Lethal Ecstasy

cletus van damme

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Most people don't give a **** about testing anything. They've been sold the myth that buying a pill off a fella who was in your brother's year in school and is a sound fella is perfectly safe.

I know what you are saying - but if you know the guy and he has taken some himself it's better than buying off soem junkie on o'connell bridge.

johnnykilo

The increasing presence of PMA/PMMA in ecstasy may be due to this massive seizure in Belgium last year:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/10263175/Ecstasy-pills-worth-1.3bn-found-in-Europes-biggest-drugs-raid.html


This is also a great article which explains more about PMA/PMMA, and how although similar to MDMA, it takes much longer to work which is why people keep taking more and more of them and then they get hit by massive effects all of a sudden:
http://www.mixmag.net/words/features/killer-pills-myth-or-murder

Miprocin

cletus van damme wrote: »

there are so many other factors at play it's not as simple as playing the drugs - even if it wasn#'t ecstasy

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hse-alert-over-drugs-linked-to-three-teen-deaths-in-past-month-30297694.html



like holy fcuk batman:eek: - I know seasoned pill merchants and I've taken a few myself but 6 pills is a heavy dose . At 16 years old that's asking for trouble

other reports i read last night said that other drugs were at play.
poly drug use isn't the smartest thing to be fair.

I think drugs should be legal - cos people would know what they were buying. Or at least allow testing or occur without fear of arrest

PMA/PMMA is really nasty stuff. It's contraindicated to itself.

ScumLord

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So you're happy young people are buying ecstasy? As long as they can see it's good ecstasy, with their pharmacological x-ray vision?

I'm not happy or sad about it. It's just a fact of life that people enjoy doing drugs and we're never going to reach a point in time when people are not going to want to do drugs.

Young adults in particular are going to want to do drugs, the government have spent the last 50 years trying to scare young people with misinformation, heavy custodial sentences and none of it has worked.

Regulate drugs and deaths will be reduced, drug related crime will be reduced and addicts can finally come out from under the monster label and get treatment.

I Heart Internet

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not happy or sad about it. It's just a fact of life that people enjoy doing drugs and we're never going to reach a point in time when people are not going to want to do drugs.

Young adults in particular are going to want to do drugs, the government have spent the last 50 years trying to scare young people with misinformation, heavy custodial sentences and none of it has worked.

Regulate drugs and deaths will be reduced, drug related crime will be reduced and addicts can finally come out from under the monster label and get treatment.

Well I'm sad that young people take, and in a few cases die from taking, illegal drugs.

SEPT 23 1989

I presume that is a stock photo with the Mitsubishi in it

TimeToShine

16 year old takes SIX pills! I don't know anyone who would need that many to come up, that is crazy.

Variety is the spice of life, try everything once while you still can but try not to overdo it like these poor lads.

Suryavarman

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Guess you missed "if muppets wanna take hardcore drugs let them".

To elaborate more, if there was a referendum to legalise these hardcore drugs, id vote no. Just like id vote no to people being able to buy hand grenades or assault rifles.

If your life is honestly that unfulfilling that you want hardcore drugs to fill in a missing gap, then your doing it wrong. There are plenty of things in life that can harm or kill you, only a fool goes out of his way to increase his chances of harm or death.

So you think people should be allowed to take drugs but you just want to do your utmost to destroy their lives if they do. I don't know how I got your position wrong earlier :rolleyes:

suicide_circus

I ingested a green rolex last year, felt unwell, uneasy, palpitations etc. No high whatsoever. Afrer an hour I forced myself to vomit and drank loads of water. Now the young lad mentioned in the article took SIX of these. Asking for trouble to say the least.

I Heart Internet

suicide_circus wrote: »

I ingested a green rolex last year, felt unwell, uneasy, palpitations etc. No high whatsoever. Afrer an hour I forced myself to vomit and drank loads of water. Now the young lad mentioned in the article took SIX of these. Asking for trouble to say the least.

Why did you ingest something that you had no clue what it was but suspected it was some kind of pharmacological compound. Would it not concern you that it would make you feel unwell (which it did)?

Stuxnet

cos 499/500 times Its bloody awesome, and your wired outta your head and its great

I Heart Internet

Stuxnet wrote: »

cos 499/500 times Its bloody awesome, and your wired outta your head and its great

And you're willing to put your life on the line to feel that? Clearly you are. fair enough. I wouldn't. But fair enough.

lbj666

6 !! wow, some over the counter meds could kill ya after taking that amount.
If these were the same as the ones that killed people in the north and scotland last year it definitely doesnt take six to kill ya

Its not wise by the indo stating the dose because a lot of people are just going dismiss this incident as extreme recklessness.

I Heart Internet

lbj666 wrote: »

Its not wise by the indo stating the dose because a lot of people are just going dismiss this incident as extreme recklessness.

True.

A lot of people like to beleive that it was these people's youth and recklessness that caused their deaths. That they, as experienced drug-users, would never be so silly...they'll just have four and a half and be grand!

harry Bailey esq

Miprocin wrote: »

At the very least use reagent testing kits. A combination of Marquis, Robadope and Simons Reagent kits should at least give you some idea as to what to expect.

BTW, if anyone has one of these pills and would like to have it analysed. EcstasyData are testing one pill free per month. PM me and I may be able to make it happen.

chancer lol,good effort tho haha.if your serious fair play.Pill testers are widely available online,but they are not cheap.

catallus

To use the deaths of drug-users to support the legalisation of drugs is morally corrupt and intellectually perverted.

ScumLord

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And you're willing to put your life on the line to feel that? Clearly you are. fair enough. I wouldn't. But fair enough.

It's not really putting your life on the line, it's usually pretty clear what kind of yolks they are by the state of everybody else. If your dealers not dead it's probably alright, if he's off his head it means it's probably really good stuff.

Everything in life carries danger, the risks with drugs are acceptable with the right quality control.

I Heart Internet

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not really putting your life on the line, it's usually pretty clear what kind of yolks they are by the state of everybody else. If your dealers not dead it's probably alright,. if he's off his head it means it's probably really good stuff.

Sure it is. So these two lads who died? Their dealers are dead too, or gravely ill?

Suryavarman

catallus wrote: »

To use the deaths of drug-users to support the legalisation of drugs is morally corrupt and intellectually perverted.

There's nothing morally corrupt about trying to prevent further unnecessary deaths.

I Heart Internet

Suryavarman wrote: »

There's nothing morally corrupt about trying to prevent further unnecessary deaths.

So you'd encourage people not to take illegal drugs then?

ScumLord

catallus wrote: »

To use the deaths of drug-users to support the legalisation of drugs is morally corrupt and intellectually perverted.

How is it? There's plenty that use drug deaths to support the criminalisation of drugs. That's like saying "you're a bastard for using all my dirty tactics".

Suryavarman

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So you'd encourage people not to take illegal drugs then?

No. I'd encourage people to be educated on the matter and exercise caution when taking any drug.

I Heart Internet

ScumLord wrote: »

How is it? There's plenty that use drug deaths to support the criminalisation of drugs. That's like saying "you're a bastard for using all my dirty tactics".

I don't see any of them on here though.

My only point is that illegal drugs are presently dangerous, and have led to deaths. So I'd encourage people not to use them. If they want to debate legal issues at the same time, fair enough, but I'd suggest they stay off the drugs for their own sake.

tashiusclay

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So you'd encourage people not to take illegal drugs then?

Why do you keep repeating that line over and over? A lot of people will always want to escape reality through the means of mind altering substances, accept it, and lets move on and bring your thread back up to an intelligent discussion rather than an opinionated rant of yours.

I Heart Internet

Suryavarman wrote: »

No. I'd encourage people to be educated on the matter and exercise caution when taking any drug.

Why not simply encourage them not to take illegal drugs? What are you so afraid of? Why do you have a hang-up about saying to someone, "heh, you know what, don't go using any illegal drugs, it's a needless risk." I thought you wanted to reduce unecessary deaths?

tashiusclay

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I don't see any of them on here though.

My only point is that illegal drugs are presently dangerous, and have led to deaths. So I'd encourage people not to use them. If they want to debate legal issues at the same time, fair enough, but I'd suggest they stay off the drugs for their own sake.

So legal drugs are fine then?

catallus

Anyone who believes that the legalisation of drugs will lead to a decrease in death and/or the damage they cause is blind.

The whole idea of the prohibition of illegal drugs is to contain the damage they cause; knowing that there is an endless line of people out there that are willing to dope themselves up to the eyeballs, the law has worked surprisingly well in containing the damage.

Now I'm not saying it is perfect, and there are compelling arguments for taking the power and money away from criminals who push drugs; but to support legalisation is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I Heart Internet

tashiusclay wrote: »

Why do you keep repeating that line over and over? A lot of people will always want to escape reality through the means of mind altering substances, accept it, and lets move on and bring your thread back up to an intelligent discussion rather than an opinionated rant of yours.

I just think it's remarkable that people would flately refuse to advise people not to take illegal drugs, while at the same time calling for legislation and regulation to make them safer.

I Heart Internet

tashiusclay wrote: »

So legal drugs are fine then?

No. They're dangerous too. I'd advise people not to use those either.

RollieFingers

Green rolexes are dodgy, not as bad as the dolphins around a few years back though

Hopefully everybody down at Life Festival stays safe and avoids these bad boys!

I Heart Internet

catallus wrote: »

Anyone who believes that the legalisation of drugs will lead to a decrease in death and/or the damage they cause is blind.

The whole idea of the prohibition of illegal drugs is to contain the damage they cause; knowing that there is an endless line of people out there that are willing to dope themselves up to the eyeballs, the law has worked surprisingly well in containing the damage.

Now I'm not saying it is perfect, and there are compelling arguments for taking the power and money away from criminals who push drugs; but to support legalisation is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Hear hear.

Anyone who wants to see the the results of a legalised and regulated drug market should examine the plight of methadone users in Ireland.

tashiusclay

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I just think it's remarkable that people would flately refuse to advise people not to take illegal drugs, while at the same time calling for legislation and regulation to make them safer.

What post has this exactly been said in? Of course making ILLEGAL drugs LEGAL will make them safer, what part of this concept are you having difficulty with?

I Heart Internet

tashiusclay wrote: »

What post has this exactly been said in? Of course making ILLEGAL drugs LEGAL will make them safer, what part of this concept are you having difficulty with?

That's an acknowledgment that illegal drugs are unsafe, but you wouldn't advise people not to take these unsafe drugs? Just prefer to moan that the government must make them legal.

AdamD

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's an acknowledgment that illegal drugs are unsafe, but you wouldn't advise people not to take these unsafe drugs? Just prefer to moan that the government must make them legal.

Illegal drugs are unsafe largely because they are illegal. If say MDMA was made legal, it would be safe as it would be tested and made in a regulated environment. Can you not comprehend that?

Suryavarman

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why not simply encourage them not to take illegal drugs? What are you so afraid of? Why do you have a hang-up about saying to someone, "heh, you know what, don't go using any illegal drugs, it's a needless risk." I thought you wanted to reduce unecessary deaths?

Because if I wanted to say that, I'd have to tell people to avoid a myriad of other dangerous activities such as driving to work or going horse riding.

And it's not for me to say whether something is a needless risk or not. It's for the person taking the risk to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

catallus wrote: »

Anyone who believes that the legalisation of drugs will lead to a decrease in death and/or the damage they cause is blind.

The whole idea of the prohibition of illegal drugs is to contain the damage they cause; knowing that there is an endless line of people out there that are willing to dope themselves up to the eyeballs, the law has worked surprisingly well in containing the damage.

Now I'm not saying it is perfect, and there are compelling arguments for taking the power and money away from criminals who push drugs; but to support legalisation is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Drug prohibition has magnified the damage caused by drugs in pretty much every measure imaginable. The only people benefiting from drug prohibition are the drug dealers and the people charged with enforcing the laws.

tashiusclay

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's an acknowledgment that illegal drugs are unsafe, but you wouldn't advise people not to take these unsafe drugs? Just prefer to moan that the government must make them legal.

Of course they're unsafe!! Do you agree that illegally produced alcohol produced pre-prohibition era in in Chicago by the likes of gangsters would have been very poor quality and unsafe and an unknown quantity, compared to relatively safe quality controlled alcohol produced at present in the Bulmers factory in Clonmel?

I'm giving an example or an illegal drug that is now legal. Do you agree with this example, yes or no?

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's an acknowledgment that illegal drugs are unsafe, but you wouldn't advise people not to take these unsafe drugs? Just prefer to moan that the government must make them legal.

Your ignorance is simply astounding.

Obviously it's horrible that these people died. But they didn't die from taking Ecstasy, they died from taking a concoction of ****e dressed up as ecstasy

One of them was a 16 year old boy who took six pills

If our political elite didn't want to stick their head in the sand with regard to drugs MDMA could be regulated, tested correctly (see Holland for the success of this) and wouldn't be available so easily to someone aged 16.

Even our with the current imperfect situation you rarely hear of people dying from taking pills, and when you do it's always crap dressed up as MDMA and usually people taking way too much.

But of course that doesn't stop keyboard warriors like yourself taking the moral high ground and ignoring all research into the failure that is drug prohabition

Just had a creep through your posts, I wouldn't expect anything else from someone this out of touch with reality:

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I think as a society we've lost some sense of occasion. You're right OP - there is a time and place for legs and cleavage and it's not in churches. Ditto - shirt and pants for men should be a minimum.

catallus

Suryavarman wrote: »

Drug prohibition has magnified the damage caused by drugs in pretty much every measure imaginable. The only people benefiting from drug prohibition are the drug dealers and the people charged with enforcing the laws.

Maybe I'm stupid, but your going to have to explain this to me.

How has prohibition magnified the damage? It has contained it to a tiny tiny minority of the population. Unless your arguing that more widespread use of drugs is a good thing?

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

catallus wrote: »

Maybe I'm stupid, but your going to have to explain this to me.

How has prohibition magnified the damage? It has contained it to a tiny tiny minority of the population. Unless your arguing that more widespread use of drugs is a good thing?

what are you basing that on? and what are you basing your assumption that legalisation will cause more widespread use?

poundapunnet

catallus wrote: »

Maybe I'm stupid, but your going to have to explain this to me.

How has prohibition magnified the damage? It has contained it to a tiny tiny minority of the population. Unless your arguing that more widespread use of drugs is a good thing?

It really, really hasn't. I literally don't know anyone under the age of thirty who hasn't at least smoked weed. Drugs have become more and more available in this country over the past 20ish years, it is absolutely not a tiny minority of people taking them. There are clubs you can go to in most cities where everyone's out of it and ripping up the dancefloor and hardly anybody is drinking.

It's getting more and more normalised as more and more people realise that you can be a perfectly happy, well-adjusted, productive member of society who takes drugs and that all the bull they were fed in school is just that, bull.

Suryavarman

catallus wrote: »

Maybe I'm stupid, but your going to have to explain this to me.

How has prohibition magnified the damage? It has contained it to a tiny tiny minority of the population. Unless your arguing that more widespread use of drugs is a good thing?

There's no evidence to suggest that drug prohibition has reduced drug use although anybody can see it has made drug use far more dangerous. It has resulted in an increase in violent crime as dealers use violence to settle debts and disagreements. Then there is also the increases in property crime as addicts steal to fund their habit as prohibition has driven the price of drugs through the roof.

ceadaoin.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's an acknowledgment that illegal drugs are unsafe, but you wouldn't advise people not to take these unsafe drugs? Just prefer to moan that the government must make them legal.

Do you think that advising people not to take illegal drugs is going to stop them doing them? That approach really doesn't seem to be working. People are going to take them regardless so it's better that they are in some way regulated to ensure a safer product isn't it?

I Heart Internet

AdamD wrote: »

Illegal drugs are unsafe largely because they are illegal. If say MDMA was made legal, it would be safe as it would be tested and made in a regulated environment. Can you not comprehend that?

I agree with you entirely.

I'm just wondering why, if illegal drugs are unsafe, why people on here find it impossible to advise people not to take these unsafe drugs.

ScumLord

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I don't see any of them on here though.

You're one of them, you're using these lads death as a re enforcement for the drug laws. Your argument these lads died, therefore drugs are dangerous, therefore we need laws to protect people from using these drugs.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why not simply encourage them not to take illegal drugs? What are you so afraid of? Why do you have a hang-up about saying to someone, "heh, you know what, don't go using any illegal drugs, it's a needless risk." I thought you wanted to reduce unecessary deaths?

Because one, people won't listen to that tripe. Two, I couldn't say that to them without being a hypocrite because in my experience drugs are well worth trying. I think a person would be mad to go through life without trying some mind altering substances. Three, it's not a needless risk, it can be a highly reward experience with little to no side effects.

catallus wrote: »

The whole idea of the prohibition of illegal drugs is to contain the damage they cause; knowing that there is an endless line of people out there that are willing to dope themselves up to the eyeballs, the law has worked surprisingly well in containing the damage.

It hasn't, at all. Drug use has increased year on year since prohibition was introduced. All the prohibition war has done is put the topic of drug use in the face of every person on this planet, the media harp on about drugs daily, it's tantamount to promotion. It created the black market for drugs and the criminal organisations that now control it. It gave unlimited funds to all sorts of criminals, from your mafia to revolutionaries. It created a consumer market that didn't exist before and then encouraged the invention of new drugs to fill the demand.

There's absolutely no evidence what so ever that prohibition has had any positive effects. There are more addicts, the drugs are cheaper than ever, production is on a massive scale, profits are obscene and there's even more variety.

None of these problems existed before prohibition, organised crime as we know it grew out of those laws. All to prevent addiction. Supposedly. It did not work, it just made it worse.


There are more addicts in the world today (per capita) than there were before prohibition. Prohibition is not working.

I Heart Internet

tashiusclay wrote: »

Of course they're unsafe!! Do you agree that illegally produced alcohol produced pre-prohibition era in in Chicago by the likes of gangsters would have been very poor quality and unsafe and an unknown quantity, compared to relatively safe quality controlled alcohol produced at present in the Bulmers factory in Clonmel?

I'm giving an example or an illegal drug that is now legal. Do you agree with this example, yes or no?

I agree entirely.

So why, if illegal drugs are unsafe, would you not advise peopel to stay well clear of them?

I Heart Internet

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Your ignorance is simply astounding.

Obviously it's horrible that these people died. But they didn't die from taking Ecstasy, they died from taking a concoction of ****e dressed up as ecstasy

One of them was a 16 year old boy who took six pills

So why would you not simple encourage young people to avoid taking illegal drugs? Would that not be a straight-forwardly good thing to do?

I don't know what my musings on other topics have to do with anything......I prefer to stick to the topic being discussed.

Dar

So why, if mountain climbing is unsafe, would you not advise people to stay well clear of it?

I Heart Internet

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Do you think that advising people not to take illegal drugs is going to stop them doing them? That approach really doesn't seem to be working. People are going to take them regardless so it's better that they are in some way regulated to ensure a safer product isn't it?

It will stop some people. It won't stop others.

Even if legalisation and quality controls was announced and would be on-line in, say January 2015, would it not still make sense to say to people, "look, illegal drugs are dangerous, stay off them until we've cleaned up the market."?

People on here claiming that illegal drugs are dangerous becasue they're illegal but wouldn't advise even their sons and daughters not to take those same drugs. Baffling.

ScumLord

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So why would you not simple encourage young people to avoid taking illegal drugs? Would that not be a straight-forwardly good thing to do?

Because that conversation might go like this.

Me: Don't do drugs!
Young lad: Why? Did you ever do drugs?
Me: Yes.
Young lad: What were they like?
Me: Awesome, don't do them!

We also know that telling young people not to do drugs only encourages them to try them. Were as in countries where people can do drugs if they want to, are provided with information and resources to make it as safe as possible (Netherlands) all the young people end up losing interest and not bothering with a teenage drug rebellion.

catallus

Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason: they fcuk people up; the idea that legalisation will make drug use a more benign thing is awfully stupid.