Just taken a brief look at that link. It's no wonder Wikileaks doesn't endear itself to many.

That said, I suppose in reality it's just a more in-your-face presentation of what's already in many organic chemistry textbook in any number of libraries.

Frankly, I reckon there's little that can be done to stop the illicit manufacture of these drugs for the logical reason that they're such simple molecules. Many are just minor variations on the basic d-enantiomer (dexamphetamine) which essentially is only a benzene ring with a single branch containing a CH3 methyl and a NH2 amine group. So it stands to reason that there are many comparatively simple ways to synthesize them and that more are likely to be found. Moreover, the more precursors there are, the harder it becomes to ban them all, as eventually we'll hit the point where certain precursors are too ubiquitous and or important to ban.

It seems to me that if we're to take harm minimization seriously then we need to take a more sophisticated approach. For staters, we need much more efficient public health measures to detect and separate out genuine self-medicatiors from the partygoers who take illicit drugs.

As we know, these sympathomimetic amines have been prescribed by the medical profession for decades for certain depressive illnesses, ADHD, etc., but because of their their potential for abuse - not to mention certain moralistic attitudes among many politicians - these drugs have a horrible stigma attached to them and that has stopped many undiagnosed people from being prescribed them legally. The consequence is that many of them self-medicate with illegal drugs and the outcomes are often dire.

I think that taking a serious approach to medicalizing the problem would help very significantly. This would also include distinguishing the amines from the opiates. Whilst the medical profession understands fundamental difference between these two classes of drugs, public policy often doesn't and the drug problem ends up as an amorphous mess that becomes even harder to sort out than it otherwise would have been.

Therefore, there needs to be a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding amongst the general community to the effect that someone who turns to illicit amines is likely doing so for fundamentally different reasons to another who has turned to opiates. A more sophisticated approach to the drug problem would lead to better outcomes for not only those addicted to drugs but also for society in general.

I’d guess from the ads in Priesler’s book there’s more of his writings where this one came from. Since my initial look at the book I’ve now had time to spent a few more minutes examining Uncle Fester’s Secrets and I’ve concerns that I reckon need to be said before posts to this story time out.

Despite its controversial title, the book is pretty boring unless you’re actually following/putting into action his various ‘recipes’. I suppose having read certain information therein that concerns me I’m obliged to say something about it if it might save someone from coming to harm.

Anyone who’s read various other posts of mine would know that I neither hold conservative establishment views nor am I an anarchist—except in the sense that I believe democracy needs urgent reform but not through violence. Thus, essentially, I’m against censorship, and usually it’s not my style to criticize anyone who puts an alternative view. So why am I acting as if I want to censor parts of Priesler’s book? It’s simply because some of the actions he advises are outright irresponsible.

First, my position is that [as stated] it doesn’t make sense to try to censor any of the chemical processes for any of the sympathomimetic amines whether they be legal-OTC, legal-on script or illegal, but it’s my opinion that they should be confined to a chemistry text or an adjunct to one—one which describes the chemistry at a commensurate level to the actual processes involved and that appropriate chemical nomenclature is used to do so.

Priesler’s cookbook approach is irresponsible for these reasons:

1. Whilst he states in very fine print on the ISBN/copyright page “Neither the author nor the publisher intends for any of the information in this book to be used for criminal purposes...”, as an attempt to cover himself legally, he does not emphatically state that the drug manufacturing processes he describes are covered by international treaty—in that the production of such drugs and possession of many of their precursors are illegal in almost every jurisdiction worldwide—that is, unless one is in some way ‘licensed’ to possess or manufacture them. Yes, those tempted to undertake such manufacture will almost certainly know this already, but the exact ramifications ought to spelt out in considerably more detail. More about this in a moment.

2. Priesler’s cookbook approach means that he’s written the text down to a level where he expects those who’ve either no theoretical or practical knowledge of chemistry or who have only novice-level chemistry skills to undertake what is essentially sophisticated chemical engineering/synthesis. In a practical sense, there’s much here that can go wrong for both the manufacturer and the drug consumer. Normally, such manufacturing processes would be undertaken by experienced chemists in a pharmaceutical company or research institutes, etc. where much of chemical engineering involved is specifically aimed at QA—ensuring that the manufacturing process proceeds safely and that the end product complies with proper purity and quantitative tolerances/standards, etc. Backyard manufacturing is usually not conducive to high standards or being highly consistent.

3. Despite Priesler’s warning that the "book is sold for informational purposes only, etc." it’s very difficult to conclude that he actually means it, for if he had done so, then he’d have written up the information in the manner that I've suggested above. Clearly, Priesler is deliberately goading authority to provoke a response and all indications are that he’s been very successful in doing so, especially given that he’s suggesting that chemistry neophytes take up the dangerous challenge.

4. One doesn’t have to look any further than Chapter One—Chemicals and Equipment to illustrate the issues. First, anyone experienced in organic synthesis of this caliber doesn’t need lessons in how to handle their glassware (thus my assertion he’s deliberately pitching at neophytes); second, the purchasing of almost any quantity of just about every one of the 32 precursor chemicals listed on pages 6 and 7 will draw the attention of the powers that be; and so will most of the Listed Essential Chemicals on page 7.

5. Moreover, the quantities of chemicals that Priesler is suggesting that one obtains are quite staggering. For example, under Imports and Exports we find 500 gal or 1 ,500 kg of acetone; 500 gal or 1 ,364 kg of ethyl ether; 500 kg of potassium permanganate; 500 gal or 1 ,591 kg of toluene just to mention a few of the more dangerous ones.

I understand his logic by suggesting that one’s likely to be less ‘exposed’ if one makes one large batch instead of lots of little ones but my mind simply boggles beyond belief that any neophyte drugmaker/chemist would be handling the mentioned quantities of those dangerous chemicals in ‘backyard’, less-than-ideal conditions—as three of those I’ve mentioned are highly volatile and their vapors dangerously explosive. Playing with such quantities in suboptimal conditions is living dangerously in the extreme not to mention that by purchasing such huge quantities one would be waving red flags to the world.

Any reasonable person would never recommend such a risky and dangerous undertaking.