Legal Highs

Ronanom

WeeBushy wrote: »

I was at a party, reasonably drunk, but in no way messy, and a friend took out some smoke. I was in a good mood and thought 'what the hell, this'll be fun'. Three drags later I passed out, fell on the ground and hit my head off the table.
.

This is exactly why these Head Shops should be banned. He could have killed himself. These Head Shops are selling devil products.

Won't someone please think of the children.

WeeBushy

mloc wrote: »

This didn't perchance happen at a house in the Donnybrook area did it?

Nope, it wasn't.

mloc

WeeBushy wrote: »

Nope, it wasn't.

Guess you weren't the only one who hit the floor on Saturday night then. Heard of similar incident myself.

rubadub

WeeBushy wrote: »

I dunno how anyone would pay good money for that. There was nothing good about it.

I paid €60 of good money to go bungee jumping in NZ, one of my mates was going to record it but couldn't watch, said he wouldnt do it if we paid him €1,000. People have different appetites for sex, food and experiencing altered states. Some would pay "good money" to get their balls stomped on by a dominatrix, some cannot understand why they would do it, I just accept some people are like that. I do not ask to ban things I do not understand or have an appetite for.

Ronanom wrote: »

This is exactly why these Head Shops should be banned.

Dunno if you are being sarcastic, I have heard this comment a lot and wonder how people would define these "head shops" that they want shut down. Most supermarkets sell illegal drug paraphernalia, and many "normal" shops sell legal highs other than tobacco, caffeine & alcohol.

Prof.Badass

rubadub wrote: »

Dunno if you are being sarcastic, I have heard this comment a lot and wonder how people would define these "head shops" that they want shut down. Most supermarkets sell illegal drug paraphernalia, and many "normal" shops sell legal highs other than tobacco, caffeine & alcohol.

I'm 99% sure he is. I know it's harder to tell sarcasm on the internet, but if you're suspicions weren't raised already the "devil products" bit , should have sealed the deal.

Ronanom wrote: »

This is exactly why these Head Shops should be banned. He could have killed himself.These Head Shops are selling devil products.

Won't someone please think of the children.

rubadub

vinylmesh wrote: »

the "devil products" bit , should have sealed the deal.

Well you never know! but the question still stands, I am interested to hear people define "head shops", i.e. those who want them banned, I know what they are, but how would they be legally defined so as to close them.

Earlier this guy said

poppyvalley wrote: »

1. :mad:keep away from this rubbish it destroys brain cells and eventually(maybe not in the immediate future) it can lead to psychological problems

rubadub wrote: »

Yes, the most commonly used legal high could have those effects, but people still continue to drink regardless -have you ever drank alcohol yourself? and if so why?

He never answered, but I recognised the name over in the beer wine & spirits forum in a thread called "drink! drink! drink"

poppyvalley wrote: »

anyone hear of "markers make" or summit like that. think it's wiskey not 2 sure but i've just had a fewdrink

Poor fella was so high on this legal drug that he posted the same thread twice, the words of wisdom in the second.

poppyvalley wrote: »

piss off! ive just posted

BickNarry

WillieCocker wrote: »

It's also well known (should say speculated) that the illness was there all along and that cannabis enhances it and brings it to the fore.

Nah,did this is in psychology, no conclusive evidence.They have found that among those suffering from Schizophrenia there is no correlation with cannabis use as the cause.What they have found is that many sufferers smoke cannabis as they say it helps them relate to others.Schizophrenia is not a slit personality at all.Its a detachment from reality,which can come and go just like depression. Because of this many sufferers find smoking cannabis with other enables them to be some what on the same level,and more comfortable(no stigma, more relaxed etc.)Much the same with Psychosis.There is and underlying illness,but it does not bring it to the forefront.

Pat Sheen

psilocybe wrote: »

Reference please? I don't even like the stuff but there's enough misinformation and confusion floating around without another unsubtantiated claim. The JWH series are relatively well researched so if what you say is true it won't be much hassle for you to find a reference.

Utter crap, the jwh-series is not relatively well researched. I always get suspicious when someone claiming objectivity goes on the defensive by trying to tell you how disapproving of "this stuff" they are.

bluecatmorgana

TedB wrote: »

It sets your heartrate mad .

Does that not scare you?

Id be terrified id have a heart attack.

I do know of one case were a friends brother took about 6 tablets of something legal and came very very close to death.

mloc

Petrol and lighter refills have been legal for years, and f*cking people up for as long.

Buffy the bitch

WeeBushy wrote: »

I'd just like to put my experience out there and hopefully it'll make people think twice before trying any of them.

I have over the years tried 'herbal drugs' on a couple of occasions with no adverse side-effects, they've always been fairly enjoyable experiences. Until Saturday night.

I was at a party, reasonably drunk, but in no way messy, and a friend took out some smoke. I was in a good mood and thought 'what the hell, this'll be fun'. Three drags later I passed out, fell on the ground and hit my head off the table.

I went through the most terrifying few minutes of my life when I blacked out. I was completely removed from reality, and in my head I was falling uncontrollably through different scenarios, places and experiences, all the while feeling completely out of control and helpless. It felt like it was never going to end. It was the most horrible thing that has ever happened to me. It still scares me to think about it.

I was brought to hospital where I stayed for the night until it was out of my system and they let me go home. I was lucky that there was no serious or long-term damage done.

All that happened from just a few drags, of something I'd taken before without any problems.

So while they might be fun, just remember that they are completely unregulated and untested, and can have devastating side-effects.

I've learned my lesson and would never be able to do any of those drugs, legal or illegal, again. Unfortunately the embarrassment and shame will take longer to go away.

Maybe my stupidity will stop you guys from from going through something similar.

That's the drink.

Don't know what you smoked but I wouldn't touch Salvia (the strong one) again. This isn't me by the way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXRPz7371XE

bluecatmorgana wrote: »

Does that not scare you?

Id be terrified id have a heart attack.

I do know of one case were a friends brother took about 6 tablets of something legal and came very very close to death.

If you think like that it will happen!!

He took to much but to be honest most of the pills except the trippy ones are crap though.

ScumLord

genericguy wrote: »

the story you told about your trips was outstanding man. outstanding

The videos of it are probably the funniest Salvia trips anywhere, but they're shameful for everyone involved in them.

poppyvalley

seamus wrote: »

But you don't otherwise know? And you're consuming it?
Whatever about the danger of illegal narcotics, at least you can do some research before you take it and make the best informed decision on whether to take it.

With these yokes, you just have some undereducated mop head handing you a bag of it and telling you that it's great. You haven't a fncking clue what risks you're taking. Insanity.

exactly unresearched & uncontrolled, Madness awaits !

Clare_Guy

poppyvalley wrote: »

exactly unresearched & uncontrolled, Madness awaits !

So what are you saying? Illegal drugs are better? Because they are researched and controlled? Reality check folks, people are gonna take drugs, and to be honest, I'm all for personal responsibility, if I want to take drugs it's my business, if I do something stupid or have a bad reaction then it's my fault. The point that people are missing is that these legal drugs may not be tested and verified but the creators are obviously trying to create some kind of brands and therefore market forces are going to insure some consistantcy, which is exactly what people who take drugs have been looking for for years.
Are drugs good for you? No. Should people be able to choose if they want to take them? Yes.
As long as somebody doesn't harm someone else by taking drugs, it's no-one's business. Making these legal drugs illegal is a backward, delusional, populist, sensasionalist reaction to a problem that doesn't even really exist. People need to mind their own business...

Pace2008

Freckles..! wrote: »

They might be better but certainly aren't very safe. I just wrote an article on head shops in which I researched what's in this party pills - things like BZP, which indeed is a cattle wormer and also considered a class A drug in the US. Ridiculous the way these things are legal.

You obviously didn't do too much research for your piece if you think party pills contain BZP considering it was banned in Ireland several months ago. Is this article available on the web? Have you found the constituents of, for example, Blow or Snow, two of the most popular legal highs currently on the Irish market? Any insight into these branded products would be welcome since, for the most part, their active ingredients are unknown and unquantified. However, I'm guessing it's a hand-wringing, insubstantial piece of rhetoric fit for rousing the Joe Duffy lynch mob and little else.

It will probably take another tragedy such as the young man dying from magic mushrooms before the govt will do something about it.

That's exactly what we need: more knee-jerk legislation from a government cowed by tabloid hysteria over an isolated incident that, like a high proportion of these cases, involved the consumption of alcohol along with the drug in question.

Pace2008

thebang wrote: »

Hey guys,

Id just like to add something small to the discussion

this piece of legalisation deals with designer drugs in the United States and it has seemed to be effective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analog_Act

Now im not saying just because this law has been successful in that jurisdiction it would be successful here, but maybe its worthy of discussion, and hopefully someone of the legal persuasion can tell me if the legislation would be enforceable here

I don' t think there's a single facet of America's drug laws that could be deemed 'successful.'

poppyvalley wrote: »

exactly unresearched & uncontrolled, Madness awaits !

Do you not feel a bit silly saying that after Rubadub pointed out your hypocrisy on this very page?

florio

I just get all my legal needs online, (metylone/mephedrone/butylone). Much cheaper, and you're sure of what you're taking, unlike some of the stuff in head shops. Good old drugs.

What's being targeted in this new act someone mentioned? The cannaboids?

Pace2008

florio wrote: »

I just get all my legal needs online, (metylone/mephedrone/butylone). Much cheaper, and you're sure of what you're taking, unlike some of the stuff in head shops. Good old drugs.

You know what you're getting but you still haven't a clue what they're doing to you.

mloc wrote: »

Petrol and lighter refills have been legal for years, and f*cking people up for as long.

Mephedrone may be rocket fuel but I doubt it'd start your car in the morning.

thebang

Pace2008 wrote: »

I don' t think there's a single facet of America's drug laws that could be deemed 'successful.'

I misspoke when I said 'successful', but when I said 'seemed effective' you should have known what I meant rather than trying to flame me. My post was framed to discuss the merits of the act in question, but you dismissed it out of hand.

Saying that no single facet of drug law in the United States has seemed successful has to go down as a huge generalisation ( Though I agree that there seems to be countless f**k ups) - crystal meth in particular would seem susceptible to supply side intervention in the form of regulating the sale ephedrine and related compounds.

AFAIK they legislation i mentioned managed to crack down on head shops selling legal highs in the United States, though you could still probably get the stuff through the internet if you were determined enough. I am sorry that I cannot currently give definitive evidence that this is the case. However if you take the above as a given it is up to you to decide whether this is move in the right direction or not.

By the way if you want my views on drug policy I would pretty much be right in line with this guy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/15/david-nutt-drugs-science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuu1F3krWrI

ScumLord

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

what's mephedrone like then?

It's like a poor mans version of real drugs.

sbsquarepants

Clare_Guy wrote: »

Are drugs good for you? No. Should people be able to choose if they want to take them? Yes.
As long as somebody doesn't harm someone else by taking drugs, it's no-one's business. ..

Well said. I just cannot begin to understand the mentality of people who cant see the logic here (refuse to see would usually be more accurate). Not everything in the world can be fecking health food. news flash - some people like to have a good time, even if it's not exactly perfectly healthy! If people followed this train of thought to its logical extreme life wouldn't be worth living, there'd be no drink, ciggarettes, no junk food, no sweets, crisps, boxing or contact sports, no television for gods sake!! I really wish people would grow the f#ck and just live and let live. If i'm willing to risk damaging my body with vodka/mephedrone/kentuck fried chicken or ju f#ucking jitsu that is my choice.

I personally am perfectly willing to take the chance with mephedrone and have done many times, i see no problem with this. I would never in a million years smoke a ciggarette (of any type!). I find the idea of it disgusting. Do i think i should be allowed force my opinions regarding smoking on everybody else? Of course not, why should i possibly be? What do i care if you give yourself cancer of the throat or lungs or heart disease or whatever other disgusting death smoking is KNOWN FOR DECADES to cause, that would be your choice and you would pay the consequences not me. Any health effects mephedrone MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE will be suffered by me.

Most of the anti drug brigade are incapable of thinking in this (to my mind, reasonable) way for some strange reason. Maybe if you all came down from your high horses and had a bit of craic once in a while you's see things differently:D

DelBoycie

ScumLord wrote: »

It's like a poor mans version of real drugs.

Considering most e pills are bzp and coke doing the rounds is statistically proven to be 6% to 11% pure,I'd say mephedrone is more 'real' than most of what's around.

sbsquarepants

ScumLord wrote: »

It's like a poor mans version of real drugs.

Not if you get it pure!

ScumLord

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Not if you get it pure!

It's just not as good, there's a high but no buzz.

thebang

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Well said. I just cannot begin to understand the mentality of people who cant see the logic here (refuse to see would usually be more accurate). Not everything in the world can be fecking health food. news flash - some people like to have a good time, even if it's not exactly perfectly healthy! If people followed this train of thought to its logical extreme life wouldn't be worth living, there'd be no drink, ciggarettes, no junk food, no sweets, crisps, boxing or contact sports, no television for gods sake!! I really wish people would grow the f#ck and just live and let live. If i'm willing to risk damaging my body with vodka/mephedrone/kentuck fried chicken or ju f#ucking jitsu that is my choice.

I personally am perfectly willing to take the chance with mephedrone and have done many times, i see no problem with this. I would never in a million years smoke a ciggarette (of any type!). I find the idea of it disgusting. Do i think i should be allowed force my opinions regarding smoking on everybody else? Of course not, why should i possibly be? What do i care if you give yourself cancer of the throat or lungs or heart disease or whatever other disgusting death smoking is KNOWN FOR DECADES to cause, that would be your choice and you would pay the consequences not me. Any health effects mephedrone MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE will be suffered by me.

Most of the anti drug brigade are incapable of thinking in this (to my mind, reasonable) way for some strange reason. Maybe if you all came down from your high horses and had a bit of craic once in a while you's see things differently:D

I would agree that you are ultimately responsible for you own mortality but I would make the counter argument that drugs that encourage violent or compulsive behaviour should be more strictly regulated than those that do not. While these types of risks are unknown 'designer' drugs should be strictly under control.

Dublin_Gunner

thebang wrote: »

I would agree that you are ultimately responsible for you own mortality but I would make the counter argument that drugs that encourage violent or compulsive behaviour should be more strictly regulated than those that do not. While these types of risks are unknown 'designer' drugs should be strictly under control.

You mean like, alcohol?

thebang

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

You mean like, alcohol?

Good one smartarse. Although funnily I don't really like alcohol and would probably do some pretty draconian stuff if I was in power even though I am fairly liberal on many drugs.

I will defer to my favourite radical academic again.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6903660.ece

I know its the uk but you get the principle.

Imagine if we only discovered drink tomorrow? There would be stories in the papers about people convinced they were actually dying after experiencing a first hangover.

Borneo Fnctn

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

You mean like, alcohol?

You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

TheZohanS

thebang wrote: »

smartarse.

Bet you've never even seen his arse.

Clare_Guy

thebang wrote: »

Good one smartarse. Although funnily I don't really like alcohol and would probably do some pretty draconian stuff if I was in power even though I am fairly liberal on many drugs.

I will defer to my favourite radical academic again.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6903660.ece

I know its the uk but you get the principle.

Imagine if we only discovered drink tomorrow? There would be stories in the papers about people convinced they were actually dying after experiencing a first hangover.

So what's your point?

Alcohol should be illegal?

So you want to choose what drugs people take? And you don't think alcohol should be legal but you're "fairly liberal" about other drugs? Can you not see a contradiction there?

The problem is not the specific drug, it's the people that take the drug. People need to take responsibility for their actions. Addiction is no excuse.

As I see it, the problems associated with drug use, be it alcohol, cannibis, coke, whatever, are social ones. People are taking drugs for the wrong reasons and then using them as an excuse for bad behaviour.

The alcohol problems that are experienced in Ireland and Britain, which seem to be more severe than elsewhere in Europe, are in my opinion, largely down to how it's regulated. The limiting of access to certain times and locations create the binge culture which don't happen to the same extent in other countries.

Trying to regulate behaviour through limiting supply (of any drug) doesn't work, we need a more intelligent management of the situation.

Legalise drugs, "ring fence" and use the revenue created to specifically deal with the social problems that exist and are exacerbated by substance abuse.

Prof.Badass

thebang wrote: »

I would agree that you are ultimately responsible for you own mortality but I would make the counter argument that drugs that encourage violent or compulsive behaviour should be more strictly regulated than those that do not. While these types of risks are unknown 'designer' drugs should be strictly under control.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

You mean like, alcohol?

thebang wrote: »

Good one smartarse. Although funnily I don't really like alcohol and would probably do some pretty draconian stuff if I was in power even though I am fairly liberal on many drugs.

I will defer to my favourite radical academic again.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6903660.ece

I know its the uk but you get the principle.

Imagine if we only discovered drink tomorrow? There would be stories in the papers about people convinced they were actually dying after experiencing a first hangover.

Do you agree with his most rational of all drug arguments;

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2721802/Ex-drugs-tsar-claims-we-could-be-drinking-healthy-alchol-in-3-years.html

As for compulsive use i have reason to believe that the speed of the comeup plays a large part in compulsive use (a sudden onset (rush)= more addictive). This helps explain why crack is more addictive than snorted cocaine and why ciggarettes are so addictive. If drugs were sold in pill form you'd remove a lot of the addictiveness from them while the eventual euphoria felt would be the same. I also think pills are better because the actual drug taking itself can become part of the addiction (i.e the taste of beer, the feel of inhaling smoke, preparing the lines ect.), with taking a pill there's nothing really to get out of the experience, it's like drinking a glass of water.

But without a legal regualted market this can't happen.

Clare_Guy

vinylmesh wrote: »

Do you agree with his most rational of all drug arguments;

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2721802/Ex-drugs-tsar-claims-we-could-be-drinking-healthy-alchol-in-3-years.html

Ah SYNTHOHOL it's been in Star Trek for years... :pac:

ScumLord

Clare_Guy wrote: »

As I see it, the problems associated with drug use, be it alcohol, cannibis, coke, whatever, are social ones. People are taking drugs for the wrong reasons and then using them as an excuse for bad behaviour.

I think the social problems mostly arise out of the drugs legality. Before the only social implications where of health, but since we've made it a cash cow for criminals it's become so much worse. Prohibition just created a whole load of new problems ten times worse than the original one they where trying to combat. The dangers drugs pose to the individual can be handled, the dangers caused by prohibition obviously can't.

Clare_Guy

ScumLord wrote: »

I think the social problems mostly arise out of the drugs legality.

Surely you mean illegality?...

ScumLord

Clare_Guy wrote: »

Surely you mean illegality?...

Is it not interchangeable? I thought "legality" meant the legal status of something?

Clare_Guy

ScumLord wrote: »

Is it not interchangeable? I thought "legality" meant the legal status of something?

I can understand why you'd think that but the definition of legality is "lawfulness by virtue of conformity to a legal statute" and illegality is "unlawfulness by virtue of violating some legal statute" so your post implies you're talking about "legal" drugs.

Seeing as this thread is called LEGAL highs, I think, for clarity it's important to specify what we're talking about...

sbsquarepants

ScumLord wrote: »

I think the social problems mostly arise out of the drugs legality. Before the only social implications where of health, but since we've made it a cash cow for criminals it's become so much worse. Prohibition just created a whole load of new problems ten times worse than the original one they where trying to combat. The dangers drugs pose to the individual can be handled, the dangers caused by prohibition obviously can't.

Excellent point. Is it not better that people walk into high street shops and buy clean unadulterated drugs, giving the state a percentage back in tax and employing people in the shop itself, rather than buy god knows what off dealers and paying the "tax" to gangsters, fuelling all kinds of mayhem!
Simple fact is, people are going to buy and sell drugs forever, regardless of the law, so why not let us be grown up about it and try not make millionaires out of psychotic assholes and at the same time make things safer for the consumers!

Clare_Guy

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Excellent point. Is it not better that people walk into high street shops and buy clean unadulterated drugs, giving the state a percentage back in tax and employing people in the shop itself, rather than buy god knows what off dealers and paying the "tax" to gangsters, fuelling all kinds of mayhem!
Simple fact is, people are going to buy and sell drugs forever, regardless of the law, so why not let us be grown up about it and try not make millionaires out of psychotic assholes and at the same time make things safer for the consumers!

The problem with head shops is that they're not regulated and what's happening is kids are getting their hands on these substances, go home to mammy off their heads, mammy goes screaming to joe duffy and then the media go looking for stories, the more extreme the better, this is what will get publicized and the governments reaction will be to ban, ban, ban...

Prof.Badass

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Excellent point. Is it not better that people walk into high street shops and buy clean unadulterated drugs, giving the state a percentage back in tax and employing people in the shop itself, rather than buy god knows what off dealers and paying the "tax" to gangsters, fuelling all kinds of mayhem!

Tbh, i wouldn't see some of the drugs in headshops as safer than street drugs at all. With neither you are sure of the ingredients or dose, in fact street drugs are normally cut down with compounds that are not very pharmacologically active, decreasing the ways they can cause damage, however we know that the unknown ingredients in legal highs are pharmacologically active.

The main reason I would tell people not to do irish coke would be because it could contain legal high shit in it (People have started saying that some dealers have switched to these chemicals and are selling them as the real deal).

Simple fact is, people are going to buy and sell drugs forever, regardless of the law, so why not let us be grown up about it and try not make millionaires out of psychotic assholes and at the same time make things safer for the consumers!

Agreed, however the tactics seen by the legal highs industry ("all natural herbs", "amino acids" ect.) are just as dickheadish as the most unscroupulous of dealers. I realise this would dissappear with regulation, but the annoying thing is that we already know of plenty drugs that have the same effects as these legal highs but are known to be safe. Clearly the most sensible option would be to have the headshops selling them instead.

sbsquarepants

[quoteAgreed, however the tactics seen by the legal highs industry ("all natural herbs", "amino acids" ect.) are just as dickheadish as the most unscroupulous of dealers. I realise this would dissappear with regulation, but the annoying thing is that we already know of plenty drugs that have the same effects as these legal highs but are known to be safe. Clearly the most sensible option would be to have the headshops selling them instead.[/quote]

Of course, head shops should be forced to tell the truth about what's in their products and in a perfect world they could be selling real coke or mdma or whatever, both of which are reasonably safe with decades of historical data to fall back on, well over a century infact for cocaine. Society wont accept that though. There is too much hysteria and not enough education or knowledge regarding drugs in general. The simple fact is they are a handy excuse for useless politicians to explain away the mess when their ill concived policies on crime, the economy or whatever else just dont work. Sadly the majority of people fall for it time and time again. I for one don't see that changing any time soon.

BraziliaNZ

I smoked some of that fake weed last night, jesus, it's weird, it's a bit like grass, it was kind of like smoking poppers or something. Went through an intense "wtf" period for about 10 mins then it became nice again. Nice to know you can buy it in the shops though.

genericguy

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I smoked some of that fake weed last night, jesus, it's weird, it's a bit like grass, it was kind of like smoking poppers or something. Went through an intense "wtf" period for about 10 mins then it became nice again. Nice to know you can buy it in the shops though.

some of it's really good. obviously it can't compete taste-wise, but a lot of the new stuff now is potent as fcuk. it's a shame that i'm going to become a violent evil rapist armed robber without morals as a result of consuming this stuff though. :rolleyes:

dasdog

Perhaps a movement to ban Solpadeine should be started as I would wager a significant minority of Joe's listeners are regularly sedated on that particular legal high.

Personally I wouldn't be interested in most of the substitute drugs on offer from headshops which are untested and most likely produced in a Chinese lab but that's my choice which I shouldn't force on others (18+ of course).

Odysseus

I have read through this at times, and posted as well I think. However, as some people here may know I'm a psychotherapist and alot of my work is done in the area of addiction. I have unusal views on drug use, or rather they don't fit with the wat people may think when they hear my profession. I treat people for addictions to many substances, but have not yet had anyone in for headshop stuff.

Now here is my point, the HSE may me do a serious amount of paper work around the various drugs people use. I was at a meeting last week about this, it transpires that alot of addicts in one area on a meth clinic are mixing that "snow" stuff in with their heroin. Rather that go over all the pages of this thread, would some who uses snow mind giving me their experience around this product. Its just out of interest I'm asking, I'm certainly not "won't somebody pleses think of the children" type. What you put into your system is up to you, I'm only interested in it when it becomes a problem for the person.

ScumLord

Odysseus wrote: »

Now here is my point, the HSE may me do a serious amount of paper work around the various drugs people use. I was at a meeting last week about this, it transpires that alot of addicts in one area on a meth clinic are mixing that "snow" stuff in with their heroin.

That does happen allot, more so with cocaine I would have thought. They're even mixing the likes of spice in with ground up weed. That's been happening for a long time, at least it's another drug they're putting in the mix instead of industrial products.

Odysseus

ScumLord wrote: »

That does happen allot, more so with cocaine I would have thought. They're even mixing the likes of spice in with ground up weed. That's been happening for a long time, at least it's another drug they're putting in the mix instead of industrial products.

Cheers, but I think you are picking me up wrong, correct me if I'm wrong. This is a case of they clients deciding to use snow, not it being mixed with stuff what they believed to be coke. Clearly alot cheaper, a poor man's snowball. I hear alot around the things people use, but this was the first time I heard that one. As you know Scumlord we had a few discussions around hash, we have different viewpoints. However, I'm a allow people access to what they want person.

Anyway, have you used it yourself? How would it compare to coke? If you don't mind me asking.

ScumLord

Odysseus wrote: »

Cheers, but I think you are picking me up wrong, correct me if I'm wrong. This is a case of they clients deciding to use snow, not it being mixed with stuff what they believed to be coke. Clearly alot cheaper, a poor man's snowball. I hear alot around the things people use, but this was the first time I heard that one. As you know Scumlord we had a few discussions around hash, we have different viewpoints. However, I'm a allow people access to what they want person.

Anyway, have you used it yourself? How would it compare to coke? If you don't mind me asking.

I think just about everything out of the headshop feels like ephedrine or speed. It's just an energy high with none of the buzz you'd get from coke or MDMA. It also doesn't melt to well and is gritty from what I remember. The only time I mixed the stuff from the headshop with yolks was the most horrible experience I've had on drugs. I was awake for two days but absolutely shattered, it made the comedown 20 times worse. Haven't really touched them since.

rubadub

dasdog wrote: »

Perhaps a movement to ban Solpadeine should be started as I would wager a significant minority of Joe's listeners are regularly sedated on that particular legal high.

I think many doctors would like to see it be prescription only, it is a highly abused drug. It should also be noted many start on solpadeine to cope with the severe comedown effects of another legal high -alcohol. You hear horror stories of the BZP comedown which scares many potential users off, but these same people might laugh off the comedown of alcohol they could be sick all day after unable to eat etc, having to take time off work but they go back for more without a second thought.

Odysseus

rubadub wrote: »

I think many doctors would like to see it be prescription only, it is a highly abused drug. It should also be noted many start on solpadeine to cope with the severe comedown effects of another legal high -alcohol. You hear horror stories of the BZP comedown which scares many potential users off, but these same people might laugh off the comedown of alcohol they could be sick all day after unable to eat etc, having to take time off work but they go back for more without a second thought.

I would hate to see this happen I like the way Spain works that you can get most POM drugs over the counter, with the exception of controlled drugs. With saying that I treat about 10-15 people a year for them. It took me a few years to actually believe in the concept of addiction to such drug, well the physical side. The amounts of codiene in them are so small.

I would still question a physical addiction to them in 99.9999 cases. However, there are serious risks because of the other drugs in them, not the codeine. Alot but not all of my work is done with the usual "hard" drugs, but I lost one patient due to these, it was not the codeine that killed her.

However, alot of people in my area would see them as the end of the scale, because of this I often take these people on when I should refer them to somewhere nearer them, so I do believe they can cause problems in peoples lifes, and if that the case they are entitled to treatment, but really in this cases I really believe its all psychological.

ScumLord

Odysseus wrote: »

The amounts of codiene in them are so small.

BBC Horizon did a show on pills we take over our lifetime (legal, medical stuff) and they make the accusation that the only reason codeine is in there is to get people addicted as the levels are so low it can't have any medical or pain relief qualities.