Killer Drug?

Rigol

pampootie wrote: »

I'm curious, what point exactly are you trying to make here? What relevance have paracetamol, antiepileptics and their therapeutic doses got?

Just to illustrate the delicate nature of the brain, and how drugs which intensely affect the brain need to be carefully administered...down to a mere 25mg. Street drugs intensely affect the brain too.

In this particular case my mate had late onset epilepsy, 25+ years waiting to manifest. There seems to be a 'one size fits all' assumption. But this guys brain is more delicate/slighty different, which was news to him after 25+ years of assuming otherwise, as it may be to anyone.

25mg difference in clinically administered chemicals is a big deal for him in terms of his health, who knows what a few lines or a yoke could do to his brain and health/life.
(or for any person with an unknown underlying condition - even you possibly)

The example of the paracetamol is just to bluntly illustrate the physical size of the 25mg variance. A small dose change can bring about big changes. Street drugs are not very standardized so while you might be getting away with x amount at x potency the next hit might be heavier by say 50mg and more potent.
The consequences unknown as the brain is very delicate, not easily fixed and you only have the one.
Its not worth the risk of an hour of giggles given you don't know what you're taking, how it will effect you longterm and you're getting it from someone who breaks the law for cash too.

(I emailed him earlier to ask that he squeeze in a hypothetical question next time he goes to his neurologist or gets a cat scan about what may happened had he been on the coke/yoke. Said ok)

SuperInfinity

tdv123 wrote: »

In the UK Diamorphine (Heroin) is prescribed for some types of pain. Mainly people with severe cancer.

It's also used by some doctors to help wean addicts of the stuff as an alternative to Methadone treatment.

??? And what point is this supposed to make? It's the same with regular morphine, it's one hell of a thing you don't want to be taking.

In the UK the healthcare system is known for pushing these drugs onto susceptible elderly folk in order for them to become addicted to them before they die. It's a horrible, cruel, savage thing to do to elderly people, who trust completely in the "professionals", to make them become junkies before they pass away.

pampootie

Rigol wrote: »

The example of the paracetamol is just to bluntly illustrate the physical size of the 25mg variance.

Ah ok. I thought you were implying that paracetamol was somehow 20x 'stronger' than the antiepileptics due to it being 500mg as opposed to 25mg, without regard to the therapeutic doses. Carry on!

2218219

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Is there a killer drug in circulation there seems to be a good few deaths over the last 8 weeks or so from something, nobody seems to be saying what it is though. Usually when something like happens in the uk the police come straight out and warn people, why isn't that happening?
3 people died after Swedish house mafia but there was no public health warning.

well it is the news so?

i'm not saying that the news don't put out mistakes or anything but they could just be mistakes by the news you know?

Sulla Felix

1210m5g wrote: »

I do wonder if this would work but i just look at the states people get themselves in from drink and i can only imagine what it would be like if hard drugs were legal. For one it would make the black market a lot busier, you just have to look at the sales of illegal cigarette as an example.

They're sort of already black market though, being, well, illegal. If they were legalized and the price dropped that would take an awful lot of money out of the hands of the criminals and put it into the hands of the exchequer and some hopefully more reasonable private individuals.

kingtubby

It is very sad what happened at SHM.
For the gig that it was recreational drugs would have been extremely available. It is possible that the deaths were people who took the drugs were extremely drunk at the time, did not have much experience with ecstasy and did not understand how to keep safe when on ecstasy.
AFAIK most deaths occur due to dehydration or water intoxication which are both very avoidable when the user is knowledgeable and responsible.

wendell borton

Caveat emptor.

My name is URL

Blaire Kind Senior wrote: »

Oh my god, they are blaming MDMA on the news today for these deaths.

Not quite.. they're blaming it on a particular batch of MDMA. In fairness, if there is a contaminated amount of it doing the rounds then people should be made aware of it.

castletownman

Love the way the Gardai statement is basically coming across as a warning not to mix this drug with other substances. Almost sounds like they're saying "Look this drug is great stuff altogether. Just don't go mixing it with other ****e. Mmmkay?"

hatrickpatrick

1210m5g wrote: »

I do wonder if this would work but i just look at the states people get themselves in from drink and i can only imagine what it would be like if hard drugs were legal.

First of all, is e classed as a 'hard' drug? O_o
Secondly, at least you could be sure that it would be pure, quality controlled ecstasy and that the only risk would be from overdose or misuse, not from an experienced user taking what should be an ok does but dying because some douche has cut it with something contaminated...
Like the difference between buying alcohol in the shops, or buying home distilled crap during prohibition which could be full of methanol. It's far less risky - people are going to take the stuff one way or another, most users couldn't give a crap what the law says about it so IMO it would solve far more problems than it would cause.

For one it would make the black market a lot busier, you just have to look at the sales of illegal cigarette as an example.

That's because the government drives the price for them up through supposedly "discouraging" taxation. Difference here is that black market cigarettes usually won't be full of dangerous stuff, so perhaps such artificial price inflation should be avoided with other drugs, to simply drive the illegal trade out of business through legitimate competition?

I do think drugs should be decriminalized but i think making them legal would cause all sorts of carnage (this is coming from someone who has enjoyed recreational drug use for the last 14 years)

Look at the carnage now from them being illegal, not only do we have decent, ordinary citizens being put in prison for freely consenting to putting something into their own body, clogging up the justice system and causing an absolutely farcical 'war on drugs' situation, but now the added danger of the black market producing dangerous concoctions with God knows what in them.

IMO it's like this with almost anything. Outright bans are far inferior to decent regulation.
I imagine if category 2 garden fireworks could be licensed for home use in Ireland like in the North, there'd be far less kids blowing their fingers off with poorly made DIY stuff.

Banning something when the majority of the population simply ignores the ban and buys substandard produce from criminals simply makes absolutely no sense. If people didn't have the resolve to get their hands on this stuff it would be different, but clearly people want it badly enough to take silly risks. At that point you have to say prohibition is not working and look at other ways of containing the problem.

Intensive Care Bear

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

First of all, is e classed as a 'hard' drug? O_o
Secondly, at least you could be sure that it would be pure, quality controlled ecstasy and that the only risk would be from overdose or misuse, not from an experienced user taking what should be an ok does but dying because some douche has cut it with something contaminated...
Like the difference between buying alcohol in the shops, or buying home distilled crap during prohibition which could be full of methanol. It's far less risky - people are going to take the stuff one way or another, most users couldn't give a crap what the law says about it so IMO it would solve far more problems than it would cause.



That's because the government drives the price for them up through supposedly "discouraging" taxation. Difference here is that black market cigarettes usually won't be full of dangerous stuff, so perhaps such artificial price inflation should be avoided with other drugs, to simply drive the illegal trade out of business through legitimate competition?



Look at the carnage now from them being illegal, not only do we have decent, ordinary citizens being put in prison for freely consenting to putting something into their own body, clogging up the justice system and causing an absolutely farcical 'war on drugs' situation, but now the added danger of the black market producing dangerous concoctions with God knows what in them.

IMO it's like this with almost anything. Outright bans are far inferior to decent regulation.
I imagine if category 2 garden fireworks could be licensed for home use in Ireland like in the North, there'd be far less kids blowing their fingers off with poorly made DIY stuff.

Banning something when the majority of the population simply ignores the ban and buys substandard produce from criminals simply makes absolutely no sense. If people didn't have the resolve to get their hands on this stuff it would be different, but clearly people want it badly enough to take silly risks. At that point you have to say prohibition is not working and look at other ways of containing the problem.

Your either missing my point or i didn't put it across clear enough in my post (probably the latter because i was drunk) I agree with you and i'm all for decriminalization. Also i certainly wouldn't consider MDMA a hard drug.

MagicSean

http://www.thejournal.ie/kinsale-deaths-mdma-pmma-592161-Sep2012/

THE HEALTH SERVICE Executive has issued a warning to drug users in Cork, urging caution over taking a brown powder substance known to contain MDMA and PMMA*.

For whatever good it will do

Intensive Care Bear

Sulla Felix wrote: »

They're sort of already black market though, being, well, illegal. If they were legalized and the price dropped that would take an awful lot of money out of the hands of the criminals and put it into the hands of the exchequer and some hopefully more reasonable private individuals.

Im for decriminalisation and maybe even full legalisation my point is that even if drugs were legal and regulated there will still be people selling crap to people they shouldn't be selling it to.

anhedonia

SuperInfinity wrote: »

??? And what point is this supposed to make? It's the same with regular morphine, it's one hell of a thing you don't want to be taking. .

Heroin (Diamorphine) is an extremely effective pain killer, and crosses the blood brain barrier twice as quick as regular morphine. It is an ideal painkiller for the severe pain associated in terminal end-stage cancer. At this stage the risk of physical dependance is negligible, as the patient is terminal, and will at least be comfortable while they await the inevitable.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

In the UK the healthcare system is known for pushing these drugs onto susceptible elderly folk in order for them to become addicted to them before they die. It's a horrible, cruel, savage thing to do to elderly people, who trust completely in the "professionals", to make them become junkies before they pass away

Your ignorance is astounding, you're basically stating that strong opioid medications have no place in cancer treatment.

If you happen to ever end up with a monster brain tumor, from which you are dying, be sure to stick to your rock-solid principles and refuse all but paracetamol for pain relief, lest you become a junky.

If I ever end up with terminal cancer, in my last few days I will be asking for the Brompton cocktail which is basically a mixture of heroin, cocaine,gin and thorazine. I may switch the gin for whiskey, and perhaps switch the cocaine with methamphetamine. I'll spend my last few days tweeking the brompton cocktail.

Would be feckin sweet if you were in the bed across me, dieing a mad painful death munchin paracetamol, whilst im tweeking the greatest and most euphoric speedball to ever come out of medical science.

kingtubby

1210m5g wrote: »

Im for decriminalisation and maybe even full legalisation my point is that even if drugs were legal and regulated there will still be people selling crap to people they shouldn't be selling it to.

But why do you think that?
If all drugs were legal why on earth would people dodgy drugs for more money on the black market?

Cheese is legal, and I cannot think of one time I was tempted to buy it off some sketchy guy in a dark alleyway!

SuperInfinity

anhedonia wrote: »

Heroin (Diamorphine) is an extremely effective pain killer, and crosses the blood brain barrier twice as quick as regular morphine. It is an ideal painkiller for the severe pain associated in terminal end-stage cancer. At this stage the risk of physical dependance is negligible, as the patient is terminal, and will at least be comfortable while they await the inevitable.



Your ignorance is astounding, you're basically stating that strong opioid medications have no place in cancer treatment.

If you happen to ever end up with a monster brain tumor, from which you are dying, be sure to stick to your rock-solid principles and refuse all but paracetamol for pain relief, lest you become a junky.

If I ever end up with terminal cancer, in my last few days I will be asking for the Brompton cocktail which is basically a mixture of heroin, cocaine,gin and thorazine. I may switch the gin for whiskey, and perhaps switch the cocaine with methamphetamine. I'll spend my last few days tweeking the brompton cocktail.

Would be feckin sweet if you were in the bed across me, dieing a mad painful death munchin paracetamol, whilst im tweeking the greatest and most euphoric speedball to ever come out of medical science.

Your lovely rhetoric aside, they do overuse them on the elderly, especially in the uk. I never said they should be made illegal. The reason it's less in the US is that the government is a lot more reluctant to pay for such things there with taxpayer money. It's a really terrible situation.

http://www.steadyhealth.com/morphine_given_too_randomly_in_elderly_patients__t100460.html

http://www.ukhippy.com/stuff/archive/index.php/t-45154.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-20102066.html

MagicSean

kingtubby wrote: »

But why do you think that?
If all drugs were legal why on earth would people dodgy drugs for more money on the black market?

Cheese is legal, and I cannot think of one time I was tempted to buy it off some sketchy guy in a dark alleyway!

Ever bought a pirate dvd to avoid the markup? What about getting someone to pick you up smokes to avoid the taxes?

tdv123

SuperInfinity wrote: »

??? And what point is this supposed to make? It's the same with regular morphine, it's one hell of a thing you don't want to be taking.

In the UK the healthcare system is known for pushing these drugs onto susceptible elderly folk in order for them to become addicted to them before they die. It's a horrible, cruel, savage thing to do to elderly people, who trust completely in the "professionals", to make them become junkies before they pass away.

The point is it's a bad idea for anybody to take any drug they don't need.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC_nrLIc2Zk

3:02 does this man look like your typical "zombie junkie" you describe all elderly folks as who need these medications to function normally on daily basis?

Intensive Care Bear

kingtubby wrote: »

But why do you think that?
If all drugs were legal why on earth would people dodgy drugs for more money on the black market?

Cheese is legal, and I cannot think of one time I was tempted to buy it off some sketchy guy in a dark alleyway!

If drugs were legal they would have to be regulated or do you think they should be available for everyone? If some members of society are excluded from buying them legally then of course there will be a black market.

tdv123

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Your lovely rhetoric aside, they do overuse them on the elderly, especially in the uk. I never said they should be made illegal. The reason it's less in the US is that the government is a lot more reluctant to pay for such things there with taxpayer money. It's a really terrible situation.

http://www.steadyhealth.com/morphine_given_too_randomly_in_elderly_patients__t100460.html

http://www.ukhippy.com/stuff/archive/index.php/t-45154.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-20102066.html

Less? Have you not heard of the opiates Hydrocdocone (a slightly weaker) version of morphine) or Oxycodone (a stronger version of morphine?). There prescribed in many US states to adults & teenagers of any age like bits of candy. The opiate problem is even worse over in the US than in the UK. I was never offered any opiate of any kind till I visited some relatives over in the states. Teenagers carry around Vicodin & Percocet pills over there like teens carry bags of weed around over here & the UK.

Piste

Saying "Drug X/Y/Z really isn't as bad as alcohol!" really isn't a great argument for making it legal. It is however a pretty good argument for making alcohol illegal.

Demonical

Blaire Kind Senior wrote: »

Oh my god, they are blaming MDMA on the news today for these deaths.

MDMA in its pure form is less harmful than alcohol and whole lot more fun.

My name is URL wrote: »

Not quite.. they're blaming it on a particular batch of MDMA. In fairness, if there is a contaminated amount of it doing the rounds then people should be made aware of it.

MagicSean wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/kinsale-deaths-mdma-pmma-592161-Sep2012/


For whatever good it will do

Its PMMA thats causing these deaths and those dodgy pills containing it have been around quite some time. There was a good few deaths in the UK earlier in the year because of it. If e tabs were regulated there would be no PMMA in them and they would be safe, MDMA as has been mentioned a few times in this thread is a lot safer than most people think. I could never understand how those in power can't see that if prostitution and (some) drugs are legalised it would create an awful lot more revenue for them and take the power out of some of the criminals hands.

kingtubby

MagicSean wrote: »

Ever bought a pirate dvd to avoid the markup? What about getting someone to pick you up smokes to avoid the taxes?

I do not think comparing drugs to digital media is a fair comparison considering digital media can be replicated easily for free.
With the case of cigarettes there is a black market available because of the extortionate taxes government place on them ( which imo is basically an extension of the war on drugs).
If cigarettes were taxed regular amounts then there would be no, or only a very tiny, black market.

MagicSean

kingtubby wrote: »

I do not think comparing drugs to digital media is a fair comparison considering digital media can be replicated easily for free.
With the case of cigarettes there is a black market available because of the extortionate taxes government place on them ( which imo is basically an extension of the war on drugs).
If cigarettes were taxed regular amounts then there would be no, or only a very tiny, black market.

So it'll be a big windfall for the taxman but at the same time it must be taxed very low to limit the black market. Those two things don't seem slightly at odds to you?

Royal Legend

Bubble seems to be the buzz work in the UK, a cheap white powder, they call it bubble because no one is sure what is in it. Is this what is going around the South of the country? as the news stated a grey powder

kingtubby

1210m5g wrote: »

If drugs were legal they would have to be regulated or do you think they should be available for everyone? If some members of society are excluded from buying them legally then of course there will be a black market.

I would agree with you that there would be a black market if some members of society were excluded. However, I believe only non adults should be excluded meaning the black market that would be created would be the one where people sell drugs to kids.

If you look at kids who buy alcohol they would almost always buy the same regulated alcohol we drink so I do not see how if drugs were legalised that contaminated drugs would continue to be a problem.

kingtubby

MagicSean wrote: »

So it'll be a big windfall for the taxman but at the same time it must be taxed very low to limit the black market. Those two things don't seem slightly at odds to you?

There is obviously a balance. If you were to tax anything at the level cigarettes are taxed then a black market would emerge. That does not mean that there is not a tax level which could discourage black markets and make the government money. The tax rates on cigarettes in this country are about as an extreme an example as one could fathom.

kingtubby

Piste wrote: »

Saying "Drug X/Y/Z really isn't as bad as alcohol!" really isn't a great argument for making it legal. It is however a pretty good argument for making alcohol illegal.

That is a reasonable point.

It is useful to point out the parallels between the two though as many people who scoff at the idea of legalising drugs would not dream of giving up their few pints at the weekend.

People tend to look at things differently with people call into question the freedom of choice to do something they do not want to do than when its something they do and wish to continue doing.

Sulla Felix

1210m5g wrote: »

Sulla Felix wrote: »

They're sort of already black market though, being, well, illegal. If they were legalized and the price dropped that would take an awful lot of money out of the hands of the criminals and put it into the hands of the exchequer and some hopefully more reasonable private individuals.

Im for decriminalisation and maybe even full legalisation my point is that even if drugs were legal and regulated there will still be people selling crap to people they shouldn't be selling it to.

Yeah, true but at least I have the choice themb of going down to boots to buy a few grams before going out

Intensive Care Bear

kingtubby wrote: »

I would agree with you that there would be a black market if some members of society were excluded. However, I believe only non adults should be excluded meaning the black market that would be created would be the one where people sell drugs to kids.

If you look at kids who buy alcohol they would almost always buy the same regulated alcohol we drink so I do not see how if drugs were legalised that contaminated drugs would continue to be a problem.

There is a massive black market economy in the UK for cigarettes and alcohol both of which should only be sold to adults so why would drugs be any different?

Also if drugs were legal then surely it would be easy for criminals to get their hands on them, cut them down and make a nice profit by undercutting the government and selling to poor/young people.

Im agreeing with you that in an ideal world drugs should be legalised and regulated but i think its naive to think it wouldn't lead to another set of problems. Unfortunately i doubt we will ever find out which is the better option.

Intensive Care Bear

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Yeah, true but at least I have the choice themb of going down to boots to buy a few grams before going out

One can only dream of that day:(

tdv123

Royal Legend wrote: »

Bubble seems to be the buzz work in the UK, a cheap white powder, they call it bubble because no one is sure what is in it. Is this what is going around the South of the country? as the news stated a grey powder

That would be the amphetamine drug Mephedrone mixed with god knows what else.