Trigger warning: Drugs

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

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 

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

why am I still talking I am clearly an idiot.

There can be more than one baboon in the room.   

DOUR,
OOOOOK!

[Salty]

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.

[AFK]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Certainly not available online:

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

[Junkenstein]

LEGAL HIGHS LEGALLY ACCESSIBLE. MORE AT 11.



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

Then look at what else is around where you place it.


Edit- typos

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

LEGAL HIGHS LEGALLY ACCESSIBLE. MORE AT 11.



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

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

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

[Junkenstein]

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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

why am I still talking I am clearly an idiot.

There can be more than one baboon in the room.   

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.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

RWHN reminds me more and more of Mystic Wicks. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

why am I still talking I am clearly an idiot.

There can be more than one baboon in the room.   

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.