was ready to use them. I put them in small zip lock baggies (protect from air), put them in aluminium foil (protect from light), and then in a brown sealed jar in a refrigerator. It is standard practice to place labile chemicals in brown glass containers and LSD is very labile.

Many years later - about 3 - I got them out of storage and tried them; they did not work. I have no idea about the degredation of LSD - and would like to know what it becomes; if it simply isomerizes at the carbonyl C-C bond then why not 50% potency? I am also unaware as to why elemental chlorine degrades LSD and what role light plays. I have found no satisfactory studies. Anyway, the lesson is if you aren't going to take the trips straight away - my cousin ruined some trips of mine by putting them in her wallet for a few days - then it will be very hard to keep them potent. Buy then eat.

In the Sigma Aldrich catalog it states that LSD tartrate must be stored -18 degrees centigrade and protected from light. Shulgin suggests that an open vial will last 4 days in the fridge. I was taking my info from a website which now no longer exists which said they would last a presidential term (4 years) stored as I had - they were wrong.

LSD is much superior to Shrooms and psylocibin so this is a shame as only shrooms are legal - in some European countries. Odd the dutch call LSD a hard drug, but you can buy shrooms? Another bit of bs from the drug prohibitionists. I suspect the French - who put a lot of pressure on the Dutch were responsible for this. Oh, while I remember - never buy anything from anyone on the red light canal - you WILL be ripped off; yes, it happened to me.

Drug Synthesis - Forbidden Knowledge

2010-01-07T16:25:00.000-08:00

I believe that until or unless prohibition is completely repealled knowledge of the synthesis of drugs is very important. It should be passed down so that it is never lost. So that these extremely valuable compounds are not lost to us.

We have all live in a world where the idea that a governement may forbid us under pain of imprisonment - with all the torture that entails - from a consential activity that harms no-one else - and were it not for prohibition - would not harm the user either. There are obviously some dangers inherit in all drug and other pleasure or enlightenment seeking ventures. We do not deliberatley make hang gliding or sky diving MORE dangerous to "send a message", so we shouldn't with drugs.

Most Western and many non-western nations have abandoned the idiotic notion of punitive prohibition - i.e. punishing an individual for their own drug use. But there are holdouts. My issue is whether we shall ever be free of this monster? While the Nanny staters and their "Public Health Lobby" still have the ears of politicians and reactionaries in politics who knows. In fact the current changes mirror a sort of Reformation remeniscent of the Protestant Reformation. i.e. First there was Reform then Reaction - at it's height Lutherism represented a revolutionary break with the past that almost every country in the then Western world embraced - even Spain. But the reactionaries were quick to turn the tables so that only England and Scotland and parts of the low countries were left - by the end of the 17th century as protestant. So is the "War on Drug Users" over and will Prohibition follow?

I can't know this but I do know it will take many decades if it happens at all. So any external threat etc will stall progress. Drug Prohibition is the Elephant in the room for sure. Every social issue leads back to it. Euthanasia would not be a problem if prohibition didn't exist for example. But is the alternative world something that could have arisen?i.e. What if prohibition NEVER came into being as it seemed in the first Supreme Court decision? I look back on the last four decades as time of social advancement, but the monster of prohibition grew during this time. How different would our world be if this monster had not come into being - or was it inevitable.

Keep in mind that the most commonly used drugs, both by individuals and in medicine are drugs that have been around for at least 100 years - 1913 MDMA patented, Heroin in 1895 (morphine much earlier), Cocaine since the conquest of the Americas, Magic Mushrooms also from the Americas - as well as DMT bearing plants. In fact since the 1950's we could all have lived much better lives through the sensible use of these and the newer drugs (Benzodiazepines, Barbituates). The point is the commonly used drugs are old and off patent. This is why the Pharmaceutical industry is so anti drug law reform - Marijuana stops Nausea much more effectively than anything a Pharmaceutical Company can make so they want to stop its use. The same applies to opiates. I suggest you go to this website (opiods.com) to get a better articulated version of what I'm attempting to say.

We are not all perfect chemical creatures, some of us NEED effective drugs to make life worthwhile - I am one of those. Anxiety and Pain are lifes worst aspects and we CAN treat them - yes you probably will develop tolerance but if your not being forced into taking too little and can take what you require that issue is trivial. More than that - research into how to overcome the issue of tolerance has been dropped because the nanny staters don't want a Heroin (for example) that was "non addictive); fancy that - drug use with no negative repercussions! Thats the way they think. Drug Prohibition only makes drug addicts lifes' hell. The bullshit explanations for it are transparent - the real motivation is CONTROL OF YOUR LIFE - always remember that!

So back to the topic of this post; mankind - as the Romans found out through their emperors - is inheritly unreliable - trust NO governemental authority to prescribe your life. THINK, use your own powers of cogitation to make your own decisions in life. To the point - learn how to make these drugs so that no nanny state government can ever destroy these valuable and crucial instruments. Never let someone spewing nanny state nonsense go unchallenged (just as you wouldn't tolerate anti-semitic or anti-black comments) drug users are the last group who can be freely beaten on in western society - you can incite people to kill a drug addict on the radio with no repercussions.

Finally, remember that once public mutilation and execution where considered essential - now we consider them barbaric - the same applies to drug prohibition; just because it has existed for so long doesn't make it untouchable. This is the most important issue in the western world - do something. Most people are sheep - but if you read this you are not.

heroin synthesis (diacetylmorphine)

2010-01-06T22:29:00.000-08:00

Where people go wrong in this synthesis is the conversion of morphine to diamorphine (heroin. The problem is they use acetic anhydride as acetylating agent but add no catalyst. The key is to use greater than stoichiometric amounts of acetic anhydride and then add a catalytic amount of pyridine or DMAP (dimethylaminopyridine). This agent will greatly increase yields as it assists acetylation. Heat may not be required and times are drastically reduced. DMAP is preferable. (Do you know why? The Methyl groups push electron density into the pyridine ring making the Nitrogen more basic and Nucleophilic)

If you are synthesising from codeine then you probably have pyridine on hand anyway, so add a few drops to the final step.

In short - and THEORETICALLY - if you wanted to learn the chemistry of this synthesis you would;
React codeine with a slight excess of boron tribromide (BBr3)or Pyridine.HCl (the former is far superior). Moprhine - the product - is insoluble in chloroform so you can easily perform an extraction to both remove and recover unreacted codeine.

Next take the morphine - which is tricky in the sense that the phenolic group is prone to deprotonation at high pH so ph 9 is recomended for extraction - and mix with acetic anhydride and DMAP or pyridine (only 10 mol% at most) to give heroin which IS chloroform soluble so it is easy to seperate from the morphine. There you have it. FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.

Time for racial and religious profiling

2009-12-30T02:07:00.000-08:00

I'm sick of extreme security measures at airports. We all know Muslims are the real threat to airlines. Sure, some white, christian nut might do something stupid, but the past has shown that the vast majority of threats come from Muslims. What is wrong with targeting those who are the most likely threat? Dragging aside, laying hands on and humiliating whites is stupid - a waste of resorces and a dagger at the heart of liberty.

Only Muslims have the motive to blow up aircraft - for the most part. As I said, there's always the possibility of a nutter of any race or religion. But we have to get sensible. Instead of delaying and humiliating all people just to stick to political correctness is bullshit. Most Muslims are not terrorists but they are the group who pose a threat to airlines as their religion allows such acts as suicide bombing to be justified. Liberals may say that's not true Islam but unfortunatley that is not what their holy book says - they can justify killing even muslims for "the cause".

It's time to end the long ques at airports and simply profile the most likely threat. If you see a long bearded muslim boarding your plane do you honestly not have serious doubts as to your safety? Just leave the unlikelies alone.

Personal article

2009-12-23T17:01:00.000-08:00

I have noticed that to date no-one has commented or probably viewed my blog. What is the point of me seeking my Libertarian brethren if it is bound to fail. I don't know how this works - getting a blog read - but if anyone passes by leave a comment. Write to me. If you search libertarian or nanny-state via google my page can't be found except a million ranked - this is very depressing. In the past I could nail this to a church door. Now I can only reach out this way - somewhat ironic. And my site is washed away by the huge volume of other sites with similar, but not as unique as mine - sentiments.

I will be a shameless self promoter. I will add this blog to every ng I think remotely linked. Please forgive me for this, but I don't seek to write to myself or the few family and friends who either agree already or couldn't care.

The isolation of my blog has wounded me. I want - no need - to be heard. For, by and large, what I write is very important to me and explores what I know is the major threat to our Freedom - already lost. I am Brutus and Cassius to the rest of the world's Ceasar. While evil men lust for power, I lust for freedom. The purity of true freedom can't be overestimated. It is bliss to be free. Are we to all become slaves? I am glad so many libertarian sites are out there, but I'd like to be heard.

Scientific Progress

2009-12-16T13:07:00.000-08:00

I am a scientist and what amazes me is the anti-science movement occuring in many western countries. The Creationist or "Intelligent Design" proponents distort and degrade science. Science - which MUST be objective - is slowly being replaced by pseudo-science for mass consumption.

In the decades following World War II we saw an explosion of scientific advance such that my Grandfather was born (1915) in a world without anti-biotics, without passenger aircraft or jet aircraft etc. The only anaesthetics were ether, chloroform and N2O. He almost died from a bacterial infection at 20. Cancer was an immediate death sentence. He died in a world astonishingly different - man had landed on the moon! (A gigantic milestone) - planes could fly you around the world in a day. Up till the last 10 years I think most people in the scientific community believed scientific progress was exponential and the massive progress over my grandfather's life would be much greater over mine. Now I believe there is a marked slowdown in scientific advance - a plateau from whence we may well slide backwards. Why?

Scientists - especially the researchers in the pure sciences (Physics, Chemistry and Mathmatics) - were looked upon by society with great respect. The space race brought ordinary people to a state of awe at the accomplishments of Scientists. Fearless inquiry was - following the ancient Greeks - in vogue. Romans never had a scientific mindset cf the Greeks. They never asked nor cared why the sky was blue for example. How did we come to be and what was the nature of matter - instead they built a barbaric empire which destroyed science. It is written the Heron of Alexandria was on the verge of working with steam power! I think modern (or what we call Modern) civilizations are trying to find their place in this dichotomy - be like Rome or Athens. Scientific progress - which can only work if the people support it - or a fear campaign which lets science die.

Christopher Hitchens - My Hero

2009-12-08T04:30:00.000-08:00

Watch this debate;

Universal Suffrage

2009-12-07T19:04:00.000-08:00

I was thinking on it the other day; where did the nanny state come from - the idea that another human being could tell and compell you to do or not do certain things (that only effected you or your health) because "they knew what was good for you". I'm just putting it out there but was the suffrage of women the start of this evil?

Women have a maternal instinct which drives them to be more sensitive to drug scares etc. Was giving women political power the beginning of the end for both the age of enlightenment and individual liberty? Certainly the dates fit; the suffragetes were all part of the Temperance Movement (which sort and successfully banned alcohol - but with no penalties for individual use). World War I begins and the first prohibition laws (on Opium) begin. Since then, hysterical women and men who should be described as pussies, have become the symbol of the anti-drug movement. No logic, no rational argument can break through their hysteria. "But your son would be alive today if heroin was legal" "NOOOOOOOOOO!!!" - tears and screaming at the rational individual. "But your son would bebeaten and abused in jail if prohibition is enforced making it more likely your son will use drugs or suicide" "DRUGS ARE EVIL, EVIL, EVIL!!" comes the reply completely ignoring the points put to her. These scenes have been repeated all over the Western world.

If women hadn't gotten the vote things might be different. Remember that Freedom comes at a price; people can die or do stupid things in free countries (theoretical at this time). But the vast majority of men in the 18th and 19th Centuries would have been appalled at the alternative - a nanny state.

Even earlier, despite rampant drunkedness, no Sovereign was moved to install anti-drinking laws for the good of the individual subject. Death was accepted as part of life and if alcohol - or Marijuana or Opium in Islamic countries or Coca in South America - eased lifes miseries no King would dare touch that. Not even the Catholic church.

I'm no mysoginist, but Soccer Moms are the greatest supporters of drug - and other - nanny state prohibitions. Has the female vote introduced a previously unthinkable idea; one human being can compel you into living a life they believe is in your own good?

Why I Hate Oprah Winfrey and Phil McGraw

2009-12-07T18:28:00.000-08:00

Oprah Winfrey is an arrogant, self righteous piece of shit. Phil "I'm not a real doctor" McGraw is even worse. They are both leaders of the Punitive Paternalistic Nanny State. How many drug scare stories have they both run! Don't think about issues for yourself - nor how to live your life - but let these two fucks do it for you. And don't they think they're divine representatives on earth? Prophets? It may be apocryphal, but Oprah is supposed to have a Gold Toilet! What the Fuck! And the time she gave "each audience member" a car!? She thinks she is a God. She thinks she knows better than everyone else because she has been successful. People who watch these shows are sheep. Who would appear on "I'm not a real Doctor" Phil? Idiots who bring the tone of democracy to a very low pitch.

These two are the epitome of the Nanny State tribal leaders. Their message - Don't dare think for yourself, don't take risks in your life that might make you happy, simply do as we say - often not as they do. When I hear the audience chanting "Dr. Phil, Dr. Phil, Dr. Phil" it sounds as if it were a Nazi rally or perhaps the entrance of a Roman Emperor. It's creepy and says bad things about society.

As long as these two keep up large ratings I have real fears for the future of democracy - if liberty - the antithisis of the nanny state - is not already lost anyway.

Proud to be White

2009-12-06T15:30:00.000-08:00

Why is this disallowed - to say such. Blacks can say 'I'm Black and I'm Proud!' but I can't say 'I'm White and I'm Proud a Proud White man come from a race that brought ideas of liberty and democracy to the world and made them work. Every African nation that got it's indepenance became a country under a murderous despotic regime - look at Mugabe or Sudan or South Africa (a one party state going in Mugabe's direction). Muslims are rightly proud of their great scientific achievements during the european dark ages following Rome's deserved fall (Rome stalled scientific progress for well over 1000 yrs and destroyed liberty - Empires destroy liberty, they always have and always will). Why can I not be proud of the achievements of my race? I am NOT a racist, but if I said I'm a Proud white man publically I would be considered such. But if I were Black I could say so and be proud of it.

Those who believe Libertarians are Liberals are wrong. Libertarians are rationalists - we do not accept right or left wing political correctness. Many Liberals are as anti drug law reform as the most rigid paleo-conservative. These United States should be the natural home of Libertarianism but how many paople supported Ron Paul? A lot more than expected perhaps, but although his views are the views of the vast majority of the Founders he could not get ten percent of the vote in these reactionary times. I see no hope for These United States (not The United States) until secession is exercised (it is constitutionally allowed or not forbidden).

I'm White but my pride wanes as I see the age of enlightenment dissapearing into ancient history and to support Individual rights is now heresy, I even find I have to defend Democracy. "I'm white but I am Proud of my ancestors not the current crop of Nanny staters".

Synthesis - MDMA

2009-12-04T13:44:00.000-08:00

I strongly recommend you buy Shulgin's books if you are interested in drug synthesis. Obviously this info is for educational purposes only and I take no responsibility for your actions (as it should be in the Libertarian world).

Roughly I would recommend the piperonal starting point as it is the simplest procedure;

Piperonal

React with nitroethane to give the nitropropene product;

Reduction of the nitropropene will give you:
MDA (3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine).

All we have to do from here is add the extra methyl group to give (3,4-methylenedioxyMethylamphetamine).

Why not just use MeI? I believe that there is a strong risk of turning our primary amino group into a tertiary one - even using stoichiometric quantities. I'm not sure how formic acid prevents this - steric bulk? - but if it works for Shulgin it seems the best course. BTW MeI probably could be made to work with the appropriate catalyst.

Formic acid

is reacted with MDA and the product reduced (LAH perhaps) to give our target molecule (as the racemate i.e. we have a chiral carbon therefore in this simple synthesis where asymmetric synthesis is ignored we get an S and R version one of which is more active);

I have deliberatley not given the experimental procedure - you can find this yourself.

I find all organic chemistry fascinating and in a Libertarian world I would have my own lab and do research not sanctioned - because it is not profitable for the big drug companies. Analgesics, anaesthetics and psychedelics fascinate me. What a pity my brain is so wasted.

Safe Use of Drugs Part 3

2009-11-29T11:09:00.000-08:00

LSD is a powerful drug which can bring you ecstatic revelation and much more. Two points need to be made: LSD is COMPLETELY harmless, non-toxic and could be taken in gram quantities without PHYSICAL harm. No one has ever died from an LSD overdose - despite some nonsense in movies featuring Robert Downey Jr. However, unlike MDMA, LSD can do great PSYCOLOGICAL damage. If you have an underlying mental illness LSD will bring it out. LSD does not cause Schizophrenia etc but it will trigger it in an individual who has the dormant disease. Remember that Schizophrenia is an organic disease - the brain is actually smaller along with other physical differences (more D1 receptors for example) to normal individuals - so NO DRUG can GIVE you Schizophrenia, but it can trigger it. As Schizophrenia usually manifests in an individual's 20's you might like to check your family history for mental illness before indulging.

LSD is not for morons. You simply cannot enjoy nor appreciate the experience if you are of low IQ OR have no intellectual taste. An ex friend of mine who had a rather high IQ had a rough time his first and only trip simply because he was not an intellectual type. I believe Jung seperated people into intuitives (myself) and sensualists (the example above) and no matter how high your IQ if you belong to the latter you will not appreciate this compound. To put it crudely - if you just want a safe life where you follow the ordinary path don't bother with acid.

LSD vs Shrooms. A friend once said to me that mushrooms were beter because they were natural -what rot. Mushrooms contain psylocibin - which is dephosphorolated to psylocin (A DRUG) and works very similarly to LSD. LSD is much safer and "beter" because you don't get any other alkaloids that a mushroom might contain and the dose is so small that toxicity of by-products is impossible. LSD is unequivically the beter drug.

On a sad note - this wonderful drug is the hardest to synthesize of the big 5 and thus only a few labs exist - so when the prohibitionists destroy a lab there is a long if not near permanent dry spell. It takes a long time and a lot of wet lab experience to make this drug so very few people can do it. No kitchen chemistry here. LSD is the only drug I can see being wiped out in the near future.

Finally, no life worth living is complete without a full LSD experience - when you break through you'll know what I mean. Oh and store protected from light, heat and moisture in the freezer.

We're online

2009-11-28T15:18:00.000-08:00

This thorn in the side of the nanny state has finally found it's way into cyberspace. So Proud. Now I'm not just writing to myself. So much to say and so little time. Any vapour that enters the coils of my brain I will spill into the ether so excuse some posts that are more ramblings - such as this one.

Let mankind climb out of darkness and into light or else let him be extripated. Will the Ausonian beast be the future ruler a society flattened where all men are subjects and equally slaves? To such a low pitch did Rome come by the time of Caracalla - "Into Telephus' land the Ausonian beast shall enter". Who will slay the monsters of our Western societies? For myself I must say - for the cruelty the punitive paternalistic nanny state has perpetrated against all lovers of liberty - 'When I am gone let fire the earth confound'.

Safe Use of Drugs - Harm Minimization - Part 2

2009-11-18T18:02:00.000-08:00

I like drugs - as my first post makes clear - and I know my life would be productive and happy if I could use what I wanted in the privacy of my own home. I have anxiety and pain illnesses, I am not a perfect chemical being. Drugs CURE me and allow me to enjoy life without effecting anyone else. How this bizzare idea arose that our bodies are not our own has been described to some extent but does not tease out the underlying truth - a portion of humanity believes it has the right to dictate to others. Now gays are free, blacks and Jews, drug users are the last group for which discrimination, persecution and elimination are tolerated if not actively encouraged. This MUST stop.

Back to the issue at hand.
MDMA. This is a drug which if it is the correct compound and dose is very safe. Unfortunately prohibition makes use of some pill extremely dicey and makes the user uneasy. My advice is, buy a batch of 5 say, and take a half dose. If all goes well you can take more later. Unfortunately this is not a drug you can take a tiny dose of and titrate up. You must take an effective dose. First you will feel edgy and I found pacing the floor the best solution. Also, sitting in front of a fan with the cool air on your face can help. However, once this stage is over you enter a deeply relaxed bliss - part way to heaven is how I describe it. It may be like a super antidepressant in that SSRI's etc take months to work and have similar side effects to MDMA before the relief and pleasure arrive.

Drink plenty of water, but not too much - just stay hydrated. Don't get too enthusiastic and take all your batch once you feel good, this could leed to a speed effect which is not pleasant. But if you have waited an hour into it another half pill every hour is PROBABLY OK. But don't overdo it.

One of MDMA's drawbacks is the fact that your first pill is likely to be your best - the magic can never be fully recovered. This MAY indicate permanent neuronal change - but many legal drugs have been shown to do the same so I wouldn't take this too seriously. But it is true that you cannot take a pill more than once a month or so. So make the most of it while you have it.

MDMA CURES depression. The blackest psychotic episode can be reversed in one hour. This is why it was used legally up till the FDA ban of 1985 - where a conservative administration ensured no medical professionals who had had success with MDMA could speak. Legislatures should not determine what can and can't be a medicine. If MDMA saves a life of a suicidally depressed person isn't that a good thing? No research is ever permitted that goes against government and religious propaganda so the truth - the essence of the scientific method (I'll do a post on this - I am a scientist - later) - is lost in the grasping for funds. Very few Universities now live up to the dictum of fearless inquiry which has ever been their purpose. Now money, politics and sexy "research" takes precedence over the unimpeded search for the truth.

MDMA - if that is what you have - could harm your body at the unknown dose in a pill but is not psychologically dangerous as in the case of LSD. While LSD is physiologically harmless at infinite doses, but psychologically potentially harmful. The standard dose is 80 - 100mg (double check this and don't rely on this) while 40 mg is about the lowest dose where one would feel something.

All in all if you can test your pill it can be the greatest night of your life - or seem that way. Your problems dissolve and all seems right with the world. MDMA is not an intellectual experience like LSD, but is euphoria in a little pill.

Always make your decisions about drug use based on solid facts - this blog does not suffice or even claim to offer sound advice. But I hope it conforms with Harm Minimization - until the prohibition demon disintegrates.

More to come.

Safe Use of Drugs (Part One)

2009-11-17T21:28:00.000-08:00

I have much to say on drugs but let me quickly give some tips on safe drug use.
Firstly, my personal feeling is that you should wait till you're an adult till you even think about using any drug - including alcohol. The reason is not wowserism but simply that not all brain connections have been established until adulthood so that drugs COULD - but might not (the research is obviously biased) - change neuronal pathways and lead to consequenses (what I can't speculate). Regardless of what age you are you must be aware that like most meaningful things we do in our lives there is an attendant risk. If you travel the world, climb a mountain or take a drug it could do you harm.

Heroin - The greatest problem with heroin is tolerance - ie you will literally not be able to live without it and until prohibition ends that paints you into a corner. So be moderate - only use at most once a day - preferably at night before bed after the days toil is finished. Best if you keep it as a treat or reward for the weekend.

Don't inject it if you can use other methods. Smoking is best because one can titrate the dose up to achieve the desired effect. Injecting can - apart from putting a lot of the non-volatile additives into you - easily lead to an OD. If you have to inject, go slowly. If you're starting out use an extremely small quantity and titrate up. If you get blasse you can easily end up dead. Unless this is your desire be very careful.

However, the main reason people OD is because they mix heroin with other sedatives - alcohol, valium for example. Opiates are -according to a doctor friend - not as easy to OD on as made out and most ODs are from "polydrug" use. So if you dump a shitload of valium down your throat be very careful when you use heroin.

Varying quality of heroin on the street makes it hard to stay in a safe zone (yet another reason prohibitionists should be put on trial for "war crimes") so always treat a new batch with suspicion.

More to come.

DiLorenzo on C-SPAN - Lincoln the Tyrant - Full

2009-11-17T21:04:00.000-08:00

Lincoln the destroyer of the Libertarian Republic

2009-11-17T20:46:00.000-08:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Heaven on Earth

2009-11-12T19:01:00.000-08:00

Easy to achieve. If drugs were legal and freely available life would be heaven. Heroin for peace and tranquility taken at night, LSD for spirituality, MDMA to treat depression and combine with hallucinogens, Cocaine for sex and thrills. If you got into trouble treatment could be covered by 1% of the War on Drugs warchest. But as only 10% of individuals become addicted I think the gain outways the risk (drugs ARE available now). There is a way to heaven on earth and I have prescribed it. More to come....