Another person dies after taking 'legal drug' (Mephedrone)

Kurtosis

Elevator wrote: »

but instead after giving us all hope, people who are suffering a needless pain from cancer or hiv etc they have decided to continue their failed drugs policies until 2020

*cries tears due to their stupidity

Sorry, I don't understand what decriminilisation/legalisation for recreational use has to do with classification as a medicine for therapeutic use

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

How about we all stop bickering with half truths and read about experiences, you know, fact based information? I personaly prefer it to heresay.

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=377

You do understand that experiences are not fact based information, right? Experiences (particularly posted on the internet) are just anecdotal evidence. It might be true, it might also be false. No where near fact based though.

indough

i have no problem with alcohol being banned and other substances being legalised

Shulgin

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

Shulgin, have you not heard of the books your namesake Alexander Shulgin published?? Did you just steal his name =P ?

I'm afraid the list was published in the 90's and countries like Australia have 'derivative acts' which ban all derivatives of certain substances. Unfortunately all of the good drugs are derivatives of 'phenethylamine' including Mephedrone and MDMA (Ecstacy) and were all included in his book >.<

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

Yes I am well aware of Shulgin and his books/chems.
Well if all good future stimulant drugs come from 'phenethylamine' then I suppose they will resort to to those Australians type drug laws here at some stage, unless we get a few more new Alexander Shulgins on the case to open up a new pandora's box of substances.

c0ldfyr3

penguin88 wrote: »

You do understand that experiences are not fact based information, right? Experiences (particularly posted on the internet) are just anecdotal evidence. It might be true, it might also be false. No where near fact based though.

We are talking about 'Research Chemicals' and user experiences are the closest we can get to human studies so it's as close to fact as we can get on this particular subject o.O

c0ldfyr3

Shulgin wrote: »

Yes I am well aware of Shulgin and his books/chems.
Well if all good future stimulant drugs come from 'phenethylamine' then I suppose they will resort to to those Australians type drug laws here at some stage, unless we get a few more new Alexander Shulgins on the case to open up a new pandora's box of substances.

It seems to be the case alright. He has said previously that there is room for a lot of work in the area of hallucinogenics but I'm afraid a stimulant is a stimulant and you can't really stray too far from it's definition before it's no longer a stimulant

There already are thousands of people continuing the work that Dr. Shulgin started, it's just a pity that 'democracy' doesn't do the right thing and work at harm reduction instead of criminalising everyone with an interest in pharmacology.

Pace2008

penguin88 wrote: »

That's the thing though, it is the combination that is the danger. You can't simply look at the different substances in isolation, in the real world there are plenty of confounding factors, the mode of use can have as significant effect as the drug itself. It just so happens that with a lot of mood-altering drugs used in a social context, they are often co-administered with alcohol. This is an unavoidable consequence that has to be taken into account when considering the risk.

Alcohol is by the far the most ubiquitous drug used, so it's inevitable that it will be assumed to be the norm, while the other drug will be seen as the differentiating factor.

This I why I find the tabloids' coverage of the issue so immoral. In an attempt to demonise mephedrone and drum up a moral panic they've mentioned the matter of the victims' alcohol consumption merely as an aside, when it's so often the most important contributing factor (or cause, even) in these cases.

Kurtosis

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

We are talking about 'Research Chemicals' and user experiences are the closest we can get to human studies so it's as close to fact as we can get on this particular subject o.O

What do you been by "research chemicals"?

This may be as close to fact as can be achieved at the moment, but that does not make it fact based evidence, or even put it on the lowest rung of the hierarchy of scientific evidence. You're looking at self-administered, self-monitored, self-reported information, this is an extremely poor form of anecdotal evidence.

Kurtosis

Pace2008 wrote: »

This I why I find the tabloids' coverage of the issue so immoral. In an attempt to demonise mephedrone and drum up a moral panic they've mentioned the matter of the victims' alcohol consumption merely as an aside, when it's so often the most important contributing factor (or cause, even) in these cases.

Are you suggesting that the alcohol alone would have caused such deaths? Why not the mephedrone? The cases concern the complex actions and interactions of two or more pharmacologically active agents. Very little is known about the pharmacological actions of mephedrone, we have no real idea of what it is doing to the body, then throw in the fact that it is interacting with alcohol or whatever else, it's virtually impossible to aportion the blame to one or the other (though you seem to have done it quite easily...).

Pace2008

penguin88 wrote: »

What do you been by "research chemicals"?

Before legal highs were sold as plant foods or bath salts, online distributors would have a clause in their conditions stating that they were providing you with the product on the good faith that you were a legitimate chemist or similar, using the products for 'research' purposes only, and not for human consumption.

c0ldfyr3

penguin88 wrote: »

What do you been by "research chemicals"?

This may be as close to fact as can be achieved at the moment, but that does not make it fact based evidence, or even put it on the lowest rung of the hierarchy of scientific evidence. You're looking at self-administered, self-monitored, self-reported information, this is an extremely poor form of anecdotal evidence.

The drugs currently being sold by the headshops have been available to purchase over the internet since as early as 1999. They are called 'Research Chemicals' by the various chemical supply companies so as to give them a purpose. The governments of the world shut down all of the recreational pharmacology studies when they realised they had nothing to gain from them so they can't ever progress from a Reasearch Chemical to an approved substance as they have no other purpose apart from recreational consumption.

As drugs have such varying effects for different people, and as recreational drugs more often than not have profound spritual, personal and emotional effects rather than physical effects aren't experiences a step in the right direction?

Pace2008

penguin88 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the alcohol alone would have caused such deaths? Why not the mephedrone? The cases concern the complex actions and interactions of two or more pharmacologically active agents. Very little is known about the pharmacological actions of mephedrone, we have no real idea of what it is doing to the body, then throw in the fact that it is interacting with alcohol or whatever else, it's virtually impossible to aportion the blame to one or the other (though you seem to have done it quite easily...).

I didn't suggest that at all; maybe the wording was a bit poor. I was trying to state that alcohol is a contributing factor in many cases of drug overdose, yet the media will apportion the blame entirely to the less well-known compound. By their black-and-white rationale you could cite alcohol as the cause of death, instead of a complex and perhaps poorly understood interaction between two or more drugs.

AKA pat sheen

Shulgin wrote: »

Exactly.
The Chinese labs that manufacture Mephedrone are more than happy to synth any chemical you want as long as you have the cash. The whole mephedrone explosion has brought more and more of these labs in on it because its so lucrative. Remember these chinese companies are no backstreet labs, these are very large chemical companies that produce very pure products (mostly).

This is only the beginning of a new age of 'legal' designer drugs.
Governments will never be able to keep up.

The New Zealand govt. drew up legislation controlling new drugs and the vendors selling them. Every loophole can be closed.

__________

I thought these were only supposed to be used as bath salts ?

c0ldfyr3

AKA pat sheen wrote: »

The New Zealand govt. drew up legislation controlling new drugs and the vendors selling them. Every loophole can be closed.

What they did is comparable to saying a swift roundhouse kick to close your car door is a viable method of doing so. New Zealing banned any and all derivatives of one of the most peculiar and intruiging drugs man has ever encountered. Some very respected members of society will testify that one of the most defining and memorable moments of their lives was the day they first took MDMA and this is for a reason that the Joe Dolan brigade, and obviously you too, will never be able to comprehend due to what I can only imagine is ignorance and having a closed mind

c0rk3r

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

How about we all stop bickering with half truths and read about experiences, you know, fact based information? I personaly prefer it to heresay.

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=377

Wow what a great resource. It should be mandatory for people who are going to take these chemicals to first read up about them, have an informed opinion, know the ups and especially the downs. Decide from there if you want to consume these chemical. I had no idea about some of the side effects (blue knees) lol wtf.

Also this experience was something else

Website wrote:

SWIM has recently had 2 binges on mephedrone (which will be referred to as B1 and B2) with very different, and completely opposite, comedowns. SWIM would like to know if the comedown can be controlled by the user. Here is a summary of B1 and B2:

B1: 16 hours, 2g total, all insufflated. First 6 hours in a club with friends, then 10 hours at a friend's house with 5 other friends.

B2: 21 hours, 3g total, all insufflated. First 11 hours in a club with girlfriend, then 10 hours at home with girlfriend taking smaller and smaller and less frequent doses.

After B1, SWIM felt completely suicidal. SWIM thought everything in his life was hopeless and there was no possible way anything could ever get better. SWIM actually prepared a large amount of painkillers to take to end it all, but then (fortunately) had a mild panic attack at the realisation that since nothing was going right in his life, there was no way the suicide attempt would succeed either. SWIM passed out and when he came round he felt mildly better and decided not to take the painkiller overdose. These strong suicidal feelings continued for 4 days, but got less intense. It should be noted that SWIM had no human contact at all for the 4 days after the binge ended, so was completely alone with his thoughts.

After B2, SWIM spent 3 days with the girlfriend he was binging with. For the whole 3 days, SWIM had the most blissful afterglow SWIM has ever experienced. Everything was going right in SWIM's life. All the good effects of meph seemed to be still present (increased sociability, increased sensation of touch, peace with the world, mild euphoria) with no negative effects whatsoever. During these 3 days, SWIM's girlfriend was having the same suicidal hangover SWIM had after B1, but even this didn't bring SWIM down. In fact, it gave SWIM a sense of worth that he was there for his girlfriend to talk her through her terrible comedown.

c0ldfyr3

Username-in-use wrote: »

Wow what a great resource. It should be mandatory for people who are going to take these chemicals to first read up about them, have an informed opinion, know the ups and especially the downs. Decide from there if you want to consume these chemical. I had no idea about some of the side effects (blue knees) lol wtf.

Yeah it's amazing, they have no agenda apart from harm reduction too! It's a tight ship which helps when you need to find concise information and there are some extremely intelligent people in the community.

I agree with what you said that people should be required to read as much info as is available before making a decision. It would save a lot of parents from needless anxiety, a lot of idiots from A&E visits and a lot of wasted print space in the tabloids where they could be writing about Jordans latest hot tub antics instead.

It might even save a few lives that prohibition is ruining.

c0ldfyr3

Username-in-use wrote: »

Also this experience was something else

That experience is wild, in my opinion the guy must have a personality disorder. There's also an old saying that drugs are a mood enhancer not a mood creator!

AKA pat sheen

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

this is for a reason that the Joe Dolan brigade, and obviously you too, will never be able to comprehend due to what I can only imagine is ignorance and having a closed mind

LOL!!

Oh and btw, I view these substances as open source reality hacking tools. They belong to everyone and should not be controlled..OK!? As for the fate of irresponsible greedy vendors..well I couldn't give a fcuk to be honest.

Elevator

AKA pat sheen wrote: »

LOL!!

Oh and btw, I view these substances as open source reality hacking tools. They belong to everyone and should not be controlled..OK!? As for the fate of irresponsible greedy vendors..well I couldn't give a fcuk to be honest.

i kinda thought you were kool alright Pat and that what you said was way out of context,

easy there c0ldfyr3, we're all a little pissed off but read all the posts first

starbelgrade

super_furry wrote: »

One person a week dies in the US of alcohol poisoning.

One person in Ireland nearly died of it last night.

Dudess

grindelwald wrote: »

Just because something is legal doesn't mean its safe.

And just because something isn't legal doesn't mean it's unsafe.

I've never taken anything to get high, i have no interest in getting high. If people are taking drugs to get high and they die its their own tough s**t. Shouldnt have been so stupid. Its the family i feel sorry for, they are the ones who feel the pain.

If the person is stupid enough to mess around with drugs then I dont give a s**t. You think people would have more 'cop on' these days insted of living for the buzz. There is more to life then getting high or drunk.

I don't know... You seem kinda jealous of those who have experienced getting "high"? We get it - you're against drugs (for no reason other than what TV/movies/Joe Duffy/tabloid newspapers tell you though) but why does that mean everyone else should feel the same as you?
By the way, I knew a guy who killed himself last week because of his drug addiction - I'm sure his parents would consider your sympathy for them to be fairly hollow, given your other comments about how you "don't give a s**t" about people like their son and how it's his own "tough s**t" for being so stupid.

Statistically it's not stupid to take drugs recreationally anyway, seeing as hardly anyone dies from it...

bob50

Trashbat wrote: »

How many people died on the roads last year? Should driving be banned?

Knee-jerk reactions to unstudied and misunderstood deaths shoudl be left for the pages of the daily mail.

Or the trashy Evening Herald

random punter

As a former regular MDMA user I would stay well away from Mephedrone.

The stuff is almost entirely an unknown quantity and what I'm hearing about it in the short time its been around (blue joints, paranoia addictiveness) is not encouraging.

To those who are determined to use take care and remember you are the guinea pigs for this stuff.

Vertigo100

Speaking of harm reduction I will post this link again www.bluelight.ru a very useful site and I have learned a lot and has helped me decide what I will and will not try!

Prof.Badass

Sandvich wrote: »

This is an excellent case for regulating the legal high market, something the government can only do while it actually exists.

Not gonna happen. Respected medical/ scientific professionals are not going to lend their support to the government regulation of a chemical that hasn't even gone through preliminary testing. Tested drugs such as mdma on the other hand......

From what i have read mephedrone seems to be a particularly nasty drug. Not only that but it seems to be much more addictive than mdma, more akin to coke from what i've read (possibly slightly worse?- obviously it's not as bad as crack or crystal meth). Tbh, with it being so freely available and used in such high numbers i'm amazed there have only been 3 deaths (1 not even confirmed) from mephedrone in the uk.

I guess it shows how completely suseptible to hysteria we are when it comes to the dangers of drugs, which is incidentally what sustains the war on drugs.

It kinda gives me mixed feelings to see all these people speaking out about the banning of mephedrone on this thread. If only we could get such numbers on a thread about legalising mdma.

indough

actually i find it more like speed than like coke or mdma, if anything is gonna be legalised i think the original drugs rather than these type would be more suitable

ToniTuddle

vinylmesh wrote: »

From what i have read mephedrone seems to be a particularly nasty drug. Not only that but it seems to be much more addictive than mdma, more akin to coke from what i've read (possibly slightly worse?- obviously it's not as bad as crack or crystal meth). Tbh, with it being so freely available and used in such high numbers i'm amazed there have only been 3 deaths (1 not even confirmed) from mephedrone in the uk.

I guess it shows how completely suseptible to hysteria we are when it comes to the dangers of drugs, which is incidentally what sustains the war on drugs.

It kinda gives me mixed feelings to see all these people speaking out about the banning of mephedrone on this thread. If only we could get such numbers on a thread about legalising mdma.

All this talk about it being addictive I think is more to do with the people using it. If they have addictive personalities or are plain and simply regular drug users. I've known people to take it and have not become addicted to it but everybody is different and maybe that's just them.

g5fd6ow0hseima

I keep saying it - If cannabis was legal, this problem wouldnt have developed in the first place.

Shulgin

Gatlin Thankful Stake wrote: »

I keep saying it - If cannabis was legal, this problem wouldnt have developed in the first place.

More like if MDMA was legal.

c0ldfyr3

ToniTuddle wrote: »

All this talk about it being addictive I think is more to do with the people using it. If they have addictive personalities or are plain and simply regular drug users. I've known people to take it and have not become addicted to it but everybody is different and maybe that's just them.

According to the 'ban now ask questions later' campaign the people using it are kids as young as 9 from what I hear.

I find it disgusting that one of the programs I watched on the subject, a source of information for the general public, interviewed what can only be described as a total junky about his heroin habbit which used to cost him €200 a day which now costs him €40 on heroin and €100 on 'Bath Salts'... per day... There's bank managers who would have trouble supporting that kind of habbit...

indough

yeah you cant walk down the street these days without falling over some group of 9 year old kids tripping balls on plant food

c0ldfyr3

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

According to the 'ban now ask questions later' campaign the people using it are kids as young as 9 from what I hear.

I find it disgusting that one of the programs I watched on the subject, a source of information for the general public, interviewed what can only be described as a total junky about his heroin habbit which used to cost him €200 a day which now costs him €40 on heroin and €100 on 'Bath Salts'... per day... There's bank managers who would have trouble supporting that kind of habbit...

What the hell would a heroin addict want with bath salts? Doesn't make sense to me.. That said, I don't do heroin. I just imagine that the 'buzzes' don't mix.

Pace2008

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

What the hell would a heroin addict want with bath salts? Doesn't make sense to me.. That said, I don't do heroin. I just imagine that the 'buzzes' don't mix.

If there's any truth to what he's saying I'd guess he's going for a 'speedball' (heroin/cocaine combination) substitute. Mephedrone isn't much like coke, but for all I know I know it might synergise wonderfully with gear from a junkie's point of view. It's probably an extremely dangerous mix as well.

indough

if youre already a heroin addict youre probably going to take whatever's available

c0ldfyr3

Homeless inject bath salts to get legal high
Wednesday, 30 September 2009

http://www.dublinpeople.com/content/view/2429/57/

Check out the date on that bad boy, I think we'll call it 2 BJD (Before Joe Duffy)

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

What the hell would a heroin addict want with bath salts? Doesn't make sense to me.. That said, I don't do heroin. I just imagine that the 'buzzes' don't mix.

Eh... has your head been in the sand? The topic is about the drug which is the active ingredients in most bath salt products... They're "Research Chemicals" and have been around for 11 years before someone with no morals started selling them in headshops and this explosion of hysterics from the media brought it to everyones attention.

I imagine he'd want the 'buzz' from the Bath Salt, according to this guy it's an experience you won't forget too soon: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118734

KingLoser

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

According to the 'ban now ask questions later' campaign the people using it are kids as young as 9 from what I hear.

And it's crazy that they think banning it would solve that issue.

Never forget the days I had to send me brother up to the dealer because he started ID'ing me.. :rolleyes:

c0ldfyr3

KingLoser wrote: »

And it's crazy that they think banning it would solve that issue.

Never forget the days I had to send me brother up to the dealer because he started ID'ing me.. :rolleyes:

To be honest I think most of the research chemicals should be made illegal right now and most of the current illegal ones regulated we know how harmful they are and in what ways and how to reduce harm people might encounter while consuming them. But what can I say I'm an ideologist

What dealer started IDing you??

Father Damo

ChemOC wrote: »

The day after Paddy's Day I had a look at the RTE news website. There was an article on how two students from Mullingar were taken to hospital the next day after taking some legal highs. They felt faint and weak. Sounds like a hangover to me!

On the page there was not one article on the major alcohol abuse that occurred all over Ireland on Paddy's Day.

I find it hilarious that you hint at shoddy journalism relating to drugs yet come up with some Prime Time- ish nonsense suggesting the centre of Dublin has major problems with alcohol related violence. Country towns do. The rougher suburbs of Dublin do. However, oddly, central Dublin early on a Sat/ Sun is probably one of the safer parts of the country, considering the amount of people in there the amount of fights is rather low from my experience.

I keep saying it - If cannabis was legal, this problem wouldnt have developed in the first place.

What the **** does that mean? Holland has head shops selling all types of new fangled unknown drugs. IIRC that charge cocaine substitute stuff was first marketed there.

Feel like Im missing out, new arrivals here in Oz say some of the new legal highs are actually decent (including mephredone). Back when I was home pretty every much legal high was sh1te (Spice Gold smoke), positively dangerous (BZP) or completely fake (all the rest.)

sbsquarepants

AKA pat sheen wrote: »

The New Zealand govt. drew up legislation controlling new drugs and the vendors selling them. Every loophole can be closed.

So that explains how new zealand is now the worlds only drug free country does it. That's pure genius alright!

Kurtosis

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

The drugs currently being sold by the headshops have been available to purchase over the internet since as early as 1999. They are called 'Research Chemicals' by the various chemical supply companies so as to give them a purpose. The governments of the world shut down all of the recreational pharmacology studies when they realised they had nothing to gain from them so they can't ever progress from a Reasearch Chemical to an approved substance as they have no other purpose apart from recreational consumption.

Ok, so research chemicals is a term used to try to add legitimacy to the use of these substances...there's a lot of propaganda on both sides of this debate.

I don't remember the governments of the world making such a decision...I know of pharmacological studies being carried out a the moment involving MDMA. Really don't get you point about "research chemicals" becoming an "approved substance", approved for what? If you're suggesting no research can be done on such substances after they are controlled in June, that would be incorrect.

As drugs have such varying effects for different people, and as recreational drugs more often than not have profound spritual, personal and emotional effects rather than physical effects aren't experiences a step in the right direction?

Sure, step in the right direction. Fact based information? No! Just because they exert psychological effects does not make this sort of anecdotal, self controlled "research" in any way valid.

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

According to the 'ban now ask questions later' campaign the people using it are kids as young as 9 from what I hear.

Just as a matter of interest, if an ask questions first approach had been taken, what do you believe would have been the legal status of such agents while research etc. was being carried out?

ToniTuddle

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

I imagine he'd want the 'buzz' from the Bath Salt, according to this guy it's an experience you won't forget too soon: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118734

The dude in that link you gave was taking a crap load of the stuff!!!
You take a crap load of drugs bad things will happen doesn't take a genius to work that out. It's not the drugs that is the problem but the people taking them. Which I think has been mentioned in this thread awhile ago.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

So that explains how new zealand is now the worlds only drug free country does it. That's pure genius alright!

New Zealand has it's own problems with drugs esp the drug "P".
Cannabis is easily grown out there but the market is all for "P" now.
Now that is one crazy feicing drug

young_dub

They banned BZP last year and now all the dealers in my area are selling this stuff and making major profit witch in turn leads to more shootings on the streets of Dublin, the same will happen with all drugs they ban it just widens the blackmarket. When will those politicans that live on the moon, wake up and realise that the war on drugs is defintly lost and can never ever ever be won, regulation is needed and the panic causing newspapers need to back off

Father Damo

young_dub wrote: »

They banned BZP last year and now all the dealers in my area are selling this stuff and making major profit witch in turn leads to more shootings on the streets of Dublin, the same will happen with all drugs they ban it just widens the blackmarket. When will those politicans that live on the moon, wake up and realise that the war on drugs is defintly lost and can never ever ever be won, regulation is needed and the panic causing newspapers need to back off

I strongly doubt anyone is selling BZP, or if they are they are pretending it is E to make a quick buck. Why would they want to sell it? BZP was one of these things everyone tried once and said christ, never again. Awful stuff. If it wasnt for the recent discovery of mephedone and charge the head shops would have went out business long ago.

c0ldfyr3

penguin88 wrote: »

Ok, so research chemicals is a term used to try to add legitimacy to the use of these substances...there's a lot of propaganda on both sides of this debate.

Well not exactly, they are 'Research Chemicals' by definition, they were created by research chemists specificaly for their recreational purposes, people have been buying them on the internet for 11 years! The difference was the active dosage for most is in and around 0.1 g and to be able to weigh that amount requires a scales that costs a couple of grand. Scienctists and science students and those who really wanted to have been using and 'studying' them this whole time without many incidents.
Whatever miscreants decided to take these chemicals and turn it into what we have in the headshop now is what's causing all the trouble.

penguin88 wrote: »

I don't remember the governments of the world making such a decision...I know of pharmacological studies being carried out a the moment involving MDMA. Really don't get you point about "research chemicals" becoming an "approved substance", approved for what? If you're suggesting no research can be done on such substances after they are controlled in June, that would be incorrect.

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shulgin/blg/index.html
This is the guy who popularised MDMA in the 80's and created, at least the initial research anyway, the stuff the headshops are sellling, If you read some of his replies it's not easy to study any restricted chemicals, it involves a lot of money and effort to even begin your study so once the big bad hand of the law comes down the studies effectively stop.

penguin88 wrote: »

Sure, step in the right direction. Fact based information? No! Just because they exert psychological effects does not make this sort of anecdotal, self controlled "research" in any way valid.

fact (fkt)
n. 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

By definition, personal experiences are indeed fact. And there is no other way to study the effects of a compound on a person without a person ingesting them, everything before that is just speculation and guesswork. Studies on animals don't work, sometimes they have the same effect on animals and humans but more times than not there are differences between them.

Father Damo wrote: »

I strongly doubt anyone is selling BZP, or if they are they are pretending it is E to make a quick buck. Why would they want to sell it?

Street dealers are indeed selling it as Ecstasy, where do you think the stock piles of BZP went when they made it illegal? Anyone who knows what they're doing can tell the difference.
This will happen to Mephedrone too, this time next year kids will be buying Cocaine laced with Mephedrone and won't know the difference.

ToniTuddle wrote: »

New Zealand has it's own problems with drugs esp the drug "P".
Cannabis is easily grown out there but the market is all for "P" now.
Now that is one crazy feicing drug

P is Methamphetamine and has been a scourge in the USA for a long time before that. It's easily extracted from Sudafed hence the "home labs" they get made in. I think in the USA they have restricted personal purchases of Sudafed and even removed the ingredient from it in some states. It will be horrific when Meth reaches Ireland...

Kurtosis

This seems to be developing into a discussion over semantics.

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

Well not exactly, they are 'Research Chemicals' by definition, they were created by research chemists specificaly for their recreational purposes, people have been buying them on the internet for 11 years! The difference was the active dosage for most is in and around 0.1 g and to be able to weigh that amount requires a scales that costs a couple of grand. Scienctists and science students and those who really wanted to have been using and 'studying' them this whole time without many incidents.
Whatever miscreants decided to take these chemicals and turn it into what we have in the headshop now is what's causing all the trouble.

From what I gather, the phrase was used to allow laws to be subverted to allow supply of these substances under the guise of them being for scientific purposes. This is no longer a possibility, so I'd consider the phrase is only used to try to (falsely) imply legitimacy to their purpose.

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shulgin/blg/index.html
This is the guy who popularised MDMA in the 80's and created, at least the initial research anyway, the stuff the headshops are sellling, If you read some of his replies it's not easy to study any restricted chemicals, it involves a lot of money and effort to even begin your study so once the big bad hand of the law comes down the studies effectively stop.

Thanks, yeah, Shulgin is an interesting character. To be honest what I was getting at was that the proper, effective, structured studies really have very few extra barriers once a drug is controlled (licence from Minister, may be more difficult to source). Self experimentation or people doing it off there own bat would find it much more difficult...that's kind of the point.

fact (fkt)
n. 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

By definition, personal experiences are indeed fact. And there is no other way to study the effects of a compound on a person without a person ingesting them, everything before that is just speculation and guesswork. Studies on animals don't work, sometimes they have the same effect on animals and humans but more times than not there are differences between them.

Your making the jump between "real occurences" and "an account" from something done in a person, to personal experience. All clinical trials are carried out in people, but they don't rely on self-administration, self-monitoring and self-reporting, this is the real problem with your "fact-based information". It's really just semantics though, I think it's pretty clear that there's a gap between anecdotal evidence and fact.

I won't even get into animal studies, they do indeed work but not in the sense you mean I suspect. They are very useful for studying the cellular level actions of a drug as well in pre-clinical toxicology studies.

why so serious?

ChemOC wrote: »

The day after Paddy's Day I had a look at the RTE news website. There was an article on how two students from Mullingar were taken to hospital the next day after taking some legal highs. They felt faint and weak. Sounds like a hangover to me!

On the page there was not one article on the major alcohol abuse that occurred all over Ireland on Paddy's Day. Trust me Dublin was like a war zone by 2 o'clock. Just shows where people's fears are.

It was three students, they were smoking some of the legal weed and more than likely they pulled a whitey, then it got blown out of proportion by the media.

why so serious?

seamus wrote: »

Pretty much.

Though in reality this is a new(ish) drug. Even those taking it regularly are unaware of the long-term effects, so the amount of research you can do on this is minimal. Those taking it at present should consider themselves guinea pigs and as such expect that there's a good likelihood that they're going to experience undocumented side-effects. Such as death.

GBH and the like, you can do your research, you can know what you should and shouldn't do, but Mephedrone, not so much.

I wouldn't be very quick to jump to the defence of an undocumented drug on the basis that alcohol kills one person per week in the US, for example. We know the hows and whys of avoiding dying from alcohol. We don't know the hows and whys of avoiding dying from Mephedrone.

Well you have obviously never tried it, I did it about ten times now and it's much safer than coke, I would never do coke again, and the comedown is hardly recognisable, atleast with meph you know what your getting and anyone with even half a brain will start out with small doses and know there limits, the chances of overdosing on it are slim unless your on a suicide mission, it's not rocket science to avoid dying from mephedrone, and there has been plenty of research on it at this stage, so people who do it aren't guinea pigs, maybe they were at first but it's been around a while now, just because the media are only after picking up on it and sensationalising the whole thing doesn't mean there has been no research done on it, and for anyone who is unshore of the effects, side effects etc, all they have to do, is a google search and they will find thousands of experience reports.

Pace2008

why so serious? wrote: »

Well you have obviously never tried it, I did it about ten times now and it's much safer than coke

Jesus man, that's a dangerously naive attitude. I've taken it more times than you and I'm still alive, but that doesn't mean anything - mephedrone is a new, practically unresearched drug. How do you know the cumulative effects of meph use won't be devastating in the long-term? From reading the discourse amongst pharmacologists on various drug forums it seems that meph's structure suggests it could very well be cardiotoxic.

why so serious?

Pace2008 wrote: »

Jesus man, that's a dangerously naive attitude. I've taken it more times than you and I'm still alive, but that doesn't mean anything - mephedrone is a new, practically unresearched drug. How do you know the cumulative effects of meph use won't be devastating in the long-term? From reading the discourse amongst pharmacologists on various drug forums it seems that meph's structure suggests it could very well be cardiotoxic.

long-term... but how long? It's been around more than two years now, and there is not even one death directly from meph, I understand what people are saying about long term effects etc but from personal experience it is a lot safer than cocaine.

Pace2008

why so serious? wrote: »

long-term... but how long? It's been around more than two years now, and there is not even one death directly from meph, I understand what people are saying about long term effects etc but from personal experience it is a lot safer than cocaine.

And how long was asbestos around before people realised how lethal it was? Two years is nothing, it'll be another twenty before we get a decent profile of this substance's toxicity.