I'm not sure if this has been covered yet, I tend to gloss over drug threads when they becom circular.
Also, I apologize for another drug thread, and its ramifications.
So:
http://jezebel.com/crazy-clown-is-the-hot-new-drug-for-the-cool-dumb-te-1302380188
Weird "not-pot" alkaloids are being created, and re-created, to mimic pot yet fall outside of the prohibited substances laws. Like designer X, but for pot.
Thing is, it seems these Fake Weed products are much, much worse than Actual Weed. And because they're pseudo-legal, people (kids and non-kids) have greater access to them.
A system that allows a more harmful product while banning a less-harmful product is not rational. Legalizing weed would eliminate the market for harmful fake weed.
It also creates an effectively infinite cat-and-mouse game of BAN ALL THE THINGS!
When really, some of this shit is so legitimately terrible or straight-up poisonous that they might as well be regulated, in the same sense that like, mercury is regulated as a toxic substance (extreme example is extreme). But then you fall into this nebulous area between banning things because they're toxic, and banning things because Drugs Are Bad, M'kay?
Cainad,
mostly thinking out loud here
Yeah it pretty much makes no practical sense at all.
I think that there will always, always be a market for illegal drugs
look at what's going on in Colorado -- weed is basically legal (the cannabis cup was at the denver convention center this year), and the real pot heads have moved onto concentrates. (You guys familiar with them? They're basically these refined THC oils which are exponentially stronger than weed.) The state went, "oh shit, uhhh.... concentrates are still illegal!".
the law of eristic escalation holds true again. A new order sets the stage for a new kind of disorder.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 13, 2013, 07:19:00 PM
I think that there will always, always be a market for illegal drugs
look at what's going on in Colorado -- weed is basically legal (the cannabis cup was at the denver convention center this year), and the real pot heads have moved onto concentrates. (You guys familiar with them? They're basically these refined THC oils which are exponentially stronger than weed.) The state went, "oh shit, uhhh.... concentrates are still illegal!".
the law of eristic escalation holds true again. A new order sets the stage for a new kind of disorder.
I don't think they've "moved on". People have been making oil for ages. It's just that the state now has this thing that they didn't take into consideration, that isn't technically legal even though it's closely related to and derived from something that is legal. The refined THC oils you're talking about are typically used to avoid actually smoking the plant, with its associated tissue irritation. It's stronger, but the way that functions just means that people are using a single drop rather than smoking a nugget.
There will probably always be a market for illegal drugs, as long as there are illegal drugs, but the proliferation of "research chemicals" that skirt the fringes of legality is a direct result of prohibition.
And the "real potheads" part doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that the "real wine connoisseurs have moved on to vodka".
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 13, 2013, 07:35:18 PM
And the "real potheads" part doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that the "real wine connoisseurs have moved on to vodka".
This. A pothead who normally smokes a gram of weed would never smoke a gram of hash in one sitting.
Cain once made a joke (or was it?) about walking into a bar and ordering a pint... of scotch. Same logic applies.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 13, 2013, 07:35:18 PM
And the "real potheads" part doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that the "real wine connoisseurs have moved on to vodka".
Nonsense. Real wine connoisseurs have moved on to port. It's classier.
Anyway, I'm fairly sure there's a bunch of UK studies showing "legal highs" (mainly marijuana look/"feel"alkies) are almost universally worse than the actual drug.
Once again, because, drug thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
See you in 30 pages, have fun.
well, my weedy denver friends phrased it that way, "we don't even smoke pot anymore--have you heard of concentrate? gets you so much more stoned..." I would be surprised if these guys are only smoking a single drop, I think the oil proliferation (which came on the coat tails of legalization) increased their intake :P
these are the weediest dudes I know, they move shit around in bulk, that's what I meant
Quote from: Cramulus on September 13, 2013, 07:47:48 PM
well, my weedy denver friends phrased it that way, "we don't even smoke pot anymore--have you heard of concentrate? gets you so much more stoned..." I would be surprised if these guys are only smoking a single drop, I think the oil proliferation (which came on the coat tails of legalization) increased their intake :P
these are the weediest dudes I know, they move shit around in bulk, that's what I meant
Well that's all the science I need! I'm sold.
okay? :?
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 13, 2013, 07:51:33 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 13, 2013, 07:47:48 PM
well, my weedy denver friends phrased it that way, "we don't even smoke pot anymore--have you heard of concentrate? gets you so much more stoned..." I would be surprised if these guys are only smoking a single drop, I think the oil proliferation (which came on the coat tails of legalization) increased their intake :P
these are the weediest dudes I know, they move shit around in bulk, that's what I meant
Well that's all the science I need! I'm sold.
On the science side, I believe concentrates may have use with particular aliments, I recall a longer lasting beneficial effect on sufferers of MS using concentrates in comparison to the norm. If you're interested I'll dig it up.
Anecdotally, I've observed a rise in the UK. People who can barely grow are starting to do it more frequently. Quality varies radically(as always), but it's not really my thing. Unless you've built up a serious tolerance and are unwilling to take a break or it's been shown to be much more effective for what ails ya, I wouldn't go out of my way for it.
Please for the love of gods, someone help me with my addiction to drug threads.
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 13, 2013, 08:00:40 PM
Please for the love of gods, someone help me with my addiction to drug threads.
There's stuff in Big Words that needs feedback!
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 13, 2013, 08:19:57 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 13, 2013, 08:00:40 PM
Please for the love of gods, someone help me with my addiction to drug threads.
There's stuff in Big Words that needs feedback!
I would feedback you, but I'm not layouty. You need Net!
But coincidentally, I got a related-to-drugs email from Earl today:
Quote
This week marked another step forward for marijuana reform and bipartisanship. Yesterday, I joined with Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, to discuss the importance of allowing state-legal marijuana businesses the same tax deductions that all other businesses receive. Ordinary and necessary expense deductions like rent, wages, and health insurance premiums are unfairly denied to this industry.
While Mr. Norquist and I rarely see eye-to-eye, I was very pleased to have his endorsement of The Small Business Tax Equity Act, bipartisan legislation I introduced to fix this inequity.
Grover Norquist and Representative Earl Blumenauer identify injustices in the tax code for legal marijuana businesses at a press conference with the National Cannabis Industry Association executive director Aaron Smith.
Read more about my work to reform drug laws.
Download The Americans for Tax Reform white paper: Legal Cannabis Dispensary Taxation: A Textbook Case of Punishing Law-Abiding Businesses Through the Tax Code (PDF)
Sincerely,
Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress
The links: http://blumenauer.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2250&utm_source=DCS+Congressional+E-mail+Marketing+System&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=http%3a%2f%2fblumenauer.house.gov%2findex.php%3foption%3dcom_content%26view%3darticle%26id%3d2250&utm_campaign=The+Odd+Couple
http://blumenauer.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2213&utm_source=DCS+Congressional+E-mail+Marketing+System&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=http%3a%2f%2fblumenauer.house.gov%2findex.php%3foption%3dcom_content%26view%3darticle%26id%3d2213&utm_campaign=The+Odd+Couple
http://blumenauer.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2160&utm_source=DCS+Congressional+E-mail+Marketing+System&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=http%3a%2f%2fblumenauer.house.gov%2findex.php%3foption%3dcom_content%26view%3darticle%26id%3d2160&utm_campaign=The+Odd+Couple
http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/090513pr-cannabiswp.pdf?utm_source=DCS+Congressional+E-mail+Marketing+System&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=http%3a%2f%2fs3.amazonaws.com%2fatrfiles%2ffiles%2ffiles%2f090513pr-cannabiswp.pdf&utm_campaign=The+Odd+Couple
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 13, 2013, 08:00:40 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 13, 2013, 07:51:33 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 13, 2013, 07:47:48 PM
well, my weedy denver friends phrased it that way, "we don't even smoke pot anymore--have you heard of concentrate? gets you so much more stoned..." I would be surprised if these guys are only smoking a single drop, I think the oil proliferation (which came on the coat tails of legalization) increased their intake :P
these are the weediest dudes I know, they move shit around in bulk, that's what I meant
Well that's all the science I need! I'm sold.
On the science side, I believe concentrates may have use with particular aliments, I recall a longer lasting beneficial effect on sufferers of MS using concentrates in comparison to the norm. If you're interested I'll dig it up.
Anecdotally, I've observed a rise in the UK. People who can barely grow are starting to do it more frequently. Quality varies radically(as always), but it's not really my thing. Unless you've built up a serious tolerance and are unwilling to take a break or it's been shown to be much more effective for what ails ya, I wouldn't go out of my way for it.
Please for the love of gods, someone help me with my addiction to drug threads.
Yes, a lot of people prefer the concentrates because a single inhale is all they need for hours, rather than taking multiple lungfuls, but they can control the dosage far more than they could with edibles. It's also easier to carry around and more discreet.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 13, 2013, 05:49:56 PM
I'm not sure if this has been covered yet, I tend to gloss over drug threads when they becom circular.
Also, I apologize for another drug thread, and its ramifications.
So:
http://jezebel.com/crazy-clown-is-the-hot-new-drug-for-the-cool-dumb-te-1302380188
Weird "not-pot" alkaloids are being created, and re-created, to mimic pot yet fall outside of the prohibited substances laws. Like designer X, but for pot.
Thing is, it seems these Fake Weed products are much, much worse than Actual Weed. And because they're pseudo-legal, people (kids and non-kids) have greater access to them.
A system that allows a more harmful product while banning a less-harmful product is not rational. Legalizing weed would eliminate the market for harmful fake weed.
Or the DEA and Congress need to act faster to ban these synthetics.
Well since Congress can't move fast on SHIT, I think LMNO's bet is the better one.
True, but the DEA has the ability to temporarily schedule a substance for, IIRC up to 18 months. That's what they did with bath salts. Gave Congress enough time to get its act together.
Quoteauthor=Be Kind, Please RWHNd link=topic=35404.msg1295956#msg1295956 date=1379118387]
True, but the DEA has the ability to temporarily schedule a substance for, IIRC up to 18 months. That's what they did with bath salts. Gave Congress enough time to get its act together.
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2013/fr0516.htm
The fact the gvt has to be REactive rather than PROactive pretty much shoots that in the face.
The legal high things are weird. When I was in Turkey, some guys shared a joint with us made of that stuff. Now, I can handle weed, lots of weed, very strong weed, but after the second hit I was seriously fucked up. It wasn't really like a THC high, it what I imagine smoking cocaine, dry dog shit and datura would be like. Apparently, you build up a level of tolerance pretty quickly, but I don't know why you would want to!
From the people I've talked to, they smoke legal because they can't smoke weed.
Well, as luck would have it, we now have a chance to observe the true impact of the legal status of marijuana on synthetic. If the hypothesis in the OP is true, then we should expect there to be no usage of these drugs in Colorado and Washington, correct?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/13/222052914/synthetic-marijuana-prompts-colorado-health-investigation
Oh. Crap.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 14, 2013, 12:20:49 PM
Well, as luck would have it, we now have a chance to observe the true impact of the legal status of marijuana on synthetic. If the hypothesis in the OP is true, then we should expect there to be no usage of these drugs in Colorado and Washington, correct?
Only if the people in Colrado are the people I talked to. I have no doubt that some people will prefer the synthentic because it gets you seriously fucked up and its cheap.
I believe the same.
I suspect that the market for the synthetic will decline considerably. Time will tell.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 14, 2013, 03:56:34 PM
I suspect that the market for the synthetic will decline considerably. Time will tell.
I agree.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 14, 2013, 12:27:36 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/13/222052914/synthetic-marijuana-prompts-colorado-health-investigation
Oh. Crap.
From that article:
QuoteStill, commercial sale of recreational marijuana remains illegal until licensed stores open after the first of the year.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 14, 2013, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 14, 2013, 12:27:36 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/13/222052914/synthetic-marijuana-prompts-colorado-health-investigation
Oh. Crap.
From that article:
QuoteStill, commercial sale of recreational marijuana remains illegal until licensed stores open after the first of the year.
A good point, but even so, the high of the synthetic is so different, I think there will be a market for it. Pot (at least for me) is relaxing, I feel like me, but relaxed and calm and comfortable. The syntehtic was a little dizzy really heavy and didn't give the calm, relaxed sort of feel. Its like taking the worst aspects of the strongest pot, without any of the good effects. For people that just want to get fucked up, its just the kind of thing they want. I tried laughing gas once and its the only thing I could compare it to. Not my kind of high.
Here they also have a lot of powders which they snort or bomb. Its basically being sold as "bath salts" *ie you put them in your bath* but they're actually methylamin variations. These apparently mimic cocaine, meth and XTC (all together in variations). Apparently there have been many different chemicals sold under the name "bath salts" and some have been associated with bad effects and others have little/no known bad effetcs. Most of the damage associated with use have been from from impurities rather than the drugs themselves.
Yeah we're all familiar with research chemicals/bath salts, I think.
I suspect there will always be a market for weird fringe experimental drugs, but like I said, I suspect the market for synthetic cannabinoids will also decline considerably after marijuana is legally available in stores for recreational use. But, we won't know until a year or so has gone by.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 14, 2013, 04:20:32 PM
Yeah we're all familiar with research chemicals/bath salts, I think.
I suspect there will always be a market for weird fringe experimental drugs, but like I said, I suspect the market for synthetic cannabinoids will also decline considerably after marijuana is legally available in stores for recreational use. But, we won't know until a year or so has gone by.
Should be interesting. And I think with two states being given the chance to try it, we'll all get some actual real data on so many questions.
Synthetic cannabinoids are already banned in Colorado and Washington as well as federally, for the record. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/synthetic-pot-ban-approved-in-colorado
http://www.westernfrontonline.net/news/article_9a88d0d5-bee9-5f8a-9532-0a9c70fe6718.html
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 14, 2013, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 14, 2013, 12:27:36 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/13/222052914/synthetic-marijuana-prompts-colorado-health-investigation (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/13/222052914/synthetic-marijuana-prompts-colorado-health-investigation)
Oh. Crap.
From that article:
QuoteStill, commercial sale of recreational marijuana remains illegal until licensed stores open after the first of the year.
So is it really hard to get marijuana in Colorado? Commercial sale may be illegal but possession is now legal, so unless you are buying your weed directly in front of a federal agent, the sale is de facto legal.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 12:30:17 AM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 14, 2013, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 14, 2013, 12:27:36 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/13/222052914/synthetic-marijuana-prompts-colorado-health-investigation (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/13/222052914/synthetic-marijuana-prompts-colorado-health-investigation)
Oh. Crap.
From that article:
QuoteStill, commercial sale of recreational marijuana remains illegal until licensed stores open after the first of the year.
So is it really hard to get marijuana in Colorado? Commercial sale may be illegal but possession is now legal, so unless you are buying your weed directly in front of a federal agent, the sale is de facto legal.
I was just pointing out that line because you seemed to be using the article linked to say that marijuana is legal in Colorado and they are still having problems with the use of synthetics, but in reality nothing has really changed, and won't until the first of the year, rendering your point moot.
Besides, synthetic cannabinoids are illegal there already, as well as being illegal at a Federal level, as per the links I posted.
So we don't actually know whether the legalization of marijuana will have an effect on the use of synthetics, and probably won't have much data to go on until at least 2015.
That is a constantly moving target. All a chemist needs to do is alter a chemical here and there and, you have a new legal synthetic:
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/undercover-investigation--new-legal-forms-of-synthetic-marijuana-on-sale-in-northeast-ohio
There really is a certain kind of drug user that is interested in these synthetics, and it isn't your social baker or your casual weed user. It's usually a more hard core drug user, so legalization really won't have much of an impact.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 01:25:52 AM
That is a constantly moving target. All a chemist needs to do is alter a chemical here and there and, you have a new legal synthetic:
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/undercover-investigation--new-legal-forms-of-synthetic-marijuana-on-sale-in-northeast-ohio
Yes, although it takes longer to "alter a chemical here and there" than most people probably think. I am strongly against the use of these synthetics because a new molecule can have all kinds of nasty unwanted effects, and they're essentially totally untested. I think we agree on that.
But really, that's a whole separate discussion. This discussion just questions whether legalizing marijuana will decrease the sales of synthetic marijuana. I suspect it will, and I hope it does, but we don't have data yet.
Thing is, everyone knows how weird synthetic shit can be, so if the real stuff is legal, people will use it instead of the weird shit.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 14, 2013, 04:13:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 01:31:07 AM
There really is a certain kind of drug user that is interested in these synthetics, and it isn't your social baker or your casual weed user. It's usually a more hard core drug user, so legalization really won't have much of an impact.
I disagree with you on that, specifically with regards to the cannabinoids. They are marketed as a "legal herbal high" in corner stores and head shops, they are masquerading as plant matter, and young people in particular are unaware of how dangerous they can be.
"Bath salts" are well-publicized enough now that I think most people are at least reasonably aware of the problems with them, but that hasn't happened with synthetic cannabinoids, which are marketed to look innocuous and natural, and target the young.
But as I said, really only time will tell. We should have some data in 2015.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 15, 2013, 03:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 14, 2013, 04:13:34 PM
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'd like a link for that, too. "Impurities" is often code for "we made it wrong", which is a frequent enough problem even when legitimate chemists are trying to synthesize something.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 01:31:07 AM
There really is a certain kind of drug user that is interested in these synthetics, and it isn't your social baker or your casual weed user. It's usually a more hard core drug user, so legalization really won't have much of an impact.
Actually, perhaps on second thought you are absolutely right. Only hard core drug users are interested in these kinds of drugs, not your casual user or social baker. So it really won't make much of a difference whether they're legal or not, because making them illegal won't deter hardcore users anyway, as we have seen with other drugs, and the casual users aren't buying them anyway.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 15, 2013, 04:16:14 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 15, 2013, 03:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 14, 2013, 04:13:34 PM
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'd like a link for that, too. "Impurities" is often code for "we made it wrong", which is a frequent enough problem even when legitimate chemists are trying to synthesize something.
"Impurities cause the problem" also sounds kind of like the reverse RWHN argument...No drug can be "bad", just "impure".
Also:
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/9/10/13/enhanced-buzz-wide-5417-1378832798-28.jpg)
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 15, 2013, 04:28:04 AM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 15, 2013, 04:16:14 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 15, 2013, 03:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 14, 2013, 04:13:34 PM
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'd like a link for that, too. "Impurities" is often code for "we made it wrong", which is a frequent enough problem even when legitimate chemists are trying to synthesize something.
"Impurities cause the problem" also sounds kind of like the reverse RWHN argument...No drug can be "bad", just "impure".
:lulz: Which is great because there are so many arguments wrapped up into one, there.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 15, 2013, 04:32:16 AM
Also:
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/9/10/13/enhanced-buzz-wide-5417-1378832798-28.jpg)
OMG!!! :lulz:
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 15, 2013, 04:19:11 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 01:31:07 AM
There really is a certain kind of drug user that is interested in these synthetics, and it isn't your social baker or your casual weed user. It's usually a more hard core drug user, so legalization really won't have much of an impact.
Actually, perhaps on second thought you are absolutely right. Only hard core drug users are interested in these kinds of drugs, not your casual user or social baker. So it really won't make much of a difference whether they're legal or not, because making them illegal won't deter hardcore users anyway, as we have seen with other drugs, and the casual users aren't buying them anyway.
No, it does make a difference. We were having significant issues with 'bath salts' here in Maine. After it was banned in the state and federally, and police were able to clean the shit out of head shops and truck stops, the issue declined pretty significantly. So it does have an effect.
But the legal status of marijuana will have little to no bearing on spice, K2, etc. because your average pot user isn't seeking that out. And the synhetic cannibinoids have had some significant press so it would be near impossible for someone who uses drugs to not be aware of what it is.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 04:18:03 PM
But the legal status of marijuana will have little to no bearing on spice, K2, etc. because your average pot user isn't seeking that out. And the synhetic cannibinoids have had some significant press so it would be near impossible for someone who uses drugs to not be aware of what it is.
Buncha crap. Right now, they're seeking out what they can get. K2 was just recently made illegal here, and until it was, it was billed as "synthetic weed". They were billing it as weed because weed is what people wanted to smoke.
Because real marijuana is hard to get right now?
So in other words the legal status of marijuana is making it less available, correct?
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 04:31:54 PM
Because real marijuana is hard to get right now?
Because it was billed as "Synthetic Weed" while it was legal.
What part is giving you the trouble?
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 04:32:49 PM
So in other words the legal status of marijuana is making it less available, correct?
And making the far more dangerous synthetics more available.
WELL DONE, SIR PROHIBITIONIST! YOU SAVED THOSE KIDS FROM DEMON MERRYWANNA.
And all that happened was they turned into cannibals.
Because people get piss tested at work, at probation, etc.
Because prohibition.
DUH.
So therefore, when marijuana becomes legal, access and availability is going to increase, yes?
I'm glad we finally came to agreement on that idea.
Carry on with your drug thread.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 04:48:00 PM
So therefore, when marijuana becomes legal, access and availability is going to increase, yes?
Who the FUCK ever said those two things wouldn't increase?
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 05:08:28 PM
I'm glad we finally came to agreement on that idea.
Carry on with your drug thread.
YAY! You proved a point nobody was arguing, and all you had to do was admit that your policies create cannibal zombies!
This is AWESOME! It's like I fell through a fucking wormhole!
:lulz:
The kind of person who uses synthetics and becomes a "cannibal zombie" is a person who isn't sitting around waiting for legalization to get their fix.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 15, 2013, 04:19:11 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 01:31:07 AM
There really is a certain kind of drug user that is interested in these synthetics, and it isn't your social baker or your casual weed user. It's usually a more hard core drug user, so legalization really won't have much of an impact.
Actually, perhaps on second thought you are absolutely right. Only hard core drug users are interested in these kinds of drugs, not your casual user or social baker. So it really won't make much of a difference whether they're legal or not, because making them illegal won't deter hardcore users anyway, as we have seen with other drugs, and the casual users aren't buying them anyway.
No, it does make a difference. We were having significant issues with 'bath salts' here in Maine. After it was banned in the state and federally, and police were able to clean the shit out of head shops and truck stops, the issue declined pretty significantly. So it does have an effect.
But the legal status of marijuana will have little to no bearing on spice, K2, etc. because your average pot user isn't seeking that out. And the synhetic cannibinoids have had some significant press so it would be near impossible for someone who uses drugs to not be aware of what it is.
Huh.
I'm not willing to make any such sweeping statements about whether marijuana legalization "will" or "will not" have an effect on the usage rates of synthetic cannabinoids that are currently marketed as "pot substitutes", because we don't have data yet, but we will soon.
I will say that it seems unlikely to me that it will have no effect on usage rates, for fairly obvious reasons; users who want marijuana but don't want to break the law will be able to obtain marijuana, and so won't feel the need to settle for "synthetic pot substitute", which really doesn't sound very appealing by comparison.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 15, 2013, 05:18:00 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 05:08:28 PM
I'm glad we finally came to agreement on that idea.
Carry on with your drug thread.
YAY! You proved a point nobody was arguing, and all you had to do was admit that your policies create cannibal zombies!
This is AWESOME! It's like I fell through a fucking wormhole!
:lulz:
It IS lulzy, isn't it? :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I love how he said in his youtube address that prolong use of pot made someone dumber, and drop IQ points.
Disregard Carl fucking Sagan smoked the shit out of pot.
Interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23291209
If the findings from this study are accurate, legalization should have a heavy impact on sales of synthetic cannabinoids.
These were interesting as well:
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc84283/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23043552
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14659891.2013.770571
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 15, 2013, 07:55:01 PM
Interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23291209
If the findings from this study are accurate, legalization should have a heavy impact on sales of synthetic cannabinoids.
How do you come to that conclusion?
Quote from: Reverend What's His Bear on September 15, 2013, 07:10:30 PM
I love how he said in his youtube address that prolong use of pot made someone dumber, and drop IQ points.
Disregard Carl fucking Sagan smoked the shit out of pot.
To be fair, it's absolutely true that heavy marijuana use that begins during adolescent years is correlated with a greater IQ loss by age 38. The main problem with the study that found this, however, is that they failed to control for socioeconomic status or a host of other potential confounds, so we really have no way of knowing whether heavy marijuana use is a cause or an effect; the authors saw the correlation and declared causation, which is scientifically irresponsible. More research is called for.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/01/15/new-research-questions-marijuanas-impact-in-lowering-iq/
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 08:15:25 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 15, 2013, 07:55:01 PM
Interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23291209
If the findings from this study are accurate, legalization should have a heavy impact on sales of synthetic cannabinoids.
How do you come to that conclusion?
QuoteUsers report a strong preference for natural over synthetic cannabis.
But like I keep saying, I'm not making predictions, because we don't have the data yet. Just guesses based on what we do have. Can you stop looking for a fight?
Discussion =\= a fight.
I can do this even-keel, can you?
That study is clearly looking at people college students who were experimenting with the drug. And they are asking about past 12 month use, which is going to capture the experimenters and anyone using it more regularly.
So based on that, it seems clear to me that the sythetics weren't being used as an alternative to natural marijuana and most likely, amongst this population, just out of curiousity.
The profile of the habitual user of synthetics has been, on average, older white males, early 30s - middle aged males. They are seeking this kind of high, but not as a legal alternative to weed.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 08:37:48 PM
Discussion =\= a fight.
I can do this even-keel, can you?
That study is clearly looking at people college students who were experimenting with the drug. And they are asking about past 12 month use, which is going to capture the experimenters and anyone using it more regularly.
So based on that, it seems clear to me that the sythetics weren't being used as an alternative to natural marijuana and most likely, amongst this population, just out of curiousity.
The profile of the habitual user of synthetics has been, on average, older white males, early 30s - middle aged males. They are seeking this kind of high, but not as a legal alternative to weed.
:? Are you talking about the same study? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23291209
Also, can you provide links when you make a claim? Otherwise, it's me posting sources and you saying "nuh-uh", which isn't really a discussion.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 15, 2013, 07:55:01 PM
Interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23291209
If the findings from this study are accurate, legalization should have a heavy impact on sales of synthetic cannabinoids.
You used the above study to support your opinion that legalization would have a heavy impact on the use of synthetics. But in this study 99% of the respondents who indicated using the synthetic cannabinoids also reported using natural. So it clearly wasn't being used as an alternative.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 15, 2013, 07:55:01 PM
Interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23291209
If the findings from this study are accurate, legalization should have a heavy impact on sales of synthetic cannabinoids.
You used the above study to support your opinion that legalization would have a heavy impact on the use of synthetics. But in this study 99% of the respondents who indicated using the synthetic cannabinoids also reported using natural. So it clearly wasn't being used as an alternative.
I am not sure how you would come to that conclusion; the fact that almost all users have used both is not an indication one way or the other about availability of either at any given point in time.
But it does say this:
QuoteNatural 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).
That is what I am responding to when I say that if the data in this study is accurate, my guess is that legalizing marijuana should reduce sales of synthetic marijuana substitutes.
But that is just a guess, as we won't have data for a while.
You seem to take issue with me guessing that. I'm not sure why, since it doesn't change anything or affect anything. We will probably have data on whether actual usage rates change in a year or so. I will be surprised if it turns out that usage of synthetic cannabinoids remains the same after legalization of marijuana. That's all there really is to me having made that guess.
Tigger warning on a drugs thread, also known as the starting pistol on a race to 100 pages
Quote from: Faust on September 15, 2013, 10:51:40 PM
Tigger warning on a drugs thread, also known as the starting pistol on a race to 100 pages
(http://lawofattractionenterprise.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/643tigger-posters.jpg)
Whoops. I can't post a single coherent message any more without typos.
Actually a tigger warning sounds like an awesome thing and would guarantee a I click a thread.
Quote from: Faust on September 15, 2013, 11:18:51 PM
Whoops. I can't post a single coherent message any more without typos.
Actually a tigger warning sounds like an awesome thing and would guarantee a I click a thread.
It kind of does, doesn't it? I think it's important that we all be mindful of using tigger warnings where appropriate.
Tigger looks like he could be a spice addict.
Pooh is obviously into the natural stuff.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 15, 2013, 03:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 14, 2013, 04:13:34 PM
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/
(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 (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".
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 15, 2013, 09:01:08 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 15, 2013, 07:55:01 PM
Interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23291209
If the findings from this study are accurate, legalization should have a heavy impact on sales of synthetic cannabinoids.
You used the above study to support your opinion that legalization would have a heavy impact on the use of synthetics. But in this study 99% of the respondents who indicated using the synthetic cannabinoids also reported using natural. So it clearly wasn't being used as an alternative.
That could be, I don't know about those people specifically. However, the people I know who have tried/used synthetic marijuana, did it because they couldn't get the real stuff at the time. Now, that's my limited experience, but all of them would have reported to have used both. Not because they wanted to experiment, rather because they couldn't get access to actual pot.
There are definitely some people that will always be looking for something that will fuck them up even more than whatever they have access to. Those people will continue to use 'research chemicals', chew moth balls, huff paint and do other stupid things, even if we make everything legal (or make it all illegal).
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 16, 2013, 12:32:33 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 15, 2013, 03:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 14, 2013, 04:13:34 PM
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/
(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 (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"?
Here are the side effects of "bath salts". http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/samhs/osa/irc/pubs/DrugFactSheets/BathsaltsFactSheetOct2011.pdf
Short term:
Increased heart rate
agitation
diminished requirement for sleep
lack of appetite
increased alertness and awareness
anxiety
fits and delusions
nosebleeds
Long term and severe:
hallucinations
muscle spasms and damage
aggression
severe paranoia
panic attacks
highky elevated body temperature
increased blood pressure and circulation problems
risk of renal failure
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".
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 04:47:55 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 16, 2013, 12:32:33 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 15, 2013, 03:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 14, 2013, 04:13:34 PM
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/
(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 (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.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 05:11:28 PM
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.
Okay, I was unaware that the police had simply assumed he was on bath salts.
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?
I need to dig into this a bit more.
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.
Ah, here we go...Our old pals at the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6019a6.htm
QuoteOn 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.
Same link:
QuoteToxicology results for the person who died revealed a high level of MDPV, along with marijuana and prescription drugs. Autopsy results revealed MDPV toxicity to be the primary factor contributing to death. The manner of death was ruled accidental, consistent with an attempt to get high.
MDPV, aka methylenedioxypyrovalerone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylenedioxypyrovalerone
QuoteIn April 2011, two weeks after they went missing, two men in northwestern Pennsylvania were found dead in a remote location on government land. The official cause of death of both men was hypothermia, but toxicology reports later confirmed that both Troy Johnson, 29, and Terry Sumrow, 28, had ingested MDPV shortly before their deaths. "It wasn't anything to kill them, but enough to get them messed up," the county coroner said. MDPV containers were found in their vehicle along with spoons, hypodermic syringes and marijuana paraphernalia. In April 2011, an Alton, Illinois, woman apparently died from an MDPV overdose.[41] In May 2011, The CDC reported a hospital emergency department (ED) visit after the use of "bath salts" in Michigan. One person was reported dead on arrival at the ED. Associates of the dead person reported that he had used bath salts. His toxicology results revealed high levels of MDPV in addition to marijuana and prescription drugs. The primary factor contributing to death was cited as MDPV toxicity after autopsy was performed.[42] An incident of hemiplegia has been reported
Unlike weed, methylenedioxypyrovalerone is by itself toxic, and death by overdose is possible. In addition, it by itself can cause all manner of really fucking bizarre behavior and/or permanent physical and psychological damage.
No "impurities" are needed.
The other usual substituted cathinone used is Mephedrone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone
QuoteA survey conducted by the National Addiction Centre, UK, found 67% of mephedrone users experienced sweating, 51% suffered from headaches, 43% from heart palpitations, 27% from nausea and 15% from cold or blue fingers,[80] indicative of vasoconstriction occurring.[38] Doctors at Guy's Hospital, London reported, of 15 patients they treated after taking mephedrone in 2009, 53% were agitated, 40% had increased heart rates, 20% had systolic hypertension and 20% had seizures; three required treatment with benzodiazepines, predominantly to control their agitation.
Also toxic, needing no "impurities".
They ARE impurities, biologically speaking.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 06:26:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 06:10:34 PM
Okay, I was unaware that the police had simply assumed he was on bath salts.
Yeah, me too.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 06:12:17 PM
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".
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 06:29:12 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 06:26:50 PM
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...)
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 16, 2013, 06:38:34 PM
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?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 16, 2013, 06:38:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 06:43:33 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 16, 2013, 06:38:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 16, 2013, 06:47:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 06:43:33 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 16, 2013, 06:38:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 06:43:33 PM
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.
Quote2. 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.
Quote3. 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.
Quote4. 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.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 06:43:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
Quote2. 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?
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
Quote3. 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.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
Quote4. 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.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 06:14:58 PM
Ah, here we go...Our old pals at the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6019a6.htm
QuoteOn 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.
Preference for weed over synthetics has been linked, as I remembered, 4 times, beginning at reply 61.
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.
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.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 07:07:26 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 06:14:58 PM
Ah, here we go...Our old pals at the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6019a6.htm
QuoteOn 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.
Consider: where would you place bath salts on this scale:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
Bonus points - Show your reasoning.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:14:58 PM
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:
QuoteDrug 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.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 07:13:11 PM
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.
Start a new one. Rants are potentially useful, if you put it in this thread it'll be lost forever.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:14:58 PM
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.
That's not clear at all. It may be that they were using both because weed wasn't always available.
Quote
Someone who is just out seeking the biggest, quickest, cheapest high will still seek out Spice whether or not marijuana is legal.
And what percentage of users would that entail? Because if they really want to get THAT fucked up, they'll just say fuck it and do meth.
QuoteI 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?
I believe the term was "commonly available", which is not the same as "universally available".
QuoteAdditionally, 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".
Results may vary. They only banned K2 in Arizona in April of this year. The next designer drug will be out - if it isn't already out - very soon.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 07:22:53 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:14:58 PM
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 (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:
QuoteDrug 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.
Yes, most preferred natural cannabis and virtually all of them USED natural cannabis. If it was being used as an alternative your 99% would be much lower.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 07:22:53 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:14:58 PM
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:
QuoteDrug 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.
Also, this. As I said, the preference is real and has been linked. Whether or not RWHN wants to admit that the evidence contradicts his worldview is another matter entirely.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:28:50 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 07:22:53 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:14:58 PM
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 (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:
QuoteDrug 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.
Yes, most preferred natural cannabis and virtually all of them USED natural cannabis. If it was being used as an alternative your 99% would be much lower.
Um, 99% reported EVER using natural cannabis, and 93% said they preferred it. No mention of college students was made.
Now you're DELIBERATELY misreading the study, and no mistaking it.
I agree, most of them preferred natural cannabis, and indeed virtually all of them USED natural cannabis, so availability couldn't ve an issue. Something else is motivating them to use synthetic even though it is demonstrated thay had the ability to get natural cannabis.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:14:58 PM
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 :wink:
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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? :wink:
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:31:47 PM
I agree, most of them preferred natural cannabis, and indeed virtually all of them USED natural cannabis, so availability couldn't ve an issue.
Are you suggesting that weed availability is a fixed thing, with no variability at all?
REALLY?
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 07:24:41 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 07:13:11 PM
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.
Start a new one. Rants are potentially useful, if you put it in this thread it'll be lost forever.
Will do. That's what I was thinking.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 07:33:16 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:31:47 PM
I agree, most of them preferred natural cannabis, and indeed virtually all of them USED natural cannabis, so availability couldn't ve an issue.
Are you suggesting that weed availability is a fixed thing, with no variability at all?
REALLY?
So is marijuana really easy to get or difficult to get currently at its current status as an illegal substance?
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?
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:37:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:35:43 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 07:33:16 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:31:47 PM
I agree, most of them preferred natural cannabis, and indeed virtually all of them USED natural cannabis, so availability couldn't ve an issue.
Are you suggesting that weed availability is a fixed thing, with no variability at all?
REALLY?
So is marijuana really easy to get or difficult to get currently at its current status as an illegal substance?
Is that a yes or a no?
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:37:23 PM
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?
Obviously. Again, nobody was really arguing that it made obtaining weed more difficult.
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.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 16, 2013, 07:39:36 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:37:23 PM
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.
Look, we're wasting our time. RWHN is doing some kind of weird victory dance over something that nobody was arguing about.
He will not participate in the conversation that is actually going on. He's still nursing too much fucking butthurt to use the front half of his brain.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:28:50 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 07:22:53 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:14:58 PM
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 (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:
QuoteDrug 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.
Yes, most preferred natural cannabis and virtually all of them USED natural cannabis. If it was being used as an alternative your 99% would be much lower.
WHAT :lulz:
OK, I give up.
Here, maybe you should go hang out with this guy, he doesn't know how to read research papers either: http://www.thescienceforum.com/health-medicine/38057-scientific-evidence-implicates-vaccines-cause-autism.html
And we were doing so well.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 07:46:07 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:37:23 PM
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?
Obviously. Again, nobody was really arguing that it made obtaining weed more difficult.
Okay, that's all I wanted to know. Thank you.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:53:44 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 07:46:07 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:37:23 PM
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?
Obviously. Again, nobody was really arguing that it made obtaining weed more difficult.
Okay, that's all I wanted to know. Thank you.
Have fun with your victory dance, over all of NOBODY who said prohibition didn't make buying weed more difficult.
Jesus.
Conversation is now basically over unless someone else joins in, because RWHN has never actually been a part of the conversation.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:37:23 PM
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?
Of course it makes it more difficult for adults to get. In fact, it is currently in many states just as hard for adults to obtain weed anytime, at will, as it is for minors to obtain weed at will.
For a determined person, that can generally be overcome with some perserverence. There is a thriving black market that will sell to anyone, regardless of age. But for some people, the simple fact that it is illegal is a deterrent.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 07:55:08 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:53:44 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 07:46:07 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:37:23 PM
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?
Obviously. Again, nobody was really arguing that it made obtaining weed more difficult.
Okay, that's all I wanted to know. Thank you.
Have fun with your victory dance, over all of NOBODY who said prohibition didn't make buying weed more difficult.
Jesus.
Well, he totally made an ass of himself misreading that study multiple times, so he had to jump track and change the goalposts to something completely irrelevant. In fact, he now seems to be supporting the OP.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 07:48:22 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:28:50 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 07:22:53 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:14:58 PM
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 (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:
QuoteDrug 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.
Yes, most preferred natural cannabis and virtually all of them USED natural cannabis. If it was being used as an alternative your 99% would be much lower.
WHAT :lulz:
OK, I give up.
The study said that virtually all of those who reported synthetic use (99%) said they had also used natural cannabis. So that 99% knows how to access natural cannabis. It is less likely that it was used as an alternative and more likely used as experimentation, seeking out a different kind of high.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 07:55:48 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:37:23 PM
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?
Of course it makes it more difficult for adults to get. In fact, it is currently in many states just as hard for adults to obtain weed anytime, at will, as it is for minors to obtain weed at will.
For a determined person, that can generally be overcome with some perserverence. There is a thriving black market that will sell to anyone, regardless of age. But for some people, the simple fact that it is illegal is a deterrent.
I would say that the part he's missing is that black markets are by definition unstable on the supply end, but that's not what he's missing.
He's not even here to communicate. He's here to engage in baboonery and show his enflamed red ass to everyone who said that prohibition had no effect on the market.
Which is NOBODY. But that won't stop him, mostly because he really isn't
capable of communication anymore. Just "lecturing", which consists of the facts as he'd LIKE them to be, with a complete inability to reexamine them. Nor does he have any incentive to do so, given the nature of his career.
In short, he's kind of become Richard Dawkins. Or Pat Robertson.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 07:57:12 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 07:55:08 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:53:44 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 07:46:07 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:37:23 PM
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?
Obviously. Again, nobody was really arguing that it made obtaining weed more difficult.
Okay, that's all I wanted to know. Thank you.
Have fun with your victory dance, over all of NOBODY who said prohibition didn't make buying weed more difficult.
Jesus.
Well, he totally made an ass of himself misreading that study multiple times, so he had to jump track and change the goalposts to something completely irrelevant. In fact, he now seems to be supporting the OP.
He's still doing it. :lulz:
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:57:54 PM
The study said that virtually all of those who reported synthetic use (99%) said they had also used natural cannabis. So that 99% knows how to access natural cannabis. It is less likely that it was used as an alternative and more likely used as experimentation, seeking out a different kind of high.
SINCE THERE'S NEVER ANY VARIABILITY IN SUPPLY.
HELLO? *thump, thump* IS THIS THING WORKING? ARE YOU A HUMAN BEING? DO YOU HAVE THUMBS?
Synthetic cannabinoids are also illicit products with variability in supply.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 08:03:18 PM
Synthetic cannabinoids are also illicit products with variability in supply.
How many states were they legal in at the time of the survey?
SHOW ME YOUR THUMBS.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:57:54 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 07:48:22 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:28:50 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 07:22:53 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 07:14:58 PM
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 (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:
QuoteDrug 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.
Yes, most preferred natural cannabis and virtually all of them USED natural cannabis. If it was being used as an alternative your 99% would be much lower.
WHAT :lulz:
OK, I give up.
The study said that virtually all of those who reported synthetic use (99%) said they had also used natural cannabis. So that 99% knows how to access natural cannabis. It is less likely that it was used as an alternative and more likely used as experimentation, seeking out a different kind of high.
Have you ever heard of the concept that correlation does not equal causation?
You are making claims that are nowhere supported by the study. It is talking about LIFETIME use.
When I was 20 and had to have someone else buy my alcohol, I drank Boone's Farm. It was fucking disgusting, but I drank it anyway because it's what was available. As soon as I turned 21 I started drinking decent wine, and would never even consider drinking Boone's Farm because it's crap. But by your dubious logic, the fact that I
have ever consumed Boone's Farm AND
have ever consumed decent wine means that I am still drinking Boone's Farm, and that, frankly, makes absolutely no sense.
Then there is the 99% issue. It says that 99% of people who have ever tried synthetic cannabinoids have also ever tried marijuana. It also says that of those who have tried both, 93% prefer marijuana.
That is not very difficult to parse. I have no idea how you are coming to your conclusions, let alone extrapolating data that doesn't exist.
why am I still talking I am clearly an idiot.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 08:05:56 PM
why am I still talking I am clearly an idiot.
There can be more than one baboon in the room. :lulz:
DOUR,
OOOOOK!
Do you see, PD? Do you see how people with different opinions get treated? Badly, that's how they get treated.
DO YOU SEE WHAT PD DOES TO OPINIONS? AND READING COMPREHENSION? AND ARGUING NOTHING JUST BECAUSE?
I think we've all learned something valuable here.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 08:04:40 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 08:03:18 PM
Synthetic cannabinoids are also illicit products with variability in supply.
How many states were they legal in at the time of the survey?
SHOW ME YOUR THUMBS.
Most likely zero. They were put into Schedule I, March 2011.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 08:18:51 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 08:04:40 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 16, 2013, 08:03:18 PM
Synthetic cannabinoids are also illicit products with variability in supply.
How many states were they legal in at the time of the survey?
SHOW ME YOUR THUMBS.
Most likely zero. They were put into Schedule I, March 2011.
Still available in store fronts in Arizona until 4/4/2013.
Article uses data supplied in 2011. Doesn't say what month.
But again, this isn't about drugs, or even basic communication about anything.
It's about RWHN's flaming red ass and his need to show it to everyone, no matter how badly he has to distort an article and look like a dumbass in the process.
Thread very over.
Certainly not available online:
http://am-hi-co.com/acatalog/ME.html (http://am-hi-co.com/acatalog/ME.html)
LEGAL HIGHS LEGALLY ACCESSIBLE. MORE AT 11.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
Here's that damn chart again. Seriously, where do you think "legal high" and associated shit is likely to land?
Then look at what else is around where you place it.
Edit- typos
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 16, 2013, 08:52:19 PM
LEGAL HIGHS LEGALLY ACCESSIBLE. MORE AT 11.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
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 ;)
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.
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 16, 2013, 09:03:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 16, 2013, 09:28:34 PM
If it were as bad as the media had me thinking, I'd be roaming the streets with a cricket bat.
That's still not a bad idea.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 08:11:19 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 08:05:56 PM
why am I still talking I am clearly an idiot.
There can be more than one baboon in the room. :lulz:
DOUR,
OOOOOK!
Yeah, I am giving myself one baboon point for every post I make that tries to present a logical point or examine fact in this thread, because OOK OOOK.
RWHN reminds me more and more of Mystic Wicks. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 08:11:19 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 08:05:56 PM
why am I still talking I am clearly an idiot.
There can be more than one baboon in the room. :lulz:
DOUR,
OOOOOK!
Yeah, I am giving myself one baboon point for every post I make that tries to present a logical point or examine fact in this thread, because OOK OOOK.
I went back and looked, and EVERY POST RWHN made basically said "I TOLD YOU GUYS MAKING WEED LEGAL WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO GET! I WAS RIGHT AND YOU WERE WRONG", even though nobody has ever actually said that weed is just as easy to buy while illegal.
Every last post.
It's sort of horrormirthy. A human being so insanely butthurt that he actually
can't function.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 09:48:03 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 08:11:19 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 08:05:56 PM
why am I still talking I am clearly an idiot.
There can be more than one baboon in the room. :lulz:
DOUR,
OOOOOK!
Yeah, I am giving myself one baboon point for every post I make that tries to present a logical point or examine fact in this thread, because OOK OOOK.
I went back and looked, and EVERY POST RWHN made basically said "I TOLD YOU GUYS MAKING WEED LEGAL WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO GET! I WAS RIGHT AND YOU WERE WRONG", even though nobody has ever actually said that weed is just as easy to buy while illegal.
Every last post.
It's sort of horrormirthy. A human being so insanely butthurt that he actually can't function.
I don't even.
Is it time for cookies again?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 09:48:03 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 09:42:17 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 16, 2013, 08:11:19 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 16, 2013, 08:05:56 PM
why am I still talking I am clearly an idiot.
There can be more than one baboon in the room. :lulz:
DOUR,
OOOOOK!
Yeah, I am giving myself one baboon point for every post I make that tries to present a logical point or examine fact in this thread, because OOK OOOK.
I went back and looked, and EVERY POST RWHN made basically said "I TOLD YOU GUYS MAKING WEED LEGAL WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO GET! I WAS RIGHT AND YOU WERE WRONG", even though nobody has ever actually said that weed is just as easy to buy while illegal.
Every last post.
It's sort of horrormirthy. A human being so insanely butthurt that he actually can't function.
I think what he's implying is that it would be more available to children if it were legal, which I don't think is the case. It was easier to score weed than beer on average, because good luck finding an adult that would buy it for you. Usually you'd have to have a friend who was 21, maybe 22, because they can sympathize. It would never be anything quality either though, like a microbrew, because that sort of thing was generally too expensive for a group of 18 year olds to want to get, so it was usually 30 packs of Busch, which while not particularly tasty will get you drunk, and there will be a sufficient amount of it to let all of your friends get drunk too.
The other end of that too is that $15 worth of beer isn't the same as $15 worth of weed.
The main difference is that $15 worth of beer is 100% available to an adult over the age of 21, whereas the availability of weed to an adult is likely the same as availability to a minor, possibly even less so, since after 21 why would you risk getting arrested if you can just grab some wine or vodka, or idunno, walk into a restaurant and order a few glasses of something with dinner?
It's either more available or it isn't. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available. Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:19:08 AM
It's either more available or it isn't. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available. Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.
That availability has to be qualified though. Is it more available to minors or people who have attained their majority age? Why would you want to prevent an adult from purchasing being able to buy some weed if that's what they want to do?
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:19:08 AM
It's either more available or it isn't. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available. Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.
I feel like the motorcycle missed you.
Quote from: Twigel on September 17, 2013, 01:32:25 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:19:08 AM
It's either more available or it isn't. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available. Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.
That availability has to be qualified though. Is it more available to minors or people who have attained their majority age?
Both, because, for example, as with alcohol, we know the latter will supply the former.
QuoteWhy would you want to prevent an adult from purchasing being able to buy some weed if that's what they want to do?
I don't WANT to, but I also don't want to increase availability to minors.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:58:44 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 17, 2013, 01:32:25 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:19:08 AM
It's either more available or it isn't. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available. Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.
That availability has to be qualified though. Is it more available to minors or people who have attained their majority age?
Both, because, for example, as with alcohol, we know the latter will supply the former.
QuoteWhy would you want to prevent an adult from purchasing being able to buy some weed if that's what they want to do?
I don't WANT to, but I also don't want to increase availability to minors.
My evidence, while anecdotal, suggests otherwise. I don't want kids smoking weed either, but it doesn't seem reasonable to limit an adult's access because a few of them will turn around and give it to teens.
But as Nigel said, we'll see in about a year.
I would also posit that it would be safer for a kid to get regulated weed from a misguided adult about to go into a head shop than from a drug dealer and maybe have it laced.
I've had laced shit before, and that's not fun. Well, it was once, only because I started tripping. That other time when I thought I was dead wasn't.
Quote from: Twigel on September 17, 2013, 02:14:45 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:58:44 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 17, 2013, 01:32:25 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:19:08 AM
It's either more available or it isn't. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available. Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.
That availability has to be qualified though. Is it more available to minors or people who have attained their majority age?
Both, because, for example, as with alcohol, we know the latter will supply the former.
QuoteWhy would you want to prevent an adult from purchasing being able to buy some weed if that's what they want to do?
I don't WANT to, but I also don't want to increase availability to minors.
My evidence, while anecdotal, suggests otherwise. I don't want kids smoking weed either, but it doesn't seem reasonable to limit an adult's access because a few of them will turn around and give it to teens.
But as Nigel said, we'll see in about a year.
Do you think it is only a few supplying minors with alcohol? Keeping in mind that a 20 year old is a minor and a 21 year old is an adult. You suppose that the 21 year olds who are buying weed are all saying no to their 20 year old and 19 year old friends? Of course not.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:19:08 AM
It's either more available or it isn't. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available. Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.
So people would keep jamming MPVD into themselves.
Well done.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 02:47:01 AM
Do you think it is only a few supplying minors with alcohol?
You drink alcohol.
Smells like "do as I say, not as I do".
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 03:21:53 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:19:08 AM
It's either more available or it isn't. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available. Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.
So people would keep jamming MPVD into themselves.
Well done.
The prevalence of synthetic cannabinoid use is nowhere near the prevalence of natural cannabinoid use. It isn't, on balance, being used as an alternative.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 03:27:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 03:21:53 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:19:08 AM
It's either more available or it isn't. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available. Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.
So people would keep jamming MPVD into themselves.
Well done.
The prevalence of synthetic cannabinoid use is nowhere near the prevalence of natural cannabinoid use. It isn't, on balance, being used as an alternative.
You keep saying that, but all the actual available data says exactly the opposite thing.
And you can keep on saying it, but as long as it's just you spouting vs actual data, well, nobody's going to listen.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 02:47:01 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 17, 2013, 02:14:45 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:58:44 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 17, 2013, 01:32:25 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:19:08 AM
It's either more available or it isn't. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available. Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.
That availability has to be qualified though. Is it more available to minors or people who have attained their majority age?
Both, because, for example, as with alcohol, we know the latter will supply the former.
QuoteWhy would you want to prevent an adult from purchasing being able to buy some weed if that's what they want to do?
I don't WANT to, but I also don't want to increase availability to minors.
My evidence, while anecdotal, suggests otherwise. I don't want kids smoking weed either, but it doesn't seem reasonable to limit an adult's access because a few of them will turn around and give it to teens.
But as Nigel said, we'll see in about a year.
Do you think it is only a few supplying minors with alcohol? Keeping in mind that a 20 year old is a minor and a 21 year old is an adult. You suppose that the 21 year olds who are buying weed are all saying no to their 20 year old and 19 year old friends? Of course not.
Those 21 year olds eventually become 23 year olds and those 18 year olds eventually become 20 year olds.
Did you ever drink as a minor? Serious question.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 03:43:47 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 03:27:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 03:21:53 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:19:08 AM
It's either more available or it isn't. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available. Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.
So people would keep jamming MPVD into themselves.
Well done.
The prevalence of synthetic cannabinoid use is nowhere near the prevalence of natural cannabinoid use. It isn't, on balance, being used as an alternative.
You keep saying that, but all the actual available data says exactly the opposite thing.
No, IMO, you and Nigel are misinterpreting that data. If it was really being used as an alternative its prevalence would be much higher than it is.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 03:51:00 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 03:43:47 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 03:27:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 03:21:53 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:19:08 AM
It's either more available or it isn't. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available. Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.
So people would keep jamming MPVD into themselves.
Well done.
The prevalence of synthetic cannabinoid use is nowhere near the prevalence of natural cannabinoid use. It isn't, on balance, being used as an alternative.
You keep saying that, but all the actual available data says exactly the opposite thing.
No, IMO, you and Nigel are misinterpreting that data. If it was really being used as an alternative its prevalence would be much higher than it is.
Yeah, I saw the contortions you went through on that.
No contortions, it is simple. If it was being used as an alternative prevalence would be higher.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 03:51:00 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 03:43:47 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 03:27:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 03:21:53 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 01:19:08 AM
It's either more available or it isn't. The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available. Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.
So people would keep jamming MPVD into themselves.
Well done.
The prevalence of synthetic cannabinoid use is nowhere near the prevalence of natural cannabinoid use. It isn't, on balance, being used as an alternative.
You keep saying that, but all the actual available data says exactly the opposite thing.
No, IMO, you and Nigel are misinterpreting that data. If it was really being used as an alternative its prevalence would be much higher than it is.
I gotta agree with Nigel on this. It seems like you're missing the lifetime use part for the weed. I don't think it's misinterpreting anything. We have two different interpretations here, and it seems like a rather interesting result. More data would show whether or not one interpretation is
supported or not supported.Twid,
learning to science.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 03:53:25 AM
No contortions, it is simple. If it was being used as an alternative prevalence would be higher.
99% of people who use synth use weed.
93% of those people prefer weed.
Let's see.
I prefer Indian food to Spam.
If I have no other food, I will eat Spam.
This leads you to believe that I will eat Spam when Indian food is available? Because I don't eat Spam every day?
Not sure where you're getting that logic.
Weed prohibition is largely the least effective prohibition effort ever, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. So the supply dries up in a given region. For a while, people use synth, until the real shit is available again.
But because they don't use synth all the time, it can't be an alternative to weed.
:?
So, if she weighs as much as a duck...
\
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hqn3Tfwl5Vc/Tfn6yBjbTXI/AAAAAAAAAtA/l_4jltUMOOo/s1600/holy+grail+4.jpg)
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 04:04:33 AM
So, if she weighs as much as a duck...
\
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Hqn3Tfwl5Vc/Tfn6yBjbTXI/AAAAAAAAAtA/l_4jltUMOOo/s1600/holy+grail+4.jpg)
:spittake:
:lulz:
I reeeealy want spam now. Fried. With bread and mustard.
NOW.
Quote from: Alty on September 17, 2013, 04:28:57 AM
:lulz:
I reeeealy want spam now. Fried. With bread and mustard.
NOW.
Crackhead.
Quote from: Alty on September 17, 2013, 04:28:57 AM
:lulz:
I reeeealy want spam now. Fried. With bread and mustard.
NOW.
I'm one of those foodheads who would never eat Spam, and I don't, but I love the hell out of some bhaji and saag paneer. Bit of naan. Chicken vindaloo. Spam, hell no. That's what ramen is for.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 03:59:47 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 03:53:25 AM
No contortions, it is simple. If it was being used as an alternative prevalence would be higher.
99% of people who use synth use weed.
93% of those people prefer weed.
Let's see.
I prefer Indian food to Spam.
If I have no other food, I will eat Spam.
This leads you to believe that I will eat Spam when Indian food is available? Because I don't eat Spam every day?
Not sure where you're getting that logic.
Here is what you are missing. Yes, in this survey, 99% of the SYNTH users were also using natural cannabis. But, flip that, what percentage of natural cannabis users are using synth. If it is the alternative you say it is, a very large percentage of natural users should also be using synth, yes?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57601387/new-u.s-drug-survey-marijuana-and-heroin-increasing/[/size][/size]Nationally, there are about 7.6 million Americans using marijuana daily. Now, if synth is a true alternative, we should have near 7.6 million using synth correct?[/size][/size]If you have statistics showing this to be the case I would be interested to see them.
I like Indian food.
After the war with India started, if I got caught eating Indian food I would be shot.
My friend says spam tastes kinda like Indian food.
I eat spam, but I prefer Indian food.
Sometimes, when I think it's safe or I'm sick of spam, I eat Indian anyway.
I never would have eaten spam if there was no external risks to eating Indian food.
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.
Whoa, hold the phone. Before you can go using that 7.6 million number you first need to provide statistics that say those 7.6 million are all also using synthetic.
I think there is an automatic assumption being made that because a survey showed near all synthetic users are using natural that you can just flip that and apply it to the overall population that near all natural users are using synhetic. You can't do that without providing some kind of evidence that it goes both ways.
It may be that near all synthetic users are natural users but that doesn't make it a given that all natural users are synthetic users.
This is where the disconnect is occurring.
I mean, there is a good shot that near all heroin users drink, but you can't just spin that around and say near everyone who drinks uses heroin
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.
I used to eat Indian all the time when I was in high school. I was a minor, what did I care if they caught me?
At my job now they test for vindaloo shits every couple months, so I switched to deviled ham. Then deviled ham became illegal, so I switched to spam. I hope to fucking god I don't have to switch to potted meat next.
The whole policy is a fucking joke. My boss comes in fucked up on Mexican every week, his whole office reeks of burritos. But Mexican hasn't been illegal since 1848.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 11:32:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 03:59:47 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 03:53:25 AM
No contortions, it is simple. If it was being used as an alternative prevalence would be higher.
99% of people who use synth use weed.
93% of those people prefer weed.
Let's see.
I prefer Indian food to Spam.
If I have no other food, I will eat Spam.
This leads you to believe that I will eat Spam when Indian food is available? Because I don't eat Spam every day?
Not sure where you're getting that logic.
Here is what you are missing. Yes, in this survey, 99% of the SYNTH users were also using natural cannabis. But, flip that, what percentage of natural cannabis users are using synth. If it is the alternative you say it is, a very large percentage of natural users should also be using synth, yes?
No, because not all weed users will use synth, they just do without weed.
I mean, come on, this isn't heroin we're talking about.
I don't think it's reasonable to speculate on data that hasn't been presented, nor is it reasonable to extrapolate data that doesn't exist. For example, that study did not give us the total number of people from their sample who have ever used cannabis, so we don't know how many respondents have used cannabis but have not used synthetic cannabinoids. However, here is more data from the full text of the study we're discussing:
Quote3.3. Patterns of 'natural' cannabis use among recent synthetic cannabis users
Almost all recent synthetic cannabis users (99.3%, N=975) reported ever use of some form of natural cannabis, including 95.9% reporting ever use of cannabis 'grass' (N=966), 83.5% reporting ever use of cannabis 'skunk' (N=964) and 80.5% reporting ever use of cannabis 'resin' (N=969). The median age of first use of any form of natural cannabis was 16 years (IQR14–18, range12–30,N=942) and the median number of years since first use was 7 (IQR 4–12, range1–45,N=927). Use of any form of natural cannabis in the last 12 months was reported by 95.0% of recent synthetic cannabis users (N=960), including 82.7% reporting recent use of cannabis 'grass', 72.0% reporting recent use of cannabis 'skunk', and 59.9% reporting recent use of cannabis 'resin'. Of those who reported any natural cannabis use in the last 12 months, most (88.4%) also reported use in thelast month (N=905). Of the 800 who reported last month use of any form of natural cannabis,the median days of use in the past month was 17 (IQR 6–29), 6.6% reported use on only one occasion, 81.1% reported use on 5 or more occasions (more than weekly), and 24.6% reported daily use. Fig.1 illustrates the frequency of synthetic and natural cannabis use among recent users of both drug types (N=837), with '0' representing 'not in the last month' and each number representing the number of days used in the last month. The most common pattern of use was last month cannabis users (days>0) who reported use of synthetic cannabis 'not in the last month' (days=0) (52.1%), whereas only 2.7% reported last month synthetic cannabis use (days>0) with no last month natural cannabis use (days=0). Most of the sample (79.5%) reported a greater number of days using cannabis than synthetic cannabis, 12.3% reported the same number of days, and 8.2% reported a greater number of days using synthetic cannabis than natural cannabis. Only 7 (0.84%) respondents reported daily use of both types of cannabis. Fig. 1 indicates that natural cannabis was used more regularly and recently than synthetic cannabis among this sample.
ETA ugh, sorry for the mashed quote, cleaned it up.
Also from the discussion section of the full text:
QuoteWhat 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.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 17, 2013, 04:20:14 PM
Also from the discussion section of the full text:
QuoteWhat 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 emailed Dr. Winstock to ask whether he has data on how many of his respondents from that survey have ever used cannabis but have never used synthetic cannabinoids. That information might come in handy for my minor anyway.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 17, 2013, 01:05:19 PM
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.
Those numbers are built upon a lot of assumptions.
a) that your four categories were accurate and comprehensive
and
b) that the percentage of synth users are divided evenly amongst those 4 categories
AND
c) people don't fall under more than one category.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 11:32:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 03:59:47 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 03:53:25 AM
No contortions, it is simple. If it was being used as an alternative prevalence would be higher.
99% of people who use synth use weed.
93% of those people prefer weed.
Let's see.
I prefer Indian food to Spam.
If I have no other food, I will eat Spam.
This leads you to believe that I will eat Spam when Indian food is available? Because I don't eat Spam every day?
Not sure where you're getting that logic.
Here is what you are missing. Yes, in this survey, 99% of the SYNTH users were also using natural cannabis. But, flip that, what percentage of natural cannabis users are using synth. If it is the alternative you say it is, a very large percentage of natural users should also be using synth, yes?
No, because not all weed users will use synth, they just do without weed.
Temporarily, because if someone wants to get weed, they are going to get weed.
And people who live in rural America aren't going to have the headshops that urban areas have, so access will be limited, but access to weed in rural areas isn't nearly as difficult.
So it really is an alternative for a very miniscule amount of users.
Dr. Winstock says that based on his research, only about 10% of natural cannabis users have ever used synthetics. He also had some rather incisive commentary about why that is, along the lines of "why would they?" :lol:
Anyway, thank you for the opportunity; he suggested that he may recruit me when he investigates further next year, so this discussion has allowed me to make a helpful professional contact. On that note I will bow out of this thread.
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 17, 2013, 05:41:48 PM
Dr. Winstock says that based on his research, only about 10% of natural cannabis users have ever used synthetics. He also had some rather incisive commentary about why that is, along the lines of "why would they?" :lol:
Which is pretty much where I have been coming from. A person who wants weed will get weed. Someone who wants a different, "stronger" kind of high is going to seek out these more dangerous substances. Legalization is not going to change that.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 06:14:25 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 17, 2013, 05:41:48 PM
Dr. Winstock says that based on his research, only about 10% of natural cannabis users have ever used synthetics. He also had some rather incisive commentary about why that is, along the lines of "why would they?" :lol:
Which is pretty much where I have been coming from. A person who wants weed will get weed. Someone who wants a different, "stronger" kind of high is going to seek out these more dangerous substances. Legalization is not going to change that.
If it is marketed as legal weed, I can see how the 10% of weed users, 93% of synth users can exist. Not all weed users are going to automatically try it. Maybe not the particularly smart ones. But I imagine that there's also a bit of a guinea pig effect. You tell your pothead friends not to bother. Weed's kind of a social drug.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 06:14:25 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 17, 2013, 05:41:48 PM
Dr. Winstock says that based on his research, only about 10% of natural cannabis users have ever used synthetics. He also had some rather incisive commentary about why that is, along the lines of "why would they?" :lol:
Which is pretty much where I have been coming from. A person who wants weed will get weed. Someone who wants a different, "stronger" kind of high is going to seek out these more dangerous substances. Legalization is not going to change that.
Except for the part where the vast majority of them DON'T WANT A STRONGER PRODUCT. THEY WANT WEED. 7% (the ones who don't like natural cannabis more) will still seek weird shit out, because they are weirdos. 93%, if given the choice in an even market, would stick with the less dangerous substance. 651,000 people (if my math is correct) would rather not be doing this shit, and are likely choosing the inferior product for reasons directly associated with prohibition.
That sounds like harm reduction to me.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 17, 2013, 06:36:30 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 06:14:25 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 17, 2013, 05:41:48 PM
Dr. Winstock says that based on his research, only about 10% of natural cannabis users have ever used synthetics. He also had some rather incisive commentary about why that is, along the lines of "why would they?" :lol:
Which is pretty much where I have been coming from. A person who wants weed will get weed. Someone who wants a different, "stronger" kind of high is going to seek out these more dangerous substances. Legalization is not going to change that.
Except for the part where the vast majority of them DON'T WANT A STRONGER PRODUCT. THEY WANT WEED. 7% (the ones who don't like natural cannabis more) will still seek weird shit out, because they are weirdos. 93%, if given the choice in an even market, would stick with the less dangerous substance. 651,000 people (if my math is correct) would rather not be doing this shit, and are likely choosing the inferior product for reasons directly associated with prohibition.
That sounds like harm reduction to me.
But it isn't about harm reduction. It's about control.
No, it's about protecting the public health.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 18, 2013, 03:30:19 AM
No, it's about protecting the public health.
We had to burn the village to save it. :lulz:
And now it's safe forever.
So long as no one rebuilds.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 18, 2013, 03:57:56 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 18, 2013, 03:30:19 AM
No, it's about protecting the public health.
We had to burn the village to save it. :lulz:
No, we just don't change a law that already exists.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 18, 2013, 11:18:53 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 18, 2013, 03:57:56 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 18, 2013, 03:30:19 AM
No, it's about protecting the public health.
We had to burn the village to save it. :lulz:
No, we just don't change a law that already exists.
Right, just keep adding more and more laws until everyone is a criminal!
Then everyone can be safe in their state-sanctioned private prisons where they have employment guaranteed and security coming out of (and in to) their assholes.
That is nonsensical.
Keeping marijuana illegal doesn't add a law.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 18, 2013, 11:18:53 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 18, 2013, 03:57:56 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 18, 2013, 03:30:19 AM
No, it's about protecting the public health.
We had to burn the village to save it. :lulz:
No, we just don't change a law that already exists.
Sure, because it's been PROTECTING THE PROSTATES RIGHT OUT OF AMERICA since the 1930s.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 18, 2013, 12:25:05 PM
That is nonsensical.
Keeping marijuana illegal doesn't add a law.
No it doesn't. But you know as well as i do that laws will be added. That shit happens all the time. There has not been a net decrease in laws since ever. So Not changing laws just because they already exists is really fucking stupid and effectively the same as increasing the number of laws. There are many criminals because there are many things forbidden, maybe the lawmakers can chill the fuck out every once in a while? Any step towards decriminalizing the lesser crimes is good in my book.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 19, 2013, 01:36:35 PM
That makes no sense whatsoever.
As an analogy, think of Bruce Schneier's critique against No Fly Lists:
The TSA has every incentive to put suspicious people in that list, because the cost of putting someone in that list who shouldn't be there is low (For them. The people in the list disagree). And the incentive to remove inocent people from that list is... nothing. Less than nothing, because the cost of making a mistake in that case is huge. Because of that, the list is always growing.
It's the same with regulation: The government regulates a product or a behavior because it makes sense, but when it stops making sense, suddenly the burden of proof shifted and it's impossible to deregulate anything that was once regulated.
Thinking about it, I realize that this analogy may be even more complicated than the "simple" case of drug legalization (apologies if that's the case), but since it doesn't go against your biases, who knows, maybe you can see my point.
Well, I don't agree with the idea that it no longer makes sense for marijuana to be illegal.
That aside, it still does not add up, this idea that not removing a law adds laws. That is fuzzy math.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 19, 2013, 02:30:14 PM
Well, I don't agree with the idea that it no longer makes sense for marijuana to be illegal.
That aside, it still does not add up, this idea that not removing a law adds laws. That is fuzzy math.
Laws are added all the time, no matter what we do. What regret said was that if we don't remove some laws at least as fast as new laws are being added, then naturally the number of laws will increase. Fairly simple math.
We don't agree on which laws should be added or substracted, but that there are more and more laws is not controversial.
Okay, but not removing a law does not add laws. Adding laws, adds laws.
Law of aneristic escalation? Create a law, new stuff squishes out the sides in the face of wider public acceptance, new laws have to be made to deal with the stuff that squished out the side, lather, rinse, repeat?
Just thinking out loud here.
But a new law isn't being created. Marijuana has been illegal for quite awhile. We aren't talking about a new law to ban marijuana. We're talking about whether or not to unban, to basically repeal a law.
So it is incorrect to couch it in a discussion of adding laws because no laws would be added if we don't un-ban marijuana.
To be clear, no law has been created that relates to marijuana other than the initial ban in the 1930s?
Actually laws have been added. The ones that have made medical marijuana legal in many states. And let me tell you, those laws have definitely been goddamned zoos, especially here in Maine.
But no laws regarding the prohibition or illegality of marijuana have been created since the 1930s.
Just so I understand.
This isn't 1930, it is 2013. Not un-banning marijuana does not create a new law.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 19, 2013, 04:00:09 PM
This isn't 1930, it is 2013. Not un-banning marijuana does not create a new law.
You didn't answer the question.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2013, 03:40:50 PM
Law of aneristic escalation? Create a law, new stuff squishes out the sides in the face of wider public acceptance, new laws have to be made to deal with the stuff that squished out the side, lather, rinse, repeat?
Just thinking out loud here.
A reminder of what I'm trying to say.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2013, 04:01:45 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2013, 03:40:50 PM
Law of aneristic escalation? Create a law, new stuff squishes out the sides in the face of wider public acceptance, new laws have to be made to deal with the stuff that squished out the side, lather, rinse, repeat?
Just thinking out loud here.
A reminder of what I'm trying to say.
But a new law isn't being created. We are talking about whether or not to undo a law that already exists. Your starting point is incorrect.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 19, 2013, 04:00:09 PM
This isn't 1930, it is 2013. Not un-banning marijuana does not create a new law.
Correct.
What it does do is not reduce the number of laws.
If you look at the end result, not removing a law has the same effect on the total number of laws as adding a new one.
Since laws often criminalize behaviour, they create more criminals.
I do not like criminals so i think we should always strive to reduce the total number of laws.
The point is that new laws are created that relate to the original law.
If the original law is removed, new laws will not be created that relate to the repealed law.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2013, 04:11:46 PM
The point is that new laws are created that relate to the original law.
If the original law is removed, new laws will not be created that relate to the repealed law.
Sure, adding laws adds laws. But not removing a law in and of itself does not add new laws.
But with respect to marijuana legalization you are incorrect anyway. Because unless you also make it legal for minors to use, you will still have laws being created that relates to marijuana regulation. And it will include laws regulating behavior.
You will also have new laws to regulate where you can and cannot use marijuana. To include housing, schools, etc.
New laws will have to be created to regulate it at the workplace.
New laws will be created to regulate composition, THC content, promotion and advertising, outlet density, etc., etc.
More laws will have to be created to regulate recreational marijuana than are being created to maintain the status quo.
So, in the end, we each have desired results, but neither one will be a result where absolutely no new laws are created to create and/or maintain our desired results.
Now, I imagine those who support legalization will say those new laws are okay because it supports their desired result of legalized marijuana.
Just as I would support, for example, a new law today that made it harder for youth to get marijuana.
But in the end, neither side's desired result will mean no new laws created.
So it's a rather meaningless and moot discussion.
Oh. Well, then.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 19, 2013, 04:26:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2013, 04:11:46 PM
The point is that new laws are created that relate to the original law.
If the original law is removed, new laws will not be created that relate to the repealed law.
Sure, adding laws adds laws. But not removing a law in and of itself does not add new laws.
FFS.
I am just shocked by how this thread turned out.
Shocked, i tell you.
Quote from: Alty on September 19, 2013, 05:06:13 PM
I am just shocked by how this thread turned out.
Shocked, i tell you.
I wish I'd placed a bet on it.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 19, 2013, 05:08:10 PM
Quote from: Alty on September 19, 2013, 05:06:13 PM
I am just shocked by how this thread turned out.
Shocked, i tell you.
I wish I'd placed a bet on it.
I'd be lying if I said I hadn't. But the numbers were so generous, it's like the horse had a stroke before it left the post.And is now foaming at the mouth and running in a circle on the ground, much like a certain stooge.
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
Truly, I thought it would take a month or two, and just look at how good ive been.
But, like the man said:
FUCK Versailles!
/
:hitlerbanjo:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2013, 04:45:36 PM
Oh. Well, then.
Am I wrong? Do you see how legalization is going to result in all kinds of new laws?
Hm?
Oh, I stopped. Clearly, this was a meaningless and moot discussion. Just as you said.
So, I stopped.
Okay so NOW we are being literal?
Okay then.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 19, 2013, 05:56:20 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 19, 2013, 04:42:58 PM
So it's a rather meaningless and moot discussion.
I'd just like to point out, as this discussion is useless, that adding "rather" to the above sentemce is redundant. It's like using semi colons when you don't need to; it just makes you feel like you appear more better.
/:requia:
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 19, 2013, 05:49:54 PM
Okay so NOW we are being literal?
Okay then.
Remind me when I (LMNO) was not being literal?
I feel bad now. I let myself get baited. Again.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2013, 06:07:46 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 19, 2013, 05:49:54 PM
Okay so NOW we are being literal?
Okay then.
Remind me when I (LMNO) was not being literal?
This pedantic discussion around how not repealing a law is adding laws. No. Me not supporting legalization isn't proposing new law, it is proposing that we not change a law that already exists. period. It literally creates no new law.
BUT, legalization will REQUIRE additional laws to regulate it in the public sphere. To regulate youth access, and so on.
Because there hasn't been a single new marijuana law since 1933.
:whack:
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 13, 2013, 07:45:05 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 13, 2013, 07:35:18 PM
And the "real potheads" part doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that the "real wine connoisseurs have moved on to vodka".
Nonsense. Real wine connoisseurs have moved on to port. It's classier.
Anyway, I'm fairly sure there's a bunch of UK studies showing "legal highs" (mainly marijuana look/"feel"alkies) are almost universally worse than the actual drug.
Once again, because, drug thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
See you in 30 pages, have fun.
Heroin is misclassified. If it is pure and of known potency it doesn't cause all that much physical harm.
:ffs:
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 15, 2013, 03:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 14, 2013, 04:13:34 PM
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.
The Miami Zombie had synthetic weed in his system and did not have "bath salts" in his system, that's something that for some reason didn't get a lot of media play.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 19, 2013, 07:08:39 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 15, 2013, 03:13:26 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on September 14, 2013, 04:13:34 PM
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.
The Miami Zombie had synthetic weed in his system and did not have "bath salts" in his system, that's something that for some reason didn't get a lot of media play.
YEAH WE ALREADY KINDA COVERED THAT
WE COVERED ALL KINDS OF OTHER SHIT, TOO. LIKE THE DOCUMENTED EFFECTS OF MEPHADRONE AND MPVD.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 11:32:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 17, 2013, 03:59:47 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 17, 2013, 03:53:25 AM
No contortions, it is simple. If it was being used as an alternative prevalence would be higher.
99% of people who use synth use weed.
93% of those people prefer weed.
Let's see.
I prefer Indian food to Spam.
If I have no other food, I will eat Spam.
This leads you to believe that I will eat Spam when Indian food is available? Because I don't eat Spam every day?
Not sure where you're getting that logic.
Here is what you are missing. Yes, in this survey, 99% of the SYNTH users were also using natural cannabis. But, flip that, what percentage of natural cannabis users are using synth. If it is the alternative you say it is, a very large percentage of natural users should also be using synth, yes?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57601387/new-u.s-drug-survey-marijuana-and-heroin-increasing/
[/size]
[/size]Nationally, there are about 7.6 million Americans using marijuana daily. Now, if synth is a true alternative, we should have near 7.6 million using synth correct?
[/size]
[/size]If you have statistics showing this to be the case I would be interested to see them.
No, a large percentage of natural users using synth would occur only if prohibition had been widely successful at reducing access to natural weed.
Sorry, it's already been established and agreed to in this thread that it has reduced access and availability.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 19, 2013, 04:07:38 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2013, 04:01:45 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2013, 03:40:50 PM
Law of aneristic escalation? Create a law, new stuff squishes out the sides in the face of wider public acceptance, new laws have to be made to deal with the stuff that squished out the side, lather, rinse, repeat?
Just thinking out loud here.
A reminder of what I'm trying to say.
But a new law isn't being created. We are talking about whether or not to undo a law that already exists. Your starting point is incorrect.
And you have repeatedly stated that you are in favor of some of the existing laws being changed. You want diversion, and for people with two baggies not to be charged with intent to distribute, and a whole raft of other changes in the laws.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 19, 2013, 07:25:33 PM
Sorry, it's already been established and agreed to in this thread that it has reduced access and availability.
Yep, in unpredictable ways that lead to a small number of weed smokers trying shit that has led to people eating other people's faces. Sounds like it reduces access in bad ways, while not making much of a dent in overall use.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 19, 2013, 07:10:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 19, 2013, 07:32:06 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 19, 2013, 07:10:09 PM
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 (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.
QuoteHis 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.
hmm, the article I read must have been inaccurate. I can't find it anymore now.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 19, 2013, 07:47:55 PM
hmm, the article I read must have been inaccurate. I can't find it anymore now.
This will fly on the banner at the next über secret conclave.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 19, 2013, 07:04:08 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 13, 2013, 07:45:05 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 13, 2013, 07:35:18 PM
And the "real potheads" part doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that the "real wine connoisseurs have moved on to vodka".
Nonsense. Real wine connoisseurs have moved on to port. It's classier.
Anyway, I'm fairly sure there's a bunch of UK studies showing "legal highs" (mainly marijuana look/"feel"alkies) are almost universally worse than the actual drug.
Once again, because, drug thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
See you in 30 pages, have fun.
Heroin is misclassified. If it is pure and of known potency it doesn't cause all that much physical harm.
Please present your credentials placing you as a better judge of this than the VAST amount of research Nutt put into that chart and as a direct result, getting himself sacked.
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 19, 2013, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 19, 2013, 07:04:08 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 13, 2013, 07:45:05 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 13, 2013, 07:35:18 PM
And the "real potheads" part doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that the "real wine connoisseurs have moved on to vodka".
Nonsense. Real wine connoisseurs have moved on to port. It's classier.
Anyway, I'm fairly sure there's a bunch of UK studies showing "legal highs" (mainly marijuana look/"feel"alkies) are almost universally worse than the actual drug.
Once again, because, drug thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
See you in 30 pages, have fun.
Heroin is misclassified. If it is pure and of known potency it doesn't cause all that much physical harm.
Please present your credentials placing you as a better judge of this than the VAST amount of research Nutt put into that chart and as a direct result, getting himself sacked.
Just going with everything I have read on the subject. Heroin is incredibly addictive, moreso than any other substance as far as I can tell, but the health problems from it are mostly due either to impurities or junkies not taking care of themselves in other ways cause they don't care cause they are on heroin, or from the problems with injecting.
I'm guessing it's up there because junkies aren't so good at moderation, usually. And without that heroin is, usually, a nice easy way to fill your lungs with fluid.
You'd have to shove a LOT of cocaine up your nose, but it doesnt take THAT much heroin to do the job.
Relatively speaking.
I mean, jesus, poppy seed tea can kill you at random, FFS.
But yes, drug thread, do go on.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 12:42:43 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 19, 2013, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 19, 2013, 07:04:08 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 13, 2013, 07:45:05 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 13, 2013, 07:35:18 PM
And the "real potheads" part doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that the "real wine connoisseurs have moved on to vodka".
Nonsense. Real wine connoisseurs have moved on to port. It's classier.
Anyway, I'm fairly sure there's a bunch of UK studies showing "legal highs" (mainly marijuana look/"feel"alkies) are almost universally worse than the actual drug.
Once again, because, drug thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
See you in 30 pages, have fun.
Heroin is misclassified. If it is pure and of known potency it doesn't cause all that much physical harm.
Please present your credentials placing you as a better judge of this than the VAST amount of research Nutt put into that chart and as a direct result, getting himself sacked.
Just going with everything I have read on the subject. Heroin is incredibly addictive, moreso than any other substance as far as I can tell, but the health problems from it are mostly due either to impurities or junkies not taking care of themselves in other ways cause they don't care cause they are on heroin, or from the problems with injecting.
So basically you're saying that other than being highly addictive and rapidly tolerance-forming, if it is free from contamination and dosage error and they don't get complications at the injection sites from frequent injections and if they can just take care of themselves appropriately while being addicted to it, heroin is pretty much perfectly safe.
Yep. I think I agree with that.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 02:42:57 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 12:42:43 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 19, 2013, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 19, 2013, 07:04:08 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 13, 2013, 07:45:05 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 13, 2013, 07:35:18 PM
And the "real potheads" part doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that the "real wine connoisseurs have moved on to vodka".
Nonsense. Real wine connoisseurs have moved on to port. It's classier.
Anyway, I'm fairly sure there's a bunch of UK studies showing "legal highs" (mainly marijuana look/"feel"alkies) are almost universally worse than the actual drug.
Once again, because, drug thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
See you in 30 pages, have fun.
Heroin is misclassified. If it is pure and of known potency it doesn't cause all that much physical harm.
Please present your credentials placing you as a better judge of this than the VAST amount of research Nutt put into that chart and as a direct result, getting himself sacked.
Just going with everything I have read on the subject. Heroin is incredibly addictive, moreso than any other substance as far as I can tell, but the health problems from it are mostly due either to impurities or junkies not taking care of themselves in other ways cause they don't care cause they are on heroin, or from the problems with injecting.
So basically you're saying that other than being highly addictive and rapidly tolerance-forming, if it is free from contamination and dosage error and they don't get complications at the injection sites from frequent injections and if they can just take care of themselves appropriately while being addicted to it, heroin is pretty much perfectly safe.
Yep. I think I agree with that.
Yep, basically exactly that. as opposed to methamphetemine, which even if pure nd of known quality and all those other qualifiers still eats your bones and teeth
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:13:33 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 02:42:57 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 12:42:43 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 19, 2013, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 19, 2013, 07:04:08 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 13, 2013, 07:45:05 PM
Quote from: What The Fox Say on September 13, 2013, 07:35:18 PM
And the "real potheads" part doesn't even make sense. It's like saying that the "real wine connoisseurs have moved on to vodka".
Nonsense. Real wine connoisseurs have moved on to port. It's classier.
Anyway, I'm fairly sure there's a bunch of UK studies showing "legal highs" (mainly marijuana look/"feel"alkies) are almost universally worse than the actual drug.
Once again, because, drug thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
See you in 30 pages, have fun.
Heroin is misclassified. If it is pure and of known potency it doesn't cause all that much physical harm.
Please present your credentials placing you as a better judge of this than the VAST amount of research Nutt put into that chart and as a direct result, getting himself sacked.
Just going with everything I have read on the subject. Heroin is incredibly addictive, moreso than any other substance as far as I can tell, but the health problems from it are mostly due either to impurities or junkies not taking care of themselves in other ways cause they don't care cause they are on heroin, or from the problems with injecting.
So basically you're saying that other than being highly addictive and rapidly tolerance-forming, if it is free from contamination and dosage error and they don't get complications at the injection sites from frequent injections and if they can just take care of themselves appropriately while being addicted to it, heroin is pretty much perfectly safe.
Yep. I think I agree with that.
Yep, basically exactly that. as opposed to methamphetemine, which even if pure nd of known quality and all those other qualifiers still eats your bones and teeth
Really? Citation?
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
Do you have some research that backs this up?
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 03:35:06 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
Do you have some research that backs this up?
That meth and coke in pure form and of known potency still do damage or that Heroin doesn't do that much?
The latter, the supposed relative harmlessness of heroin that you are talking about. I'd like to see some research that backs up this idea.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
I think it is factually accurate to assign it the level of physical harm that users actually suffer, even if they suffer those levels of harm because the drug is adulterated, because they are administering it unsafely, because they are unable to administer an accurate dose, or because the method of administration is itself at risk for harmful effect. Why? Because all those factors actually
exist in fact.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin-abuse-addiction/what-are-long-term-effects-heroin-use
It says right at the top that the worst problem with long term heroin use is addiction and if you look at the long term problems only arthritis is not a result of the method of use (that is injection)
I want to be clear that I am not advocating for heroin use, even in a safe legal environment where dirty needles were not a problem and it was of known potency and purity it would still cause heroin addiction, which is a really absolutely awful thing. I am just not happy with the graph conflating addiction potential (which is the real problem with heroin) with physical harm.
Also, Nigel, the problems of adulteration and unknown potency also exist for any other illegal drug, yes they make heroin worse than it would be if it was not a street drug, but they also make coke and meth worse than they would be if they were not street drugs and as far as physical harm goes they are worse to begin with.
I have been given both morphine and cocaine medically, and I'm just fine... they are perfectly safe to use in controlled medical settings. That doesn't make them necessarily safe taken by laypersons for fun without medical supervision, even if they COULD get them guaranteed medical grade. I do, unfortunately, have rather extensive experience with heroin addicts, given that my first boyfriend, who later became my first husband, was one, and he, along with two of his sisters and many of his friends, was deeply enmeshed in Portland's now-legendary heroin culture.
Don't go prancing around bandying about your precious opinion that heroin isn't really that dangerous. You don't know shit.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:58:12 AM
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin-abuse-addiction/what-are-long-term-effects-heroin-use
It says right at the top that the worst problem with long term heroin use is addiction and if you look at the long term problems only arthritis is not a result of the method of use (that is injection)
I want to be clear that I am not advocating for heroin use, even in a safe legal environment where dirty needles were not a problem and it was of known potency and purity it would still cause heroin addiction, which is a really absolutely awful thing. I am just not happy with the graph conflating addiction potential (which is the real problem with heroin) with physical harm.
Also, Nigel, the problems of adulteration and unknown potency also exist for any other illegal drug, yes they make heroin worse than it would be if it was not a street drug, but they also make coke and meth worse than they would be if they were not street drugs and as far as physical harm goes they are worse to begin with.
That graph rated addiction and physical harm on two different axes... that's the point of using a plot like that. It didn't "conflate" anything. The fact that the physical harm is a side effect of addiction and not a direct effect of the drug doesn't negate it.
Have you ever seen anyone in withdrawal from heroin addiction? Have you ever heard of someone having to go to the hospital to have their bowel impaction removed because they've become so constipated from heroin that they have ten pounds of rock-hard shit in their colon and can't eat and have lost 50 lbs? Here, read this: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/513921-heroin-constipation
Heroin is a horrible fucking bitch. People can use it for a lifetime and be reasonably kind of OK (most of them aren't) but from everything I've seen I have to agree that in terms of both physical and social harm (losing jobs, relationships, etc) it deserves a pretty high rating.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 05:32:20 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?
So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:11:08 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 05:32:20 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?
So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?
Come on, man...It was a simple question.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 07:11:45 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:11:08 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 05:32:20 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?
So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?
Come on, man...It was a simple question.
Yep, and a rhetorical one. Dead is dead, and it sucks, and heroin will get you there.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:13:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 07:11:45 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:11:08 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 05:32:20 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?
So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?
Come on, man...It was a simple question.
Yep, and a rhetorical one. Dead is dead, and it sucks, and heroin will get you there.
Then it IS factually accurate to compare it to other drugs that kill you.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:13:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 07:11:45 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:11:08 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 05:32:20 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?
So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?
Come on, man...It was a simple question.
Yep, and a rhetorical one. Dead is dead, and it sucks, and heroin will get you there.
Then it IS factually accurate to compare it to other drugs that kill you.
Sure, but why put two axes on the graph if everything is going to line up in a nice diagonal line and actual differences between addiction potential and physical harm potential are ignored?
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:15:16 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:13:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 07:11:45 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:11:08 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 05:32:20 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?
So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?
Come on, man...It was a simple question.
Yep, and a rhetorical one. Dead is dead, and it sucks, and heroin will get you there.
Then it IS factually accurate to compare it to other drugs that kill you.
Sure, but why put two axes on the graph if everything is going to line up in a nice diagonal line and actual differences between addiction potential and physical harm potential are ignored?
Don't ask me. I'd instead ask "which ones cause the most misery?"
Oh, wait. Suddenly the "2 axes" thing makes a whole lot of sense.
In any case, I'm bailing on the drug issue, because we've got a real, live Nazi to kick around.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:15:16 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:13:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 07:11:45 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:11:08 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 05:32:20 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?
So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?
Come on, man...It was a simple question.
Yep, and a rhetorical one. Dead is dead, and it sucks, and heroin will get you there.
Then it IS factually accurate to compare it to other drugs that kill you.
Sure, but why put two axes on the graph if everything is going to line up in a nice diagonal line and actual differences between addiction potential and physical harm potential are ignored?
They aren't ignored, they are right there on the graph.
However, I'm also not a fan of that kind of discussion, in that, a drug doesn't need to kill you. A drug can spare killing you but still irrevocably fuck up your life, whether it be through physical harm to your body, your brain, or socially. It is a limiting way to think about the true impacts of any and all drugs on people.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:11:08 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 05:32:20 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?
So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?
One axis is for addictiveness and the other axis is for physical harm.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:15:16 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:13:11 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 07:11:45 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 07:11:08 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on September 20, 2013, 05:32:20 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 03:23:23 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 03:19:42 AM
Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!
Not what I was saying.
Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.
In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?
So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?
Come on, man...It was a simple question.
Yep, and a rhetorical one. Dead is dead, and it sucks, and heroin will get you there.
Then it IS factually accurate to compare it to other drugs that kill you.
Sure, but why put two axes on the graph if everything is going to line up in a nice diagonal line and actual differences between addiction potential and physical harm potential are ignored?
OH NO
:facepalm:
Can you please unsay that?
Pergamos, I don't know how far you got in math. But that diagonal line of data points is how you determine correlation. IF you have a bunch of X data points, AND you have a bunch of Y data points, and you put them on a graph and you end up with something that looks like a diagonal line, that shows correlation. That is how it works. It is not "ignoring" anything.
Sometimes you don't get a line, and then you don't have a correlation. Or you get a parabola or something else complicated.
-
It's pretty common sense if you actually think about it. It makes sense that the more addictive a drug is, the more physical harm it is going to do because, well, they are using it a lot more often.
A big part of that is building the tolerance and chasing that bigger high. This makes a drug like heroin quite insidious because at a certain point the user is never going to get the same high they got the first time they used it. it just becomes trying to maintain an equilibrium so they can "function".
To try to cast a drug like heroin off as "benign" in the way that Pergamos is doing is patently ridiculous and flys in the face of reality.
I think that Pergamos is essentially saying that he doesn't think that secondary harm that results from regular and frequent heroin use should be considered harm from heroin. I disagree, because by that logic we can also say that HIV is harmless because nobody gets sick from HIV, they get sick from secondary infections made possible by their HIV-compromised immune systems. Secondary physical harm is still physical harm, particularly when you're looking at an addiction rate of about 23% of all users.
RWHN AND I AGREE ON SOMETHING
STOP THE GODDAMN WORLD.
-
Taking advantage of the apparent agreement on this chart, can i just point out that Cannabis is kind of in the middle, with its Dependency rating being on par with Amphetamine amd higher than other illicit drugs.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 05:04:55 PM
Taking advantage of the apparent agreement on this chart, can i just point out that Cannabis is kind of in the middle, with its Dependency rating being on par with Amphetamine amd higher than other illicit drugs.
And lower than some licit ones.
A few pages from now, you are going to remind us that cannabis should be evaluated on its own merits, so it's a moot point anyway.
I've heard the argument before that 'if you had totally clean heroin, in controlled doses, administered correctly then it's not that dangerous'. There was one pharmacology professor (whose name escapes me) who raised a bunch of eyebrows by making the above case and telling his students that under those conditions, your worst problems as a heroin user would be impotence and constipation(!).
And all this may be true, and it may also be true that heroin isn't as damaging to the organs as, say alcohol. Still, to me it's a kind of pointless argument only because the 'clean, controlled, safe heroin' is to be found practically NOWHERE. [It's like when people start geeking out on too many popular science tv shows about physics. Yes, ok so we get that time travel is theoretically possible if you can do XYZ. Trouble is, XYZ is so phenomenally difficult to achieve, that at this stage of history it's not exactly a pressing conCERN.]
So 'clean heroin' might not be as problematic. But the real actual heroin that real actual people buy and use most totally is.
I get what Pergamos is saying. However, as I've suggested, being pedantic about the qualities of a particular molecule doesn't explain much about or help the daily reality of being an addict or being in the orbit of addicts as Nigel and myself have (and probably a whole bunch of other people here on PD.)
If you go back to Nutt's research that was linked a few posts ago, he most certainly included 'secondary harm' in his work. Harm is harm. Anyone who doesn't believe me, should invite an opiate addict to live in their home for a few months.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 05:04:55 PM
Taking advantage of the apparent agreement on this chart, can i just point out that Cannabis is kind of in the middle, with its Dependency rating being on par with Amphetamine amd higher than other illicit drugs.
Where is alcohol?
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 20, 2013, 05:38:24 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 05:04:55 PM
Taking advantage of the apparent agreement on this chart, can i just point out that Cannabis is kind of in the middle, with its Dependency rating being on par with Amphetamine amd higher than other illicit drugs.
Where is alcohol?
Within spitting distance.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on September 20, 2013, 05:15:45 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 05:04:55 PM
Taking advantage of the apparent agreement on this chart, can i just point out that Cannabis is kind of in the middle, with its Dependency rating being on par with Amphetamine amd higher than other illicit drugs.
And lower than some licit ones.
A few pages from now, you are going to remind us that cannabis should be evaluated on its own merits, so it's a moot point anyway.
it is, but it is a moot point many here seem to focus on. Just wanted to point out that cannabis and alcohol aren't as far apart as many would suggest.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 05:41:16 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 20, 2013, 05:38:24 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 05:04:55 PM
Taking advantage of the apparent agreement on this chart, can i just point out that Cannabis is kind of in the middle, with its Dependency rating being on par with Amphetamine amd higher than other illicit drugs.
Where is alcohol?
Within spitting distance.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
No. Try again.
I see it perfectly fine. I also know that if one were to have placed the dot purely based upon the prevailing opinions that have been put forth in our various drug threads that it would be hovering around 0,0.
But in fact, the physical harm is within .5 of alcohol and the gap for dependency is even less.
In other words it IS addictive and it is NOT harmless.
-
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 05:51:14 PM
I see it perfectly fine. I also know that if one were to have placed the dot purely based upon the prevailing opinions that have been put forth in our various drug threads that it would be hovering around 0,0.
But in fact, the physical harm is within .5 of alcohol and the gap for dependency is even less.
It shows how little you understand if you think the general feeling of the board would put marijuana at 0,0.
The point I was trying to help you see is that you seem proactive on the evils of drugs, yet I hear you say little or nothing against alcohol. Which is established objectively as more harmful.
But alcohol is fine because you have a beer occasionally.
LOGIC.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 04:48:29 PM
I think that Pergamos is essentially saying that he doesn't think that secondary harm that results from regular and frequent heroin use should be considered harm from heroin. I disagree, because by that logic we can also say that HIV is harmless because nobody gets sick from HIV, they get sick from secondary infections made possible by their HIV-compromised immune systems. Secondary physical harm is still physical harm, particularly when you're looking at an addiction rate of about 23% of all users.
No, I am saying that the graph is not well made because it is putting the harm due to addiction on a different axis and then putting that on the same graph. It's like making a graph that ranks cars on fuel consumption and exhaust produced. Harm from addiction is going to eclipse physical harm from the drug itself unless the drug itself is insanely physically harmful (like, say, krokodil)
Quote from: Mangrove on September 20, 2013, 05:27:52 PM
I've heard the argument before that 'if you had totally clean heroin, in controlled doses, administered correctly then it's not that dangerous'. There was one pharmacology professor (whose name escapes me) who raised a bunch of eyebrows by making the above case and telling his students that under those conditions, your worst problems as a heroin user would be impotence and constipation(!).
And all this may be true, and it may also be true that heroin isn't as damaging to the organs as, say alcohol. Still, to me it's a kind of pointless argument only because the 'clean, controlled, safe heroin' is to be found practically NOWHERE. [It's like when people start geeking out on too many popular science tv shows about physics. Yes, ok so we get that time travel is theoretically possible if you can do XYZ. Trouble is, XYZ is so phenomenally difficult to achieve, that at this stage of history it's not exactly a pressing conCERN.]
So 'clean heroin' might not be as problematic. But the real actual heroin that real actual people buy and use most totally is.
I get what Pergamos is saying. However, as I've suggested, being pedantic about the qualities of a particular molecule doesn't explain much about or help the daily reality of being an addict or being in the orbit of addicts as Nigel and myself have (and probably a whole bunch of other people here on PD.)
If you go back to Nutt's research that was linked a few posts ago, he most certainly included 'secondary harm' in his work. Harm is harm. Anyone who doesn't believe me, should invite an opiate addict to live in their home for a few months.
It becomes less barstool deserving if you take into account that without prohibition clean controlled safe heroin would be available.
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2013, 06:22:41 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on September 20, 2013, 05:27:52 PM
I've heard the argument before that 'if you had totally clean heroin, in controlled doses, administered correctly then it's not that dangerous'. There was one pharmacology professor (whose name escapes me) who raised a bunch of eyebrows by making the above case and telling his students that under those conditions, your worst problems as a heroin user would be impotence and constipation(!).
[...]
So 'clean heroin' might not be as problematic. But the real actual heroin that real actual people buy and use most totally is.
I'm certain I read the same study, as that's my exact understanding as well.
I'll third this. If anyone cares I'm pretty sure I've got it on an external drive somewhere.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 05:51:14 PM
I see it perfectly fine. I also know that if one were to have placed the dot purely based upon the prevailing opinions that have been put forth in our various drug threads that it would be hovering around 0,0.
But in fact, the physical harm is within .5 of alcohol and the gap for dependency is even less.
Also, note proximity of alcohol to STREET METHADONE.
Think about that when you're talking about what's in "spitting distance"
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 20, 2013, 06:36:43 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 05:51:14 PM
I see it perfectly fine. I also know that if one were to have placed the dot purely based upon the prevailing opinions that have been put forth in our various drug threads that it would be hovering around 0,0.
But in fact, the physical harm is within .5 of alcohol and the gap for dependency is even less.
It shows how little you understand if you think the general feeling of the board would put marijuana at 0,0.
The point I was trying to help you see is that you seem proactive on the evils of drugs, yet I hear you say little or nothing against alcohol. Which is established objectively as more harmful.
But alcohol is fine because you have a beer occasionally.
LOGIC.
Start a thread about alcohol and we can talk about it. All of the past drug threads have centered on the marijuana legalization question.
I also get paid to do underage drinking prevention, so trust me it is something I pay attention to on a daily basis.
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 20, 2013, 06:42:20 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 05:51:14 PM
I see it perfectly fine. I also know that if one were to have placed the dot purely based upon the prevailing opinions that have been put forth in our various drug threads that it would be hovering around 0,0.
But in fact, the physical harm is within .5 of alcohol and the gap for dependency is even less.
Also, note proximity of alcohol to STREET METHADONE.
Think about that when you're talking about what's in "spitting distance"
Yep, alcohol is nasty stuff.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 06:55:35 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 20, 2013, 06:36:43 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 05:51:14 PM
I see it perfectly fine. I also know that if one were to have placed the dot purely based upon the prevailing opinions that have been put forth in our various drug threads that it would be hovering around 0,0.
But in fact, the physical harm is within .5 of alcohol and the gap for dependency is even less.
It shows how little you understand if you think the general feeling of the board would put marijuana at 0,0.
The point I was trying to help you see is that you seem proactive on the evils of drugs, yet I hear you say little or nothing against alcohol. Which is established objectively as more harmful.
But alcohol is fine because you have a beer occasionally.
LOGIC.
Start a thread about alcohol and we can talk about it. All of the past drug threads have centered on the marijuana legalization question.
I also get paid to do underage drinking prevention, so trust me it is something I pay attention to on a daily basis.
No, lets not shit up the board further. Again, I'm trying to point out that you consume an objectively harmful substance with a degree of regularity. This substance is not likely to put you in jail purely for possession. Look at everything on the chart BELOW alcohol. The prohibition stances you advocate and push for keep a range of other substances highly criminalised.
You get that prison is bad right? So why should mere possession, let alone use of these substances in non-endangering environments warrant jail?
Do you have shares in a G4S or a prison company or something? Why do you not advocate freedoms, only restrictions?
I appreciate that I usually slap a jester image on what you post, the above is not meant as sarcasm, but genuine questions. I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from on this whole thing but it's pretty difficult due to all the, you know, evidence.
Two times a month is regularly? And that is average. The last time i drank any alcohol was at a wedding this past July.
That aside,
I don't believe in this idea that just because one substance was made legal a bunch of decades ago, that we must legalize everything else that some categorize as "less harmful".
It is still harmful, thus, in my opinion, it is warranted to keep it as an illicit substance.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 07:46:04 PM
Two times a month is regularly? And that is average. The last time i drank any alcohol was at a wedding this past July.
That aside,
I don't believe in this idea that just because one substance was made legal a bunch of decades ago, that we must legalize everything else that some categorize as "less harmful".
It is still harmful, thus, in my opinion, it is warranted to keep it as an illicit substance.
The bold- Why? Particularly if it is as or more popular and proven to be less harmful than a legal alternative? Think of the potential tax revenue. Now consider the effort against. Consider how much money would be lost by any progressive move on anything not already OK.
When politicians and drug barons agree on wanting drugs as illicit as possible, do you really think this is the stance that is least harmful to society? Do you think the numbers of drug related incarcerations are really acceptable?
This is what you are supporting. Maybe if it wasn't paying your wages you would be able to be a little more sensible.
And yes, 2 times a month is regularly. I'm sure some people just do crack a couple of times a month. The difference is that if you get caught holding a crack pipe, you're probably going to jail.
edit - fixed idiot typo.
I AM INTERRUPTING THIS DRUG THREAD FOR ADDITIONAL DRUG THREAD: http://sub.garrytan.com/its-not-the-morphine-its-the-size-of-the-cage-rat-park-experiment-upturns-conventional-wisdom-about-addiction
QuoteAlexander's hypothesis was that drugs do not cause addiction, and that the apparent addiction to opiate drugs commonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to it is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictive property of the drug itself. He told the Canadian Senate in 2001 that prior experiments in which laboratory rats were kept isolated in cramped metal cages, tethered to a self-injection apparatus, show only that "severely distressed animals, like severely distressed people, will relieve their distress pharmacologically if they can."
:rwhn:
/
The only environment I care about is a DRUG FREE environment.
Ya know, if all these anti drug morons would apply this stupid, single minded tenacity to, say, climate change that will kill us all, sober or no, well, then...these threads would be slightly different.
Slightly.
Something like:
I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN ALL CONTRIBUTE TO OUR COLLECTIVE DEMISE EVERY SINGLE DAY. WHEN YOU DRIVE A CAR YOU SHOW YOUR CHILDREN IT'S OKAY TO INJECT DEATH GAS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THEIR CHILDREN WILL HAVE TO CLEAN UP/BE MURDERED BY.
You know, that sort of thing.
Quote from: Alty on September 20, 2013, 09:41:06 PM
Something like:
I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN ALL CONTRIBUTE TO OUR COLLECTIVE DEMISE EVERY SINGLE DAY. WHEN YOU DRIVE A CAR YOU SHOW YOUR CHILDREN IT'S OKAY TO INJECT DEATH GAS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THEIR CHILDREN WILL HAVE TO CLEAN UP/BE MURDERED BY.
You know, that sort of thing.
Those sort of people do exist. (QG was raised in a town full of hippies)
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 20, 2013, 09:43:15 PM
Quote from: Alty on September 20, 2013, 09:41:06 PM
Something like:
I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN ALL CONTRIBUTE TO OUR COLLECTIVE DEMISE EVERY SINGLE DAY. WHEN YOU DRIVE A CAR YOU SHOW YOUR CHILDREN IT'S OKAY TO INJECT DEATH GAS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THEIR CHILDREN WILL HAVE TO CLEAN UP/BE MURDERED BY.
You know, that sort of thing.
Those sort of people do exist. (QG was raised in a town full of hippies)
I know, I'm one of them. But i have the good decency to not make a career of being an asshole.
Quote from: Alty on September 20, 2013, 09:52:39 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 20, 2013, 09:43:15 PM
Quote from: Alty on September 20, 2013, 09:41:06 PM
Something like:
I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN ALL CONTRIBUTE TO OUR COLLECTIVE DEMISE EVERY SINGLE DAY. WHEN YOU DRIVE A CAR YOU SHOW YOUR CHILDREN IT'S OKAY TO INJECT DEATH GAS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THEIR CHILDREN WILL HAVE TO CLEAN UP/BE MURDERED BY.
You know, that sort of thing.
Those sort of people do exist. (QG was raised in a town full of hippies)
I know, I'm one of them. But i have the good decency to not make a career of being an asshole.
Shame. You could have gone Pro.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 06:37:44 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 04:48:29 PM
I think that Pergamos is essentially saying that he doesn't think that secondary harm that results from regular and frequent heroin use should be considered harm from heroin. I disagree, because by that logic we can also say that HIV is harmless because nobody gets sick from HIV, they get sick from secondary infections made possible by their HIV-compromised immune systems. Secondary physical harm is still physical harm, particularly when you're looking at an addiction rate of about 23% of all users.
No, I am saying that the graph is not well made because it is putting the harm due to addiction on a different axis and then putting that on the same graph. It's like making a graph that ranks cars on fuel consumption and exhaust produced. Harm from addiction is going to eclipse physical harm from the drug itself unless the drug itself is insanely physically harmful (like, say, krokodil)
Perhaps. I think the Wiki article with Nutt's research has a graph in which 'harm to user' and 'harm to others' is graphed differently rather than the polka dot one which seems to be the contentious one. Don't know if that helps or not.
When I was responding earlier, I had written a longer post, but deleted much of it and had the leave the office to get home for my dog. Anyways...
Here's my thoughts about 'clean heroin'. It was synthesized back in the 1930s (Bayer?) and it's how we ended up with Oxycontin & Oxycodone and their ilk. The idea was to make a more stable, controllable substance than heroin. The original target audience however, were the terminally ill, so worrying about addiction wasn't the issue. The issue was not spending your last days on earth in screeching agony. All is well & good.
What we've seen over the last few years is that physicians are increasingly willing to prescribe powerful opiates for conditions that don't especially require it. Back in the day your doctor would've said "Take advil" or "get an ice pack". More recently, we've seen a great expansion in the kinds of things that people get strong pain meds for. My wife had a tooth pulled a few years ago. The dentist was very insistent that she take a script for Vicodin which she really didn't want or need. She managed just fine with OTC stuff.
A friend of one of the kids went to the emergency room with rib pain that turned out to be pulled muscles. He walked away with a script for Percocet! That's a long way off from dying of bone cancer, but what the hey. Have some opiates!
Another friend of my wife's got hooked on Oxy following a surgery. He went to his doctor and said "You know...I think I like these things too much and I'm worried that I'm dependent on them". His doctor said "Nahh....you're fine" and ignored him. Fortunately, our friend had the foresight to ignore his doctor in turn and get into a Suboxone program and get cleaned up which, thankfully he's done. Less fortunately are the two alcoholics we know who, despite being clean for 20+ relapsed (and epically so) because they received legal, prescription, opiates from Doctors.
I work at an acupuncture clinic and at a chiropractic office. As such, I get to see the medications people take and sometimes, my eyes sproing out of my head in disbelief that (a) people are on so much medication and (b) how they are able to so much as walk, let along have any kind of life at all. Crazy stuff.
So here's the thing. Legal, clean, controlled dosage 'heroin' already exists. It's Oxycontin (or similar). And lots and lots of doctors are merrily giving this to people for ailments that in the past, they never would have. As it turns out, I've seen first hand that in spite of the apparent 'cleanliness' and 'legality', it produces great amounts of harm and suffering.
[My son starting using heroin after using pills. He didn't have them legally, but his story is typical. You take a few pills every now and then and end up feeling far better than anyone should under normal circumstances. Trouble is, it's not cheap because you're paying a dollar per milligram on the street. 20mg of Oxy is $20. However, some enterprising entrepreneur will point out that $20 is 4-5 bags of heroin. Ahh, the freemarket at work!]
Thing is, even people who get legal opiates from real doctors may find themselves wanting a lot more than they're supposed to have. Then what? If their doctor is slack, they get to be doped out zombies for the rest of their days. If their doctor says 'nuh uh' and cuts them off, what are they going to do? They will do/say/think of ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY anything and everything they can to avoid getting junk sick. Our medical system doesn't want to clean up the messes it creates (cf anti-biotics). Unless the doctors are as interested in addiction treatment as they are in prescribing opiates, all we're doing is churning out junkies on an industrial scale.
Starting with pills is really common in this town, and heroin is, indeed, cheaper than pills so a lot of people end up switching over. There's also the transition from snorting heroin to shooting it, most people start by snorting, but eventually it doesn't give them that kick anymore and they start shooting.
I don't think making it legally available would make all the problems go away, it's a dangerous and incredibly addictive drug, I just think it would make them less serious. I definitely agree that opiates are over prescribed, and they ar also prescribed for situations where they actually do not help, such as fibromyalgia, however about the only thing that does help with fibro is weed, and doctors can't prescribe that most places.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 06:37:44 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 04:48:29 PM
I think that Pergamos is essentially saying that he doesn't think that secondary harm that results from regular and frequent heroin use should be considered harm from heroin. I disagree, because by that logic we can also say that HIV is harmless because nobody gets sick from HIV, they get sick from secondary infections made possible by their HIV-compromised immune systems. Secondary physical harm is still physical harm, particularly when you're looking at an addiction rate of about 23% of all users.
No, I am saying that the graph is not well made because it is putting the harm due to addiction on a different axis and then putting that on the same graph. It's like making a graph that ranks cars on fuel consumption and exhaust produced. Harm from addiction is going to eclipse physical harm from the drug itself unless the drug itself is insanely physically harmful (like, say, krokodil)
That's the point of using two different factors. You can graph them both and see if there's a correlation. The dot moves horizontally according to harm, and vertically according to addictiveness. If there is no correlation you get a random scatter pattern. If there is a correlation (negative or positive) you get a line. No conflation is taking place.
Saying "the graph is not well made" doesn't make any sense. They are data points. On a graph. It's not an attractive graph, but you are arguing with the data points, not the artistic merit, I assume.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 10:24:32 PM
Saying "the graph is not well made" doesn't make any sense. They are data points. On a graph. It's not an attractive graph, but you are arguing with the data points, not the artistic merit, I assume.
Yeah, I am arguing with the way the data for physical harm is being chosen. It's also missing some really common drugs, meth for one, marijuana for another.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 10:33:46 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 10:24:32 PM
Saying "the graph is not well made" doesn't make any sense. They are data points. On a graph. It's not an attractive graph, but you are arguing with the data points, not the artistic merit, I assume.
Yeah, I am arguing with the way the data for physical harm is being chosen. It's also missing some really common drugs, meth for one, marijuana for another.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
Are we talking about this one or another graph here? This marks both.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 10:33:46 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 10:24:32 PM
Saying "the graph is not well made" doesn't make any sense. They are data points. On a graph. It's not an attractive graph, but you are arguing with the data points, not the artistic merit, I assume.
Yeah, I am arguing with the way the data for physical harm is being chosen. It's also missing some really common drugs, meth for one, marijuana for another.
So like I said earlier, you don't believe that secondary harm should be considered. OK. I disagree. Can read the study and tell me exactly why the harm assessment is flawed? Feel free to quote sections directly from it.
Also, you make me sad. Another name for marijuana is "Cannabis" and meth is grouped with "Amphetamine".
Pergamos, are you trolling?
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 20, 2013, 10:36:37 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 10:33:46 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 20, 2013, 10:24:32 PM
Saying "the graph is not well made" doesn't make any sense. They are data points. On a graph. It's not an attractive graph, but you are arguing with the data points, not the artistic merit, I assume.
Yeah, I am arguing with the way the data for physical harm is being chosen. It's also missing some really common drugs, meth for one, marijuana for another.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
Are we talking about this one or another graph here? This marks both.
oops, missed Cannabis cause I was looking for Marijuana, I still don't see Methamphetemine on there.
If Amphetemine is meant to cover Methamphetemine (which is a different substance) then I think it is badly misclassified as far as physical harm goes. Meth addiction destroys people just as badly as Heroin addiction does, although it is easier to quit and the direct physical harm from the drug is immense. It eats people's bones and teeth.
Please remember that physical harm includes deaths/overdoses/general related health issues.
There may be more physical harm with one substance, psychological with another. Chance of death under/due to the influence is also important here. Teeth aren't as important as your heart or liver.
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 20, 2013, 10:45:57 PM
Please remember that physical harm includes deaths/overdoses/general related health issues.
There may be more physical harm with one substance, psychological with another. Chance of death under/due to the influence is also important here. Teeth aren't as important as your heart or liver.
Well, Meth destroys your liver and gives people heart attacks too, and because it increases their energy level, rather than causing them to nod off like opiates it makes actions that lead to death or physical harm more likely.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 10:42:53 PM
If Amphetemine is meant to cover Methamphetemine (which is a different substance) then I think it is badly misclassified as far as physical harm goes. Meth addiction destroys people just as badly as Heroin addiction does, although it is easier to quit and the direct physical harm from the drug is immense. It eats people's bones and teeth.
They are closely related and I suspect that for the purpose of this research it made sense to group all amphetamines together. Meth is going to be the largest proportion in that group, so it will be weighted appropriately.
Do you have ANY citations? The specific claim I am asking for citations on is "methamphetamine eats people's bones and teeth". It is known to cause dry mouth which has a very detrimental effect on gum health, and long term use can, like many other drugs, cause bone density loss, but that's not exactly the same thing as "eats people's bones and teeth", whatever that means.
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 10:50:39 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 20, 2013, 10:45:57 PM
Please remember that physical harm includes deaths/overdoses/general related health issues.
There may be more physical harm with one substance, psychological with another. Chance of death under/due to the influence is also important here. Teeth aren't as important as your heart or liver.
Well, Meth destroys your liver and gives people heart attacks too, and because it increases their energy level, rather than causing them to nod off like opiates it makes actions that lead to death or physical harm more likely.
Have you read the background on this graph? I'm crashing so I'll get my next drug thread fix later. You may want to note "Street Methadone" in the meantime. I think this may be what you should be looking at in the meantime, it sounds like what you're describing and in that case I'd still suggest the graph as being largely accurate.
Nigel, I'm guessing the teeth damage would be gurning jaw motions grinding them down causing related issues. No idea about the missing bones.
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 20, 2013, 10:58:08 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on September 20, 2013, 10:50:39 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 20, 2013, 10:45:57 PM
Please remember that physical harm includes deaths/overdoses/general related health issues.
There may be more physical harm with one substance, psychological with another. Chance of death under/due to the influence is also important here. Teeth aren't as important as your heart or liver.
Well, Meth destroys your liver and gives people heart attacks too, and because it increases their energy level, rather than causing them to nod off like opiates it makes actions that lead to death or physical harm more likely.
Have you read the background on this graph? I'm crashing so I'll get my next drug thread fix later. You may want to note "Street Methadone" in the meantime. I think this may be what you should be looking at in the meantime, it sounds like what you're describing and in that case I'd still suggest the graph as being largely accurate.
Nigel, I'm guessing the teeth damage would be gurning jaw motions grinding them down causing related issues. No idea about the missing bones.
Methadone is an opiate, it's not related to methamphetemine at all.
Here's a source that mentions calcium depletion.
http://www.neurosoup.com/methamphetamine/
I've seen it mentioned several other places as well, but those have mostly been government anti-drug sites, which I tend to be a bit suspicious of.
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 20, 2013, 09:57:04 PM
Quote from: Alty on September 20, 2013, 09:52:39 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 20, 2013, 09:43:15 PM
Quote from: Alty on September 20, 2013, 09:41:06 PM
Something like:
I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN ALL CONTRIBUTE TO OUR COLLECTIVE DEMISE EVERY SINGLE DAY. WHEN YOU DRIVE A CAR YOU SHOW YOUR CHILDREN IT'S OKAY TO INJECT DEATH GAS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THEIR CHILDREN WILL HAVE TO CLEAN UP/BE MURDERED BY.
You know, that sort of thing.
Those sort of people do exist. (QG was raised in a town full of hippies)
I know, I'm one of them. But i have the good decency to not make a career of being an asshole.
Shame. You could have gone Pro.
Why, you flatter me.
:oops:
A couple of notes:
Amphetamine is a precursor for meth, so it isn't the same thing.
"meth mouth" is caused by other symptoms of meth use including dry mouth, grinding of teeth, and exacerbated by poor dental hygiene common amongst meth addicts.
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 20, 2013, 07:57:25 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 07:46:04 PM
Two times a month is regularly? And that is average. The last time i drank any alcohol was at a wedding this past July.
That aside,
I don't believe in this idea that just because one substance was made legal a bunch of decades ago, that we must legalize everything else that some categorize as "less harmful".
It is still harmful, thus, in my opinion, it is warranted to keep it as an illicit substance.
The bold- Why?
Because of what I said in the following sentence.
You seem to agree with that graph.
So, looking at that graph, is marijuana harmless? Yes or No?
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 11:54:20 PM
A couple of notes:
Amphetamine is a precursor for meth, so it isn't the same thing.
"meth mouth" is caused by other symptoms of meth use including dry mouth, grinding of teeth, and exacerbated by poor dental hygiene common amongst meth addicts.
The first part was why I didn't think Meth was on the graph at all.
it's highly addictive and can create significant physical harm, particularily to the cardiovascular system. I'd put it right up there with cocaine and heroin. Nasty, nasty stuff.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 21, 2013, 12:53:38 AM
it's highly addictive and can create significant physical harm, particularily to the cardiovascular system. I'd put it right up there with cocaine and heroin. Nasty, nasty stuff.
I've known Junkies, Crackheads, and Methheads and I'd say Meth is the worst of the three.
Ah, well then. That settles it.
Hey, how about an improved graph, eh? Since that one is so shitty.
DRUGS
Good-----------------------------------Bad
Here's one for Pergamos
PERGAMOS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Good-------------------------------------Bad
Quote from: Pergamos on September 21, 2013, 12:54:42 AM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 21, 2013, 12:53:38 AM
it's highly addictive and can create significant physical harm, particularily to the cardiovascular system. I'd put it right up there with cocaine and heroin. Nasty, nasty stuff.
I've known Junkies, Crackheads, and Methheads and I'd say Meth is the worst of the three.
Pergamos, I know a forum where your particular approach to science would fit right in! http://www.thescienceforum.com/
They will love your critical analysis skills there. They may even hail you as a god.
FUCK YOU MY MOM WAS SUPER MEAN TO ME DURING CAFFEINE WITHDRAWL.
So I was at this awkward going away party for someone I don't really know. There were a bunch of Real Alaskan Men. Beards, fishing jobs, xtra tuffs, holier than thou attitude. Xtra manlieness.
Anyway, there was a fire and, after asking permission from the host, started smoking.
One dude looked highly indignant, got up and left.
This other dude starts yaking about some moldy pot they found that day. He asked me if i was interested. I was tired, confused, out of my element, and reeealy high already so I said sure. They way he asked was like he thought a person such as myself was too stupid to not smoke moldy weed.
So, i just got home, am out, and I suppose somewhat predictably, i checked it out. Its not mold. Its crystals, billions and billions of little crystals all huddled together like a god damned geode.
For some reason it feels like victory.
I only mention it because we stopped talking about the OP some time ago, that graph discussion is silly, and what better way to engage in a drug thread than to share stories about shit nobody cares about and doesn't matter?
None. There is no way that is better.
That sounds like a definite win, if you ask me.
I had a personal victory today, which is that after I finally gave up on ever having insurance again so I could ask my doctor like I keep saying I'm going to do, it occurred to me to just research it online and it looks like my personal tiny earthquakes are just seizure-related so I can chill out about them. I feel like I should have known this already and I was seriously just planning on going to my doctor and saying "hey so I periodically feel random small earthquakes that don't actually exist, what is that?" but I haven't had insurance for so long and I won't have it for a while so I just kind of gave up on that even though I know earthquakes can be a symptom of brain tumor and I am rather hilariously prone to tumors and already have one brain tumor so why not another? But after particularly bad earthquakes last night and this morning I finally realized I totally have the internet and can probably just look that shit up. Would you look at that! I can quit worrying. I was especially tickled by this:
QuoteSignificantly more EP than NES patients described "the world was moving" as the main reason that the earthquake was not a seizure.
:lol: The first thing I do when I feel an earthquake is check whether the light fixtures are swaying. I suspect it makes me look like a freak but it's a sure tip-off; swaying = earthquake, not-swaying = just me.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1528-1157.2002.41801.x/asset/j.1528-1157.2002.41801.x.pdf?v=1&t=hlufdkra&s=ce88f149523a9e02a41202b59193d63f85e12488&systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+for+approximately+4+hours+between+09%3A00+EDT+and+14%3A00+EDT+on+Saturday%2C+28+September+2013+as+we+make+upgrades+to+improve+our+services+to+you.+There+will+also+be+some+delays+to+online+publishing+between+25+to+28+September+2013.+We+apologize+for+the+inconvenience+and+appreciate+your+patience.+Thank+you+for+using+Wiley+Online+Library%21
How often does that happen?
Quote from: Alty on September 21, 2013, 07:28:52 AM
How often does that happen?
Oh, it depends. Sometimes not for months, sometimes several times a week.
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 11:57:30 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 20, 2013, 07:57:25 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 20, 2013, 07:46:04 PM
Two times a month is regularly? And that is average. The last time i drank any alcohol was at a wedding this past July.
That aside,
I don't believe in this idea that just because one substance was made legal a bunch of decades ago, that we must legalize everything else that some categorize as "less harmful".
It is still harmful, thus, in my opinion, it is warranted to keep it as an illicit substance.
The bold- Why?
Because of what I said in the following sentence.
You seem to agree with that graph.
So, looking at that graph, is marijuana harmless? Yes or No?
You just can't see anything about the whole "jail" thing can you? I really don't know why I bothered. Must have been high.
Sweet, a drug thread :>
I give this one a 6/10.
I'm gone for almost 2 weeks and THIS is what I come back to?
Fuck all of you. With sticks.
End result: 26 quarts of pickles, 16 vinegar cured and 10 lactic-acid cured.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on September 22, 2013, 06:54:16 PM
I'm gone for almost 2 weeks and THIS is what I come back to?
Fuck all of you. With sticks.
Dude, we have a real live Nazi down in the political section, and THIS is what you click on? :?
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 22, 2013, 06:57:00 PM
End result: 26 quarts of pickles, 16 vinegar cured and 10 lactic-acid cured.
Nice!
Now i want pickles. :(
Quote from: :regret: on September 23, 2013, 09:16:16 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 22, 2013, 06:57:00 PM
End result: 26 quarts of pickles, 16 vinegar cured and 10 lactic-acid cured.
Nice!
Now i want pickles. :(
They're pretty great. My kitchen smells like pickles. :lol:
The thing that's amazing about them is that I basically just acquired a year's worth of pickles for $25 and about two hours light work. I mean, they came out to less than a dollar a jar and there just wasn't that much labor involved.
ECH, I have limited access until midweek and I missed a lot of this clusterfuck too. But Roger makes a good point waaaaay back there where he said that RWHN is so butthurt that he CAN'T FUNCTION. I mean, think about it...giant Goodwill suit, nonsensical commentary, imaginary girlfriend...maybe we shouldn't even be arguing with RWHN. Maybe we should be helping him get hooked up with checks and 707 housing and medicaid so he can get some pills and shit. I mean, just because he's an unlikable POS with the personality of a moat filled with gators and raw sewage doesn't give us an excuse to be callous. :lulz:
You are posting this in a thread that stopped being about drugs days ago, and a thread where my position was corroborated by another professional (duh, why would they use synthetics if they can get the real thing), AND where there has actually been some common ground and agreement established between Nigel and I.
What was that about butthurt?
What RWHN was trying to say there was that this was a thread where he grabbed on to something that sounded vaguely like one of his talking points and WOULDN'T LISTEN TO SHIT AFTER THAT POINT.
I am going to shit my pants.
I'm okay with this.
-
The Aristocrats!
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 23, 2013, 03:06:16 PM
Quote from: :regret: on September 23, 2013, 09:16:16 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 22, 2013, 06:57:00 PM
End result: 26 quarts of pickles, 16 vinegar cured and 10 lactic-acid cured.
Nice!
Now i want pickles. :(
They're pretty great. My kitchen smells like pickles. :lol:
The thing that's amazing about them is that I basically just acquired a year's worth of pickles for $25 and about two hours light work. I mean, they came out to less than a dollar a jar and there just wasn't that much labor involved.
Wanna bet the supply won't last a whole year? You will have eaten them all in half a year.
Quote from: :regret: on September 24, 2013, 12:08:13 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 23, 2013, 03:06:16 PM
Quote from: :regret: on September 23, 2013, 09:16:16 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 22, 2013, 06:57:00 PM
End result: 26 quarts of pickles, 16 vinegar cured and 10 lactic-acid cured.
Nice!
Now i want pickles. :(
They're pretty great. My kitchen smells like pickles. :lol:
The thing that's amazing about them is that I basically just acquired a year's worth of pickles for $25 and about two hours light work. I mean, they came out to less than a dollar a jar and there just wasn't that much labor involved.
Wanna bet the supply won't last a whole year? You will have eaten them all in half a year.
That might be a pretty safe bet, especially with the lactic acid pickles which have a richer, earthier YUM EAT ME kind of allure. It would be completely possible for a household of five to go through a jar a week.
Which will teach me to make twice as many next year!
So far the fermentation is going swimmingly, and the newly-dubbed pickle cabinet (also sometimes used for pies) smells like pickles.
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 24, 2013, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: :regret: on September 24, 2013, 12:08:13 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 23, 2013, 03:06:16 PM
Quote from: :regret: on September 23, 2013, 09:16:16 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 22, 2013, 06:57:00 PM
End result: 26 quarts of pickles, 16 vinegar cured and 10 lactic-acid cured.
Nice!
Now i want pickles. :(
They're pretty great. My kitchen smells like pickles. :lol:
The thing that's amazing about them is that I basically just acquired a year's worth of pickles for $25 and about two hours light work. I mean, they came out to less than a dollar a jar and there just wasn't that much labor involved.
Wanna bet the supply won't last a whole year? You will have eaten them all in half a year.
That might be a pretty safe bet, especially with the lactic acid pickles which have a richer, earthier YUM EAT ME kind of allure. It would be completely possible for a household of five to go through a jar a week.
Which will teach me to make twice as many next year!
So far the fermentation is going swimmingly, and the newly-dubbed pickle cabinet (also sometimes used for pies) smells like pickles.
On the subject of cheap food: I have a garden full of cherry tomatoes. What do?
I am already planning on making soup, making and freezing large amounts of tomato paste and just eating them like candy.
Quote from: :regret: on September 24, 2013, 06:37:43 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 24, 2013, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: :regret: on September 24, 2013, 12:08:13 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 23, 2013, 03:06:16 PM
Quote from: :regret: on September 23, 2013, 09:16:16 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 22, 2013, 06:57:00 PM
End result: 26 quarts of pickles, 16 vinegar cured and 10 lactic-acid cured.
Nice!
Now i want pickles. :(
They're pretty great. My kitchen smells like pickles. :lol:
The thing that's amazing about them is that I basically just acquired a year's worth of pickles for $25 and about two hours light work. I mean, they came out to less than a dollar a jar and there just wasn't that much labor involved.
Wanna bet the supply won't last a whole year? You will have eaten them all in half a year.
That might be a pretty safe bet, especially with the lactic acid pickles which have a richer, earthier YUM EAT ME kind of allure. It would be completely possible for a household of five to go through a jar a week.
Which will teach me to make twice as many next year!
So far the fermentation is going swimmingly, and the newly-dubbed pickle cabinet (also sometimes used for pies) smells like pickles.
On the subject of cheap food: I have a garden full of cherry tomatoes. What do?
I am already planning on making soup, making and freezing large amounts of tomato paste and just eating them like candy.
I know a fair amount of people pickle tomatoes, often in with cucumbers or peppers or eggs.
Candied cherry tomatoes?
http://www.splendidtable.org/recipes/oven-candied-summer-tomatoes
God I hope some internet random find this thread someday.
These drug threads will all be used as evidence against you all during the forthcoming Unpleasantness.
Best of luck with that.
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 24, 2013, 07:10:14 PM
These drug threads will all be used as evidence against you all during the forthcoming Unpleasantness.
Best of luck with that.
I feel comfortable in my position.
That weed I found was seriously good.
It's all gone now. :sad:
Quote from: :regret: on September 24, 2013, 06:37:43 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 24, 2013, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: :regret: on September 24, 2013, 12:08:13 PM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 23, 2013, 03:06:16 PM
Quote from: :regret: on September 23, 2013, 09:16:16 AM
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 22, 2013, 06:57:00 PM
End result: 26 quarts of pickles, 16 vinegar cured and 10 lactic-acid cured.
Nice!
Now i want pickles. :(
They're pretty great. My kitchen smells like pickles. :lol:
The thing that's amazing about them is that I basically just acquired a year's worth of pickles for $25 and about two hours light work. I mean, they came out to less than a dollar a jar and there just wasn't that much labor involved.
Wanna bet the supply won't last a whole year? You will have eaten them all in half a year.
That might be a pretty safe bet, especially with the lactic acid pickles which have a richer, earthier YUM EAT ME kind of allure. It would be completely possible for a household of five to go through a jar a week.
Which will teach me to make twice as many next year!
So far the fermentation is going swimmingly, and the newly-dubbed pickle cabinet (also sometimes used for pies) smells like pickles.
On the subject of cheap food: I have a garden full of cherry tomatoes. What do?
I am already planning on making soup, making and freezing large amounts of tomato paste and just eating them like candy.
I like to dry cherry tomatoes and use them later in sauces and soups, etc. but they are also delightful canned with chili peppers and used later as a dressing for pork roast and the like. Or just canned plain to use however you like later.
Thanks for the tips, guys!
My mouth is watering at the thought of all the delicious things i can do with my tomatoes. I especially like your oven candied tomatoes, Alty.
Tomatoes are disgusting, they should be banned!
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 24, 2013, 11:38:48 PM
Tomatoes are disgusting, they should be banned!
Uhm, they already are fucking with selling of gardengrown vegetables.There is a specific list of accepted seeds you can sell and all of them are owned by large companies (Monsanto and friends). On top of that, selling what grows in your garden is going to be heavily taxed to the point that it is not worth it. afaik there still isn't a law against giving strawberries away, but that probably won't be long. Wait, strawberries have seeds on them, nevermind. that would be breaking that stupid EU law they are working on.
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2013/04/eu_gaat_uw_moestuin_bombardere.html
And their source:
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2013/04/23/eu-will-anbau-von-obst-und-gemuese-in-gaerten-verbieten/
No, i don't have any english links, on account of it being the middle of the night and i need to go get some sleep.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Tomatoes, especially cherry tomatoes, are super gross to me. Plus I love hyperbole.
So much common ground ITT. Where's that group hug?
Quote from: :regret: on September 24, 2013, 11:53:35 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 24, 2013, 11:38:48 PM
Tomatoes are disgusting, they should be banned!
Uhm, they already are fucking with selling of gardengrown vegetables.There is a specific list of accepted seeds you can sell and all of them are owned by large companies (Monsanto and friends). On top of that, selling what grows in your garden is going to be heavily taxed to the point that it is not worth it. afaik there still isn't a law against giving strawberries away, but that probably won't be long. Wait, strawberries have seeds on them, nevermind. that would be breaking that stupid EU law they are working on.
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2013/04/eu_gaat_uw_moestuin_bombardere.html
And their source:
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2013/04/23/eu-will-anbau-von-obst-und-gemuese-in-gaerten-verbieten/
No, i don't have any english links, on account of it being the middle of the night and i need to go get some sleep.
Wait, isn't that good? I'd rather get regulated product than some stuff you get from some guy on the street.
Quote from: Alty on September 25, 2013, 12:00:00 AM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Tomatoes, especially cherry tomatoes, are super gross to me. Plus I love hyperbole.
So much common ground ITT. Where's that group hug?
Fuck off hippy!
:argh!:
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 25, 2013, 12:17:40 AM
Quote from: :regret: on September 24, 2013, 11:53:35 PM
Quote from: Be Kind, Please RWHNd on September 24, 2013, 11:38:48 PM
Tomatoes are disgusting, they should be banned!
Uhm, they already are fucking with selling of gardengrown vegetables.There is a specific list of accepted seeds you can sell and all of them are owned by large companies (Monsanto and friends). On top of that, selling what grows in your garden is going to be heavily taxed to the point that it is not worth it. afaik there still isn't a law against giving strawberries away, but that probably won't be long. Wait, strawberries have seeds on them, nevermind. that would be breaking that stupid EU law they are working on.
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2013/04/eu_gaat_uw_moestuin_bombardere.html
And their source:
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2013/04/23/eu-will-anbau-von-obst-und-gemuese-in-gaerten-verbieten/
No, i don't have any english links, on account of it being the middle of the night and i need to go get some sleep.
Wait, isn't that good? I'd rather get regulated product than some stuff you get from some guy on the street.
Seed diversity decline must urgently be stopped!
Open letter
to the Members of the European Parliament to the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection to the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development to the Commissioner for the Environment to the Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion to the Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship to the Commissioner for Development to the Commissioner for Regional Policy
Review of the EU legislation on the Marketing of Seed and Plant Propagating Material (S&PM)
Dear Madam/Sir,
We write to you to urge you to take the single opportunity to enhance the EU legislation on Seed and Plant Propagating Material and make it more respectful towards the environment, consumers´ expectations and the needs of small actors in the seed chain.
A change is badly needed, as the current legislation has contributed to a massive loss of biodiversity in European agriculture over the last decades. The legislation disproportionately discriminated against actors in the seed sector that have objectives that go beyond productivity, and it has restricted consumers´ choice in accessing diverse varieties.
Therefore, the review must be rebalanced. Protecting and increasing agricultural biodiversity has to become the first goal of the review. Offering seed users a greater choice of varieties, including seeds most adapted to local conditions would help, in relation with appropriate agricultural practices such as crop rotation, to reduce dependency on pesticides, fertilisers and water demand. This would lead to less pollution of soil and water and therefore contribute to a more sustainable and diversified agriculture, which in turn would enhance the diversity of wild plants, animals and micro-organisms.
Encouraging on farm biodiversity of cultivated plants will enhance the number of varieties grown for food and feed and contribute positively to food quality by enhancing choice, colour and taste. As the Commission assessed in its "Options and Analysis" paper, there is growing demand for a greater choice of varieties: "Protection of the environment has become more important and specific markets, such as for organic crops, are increasing their share of the market". (1)
However, today ten multinationals are controlling 74% of the global seed market (2) and the concentration process is still going on. Many of those companies provide genetically narrow varieties and seeds that cannot be reproduced, leading to alarming dependency for farmers and consumers on one hand and ecological risks connected to genetic uniformity such as poor pest resilience on the other hand.
A change in EU S&PM legislation towards less restrictive requirements that allows for easier market access will increase the number of suppliers and stabilise the amount of SMEs, with indirect positive effects on biodiversity and employment in rural areas.
Representing civil society as organisations working on environment and biodiversity issues including actors from the seed sector like small and organic breeders, suppliers, farmers, gardeners, seed savers, consumer cooperatives and consumers, we call on you to take a stand for an environmentally and consumer friendly S&PM regulation. This must allow for the marketing of less homogenous, but genetically broader and better locally adapted varieties, and remove obstacles to the marketing and the exchange of seeds of old, rare and farmers´ varieties, to enhance diversity and sustainability in European agriculture and better meet consumers´ demands.
Consumers´ safety and plant health related precautions can be ensured by clear provisions regarding transparency. Further pre-market requirements will not only lead to the above mentioned negative effects for biodiversity and food consumers, but will also lead to overlap and confusion regarding food and plant health laws.
For all the above reasons, the review of the legislation on the Marketing of Seed and Plant Propagating Material must rebalance the regulation towards more consumer and environmentally friendly rules, allowing for the reuse, exchange and selling of old, rare and farmers´ varieties and leading to diversification in agriculture. We have concrete proposals to achieve these goals and would be available to discuss these ideas with you in the coming weeks and months.
(1) European Commission: Options and analysis of possible scenarios for the review of the European Union legislation on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material" - Point 2.2: Room to strengthen sustainability issues. (2) ETC Group Report "Who will control the Green Economy", 15 December 2011
Yours sincerely,
Regret and a lot of other silly hippies.
It's more than a little alarming to me that they are legislating against the unfettered distribution of food plants and seeds. Restricting access to FOOD PLANTS... <shudder>
Quote from: Mean Mister Nigel on September 25, 2013, 04:24:50 PM
It's more than a little alarming to me that they are legislating against the unfettered distribution of food plants and seeds. Restricting access to FOOD PLANTS... <shudder>
But those plants have not been approved by the EU! They might contain The Cancer or The Aids! You could maybe get Leprosy from eating wild strawberries instead of huge snotty tasteless "normal" strawberries! Do you want to take that risk? OF COURSE NOT! Would someone think of the children?!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/new-zealand-drug-law_n_3696809.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/new-zealand-drug-law_n_3696809.html)
New New Zealand law to legalize and regulate synthetic drugs.
Oreos are just as addictive as cocaine: http://www.conncoll.edu/news/news-archive/2013/student-faculty-research-shows-oreos-are-just-as-addictive-as-drugs-in-lab-rats-.htm#.Ul75EmRk-kK
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 16, 2013, 09:38:18 PM
Oreos are just as addictive as cocaine: http://www.conncoll.edu/news/news-archive/2013/student-faculty-research-shows-oreos-are-just-as-addictive-as-drugs-in-lab-rats-.htm#.Ul75EmRk-kK
Not gonna argue that.
NOT EVEN ONE. Or I'll be the size of fucking William Howard Taft.
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpzmb9xPpm1r1dlwlo1_500.jpg)
also:
(http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/5837/mmya9.jpg)
:lulz:
Man. Oreos.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 16, 2013, 09:38:18 PM
Oreos are just as addictive as cocaine: http://www.conncoll.edu/news/news-archive/2013/student-faculty-research-shows-oreos-are-just-as-addictive-as-drugs-in-lab-rats-.htm#.Ul75EmRk-kK
Even aliens agree!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mQzmK670yI
I don't hear RWHN talking about this, so that probably means it has a pretty good chance of passing.
http://news.yahoo.com/pot-legalization-effort-moves-eastward-maine-164758240.html
There's a reason I'm not talking about it (here):
"In reality, the vote in Portland won't change anything because people aren't being targeted by police for possession, said Kevin Sabet, director of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a national alliance that opposes legalization and imprisoning people for marijuana possession.Legalizing pot sends a message to youths that using marijuana is no big deal, when really it carries health risks including an increased heart rate, respiratory problems and memory problems, Sabet said. The Portland referendum is simply a first step toward establishing a marijuana industry, he said.
"People with small amounts of marijuana are not being locked up in jail," he said. "This is really about a much bigger issue, which is moving toward the retail sales model where we really would be introducing our new version of Big Tobacco in Maine."
If the ballot measure passes, it will be largely symbolic because it won't override state and federal laws. Pot possession is a low priority for Portland police, but they'll continue enforcing state law, Police Chief Michael Sauschuk said. Besides, possessing 2.5 ounces or less of marijuana is already a civil offense under state law, where violators are issued a ticket and fined, he said."
Of course, IRL, I have been talking about it. I am heavily involved, but won't say any more about that publicly here.
So it's symbolic and doesn't really matter.
But also you're spending lots of time, effort, and resources to fight it, amirite? :lulz:
I haven't spent a dime, but I have spent time developing and putting out messages to correct the bullshit MPP has been putting out there. But right now, I'm marshalling voices and forces for the statewide fight which is coming in 2016.
:lol:
Uh huh. You keep marshalling, Scooter.
Quote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 20, 2013, 09:22:09 PM
I haven't spent a dime, but I have spent time developing and putting out messages to correct the bullshit MPP has been putting out there. But right now, I'm marshalling voices and forces for the statewide fight which is coming in 2016.
Damn sheriff's office will be PACKED this time.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 21, 2013, 03:40:32 AM
Quote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 20, 2013, 09:22:09 PM
I haven't spent a dime, but I have spent time developing and putting out messages to correct the bullshit MPP has been putting out there. But right now, I'm marshalling voices and forces for the statewide fight which is coming in 2016.
Damn sheriff's office will be PACKED this time.
:lulz:
Odds that RWHN is at home smoking a big fat zoint when he writes these anti-marijuana posts?
25 to 1?
even money?
Quote from: Delcon on October 21, 2013, 07:30:09 AM
Odds that RWHN is at home smoking a big fat zoint when he writes these anti-marijuana posts?
25 to 1?
even money?
I wouldn't be surprised.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 21, 2013, 07:31:00 AM
Quote from: Delcon on October 21, 2013, 07:30:09 AM
Odds that RWHN is at home smoking a big fat zoint when he writes these anti-marijuana posts?
25 to 1?
even money?
I wouldn't be surprised.
Me neither. Probably having a good old time getting his rocks off.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 21, 2013, 03:40:32 AM
Quote from: What's New Wildebeest? on October 20, 2013, 09:22:09 PM
I haven't spent a dime, but I have spent time developing and putting out messages to correct the bullshit MPP has been putting out there. But right now, I'm marshalling voices and forces for the statewide fight which is coming in 2016.
Damn sheriff's office will be PACKED this time.
You really think a fourth person or member of the public would show up?
Me neither.
Speaking of brain poisons:
www.cracked.com/video_18663_if-beer-ads-were-forced-to-be-honest.html
Are you going to write a strongly worded letter to Cracked for making fun of your new bedfellows?
No, I'm gonna give them an 'atta boy. That was spectacular, and, spot on.