Trigger warning: Drugs

[The Good Reverend Roger]

They ARE impurities, biologically speaking.

Naw.  They're a deliberately synthesized or isolated toxin.

Blaming their effects on "impurities" is 169% garbage, though many of the moderate symptoms occurred when dumbasses took other substances.  However, the deaths caused by methylenedioxypyrovalerone were strictly caused by methylenedioxypyrovalerone toxicity.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Okay, I was unaware that the police had simply assumed he was on bath salts.

Yeah, me too.

Still, I want to return to my original question:  If problems are related to "impurities", and you can't have any indication if said impurities are present or not, then what practical difference does it make? 

Is there a practical difference between "If you drink gin you will die" and "If you drink bathtub gin, you may die"? Because, from what I'm seeing that's a big part of this. Of course, there is still the "we tweaked a molecule since the government just banned the last tweak" which leaves huge spaces of ignorance. Even IF someone was experienced with "bath salts", they may have some horrible reaction to the next pack of bath salts because its a different drug (or mixed with a different drug).

MDMA/Ecstasy for example, isn't a terrible drug. In the UK a scientific study and report recommended legalizing it because of the very low risk of harm. In the past few months there have been Esctasy related deaths, not because of harm from MDMA, but because the pills the kids are buying have PMA which is a really dangerous drug. If MDMA were leagl, if it could be purchased reliably, or if llabs were available for purity testing like they are in Amsterdam... those pills would likely never have shown up.

These, of course, are being labeled "escasty deaths" when they are related to escasty only in the mind of the poor kid who thought he was taking XTC for a roll at the party. The bath salts situation seems to have a similar problem. RWHN's link above talks about the side effects of "bath salts" but we don't know if that was MDPV, mephedrone, another of the many possible drugs in the family, variations of those molecules or other shit some idiot mixed into the batch. "Bath Salts" tells us only that the product was sold legally (at least here in the UK) using a loophole by calling an intoxicant by another name and sticking a "Not For Human Consumption" label on it. Its a meaningless label.

There is no doubt that these drugs are toxins and overdose is possible (like with alcohol). However, there also appear to be other problems not directly related to the main chemicals and those have led to several deaths and serious side effects.

Also, I'm going to rage out a bit here on the "research chemicals", which sounds like Dalek "testing" various synthetic drugs.

Getting high is not "research".  It is not "testing", unless it is done under laboratory conditions.  It is getting FUCKED UP.

Please keep the hippie shit out of my SCIENCE.  Thanks, everyone.

I agree, I think it has less to do with "I'm researching on myself" and more to do with "these chemicals are being sold for chemistry reasearch purposes not for human consumption".

They ARE impurities, biologically speaking.

Naw.  They're a deliberately synthesized or isolated toxin.

Blaming their effects on "impurities" is 169% garbage, though many of the moderate symptoms occurred when dumbasses took other substances.  However, the deaths caused by methylenedioxypyrovalerone were strictly caused by methylenedioxypyrovalerone toxicity.

I should have been more clear that they are dangerous and you can OD (I thought I said that earlier...)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I should have been more clear that they are dangerous and you can OD (I thought I said that earlier...)

So...What we have is a set of drugs that can in fact kill you.  Weed can't.  When you mix these synthetics with other intoxicants, you can become both ill and very dangerous to those around you.  When you mix weed with other intoxicants, the chief risk is throwing up on your shoes.

So, questions:

1.  Does anyone feel that people are better off getting fucked up on synthetics vs getting fucked up on weed?  Note that the desirability of people getting fucked up in general is not a part of this question, but WHICH substance they're better off getting fucked up on.

2.  Does anyone feel that people will use methylenedioxypyrovalerone, if weed is commonly available?

3.  Does anyone feel that people will go to the expense of manufacturing methylenedioxypyrovalerone, if you can grow pot in your back yard for no cost at all?

4.  Given that people ARE using methylenedioxypyrovalerone, and it has been demonstrated that they'd rather use weed, is the "making weed more available" argument against legalization make any sense at all?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I agree, I think it has less to do with "I'm researching on myself" and more to do with "these chemicals are being sold for chemistry reasearch purposes not for human consumption".

Neither is accurate.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I should have been more clear that they are dangerous and you can OD (I thought I said that earlier...)

So...What we have is a set of drugs that can in fact kill you.  Weed can't.  When you mix these synthetics with other intoxicants, you can become both ill and very dangerous to those around you.  When you mix weed with other intoxicants, the chief risk is throwing up on your shoes.

So, questions:

1.  Does anyone feel that people are better off getting fucked up on synthetics vs getting fucked up on weed?  Note that the desirability of people getting fucked up in general is not a part of this question, but WHICH substance they're better off getting fucked up on.

2.  Does anyone feel that people will use methylenedioxypyrovalerone, if weed is commonly available?

3.  Does anyone feel that people will go to the expense of manufacturing methylenedioxypyrovalerone, if you can grow pot in your back yard for no cost at all?

4.  Given that people ARE using methylenedioxypyrovalerone, and it has been demonstrated that they'd rather use weed, is the "making weed more available" argument against legalization make any sense at all?

That is exactly the right motorcycle. Sorry if I derailed things a bit with the bath salts.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I should have been more clear that they are dangerous and you can OD (I thought I said that earlier...)

So...What we have is a set of drugs that can in fact kill you.  Weed can't.  When you mix these synthetics with other intoxicants, you can become both ill and very dangerous to those around you.  When you mix weed with other intoxicants, the chief risk is throwing up on your shoes.

So, questions:

1.  Does anyone feel that people are better off getting fucked up on synthetics vs getting fucked up on weed?  Note that the desirability of people getting fucked up in general is not a part of this question, but WHICH substance they're better off getting fucked up on.

2.  Does anyone feel that people will use methylenedioxypyrovalerone, if weed is commonly available?

3.  Does anyone feel that people will go to the expense of manufacturing methylenedioxypyrovalerone, if you can grow pot in your back yard for no cost at all?

4.  Given that people ARE using methylenedioxypyrovalerone, and it has been demonstrated that they'd rather use weed, is the "making weed more available" argument against legalization make any sense at all?

That is exactly the right motorcycle. Sorry if I derailed things a bit with the bath salts.

No, no, it's exactly on topic.

[AFK]

So, questions:

1.  Does anyone feel that people are better off getting fucked up on synthetics vs getting fucked up on weed?  Note that the desirability of people getting fucked up in general is not a part of this question, but WHICH substance they're better off getting fucked up on.

I suppose one is "better off" getting fucked up on weed.  Though, being under the influence of either can make you just as dead if you are behind the wheel.

2.  Does anyone feel that people will use methylenedioxypyrovalerone, if weed is commonly available?

Weed is commonly available.  But yes, if you legalize it and make it MORE commonly available, there are still people who will want to live on the edge and do up some synthetics.

3.  Does anyone feel that people will go to the expense of manufacturing methylenedioxypyrovalerone, if you can grow pot in your back yard for no cost at all?

Yes, because of the demand that still exists.  See #2.  I don't believe one is being used predominantly as an alternative to the other.

4.  Given that people ARE using methylenedioxypyrovalerone, and it has been demonstrated that they'd rather use weed, is the "making weed more available" argument against legalization make any sense at all?

I don't believe the premise of this question.  If someone would really rather use weed now, they will find weed. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So, questions:

1.  Does anyone feel that people are better off getting fucked up on synthetics vs getting fucked up on weed?  Note that the desirability of people getting fucked up in general is not a part of this question, but WHICH substance they're better off getting fucked up on.

I suppose one is "better off" getting fucked up on weed.  Though, being under the influence of either can make you just as dead if you are behind the wheel.

Yep.  Same as beer.

2.  Does anyone feel that people will use methylenedioxypyrovalerone, if weed is commonly available?

Weed is commonly available.  But yes, if you legalize it and make it MORE commonly available, there are still people who will want to live on the edge and do up some synthetics.

What percentage of current "spice" users would continue to use that shit if weed were also avaibable at the smoke shop?

3.  Does anyone feel that people will go to the expense of manufacturing methylenedioxypyrovalerone, if you can grow pot in your back yard for no cost at all?

Yes, because of the demand that still exists.  See #2.  I don't believe one is being used predominantly as an alternative to the other.

How much demand?  And one has been demonstrated to be an alternative to the other, in at least 4 links posted upthread.

4.  Given that people ARE using methylenedioxypyrovalerone, and it has been demonstrated that they'd rather use weed, is the "making weed more available" argument against legalization make any sense at all?

I don't believe the premise of this question.  If someone would really rather use weed now, they will find weed.

Weed:  Risky to obtain, sometimes very hard to obtain.

Latest synthetic:  Down at the smoke shop, cheaper than weed.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ah, here we go...Our old pals at the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6019a6.htm

On February 1, 2011, in response to multiple news reports, the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) contacted the Children's Hospital of Michigan Poison Control Center (PCC) regarding any reports of illness in the state caused by the use of recreational designer drugs sold as "bath salts." Unlike traditional cosmetic bath salts, which are packaged and sold for adding to bath water for soaking and cleaning, the drugs sold as "bath salts" have no legitimate use for bathing and are intended for substance abuse. These products can contain stimulant compounds such as 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) or 4-methylmethcathinone (mephedrone). The PCC told MDCH that, earlier in the day, the PCC had learned that numerous persons had visited the local emergency department (ED) in Marquette County with cardiovascular and neurologic signs of acute intoxication. This report summarizes the subsequent investigation, which identified 35 persons who had ingested, inhaled, or injected "bath salts" and visited a Michigan ED during November 13, 2010--March 31, 2011. Among the 35 patients, the most common signs and symptoms of toxicity were agitation (23 patients [66%]), tachycardia (22 [63%]), and delusions/hallucinations (14 [40%]). Seventeen patients were hospitalized, and one was dead upon arrival at the ED. The coordinated efforts of public health agencies, health-care providers, poison control centers, and law enforcement agencies enabled rapid identification of this emerging health problem. Mitigation of the problem required the execution of an emergency public health order to remove the toxic "bath salts" from the marketplace. Lessons from the Michigan experience could have relevance to other areas of the United States experiencing similar problems.

From November 2010 to January 2011, the Marquette County ED treated seven patients who arrived at the ED with hypertension, tachycardia, tremors, motor automatisms, mydriasis, delusions, and paranoia. Some patients were violent, placing increased demand on ED staff members. Responding to the cluster also placed additional demands on local law enforcement and foster care, because many patients had young children who needed care while their parents were incapacitated. The patients reported using "bath salts" purchased at a local store for about $20 a package and labeled "not intended for human consumption." By February 3, a total of 13 cases in Marquette County and one death had been reported to the PCC. Efforts by the local ED, law enforcement, and prosecuting attorney's office led to the execution of an emergency public health order on February 4 by the Marquette County Health Department. The proprietor of the store was ordered to immediately remove from sale and turn over to government authorities any and all products known as White Rush, Cloud Nine, Ivory Wave, Ocean Snow, Charge Plus, White Lightning, Scarface, Hurricane Charlie, Red Dove, White Dove, and Sextasy. The Michigan Department of State Police laboratory tested the White Rush seized from the store and detected the presence of MDPV.

Hm yeah, that sounds like harm.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Preference for weed over synthetics has been linked, as I remembered, 4 times, beginning at reply 61.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I have a bit of a rant concerning weed and alcohol.  I am trying to decide whether to post it in this thread, or start a new one.  It has nothing to do with this thread, but I don't know if we need another thread.

[AFK]

I disagree.  The first study cited that 99% of the college students who were using were using both natural weed and synthetic, so clearly there wasn't an issue with availability and clearly one wasn't being used as an alternative to the other. 


Someone who is just out seeking the biggest, quickest, cheapest high will still seek out Spice whether or not marijuana is legal. 


I remember in past drug threads it was always argued that weed was "already very easy to get" and I recall some suggesting it was easier to get than alcohol.  Do folks still believe that or have those beliefs shifted?


Additionally, spice is a banned substance, just like marijuana.  It is far less likely to be available at just any head shop compared to before it was banned.  I know in my area the police regularly check up on head shops to make sure they are not dealing that or "bath salts". 


So it seems pretty likely that someone who is going to be successful in tracking down spice is also going to be successful in tracking down weed.


So in the end, legalization really won't have an impact on that.  Maybe a few dopes who can't figure out where to buy weed will switch, but it will be negligible at best, in my opinion.

[Junkenstein]

Ah, here we go...Our old pals at the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6019a6.htm

On February 1, 2011, in response to multiple news reports, the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) contacted the Children's Hospital of Michigan Poison Control Center (PCC) regarding any reports of illness in the state caused by the use of recreational designer drugs sold as "bath salts." Unlike traditional cosmetic bath salts, which are packaged and sold for adding to bath water for soaking and cleaning, the drugs sold as "bath salts" have no legitimate use for bathing and are intended for substance abuse. These products can contain stimulant compounds such as 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) or 4-methylmethcathinone (mephedrone). The PCC told MDCH that, earlier in the day, the PCC had learned that numerous persons had visited the local emergency department (ED) in Marquette County with cardiovascular and neurologic signs of acute intoxication. This report summarizes the subsequent investigation, which identified 35 persons who had ingested, inhaled, or injected "bath salts" and visited a Michigan ED during November 13, 2010--March 31, 2011. Among the 35 patients, the most common signs and symptoms of toxicity were agitation (23 patients [66%]), tachycardia (22 [63%]), and delusions/hallucinations (14 [40%]). Seventeen patients were hospitalized, and one was dead upon arrival at the ED. The coordinated efforts of public health agencies, health-care providers, poison control centers, and law enforcement agencies enabled rapid identification of this emerging health problem. Mitigation of the problem required the execution of an emergency public health order to remove the toxic "bath salts" from the marketplace. Lessons from the Michigan experience could have relevance to other areas of the United States experiencing similar problems.

From November 2010 to January 2011, the Marquette County ED treated seven patients who arrived at the ED with hypertension, tachycardia, tremors, motor automatisms, mydriasis, delusions, and paranoia. Some patients were violent, placing increased demand on ED staff members. Responding to the cluster also placed additional demands on local law enforcement and foster care, because many patients had young children who needed care while their parents were incapacitated. The patients reported using "bath salts" purchased at a local store for about $20 a package and labeled "not intended for human consumption." By February 3, a total of 13 cases in Marquette County and one death had been reported to the PCC. Efforts by the local ED, law enforcement, and prosecuting attorney's office led to the execution of an emergency public health order on February 4 by the Marquette County Health Department. The proprietor of the store was ordered to immediately remove from sale and turn over to government authorities any and all products known as White Rush, Cloud Nine, Ivory Wave, Ocean Snow, Charge Plus, White Lightning, Scarface, Hurricane Charlie, Red Dove, White Dove, and Sextasy. The Michigan Department of State Police laboratory tested the White Rush seized from the store and detected the presence of MDPV.

Hm yeah, that sounds like harm.

I wonder, are comparable statistics around for the time spent dealing with alcohol admissions and the related costs? It seems worth mentioning as the two most consistent problem drugs are Alcohol and Tobacco but the relative damage of any drug is rarely assessed against these. I think I know why that is.

[Junkenstein]

Consider: where would you place bath salts on this scale:



Bonus points - Show your reasoning.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I disagree.  The first study cited that 99% of the college students who were using were using both natural weed and synthetic, so clearly there wasn't an issue with availability and clearly one wasn't being used as an alternative to the other. 


Someone who is just out seeking the biggest, quickest, cheapest high will still seek out Spice whether or not marijuana is legal. 


I remember in past drug threads it was always argued that weed was "already very easy to get" and I recall some suggesting it was easier to get than alcohol.  Do folks still believe that or have those beliefs shifted?


Additionally, spice is a banned substance, just like marijuana.  It is far less likely to be available at just any head shop compared to before it was banned.  I know in my area the police regularly check up on head shops to make sure they are not dealing that or "bath salts". 


So it seems pretty likely that someone who is going to be successful in tracking down spice is also going to be successful in tracking down weed.


So in the end, legalization really won't have an impact on that.  Maybe a few dopes who can't figure out where to buy weed will switch, but it will be negligible at best, in my opinion.

The first study cited says nothing of the sort. First of all, I don't know where you're getting the part about college students. Second, both are given as lifetime use, and it says nothing whatsoever about whether they were ever used concurrently.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23291209

The abstract, for anyone not inclined to click on the link or look up the full study:

Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013 Jul 1;131(1-2):106-11. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.12.011. Epub 2013 Jan 3.
Synthetic cannabis: a comparison of patterns of use and effect profile with natural cannabis in a large global sample.
Winstock AR, Barratt MJ.
Source
South London and Maudsley NHS Trust/Kings College London, United Kingdom; Global Drug Survey, London, United Kingdom. adam.winstock@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract

BACKGROUND:
The last decade has seen the appearance of myriad novel psychoactive substances with diverse effect profiles. Synthetic cannabinoids are among the most recently identified but least researched of these substances.

METHODS:
An anonymous online survey was conducted in 2011 using a quantitative structured research tool. Missing data (median 2%) were treated by available-case analysis.

RESULTS:
Of 14,966 participants, 2513 (17%) reported use of synthetic cannabis. Of these, 980 (41% of 2417) reported its use in the last 12 months. Almost all recent synthetic cannabis users (99% of 975) reported ever use of natural cannabis. Synthetic cannabis reportedly had both a shorter duration of action (z=17.82, p<.001) and quicker time to peak onset of effect (z=-9.44, p<.001) than natural cannabis. Natural cannabis was preferred to synthetic cannabis by 93% of users, with natural cannabis rated as having greater pleasurable effects when high (t(930)=-37.1, p<.001, d=-1.22) and being more able to function after use (t(884)=-13.3, p<.001, d=-0.45). Synthetic cannabis was associated with more negative effects (t(859)=18.7, p<.001, d=0.64), hangover effects (t(854)=6.45, p<.001, d=0.22) and greater paranoia (t(889)=7.91, p<.001, d=0.27).

CONCLUSIONS:
Users report a strong preference for natural over synthetic cannabis. The latter has a less desirable effect profile. Further research is required to determine longer term consequences of use and comparative dependence potential.

Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.