Author Topic: A stupid question about Sassafras oil?  (Read 4139 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tim_Foil

  • Guest
A stupid question about Sassafras oil?
« on: November 05, 2002, 08:28:00 PM »
Hopefully since I put "a stupid question" in the subject of this post, then it will not get locked/rejected. 

I didnt see safrole or sassafras oil on the list of watched chemicals at -->

https://www.thevespiary.org/rhodium/Rhodium/chemistry/watched.html



so is it forbidden or simply stupid to use the Hive as an avenue of buying or selling sassafras oil?  Being that its not on the watched list or illegal to my knowledge.

Please be gentle with me.  Im trying not to be a nuisance.



WHITE_DEVIL

  • Guest
Reply to a really stupid question
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2002, 08:34:00 PM »

http://www.incb.org/e/tr/pre/e99xi4/anx_ii.htm


also:

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html


wow! all that (and more) just by entering the words 'scheduled safrole' into an internet search engine. ;)

Rhodium

  • Guest
Tim_Foil: Was that short text document that hard ...
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2002, 08:47:00 PM »
Tim_Foil: Was that short text document that hard to read? Safrole is List 1, found in the first table in watched.html - and since sassafras oil contains a high percentage of safrole, DEA now consider it a listed chemical too - UTFSE in this forum to see what percentage of safrole that is the cutoff value for the DEA to consider an essential oil regulated. Don't quote me on this, but I think it was 30-40%.

demorol

  • Guest
Reply to a stupid question
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2002, 08:48:00 PM »
The watched chemicals list on Rhod's page includes chemicals that are not illegal to buy or possess. Watched chemicals are the chemicals that can raise eyebrows if ordered in large quantities or in combination with other chemicals, that are known as precursors. List 1 chemicals are, however, illegal to order or possess (yes, safrole is List 1 chemical!). For ordering watched chemicals make up some legit reason why you need them and you should be fine.


Life without chemistry would be a mistake.

Tim_Foil

  • Guest
ok, fuck it...last stupid question
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2002, 09:05:00 PM »

Rhodium

  • Guest
Are you for real?
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2002, 09:31:00 PM »
Since sassafras oil only contains approx. 37% safrole...

Bull! Sassafras oil contains roughly 80-90% safrole -

https://www.thevespiary.org/rhodium/Rhodium/chemistry/safrolefaq.html



If I see ONE more question from you which can be answered by skimming through the MDMA documents at my page I will personally block you from posting anything else here until you pass a basic pop-quiz about MDMA manufacture (to which the answers can be found by carefully reading through the pertinent sections at my page, of course).

...and if you as much as even hint at selling anything via the Hive again, you are banned forever.

Protium

  • Guest
Good Idea
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2002, 04:37:00 AM »
You know I think that that may actually be a really great idea, having a test covering the basics for those who would like to post outside of the newbee forum.  It would save a lot of bees a lot of frustration and would probably reduce the clutter quite a bit, because a large percentage of the questions asked here could be answered with about 3 clicks of the mouse.

Pr(+)tium

hCiLdOdUeDn

  • Guest
Really Really Good Idea
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2002, 06:18:00 AM »
I second that!!!

Sink or SWIM

chem_123

  • Guest
can't just block the user name though
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2002, 07:32:00 AM »
it'd have to bee an ip blocker...or else the person would just make another user name.

SWIM's noticed why some bees are having troubles finding things...these things which bees are looking for are mostly hidden along with 1000's of other documents, how would a newbee know to search 'schedule safrole' in a search engine especially if that newbee doesn't know much about the internet and how to format searches to get the best results?

SWIM just thinks that sometimes even the most experienced bees can get a little blind to why something is happening, it's not always lazyness!

Albeit true that if a bee wants something bad enough (theoretically) that bee would simply look that much harder.

                             
                                      Why?

Rhodium

  • Guest
UTFSE theory
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2002, 08:12:00 AM »
SWIM's noticed why some bees are having troubles finding things...these things which bees are looking for are mostly hidden along with 1000's of other documents, how would a newbee know to search 'schedule safrole' in a search engine especially if that newbee doesn't know much about the internet and how to format searches to get the best results?

I have read every single chemistry post at the Hive posted during the five years we have existed, so I know what is in the archives and what is not. I never rate anything as UTFSE if it isn't common knowledge among bees or if the answer can be found at my page. The answers to UTFSE-rated questions can in almost all cases be answered by typing the question verbatim into TFSE, as it has been asked hundreds of times before.

Searching for information and digging through a whole lot of other material is what learning is all about. And while searching in the archives for something rated as UTFSE, the newbee with inadvertently read other useful things that is good to know. Well over half of the things I know comes from finding "other interesting stuff" while I was actually searching for someting else.

We cannot spoon-feed everyone that comes here - sometimes I and other members makes the life of newbees a little easier by writing FAQ's and synthesis compilations (all of this without pay).

And regarding bad searching skills - if they are as bad as the newbee not being able to find the desired information using the first couple of keywords that comes to mind, then this is an excellent opportunity to learn how to search. People in the scientific field who cannot use a seach engine nowadays are doomed to failure anyway, so why are we supposed to prolong the suffering of those until their ultimate demise?