/sci/ - Science & Math

True.
/thread

>but alcohol and cigars have a certain class to them while marijuana is just dirty
my roommate

<thread>
False.
</thread>

only serial killers smoke marijuana

>Michael, we need to talk about your drug habit
Friend who enjoys much alcohol to another friend who's just tried marijuana his third time.

Health related:

alcohol kills.

cannabis does not.

non health related:
more people die over violence committed due to alcohol than violence committed due to cannabis (which includes mexican drug runners and shit)


alcohol is a poison that can be ingested in small quantities.

look up the MSDS for ethanol.


cannabinoids are found naturally inside the brain.

Libertarian here.

Do what the fuck you want but if your choices affect me I'll kill you.

>>1057282
You should go and kill some alcoholics then; they'll be the ones splattering your skull into the steering column. Us pot smokers aren't bothering anyone.

everything above this post is flase

When I ask them why they think that they say "Because marijuana is illegal that's why."

>>1057289

RIGHT NOW

it is an absolute fact that more deaths are caused by negligence (DUI deaths for example) and violence (fights, robbery, spousal conflicts, etc) because of the use of ALCOHOL than all of the drug related deaths in mexico during the same period of time.


>>>10,000 deaths per year.

>>1057282

Should be:

"Do what the fuck you want but if your choices affect me negatively I'll kill you. If they have a neutral or positive affect then go ahead and do them if you want."

Then I'd agree with you

>>1057280
the "natural" argument is the most retarded shit ever, there is plenty of "natural" shit that grows from the earth and exists in the body that can kill you.

i don't give a shit about people's drug habits, but the stupid arguments piss me off

>>1057323
What I meant.

>>1057282
>libertarian
>i cast a shadow on your property
>i get shot and killed for trespassing by you

>>1057350

see

>>1057323
>>1057337

But guise, it's a gateway to harder drugs!

>>1057365
so would alcohol if it was illegal

I agree insofar that the weed is eaten in the form of cookies/brownies.

AGREED

Fuckin hyporcrites

So I get that weed is mostly harmless, except for the smoke. Because smoke is bad for lungs(!).

But what if you eat it in brownies and stuff? Does that get rid of most of the negative effects?

>>1057389
what about when vaporised? it gives you more of a high and is just as healthy

>>1057325

You're basically a moron. In marijuana's case, the "natural argument" is undeniably true and absolutely supports the safety of marijuana use.

>>1057400
yes

agreed OP

and i dont even consume weed more than twice a year

I'm curious, does anyone actually think it should remain illegal?

Is /sci/ the smarted board?

>>1057440
>smarted

>>1057246
Why don't you ingest some delicious a. belladona, aconitum, or foxglove? It promotes a healthy immune system and increases concentration. I suggest you try an infusion with all three!

>>1057288
second hand smoke

>>1057325
>>1057325
>>1057325
>>1057325
>>1057325
>>1057325
>>1057325
>>1057325
>>1057325
>>1057325
>>1057325
>>1057325
>>1057325
>>1057325
>>1057325


>and exists in the body that can kill you
>exists in the body
>can kill you


are you retarded?

>>1057400

Yep. You also might wanna consider using a vaporizer to smoke weed instead of using joints, bongs, or edibles.

>>1057484
Water also exists in your body.

Too much water can kill you.

See where I'm going?

>>1057484

Are you? Your body is mostly made of water but if you drink waaaayyy too much water at once you will FUCKING DIE. Just because it's in you body doesn't mean it's completely harmless

>>1057484
I'm not the guy you responded to, but it would seem you are the retarded one. Cholesterol is a natural component of your cells and is found throughout your body. Too much of it can actually kill you. Same with other chemicals.

>>1057484
>>1057503
>>1057508
>>1057510

Fucking told

>>1057508

Your argument is fucking contrived and stupid; here's how it goes:

1. There are natural chemicals in your body.
2. Too much of these chemicals can kill you.
3. As an example, too much water can kill you.
4. This is why marijuana is bad, too much marijuana can kill you even though it is natural.

>>1057510

>has never taken a real nutrition class


eating excessive cholesterol is, indeed, dangerous.


the real danger that is associated with cholesterol DOES NOT come from nutritional cholesterol.

it comes from SATURATED FAT


when you eat excessive saturated fat, your body produces TOO MUCH cholesterol.


no. there are very few chemical compounds synthesized outside the human body as well as inside the human body that are toxic or dangerous in anything but ridiculously high quantities.


people will always make the "amount" argument....


but MSG is bad for you in excessive quantities.


do you know what MSG is? its a fucking AMINO ACID, FOUND IN 90% OF THE PROTEINS IN YOUR FUCKING BODY.

>>1057574
okay how about snake venom, entirely natural.

or cyanide, also natural (although you can make it synthetically)

also, alcohol is also natural, yeast mahboi.

so the "natural" argument doesnt really mean much

>>1057592
see >>1057615

dont need much cyanide or snake venom to kill you.

>>1057615

You're missing the point, like most people here. We're not talking about snake venom, cyanide, ethanol, or cholesterol. We're talking about Marijuana. Marijuana is natural and is unlikely to kill you. The "natural argument" works perfectly.

>>1057574
Has marijuana ever killed anyone? Ever?

>>1057638
Directly? There are no recorded cases to the best of my knowledge. Indirectly, yes. However, not as much as alcohol has.

>>1057623
>dont need much cyanide or snake venom to kill you.

I really have no fucking clue what you're trying to argue. Are you really trying to say that because cyanide can kill you, marijuana is bad?

>>1057637
>Marijuana is natural and is unlikely to kill you. The "natural argument" works perfectly.

you've basically just said

"ignore all other natural things which can kill you"
"pot does not kill you"
"pot is natural"
"therefore because its natural it is good for you"

makes no sense mahboi.
no sense at all.

>>1057637
If you use an argument to prove that A -> B, that doesn't mean that if B is true, A has to be true as well.

So, even if you get to the right result, you argument can still be bullshit.

>>1057656
No, im saying "natural = good" is a redundant sentiment, plenty of natural things that can kill you, and plenty of unnatural things that can help you.

why make such a distinction if its meaningless?
its along the same lines as "organic food" and "herbal medicine"

>>1057659

No you ingrate.; here's how it works:

1. Marijuana is unlikely to kill you.
2. Active chemicals present in Marijuana are naturally occurring in your body.

It's as simple as that.

>>1057673
Well, when did I ever, ever say that "natural = good?"

>>1057592
>Has never taken advanced biochemistry or physiology.

>nutrition class
Hahaha, oh wow.

Enjoy your atherosclerosis and heart disease.

>>1057679
>Active chemicals present in Marijuana are naturally occurring in your body

oh really now, and where may i ask, does the body produce THC?

>>1057673

For a few minutes I thought you were trying to argue that Marijuana is bad because it is natural, like other natural things can kill you. Misunderstanding.

>>1057691
>>1057690
>>1057690
>>1057690


oh please, do enlighten me about your advanced biochemistry classes?

what are you a sophomore getting a BS in biochem?

we mocked the biochem majors because they are so fucking stupid and weak.

did you memorize some flow charts and cartoons?

oh wait no, let me guess... you know the chymotrypsin mechanism?

the steady state approximation? phi/psi plots? COESY NMR spectra?


you forget, that I am a chemist as well you fucktard.

>>1057656
No, that was the topic in question, the argument was adressing the sentiment.

>>1057698
I don't feel like putting in the effort to find a good source. Go jump on pubmed and dick around if you're really interested.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20508030

>>1057698

"The endocannabinoid system refers to a group of neuromodulatory lipids and their receptors that are involved in a variety of physiological processes including appetite, pain-sensation, mood, and memory. It is named for endocannabinoids, the endogenous lipids that bind cannabinoid receptors (the same receptors that mediate the psychoactive effects of cannabis). Broadly speaking, the endocannabinoid system refers to"


lern2basic shit.

I am in agreement with the OP, but will leave my comment as just that. All arguments on the subject of pot have been said, and I am just sick of this non-issue entirely. If you are against pot, educate yourself and shut up.

>>1057707

No one in here was every saying that "natural = good" though. Some people simply pointed out that Marijuana, as well as being safe, is natural occurring.

>>1057708
not how it works

please, ive seen better trolls in childrens fairy tales.

>>1057698
>>1057714
>>1057708

Aren't these receptors partially responsible for hunger as well?

>>1057706
>butthurt

umad?

>>1057484

Hey bro you try putting some of the bacteria in your bowel somewhere else in your body, see what happens.


hint: you might die

>>1057721
but why point it out if its redundant? theres absolutely no value outside of a red herring in mentioning that its natural

"man, cyanide will kill you...BUT ITS NATURAL!"

absolutely meaningless, a point of distraction and thats it.

OH THIS THREAD AGAIN

Again, IMO neither of them lead to good things.

I'm a libertarian and don't believe the government should really muck with shit, but I personally refuse to try either after all the people I've met who turned into total fuckups from one/both.

>>1057725
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor

Jokes on you, motherfucker.

>>1057736
Is cyanide itself present in any chemical / receptor pair? Not to the best of my knowledge.

>>1057638
I imagine there have been a few old hippies, who smoked weed from age 16-55 that died of lung cancer or some cardiopulmonary disease. And I'd bet there have been a fair number of pot-related car accidents. But as far as people actually OD'ing on the stuff? I don't think so.

>>1057714
for fucks sake man, im saying where is Tetrahydrocannabinol produced in your body, saying "this is KINDA like THC" means jack shit, there are plenty of KINDA LIKE things in this world which do entirely different things.

fuck, even a change in sterochemistry of one carbon can change a drug from a pain reliever to something lethal.

ffs, you said "active chemicals in pot = made in your body"
not "active chemicals in pot are of the same class of some compounds made by your body"
entirely different things

because the latter case can be said about viruses and your own DNA/RNA, same class, but ones gonna fuck you up.

>>1057750
thats the receptor, not the actual compound.

basically its like im asking you to show me a car, and you show me an empty garage.

>>1057756

THC and the endogenous variety have basically the same pharmacology.

Really, I think you're just being ridiculously pedantic at this point.

>>1057767
I think a better analogy is that you ask for a 2007 Honda Civic and I show you a 2006 Honda Civic. Same model with very minor differences.

>>1057756
In honor of your rational defense of all that is scientific, I will from now on carry a tripcoded name in your style.

Who ever the faggot is, trying to debate the "It's natural, bro!" argument, you're missing the whole fucking point of that argument.

It's not to say that anything made in nature is beneficial. Obviously, there are plenty of toxins in the natural world. What it means to say is that because it's from nature, we humans have been using it for THOUSANDS of years, and we have yet to see any real health risks.

New, man made chemicals and preservatives and stuff are looked at negatively many times by the "nature dudes", because it's hard to judge the long term health risks of something that was only invented in the last 10 years.

>>1057795
>Who ever the faggot is, trying to debate the "It's natural, bro!"

There's actually no one trying to debate such a thing. It was all a misunderstanding.

>>1057795
Do you know how long people used lead as plumbing?

>>1057792

That's a pretty lame excuse to go tripfaggin'

Actually, none of what you're debating in the thread is actually fucking relevant legally.
Does it REALLY fucking matter what people do to themselves as long as it does not harm another single human being?
And take into account all the destruction the "war on drugs" does. And not to mention the black market. Legalize even just pot, and you take a lot of power from the black market away. Instead of getting your drug from a gang member methhead that will kill you with his illegal weapon over 20 bucks and probably laced your weed with shit anyway, you can get good stuff off a licensed grower.
It doesn't fucking matter if pot is natural or not, or its effect on you, or its physical properties.

>>1057756
You're an idiot.

>>1057814

Do you extend this to all drugs though? Marijuana is an obvious candidate given that it's magnitudes safer than an already legal drug, alcohol. But what about stuff like heroin and cocaine.

>>1057814
I think that exact fact scares a lot of people away from pot. Seriously do you know any major potheads? All the ones I've met have been totally mental.

That being said I generally don't like silly laws.

>>1057756
>>1057756
>>1057756
>>1057756
>>1057756
>>1057756
>>1057756


very few drugs have the effect of sterechemistry you described.

indeed, the only real well known example is Thalidomide.

and thalidomide is a completely synthetic chemical.

semisynthetic and drugs derived from natural structurally related classes of pharmacores almost NEVER have the dangerous affects of racemates or racemic mixtures.

usually the racemate is just inactive or has limited activity.


for gods sake, even platinum based chemotherapy drugs are COMPLETELY INACTIVE in the wrong stereochemical configuration (whereas the "active" isomer is capable of indiscrimantly destroying cells)


to call DNA/RNA from different organisms "the same class of molecule" is just about as retarded as it gets.


if the WERE IN THE SAME CLASS OF MOLECULE, THEY WOULD HAVE IDENTICAL PRIMARY STRUCTURE, BECAUSE SIMILAR CLASSES OF MOLECULE SHARE A MAIN STRUCTURAL MOTIF.

phenyl ethyl amines are functionlized, decarboxylated structural analogs of phenyl alanine.

tryptamines are decarboxylated functionalized structural analogs of tryptophan (indeed, many illicit drugs can be produced by decarboxylative reduction of tryptophan, and it is a watched precursor)
you dont wish to bring up the point that, for the most part:

"active chemicals in the body" = "structurally related to naturally occuring chemical" => this is how/why they work at all.


we have mu-opiod receptors
cb1 and cb2 receptors
GABA receptors.


i have just listed the most important biochemical systems related to modern small-molecule based pharmocology.

>>1057826
The most cited legal scholar in the United States actually advocates legalizing all drugs. Can't think of his name atm.

>>1057842
I believe you mean Richard Posner. Never heard of that position, though.

>>1057826
I believe all drugs should be decriminalized. As for legal marketing of them, not so sure, but I wouldn't be particularly against it if it was all legal.

>>1057841

>>1057826


heroin is in the same class of drug as morphine in the UK.

heroin is only scheduled differently in the US because law makers do not understand chemistry and biochemistry

they do not understand that drug producers could just as easily sell morphine, instead of heroin, and get the same result.

they do not realize that IF drug producers DECIDED to sell morphine, the drug producers would MAKE MORE MONEY (because they would not have to use expensive watched acetic anhydride, nor perform any chemical reaction)


cannabis resins are scheduled differently than cannabis.

cannabis seeds are scheduled differently than cannabis.


yet THC itself is NOT NOT NOT a schedule 1 drug (it is a schedule 2 or schedule 3 drug).


Dronabinol/marinol (synthetic THC) is prescribed as a drug often in combination with people undergoing treatment for chronic pain (in combination with opioids)


fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone, and other opiods are NOT not in the same category as heroin.....

yet the all have nearly identical affects on the body.


fentanyl is a opiod, and derivatives of it were the first "designer drugs" ever made.

>>1057858
You really think it would be good for people to be running around on PCP and heroin even more than they already do? Most people addicted to those drugs deserve to be shot by gang members...

>>1057781
except minor differences do matter? in the past they though "eh close enough" and that lead to birth defects, deaths, etc

differences matter, which is why the argument of "eeeeehhh close enough" is meaningless.

of course, the point about the observed physiological effect being similar stands, and its a good point, but this is something observed empirically for this specific case.

tl;dr, "close enough" is a bad argument, but "we observe the effect to be the same" is a good one.

The War on Drugs is dumb and unwinnable. Further, pot is relatively harmless, especially compared to such drugs as meth or crack. I don't think it would be some world-ending thing if it was legalized.


But none of that changes the fact that potheads are insufferable faggots.

I want marijuana to be illegal SOLELY because stoner "culture" makes me want to punch someone. It's like arrogance is a side effect of the stuff or something.

>>1057906
basically this

>>1057881

>running around on heroin


what about running around on:
hydrocodone, oxycodone (oxycontin), morphine, codeine, fentanyl, percocet (oxycodone), dilaudid (hydromorphone), etc.


all give utterly identical effects, just with varying degrees of VERY specific characteristics (some are more likely to induce a "warm" feeling).


a person addicted to neurophen is IDENTICAL to a heroin addict in every way.

the only difference is that a heroin addict chooses a different method of administering their drug.
if you genuinely do not understand this, then you fail big time.

>>1057841
>to call DNA/RNA from different organisms "the same class of molecule" is just about as retarded as it gets.

>if the WERE IN THE SAME CLASS OF MOLECULE, THEY WOULD HAVE IDENTICAL PRIMARY STRUCTURE, BECAUSE SIMILAR CLASSES OF MOLECULE SHARE A MAIN STRUCTURAL MOTIF.

i hope you're not trying to argue that DNA in a virus is somehow fundamentally different from the DNA in us, theres a difference in that the virus has a protein coat when floating around, but thats about it.

they're both DNA, it cannot get more "same class" than this.

>>1057934


I should clarify this for the North American audience:

neurofen is over the counter codeine sold in the UK and Australia.


yep. you can walk into a drug store and buy codeine without a prescription.


there are literally 10s of thousands of people chronically addicted because of it.


and because it is sold as a sort of "status quo" secret, people are injesting nearly lethal amounts of ibuprophen (16.5 mg of codeine sulfate, with 350 or more of ibuprophen).


plenty of people take 30 or more pills per day.

>>1057961
one of the reasons heroin is illicit is because its nearly 2 (3-4?) x as strong as morphine, the medicinal window is harder to achive, and its much easier to deliver a higher than medicinal dose by accident.

you cant really say the situation is the same when you also include the practical (intended) usage.

of course, heroin is legal in some places, because they dont seem to worry about the whole dose issue.

>>1057841
>very few drugs have the effect of sterechemistry you described.

also, very untrue, there are hundreds of thousands of drugs, and developing regioselective synthetic routes is the lottery of chemists and drug designers.

its not insignificant, not in the very least.

and my main point was, after a change you cannot accurately predict the difference in effect, we observe effect empirically, we do not deduce the effect, of course we can hypothesize an effect but rarely is it the same.
which is why (to return to the main point) saying "close enough" isnt a valid argument for the reasons stated.

but empirical arguments do work, and one was given, so nuff said.

>>1057959


>does not understand what dictates a "similar class of " MOLECULE.

as this is wholly a matter of terminology, you must understand that in discussing biochemical macromolecules, you DO NOT use the term "structurally related" or "structural analog" when discussing the PRIMARY structure of oligomeric or polymeric nucleotide or amino acid.


a strand of DNA is BY ITS VERY NATURE, essentially a completely unique molecule in every way.


the DNA itself is defined by the primary structure (as all DNA adopts its OVERALL structure as a helix, even with dimples and twists at certain points).


but because the primary structure differs, so too does the BACKBONE OF THE FUCKING MOLECULE.


"humans share 0.XXXXX% of their DNA between different ethnicities"

the molecules themselves are still COMPLETELY FUCKING DIFFERENT.


"structurally related/similar" molecules share a core functionality that is identical or similar:

as in the example I gave, all molecules in each share the same core functionality (an aromatic with a substituted ethyl amine substituent)


DNA, RNA and Proteins are NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT structural analogs.


they are compositional analogs.


they are made out of the same discrete building blocks, but NOT in the same order.


in incredibly rare cases, there may be examples of structural isomers of DNA shared between different (but similar) organisms.

because alcohhol isnt too great and marajuana if made legal the govt will tax the hell out of it, besides most cops in nz don't care about marajuana anyways

>>1058020
this is from the IUPAC gold book, feel free to direct me to a different definition by a more reputable/legitimate party

>High molecular weight, linear polymers, composed of nucleotides containing deoxyribose and linked by phosphodiester bonds; DNA contain the genetic information of organisms. The double-stranded form consists of a double helix of two complementary chains that run in opposite directions and are held together by hydrogen bonds between pairs of the complementary nucleotides and Hoogsteen (stacking) forces.

if it meets this definition, its DNA, that simple.

ergo, DNA in a virus is the SAME CLASS OF MOLECULE as the DNA in a human.

>>1058020
DNA is the same in every organism. It is a spiral molecule with different rearrangement of nucleotides.
Still, it consists of the same A,T,C,G molecules in different organisms.

That is true. They should all be illegal.

>>1058044
actually I think taxing it would be a good thing. If you don't like potheads, making pot legal would fuck them over with the taxing.
I don't understand why the govt just legalizes this shit. So much money to be made...

>>1057985
>>1058012
>>1058012
>>1058012
>>1058012

>developing regioselective synthetic routes

you fail. you apparently know nothing about synthetic organic chemistry.

no. the real "lottery" for a pharmacuetical chemist or a synthetic organic chemist working on natural product synthesis is in a few categories:

single step/single pot densely functionalized cyclic systems
stereospecific/diastereospecific c-c and c-X bond formation
synthetic methods that do not require protecting groups (protecting groups almost invariably require some of the most toxic and expensive chemicals of any reaction used commonly in organic chemistry)

the last 40 years has been the most important in applied organic chemistry for pharmaceuticals.

why? because of the development of a wide range of ORGANOMETALLIC CATALYSTS CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING STEREO SPECIFIC REACTIONS.


sharpless epoxidation, grubbs catalyst, chiral ligands and auxiliaries.

2 of the nobel prizes given in the past 10 years have been in this category.

>>1058044
You can't tax what you can't find. That shit grown up in the mountains by the Mexicans will never be taxed.

>>1058084
you appear to be agreeing with what im saying?

regioselective chemistry (i should have said steroselective) is merely one approach to having enatiomeric and steromericly pure products.

it should all be illegal

>>1058012

>after a change you cannot accurately predict the difference in effect, we observe effect empirically, we do not deduce the effect, of course we can hypothesize an effect but rarely is it the same.
which is why (to return to the main point) saying "close enough" isnt a valid argument for the reasons stated.
do you really need me to point out the glaring inconsistency in the above statement?

"after a change you cannot accurately predict the difference in effect, we observe effect empirically"

so, after changing the basic structure of a known pharmacologically active molecule, like epinephrine, or GABA, you cannot accurately predict the differences in effect.

true. you cannot (not easily) predict the DIFFERENCEs in the effects of 2 structurally related small molecule pharmocores.

but, indeed, you CAN predict if they will be pharmacologically active.
how old is fentanyl?????? 50 years old? how many punch cards would a theoretical chemist have to use to compute the active site of the mu opiod receptor in the 1960s?

did they just stumble upon fentanyl? was it an accident? did they just randomly drip some fentanyl on their skin (like albert hoffman with LSD?) it was STRUCTURALLY RELATED to an even earlier drug called pethidine.

yet the 2 structures are BARELY related, and the chemist who synthesized fentanyl EXPECTED it to be an opiod.

Alcohol is actual far more dangerous and bad for your health than marijuana. This is a fact.

>>1058129


LOLOLOLOL. regioselective DOES NOT have anything to do with stereoselective.


a regioselective reaction is a reaction that targets one specific type of functionality over another, which both can undergo the same type of reaction.

a regioselective carbonyl reduction would be a reduction of an aldehyde in the presence of a ketone.

a regioselective alcohol oxidation would oxidize an unhindered primary alcohol in the presence of a 2ndary alcohol.


regioselective reactions are important, sure, but their main importance is actually in a few specific fields (obviously they see application in all areas of organic chemistry, but they are only a "holy grail" in very specific fields)

nucleic acid and carbohydrate chemistry require vast repositories of regioselective oxidations, reductions, substitutions for alcohols.
again, you prove that you know very little about organic chemistry.

and let me say, that unless you have taken an upper division "advanced" organic chemistry course (not the required year of o-chem for your major), AND done undergraduate research in O-chem....

understanding the true importance and application of specific classes of reactions and their overall utility in synthetic design is extremely difficult, and really only possible if you read extra shit, and studied WAY THE FUCK harder than everyone else in your Lab class and O-chem class.

>>1058171
okay? it doesnt refute my point though

"close enough" isnt a valid argument, its the empirical data thats valid.

you chose one successful synthetic drug from the midst of thousands of failed drugs that were rationally designed. many people have tried this method of drug making, and its hit and miss, it works sometimes (which is good) but it also fails, and it fails often, ergo "close enough" is not a good argument.

we can think "well, this is pretty similar, it probably has the same effect" and that may be true in some cases, and good oh we have a new drug
but more often than not the reality is "lets test it on this rat, oh shit the rat is dead"

>>1058179
>Alcohol is actual far more dangerous and bad for your health than marijuana. This is a fact.
Only if you're drinking 100% alcohol and comparing it to vaporizing some marijuana.

But most people consume drinks that are less than 50% ABV, and smoke joints, so this statement, while true, doesn't matter.

>>1058218
you're thinking of chemoselective

regioselective is preference of bond formation with a direction.

http://goldbook.iupac.org/R05243.html

so yeah, i would go LOLOLOLOL but fuck it, we all make mistakes.

comparing the two is retarded

one, you're inhaling burning plant matter, that is bad for you.

the other, you're ingesting ethanol. that's bad for you.

both fuck your brain up, one of them stays with you for a long time, one of them is highly addictive, THEY BOTH ARE SHIT.

>>1058232

lol, "thousands of failed drugs"

you have no idea what you are talking about.

drug discovery does not involve thousands of failed drugs.


I cant tell which you are misunderstanding...

drug libraries filled with hundreds of structurally related chemicals that do not achieve efficacy

or

drugs designed entirely by computer

or

drugs designed by identifying existing natural ligands, and then modifying their structure for more easy synthesis...


the first one (libraries) is not a design method. Drug libraries and fast robotic synthesis of small amounts of an extremely diverse variety of structural modifications WERE NEVER INTENDED TO FIND LOTS OF NEW DRUGS.

they were INTENDED to reduce the cost of doing biochemical research (extracing proteins, studying DNA, etc), which is SUPER TIME CONSUMING AND HARD if you want to produce many PRODUCTS every year.

drug companies hedge their bets by hiring computational chemists, biochemists, computer scientists (to write combinatorial and graph theory based software), and mechanical engineers to design robotic synthesis machines.
if you are claiming that, for example, in the "benzeodiazepam" class of drugs, that drug companies tried and failed with "hundreds or thousands" of structural analogs before finding the relative handful of known pharmacological candidates....


you are plain wrong. unsuccessful candidates are ALMOST ALWAYS unsuccessful because they have poor solubility, short halflife, side effects in mice, etc.


drug companies ALMOST NEVER even begin development on a structural motif until they KNOW WITH CERTAINTY that it is pharmacologically active.

THEN they will synthesize a wide variety of analogs to MAXIMIZE THE EFFECTIVENESS and MINIMIZE THE DELETERIOUS EFFECTS.

one thing I do respect about stoners

a lot of them are quick to defend their drug with a lot of accurate and up-to-date scientific facts, they do their research and give a fuck about appearances. Well, most of them. I can't fault them for that.

>>1058278
>stoners
>respect
No, they're still insufferable faggots. Nothing to respect about them.

>>1058276
your entire post was basically this

"you are wrong because i say so, you are wrong because i say so, X is this and that (irrelevant), you are wrong because i say so"

you sure love your straw men and red herrings.

but seriously, i have no idea what you're trying to argue anymore, most of the things in your post was irrelevant to my statement "most designed drugs fail"

and mind you, they failed for exactly the reasons you gave; side effects, decomposition, killing things, not doing what its supposed to, etc

these effects were clearly not predicted, it was something observed at the testing stage.

so it is what it is, "close enough" isnt good enough.