Messages

I agree with most of the comments made. Drugs can be bad, drugs can screw you over on hobbies, free time, friends etc. It doesn't always, but I've come to think that my experiences must not be normal. I've begun to wonder if its because I didn't do any drugs until I was 23 or 24 (except alcohol in moderation). Even so, I've never done drugs without research and careful monitoring. I would never tell people that the should do drugs, just because I can't really identify why my experience has been so different.

WE COVERED ALL KINDS OF OTHER SHIT, TOO.  LIKE THE DOCUMENTED EFFECTS OF MEPHADRONE AND MPVD.

Yep, caught up now, but Mephedrone and MPVD are not in synthetic weed.  A lot of things are, cause they keep changing what is as another thing gets made illegal, but MPVD and Mephedrone mimic Methamphetemine, not THC.  Methamphetemine is pretty awful to begin with so an analog that is supposed to be like it is also going to be awful.

THC meanwhile makes most people vegetate on the couch and eat cheetos, you would not expect an analog substance to make them go out in the street and eat other people's faces.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/27/us/florida-cannibal-attack/index.html

The only thing the Zombie dude had in his system was Marijuana.

His body didn't show "any other street drugs, alcohol or prescription drugs, or any adulterants found in street drugs," according to the Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner Department.
"The department has also sought the assistance of an outside forensic toxicology reference laboratory, which has confirmed the absence of 'bath salts,' synthetic marijuana and LSD," the statement said.

That dude was just some kind of fucked up crazy.

Also from the discussion section of the full text:

What remains unexplained is why, despite wide availability of natural cannabis and clear preference for its effects over synthetic products, there is still a demand for a 'legal' cannabis-like product.While the attraction for novel psychoactive drugs such as mephedrone could be understood in the context of decline in the purity of traditional stimulants (Winstock et al., 2010; Winstock and Ramsey, 2010), this does not appear to be the case with cannabis. In their Australian study, Barratt et al.(2012) found that among a sample of mainly cannabis users, the second most commonly mentioned reason for first trying synthetic cannabis was its legal status. It may be the case that cannabis users desire a legal cannabis-like alternative so they can avoid problems often associated with cannabis prohibition, like stigma, arrest, paranoia, problems with police, and confiscation of drugs.

Thanks for digging through the guts of that report Nigel... I keep hopping between here and other work and I haven't read the entire thing yet.

I somewhat agree with the OP.

I think it depends on what people want to do with their life. I use drugs and I have a pretty damned awesome life. I have a cool job and get to travel all over Europe, I have an awesome wife and we're really happy and I have never had drugs impact my life in a bad way... except alcohol... I've gotten myself pretty sick on too much drink.

Me, I use drugs for the pleasure of the high. I could probably enjoy a 3 day GOA festival without drugs, but I doubt I'd be able to dance for 10 hours in front of 3 story tall speakers and feel like I was having some of the best sex in the world, without some good LSD, a little coke and a few joints. I have no desire to change the world. Its a pretty fucked up place and it will continue to be a fucked up place, no matter what I do. So, I choose to have a fucking good time (and the fucking is important ). Do I have a good time when no drugs are around? Yes. Do I have a good time when drugs are around? Yes. Am I smacking myself in the pleasure bits of my brain? HELL YES.

That being said, I don't think my experience is true for everyone. I've seen people who use drugs as an escape and it goes badly for them. The important thing, I think, is knowing why the hell you choose to do the drugs. If its to make you feel better, or to escape your shitty life, it won't work and you'll be worse for it. If you're doing it to expand your mind to see the real world, that's a rabbit hole which can suck you in and screw you over.

OK.. lets eschew the 7 million. Let's say that there are X people who have tried both, split between the four reasons for trying synth. We're still looking at between 50 and 75% of X. No matter what number X is, that's still a lot of people that wouldn't use a toxic drug if the non-toxic drug were legal.

OK, detouring around the thread wreck:

Currently in many states (including Maine), you can easily purchase synthetic drugs online and have them shipped to your home. In the UK, you can just go to your local head shop and buy them. I would say, due to prohibition, that it is more difficult to get access to weed in both places.

Does this mean that prohibition works? No, it means that this shit is very easy to buy online or in a shop and weed is more difficult.

Most synthetic users have also used real pot.

Does this mean that they were looking for a different kind of high? No, it means that they tried synthetic for some reason, which we do not know. There are many reasons and it seems logical that not all people had the SAME reason. So what reasons would there be for someone to smoke synthetic?

A) Legal drugs are more attractive to people who generally don't break the law. If the only illegal activity a person engages in is buying and smoking pot, then it seems likely that they would prefer a legal option if it existed.

B) If a person likes to get high on pot,  it seems likely that they would be willing to experiment with something that is marketed as similar to marijuana.

C) Due to the nature of the black market, it may occasionally be easier to get access to a 'legal' drug.

D) Some people are always looking for the "next thing" to fuck themselves up on.

If marijuana were legally available, it seems reasonable that individuals in groups A and C would not use synthetic marijuana. Group B and D, on the other hand may still 'try' some new drug, or chew moth balls, or huff paint etc.

Based on the data available, MOST people would prefer to use the real stuff. SOME people (Group D) would still seek out shit to smoke, Group B may still try something that was billed as similar. Group A and C, would likely NOT smoke synthetic. EVEN if these groups were equal in users (25% of the total users in each group), making marijuana legal would result in 50% of the people NOT using synthetic and 25% of the people perhaps trying it once and not using it again. That leaves 25% of the people who are going to fuck themselves no matter what.

So what this means is that legalization would reduce the users of a dangerous drug by some percentage greater than 50 and less than 75. If we use the number RWHN just gave for daily users (7.6 million) and don't include weekly or monthly smokers... we're looking at somewhere between 3.8 million and 5.7 million people that would not smoke the synthetic.

I recall that RWHN has often made the argument that if legalization happened and there was even a 2% increase in adolescent use, it would be unacceptable. Even 2% increase in a drug that can cause problems, but not physical damage was enough for RWHN to hold his position. I would therefore argue that in this situation, using that same logic, legalization would make a much safer environment. Instead of 2% we're talking about a much larger percentage AND instead of a problematic drug, we're looking at a physically dangerous, toxic drug.

There are many arguments for and against legalization. Some of those arguments legitimately support prohibition (I don't want 2% increase in adolescent use either). This particular argument, however, seems to support legalization.

Do you feel the media has raised your level of concern with the substance or are you basing that more on personal experiences (anecdotes/use/discussion)?


You were on the right line with two locations. There's where it will actually be and where it is currently perceived to be. These two points will not likely be close. I strongly suspect that if it were as addictive and harmful as cocaine it would have already been regulated in some regard.

The media set my alert to Zombie Red, from what I've read and the people I've talked to, it seems more like Moron Yellow. In the UK it's the fourth most used party drug after weed, x and coke. If it were as bad as the media had me thinking, I'd be roaming the streets with a cricket bat.

LEGAL HIGHS LEGALLY ACCESSIBLE. MORE AT 11.



Here's that damn chart again. Seriously, where do you think "legal high" and associated shit is likely to land?

Then look at what e;se is around where you place it.

Based on what I've read and the people I've talked to, I would guess around the cocaine area. It can be addictive, overdose is possible and there are potential long term effects. Based on my views two months ago, I would have said around the Zombie area

Certainly not available online:

http://am-hi-co.com/acatalog/ME.html

For example, I had a dealer that was always stocked with a variety of kine bud options. I had access 24/7 for about a year and a half. Then the house was raided, the police believed they were dealing coke. They found no coke (and surprisingly didn't find the weed either), but they tore the house up and the landlord of the property kicked them out.

I had no access for about a week. By then, they had a new house set up and things were good. Later the dudes that ran the place got into a fight and split, which left us dry again. Within a week we'd picked up another contact. Ironically, during one dry time I turned down a dealer who knew I was out of weed because the dealer was 15 years old.

Because, people can correct me if I'm off here, but it feels like people are saying the illicit nature of marijuana is successful in making it more difficult for some people to get.  Am I reading this correctly?

Did you miss what I wrote above? Prohibition fails to make it more difficult to get, generally, but it does occasionally leave you dry for a week or two. During that time, people who like to smoke would likely try a legal alternative.

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. 

Clearly? The only clear thing here is that you don't understand the drug scene 

When I was in Columbus, I had plenty of disposable income and plenty of stoner friends. I could probably get good weed at a reasonable price 80% of the time. However, sometimes the weed would disappear for weeks and if you happened to run dry, you were out until either the dealer got back to you, or you found a new dealer. Marijuana is probably available in every city, every day... but that doesn't mean every stoner knows where to get all of it.

I'd also guess that some number of them heard "legal weed" and thought they'd give it a try because legal is a much nicer place to be than illegal.

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

For the kind of people that want that specific kind of high, you're right.  However, I would bet that the number of people that prefer it is a very small percentage.

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?

Generally speaking, yes. On a day to day, hourly basis though. maybe, maybe not.

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.

I don't know anything about that... I've never heard of a spice dealer and its still legal here in the UK.

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.

Even if prohibition only cause 10% increase in spice use, isn't that 10% too much? Won't someone think of the children? 

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.

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...)

Most of the damage associated with use have been from from impurities rather than the drugs themselves.

1.  Link?

2.  Does it matter?  Turns people into cannibal zombies.  CANNIBAL ZOMBIES.  Doesn't matter HOW it happens.

I made some comment about the cannibal zombie thing to a guy I met here in the UK that was saying how cool 'research chemicals' were. After he pointed out that no only was the initial comments about "bath salts being the new LSD" dead wrong, but the medical examiner found the guy was not at all, on "bath salts".

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/06/27/medical-examiner-causeway-cannibal-not-high-on-bath-salts/


One of the deaths related to bath salts that's been used a lot (including in the Discovery channel documentary) was about a woman in NOLA that injected the shit into her arm. She ended up losing the arm and later dying. However, the loss of the arm was due to flesh eating bacteria, not whatever chemicals were in the crap she bought. Was the flesh eating bacteria mixed in with the bath salts (contaminant) or was the needle she used contaminated? Apparently nobody bothered to actually determine that answer and instead they call it a "bath salt" death. No matter where the contamination happened, it wasn't a result of the chemical itself.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/woman-loses-arm-flesh-eating-bacteria-bath-salts-1C6436058

There have been people who have had bad reactions/overdosed from what I've read. That makes sense, since its a mess of chemicals we don't know much about. Overdose and addiction are legit concerns. I was surprised though, how much my perception of bath salts had been colored by the less than objective reports. This is especially true since "bath salts" is basically just saying "some chemicals" rather than anything informative. Some of the overdoses blamed on bath salts include statements like: "used ecstasy, methadone [bath salts], mushrooms, LSD and alcohol" or "Self-inflicted gunshot wound" (but there were bath salts in the house, so obviously that was the real cause). I'm not trying to minimize the dangers of using chemicals that no one knows much about, but I have recently had to reevaluate the information I thought I knew about "bath salts".

You said "damage", not "deaths". How are you defining "damage"?

It was not the best choice of words. I had found a discussion where some of the extreme side effects appeared to have been from 'other' chemicals in the various mixes, but I can't find it now. It basically stated that the family of drugs which these all stem from have been synthesized since the early 1900's and side effects like headaches, nausea etc were known to be associated with it, but that some of the other ones which are now being associated with bath salt use (even first time use) like liver/kidney failure don't appear to be from the active drugs like mephedrone (which is the current popular drug in UK bath salts). It also pointed out that these instances appear often in a small somewhat concentrated area which they think indicates problems or adulterants with a specific mix. Additionally, since its not being studied in any scientific sense, people will report side effects of "mephedrone" or MDPV (another popular bath salt drug) when they really are having side effects of mephedrone or MDPV plus whatever else that vendor is mixing in their specific recipe. This seems pretty evident when you look at reviews of the various commercial products. "This was more speedy than x","this one had a bad hangover", "this one had no hangover", "this one caused some nose blockage", "this one didn't cause nose blockage" etc. etc. etc. When the desired effects and the easily identifiable side effects are so diverse, its a complete unknown what the unintended side effects of any given mix would be and if they're due to MDPV/mephedrone or some other random shit that someone intentionally or unintentionally mixed in.

All in all, its obviously a bad idea to snort chemicals that have little or no studies on the effects. However, there seems to be a mix of real concerns, bad information, incorrect assumptions and loads of unknowns in the 'bath salts'/research chemical area.

It's nasty stuff.  There were a couple or articles printed at the height of the problem here in Maine where they quoted, let us say, veteran drug abusers who basically said, "yeah, even I wouldn't touch that shit". 

Indeed, I'm not a noob when it comes to drugs, I've sampled most of the stuff that isn't completely insane (like crack, heroin, etc). But, some powder with unknown contents? Ick.