farenheit 9/11 (the "liberal media", other things relating to film maker Michael Moore)

I happened to have the great misfortune of leaving in the Concord, CA area in the very early ’80. I can tell you at least then, it wasn’t the norm for people to make Meth from scratch (or more common chemicals), nor did I ever have the impression that the makers thought it would be easy. True, this might have been due to the readily available materials they had access to or they simply may have been kitchen chemists (following known drug recipes). Still sometimes the setups were large, I remember one report being a buried tanker car in Danville.The site you referred to didn’t directly go into what would have been used in before Sudafed. I don’t happen to know when Sudafed was placed on the market. I know it and Actafed were on the market in 1981. I don’t think it was really the prime ingredient used to make meth until after many other OTC were altered or removed. The web site you linked to did mention Benzedrine, which was at least used in inhalers in during at least part of the 70’s if not early 80’s. It rang a bell that I had heard of someone cracking open inhalers to get to the cotton and chemicals inside. I also, remember hearing that some people had used earlier types of developer from photography at some point, I have some strong fixed association of the words Methyl Ethyl Ketone attached to the memory of the developer reference. Perhaps it contained, produced, or was processed into.I do think prohibition tends to fail in more ways then it succeeds, especially with youth. If all recreational drugs are effectively lumped together and they’re banned from using any of them, then I am not sure that it should be very surprising to expect them to be picky as to which ones they use.It does seem the ban on the amount of cold medicine one can buy is US wide, i.e. DEA. At least that was what I was told when I couldn’t buy a months supply for my allergies. I am not sure they’re even really taking into account active ingredients. I can’t for instance buy a month’s supply of Loratadine, can that even be turned into a control substance?

quote:

---

I was not claiming, nor trying to claim, that most meth is made from scratch. Usually it involves precursors of some kind (that just makes things easier).

---

I never meant to indicate otherwise. I offered the 1981 date, since it had came up as to if Sudafed was a more recent drug to collaborate another post, which by memory gave a date of 1983. That was just backup for the previous claim of at least 20 years. It may have been around much longer, but I have no personal memory of that.I thought one of the points you were attempting to make was that people likely used other readily available substances to make meth before they were using Sudafed. My post was to support that claim. I know that in the past at least two other fairly available sources existed.I could also toss in that I have read about women using diet pills and pep pills though the 50’s if not into the 60’s. I can also add that in the 60’s and early 70 there was a reducing ‘candy’ by the brand of AIDS. Many women were led into speed addiction by their doctors and marketing.I offered the recipe supposition, not to invalidate what you were saying, but to suggest that prior to the internet drugs were made often by ‘kitchen chemists’ using known recipes. I suspect many of them did not know enough chemistry to adapt easily to changes in types of suplies. I remember a specific time of seeing green colored powered and when asking about it, someone mentioned a copper grinding screen had been used. Think biker gang here.While in general I agree with your point on precursors, I can also see that a more complex process or one requiring more knowledge might place certain drug manufacturing out of the reach of some of the less capable. So it might do something. Still, one would have to show that the slack of ‘kitchen chemists’ would not or could not be taken up by other distributors, something I think the history of changes does not support.So while a change in precursors might run some manufacturers out of business, I think we’d both agree that the result of either changing manufacturing or who can manufacture does not guarantee less drug use. If for no other reasons, others may take up the slack, it may enable a new group to manufacture, or even those without access to the drug may simply shift to a different drug.The Loratadine comment was to express my suspicion that the ban was over-reaching and might even include some substances that really weren’t players in the so-called war on drugs. So yes I wondered if there was some odd street drug it could be made into [I’m pasting what I have found below.]. I still haven’t found a source which explains exactly what is banned. Mostly I’m pissed, because it is a limit of three boxes and the store constantly lists two for one sales. I also take two medicines, so I get to make choices like two weeks of this and one week of that. It bugs me because I didn’t have this much trouble with the stuff when it was controlled. Makes one want to become a Libertarian.Loratadine is Claritin.
Loratadine is a white to off-white powder not soluble in water, but very soluble in acetone, alcohol, and chloroform. It has a molecular weight of 382.89, and empirical formula of C22H23ClN2O2; its chemical name is ethyl4-(8-chloro-5,6-dihydro-11H-benzo[5,6]cyclohepta[1,2-b]pyridin-11-ylidene)-1-piperidinecarboxylate.Claritin tablets contain 10 mg micronized loratadine, an antihistamine, to be administered orally. They also contain the following inactive ingredients: Corn starch, lactose, and magnesium stearate.Claritin syrup contains 1 mg/ml micronized loratadine, an antihistamine, to be administered orally. It also contains the following inactive ingredients: Citric acid, artificial flavor, glycerin, propylene glycol, sodium benzoate, sugar, and water. The pH is between 2.5 and 3.1.This message has been edited by Trae, 07-23-2004 03:48 AM

Since this is your topic, I’m posting this to you but not at you, Schrafinator.I am a bit at a loss at the defense of Bush’s actions during the second plane crash and the support of him simply sitting there.Here’s the timeline as I understand itBush arrived at the school just before 9 am, he is told by Karl Rove that a commercial airliner had crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Bush enters the school to continue the photo-op. Keep in mind that Bush had been delivered a report on August 6th about Bin Ladin, Terrorists, and highjacking. He had previously been informed that the World Trade Center was a terrorist target.At 9:05 a.m., the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., stepped into the classroom and whispered into the president's right ear, ‘A second plane hit the other tower, and America's under attack.’ David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., After The Attacks: The Events; In Four Days, A National Crisis Changes Bush's Presidency, The New York Times, September 16, 2001.[H]e lingered in the room for another six minutes [after being informed of the second plane] [At] 9:12, he abruptly retreated, speaking to Mr. Cheney and New York officials. David E. Sanger and Don Van Natta Jr., After The Attacks: The Events;In Four Days, A National Crisis Changes Bush's Presidency, The New York Times, September 16, 2001 .Mr. Bush remained in the elementary school for nearly a half an hour after Andy Card whispered in his ear. Michael Kranish, Bush: US To Hunt Down Attackers, Boston Globe, September 11, 2001.Let’s just look at the first part. It would certainly be a reasonable action for a President upon hearing the news of the first crash to simply cancel and return to Air Force One.Still if you want to cut him some slack, at this stage of the game, much is fair game. Maybe he was mistaken and thought it was a small plane, etc.But we have the second plane and a statement ‘A second plane hit the other tower, and America's under attack.’A significant percentage of people seem to be under the impression that Bush’s on camera is to the first plane, this is not the case. He knew about the first plane before he even entered the classroom. He sat there for almost seven minutes after hearing that there was a second attack and after being told that America’s under attack.Here’s my problem. The entire episode just smacks of someone who isn’t leading. He certainly isn’t making himself easy to be spoken to. Obviously any assistants or guards are going to have to think twice or perhaps even gain permission from another person before approaching him in the classroom. He’s effectively thrown up a barrier to communication at a time when time might have been very precious.Remember no one at this time knows the how large is the scope of this attack -- no one knows how many planes may be attacking. Further, no one knows or can know if this action is even limited to planes. No one. What we do know is the Bush is leaving it up to others to inform him, that he certainly isn’t being pro-active about finding out, and that he certainly isn’t managing anything.Of course Bush should not have shouted out, but it is ridiculous to assert that was his only option. He simply could have and should have excused himself. If only to remove himself to the teacher’s lounge. At that point should he —know- that the situation would benefit from his attention, he could even have returned.I am not interested in how many people say he was in shock. I am not interested in how many people in this country say they too were in shock. We know that people handle shock, surprise, and pressure differently. That’s fine. Still, we expect people who handle shock poorly to not take jobs where others depend on them. Plenty of firefighters, police, private citizens, and other government officials got their act together and it is not an unreasonable expectation to expect of a US President.Even more bothersome, since when is it the policy of the US Government that when the country is under attack to not get the president into a secured facility or Air Force One?Does it make sense to anyone that during an attack on the US, that the president is not removed from a published and public venue with all due haste?I think it is outrageous that he remained in a school surrounded by children potentially endangering them.Since he can’t know at this time the scope of the attack, even if Bush feels the government is in good hands, shouldn’t he be placing himself in a situation to be better prepared shouldBush’s job when he’s out of the loop and not in charge and there is an emergency is to get in the best position to resume his duties as soon as he can. He needs to be in a position to give, confirm, or cancel orders in as short time as possible.

quote:

---

After the second plane hit, we knew it was an attack. At that point, our jets were in the air and we were mobilizing to prevent further attacks.

---

If you mean that sometime after, then yes you’re correct. If you are saying that immediately after, I’ve not seen any proof of that anywhere. How much later after the second attack are you saying that jets were mobilized to prevent further attacks?

If I were Moore, I would just add some new material and re-release 911 in October. Come see 911 again with 20 minutes of all new footage.