×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How the Web Makes a Real-Life Breaking Bad Possible

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the say-my-name dept.

China 194

gallifreyan99 writes "The real revolution in drugs isn't Silk Road—it's the open web. Thanks to the net, almost anyone with a basic handle on chemistry can design, manufacture and sell their own narcotics, and in most cases the cops are utterly unable to stop them. This piece is kind of crazy: the writer actually creates a new powerful-but-legal stimulant based on a banned substance, and gets a Chinese lab to manufacture it."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

194 comments

Oh my god, it's full of information (4, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#46107875)

The internet has information on it. We'll bring you the latest as this story unfolds.

Re:Oh my god, it's full of information (2, Funny)

xaxa (988988) | about 3 months ago | (#46107917)

The internet kind of has information on it. We'll actually bring you the latest as this story unfolds.

FTFY, kind of in the style of the actual summary.

(Apologies, kind of. Poor writing style actually annoys me.)

Re:Oh my god, it's full of information (4, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#46108069)

I am so like totally with you on that one.

Re: Oh my god, it's full of information (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108513)

I'm kind of like you, actually.

Federal Analog Act? (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 months ago | (#46107903)

Obviously enforcement of every bespoke chemical being synthesized to order is impractical even by the standards of the drug wars; but are substances such as the one described in the article actually 'legal'? My (admittedly layman's) understanding of the Federal Analog Act was that it was a fairly blatant blanket ban on 'absolutely anything that looks like something illegal and has some recreational potential'. A rather expansive law; but one that you can't just wiggle past on a technicality (though, obviously, you can wiggle past on sheer logistical impracticality; but so can ~40 billion dollars worth of cocaine, so that isn't really a legality test...)

Re:Federal Analog Act? (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#46108059)

The problem I personally have with the analogue act is the other side of it: Considering that pretty much anything that you can somehow introduce to your body and that doesn't kill you outright has some kind of psychological effect on it. If only it simply eliminates your feeling of hunger, i.e. food. Now, considering how similar from a chemical point of view many things are, especially when it comes to things that contain benzene- or furan-rings, according to that catch-all act you can essentially outlaw whatever you see fit.

Half of the E-numbered additives should actually be on the banned list according to that rubberband law.

Re:Federal Analog Act? (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 months ago | (#46108091)

Oh, it's an egregiously sloppy law, leaving the power of selective enforcement right in the hands of people who really shouldn't be trusted with safety scissors, much less discretionary state force; but that's part of why I'm skeptical that this exercise in analog production is 'legal'. No way is the multinational-supply-chain-chemical-industry going to approve of meddling DEA agents getting in the way of business, so it's probably pretty low risk; but it would take some serious doing to come up with a psychoactive variant of a banned substance that doesn't fall within scope, if somebody notices.

Re:Federal Analog Act? (3, Insightful)

stenvar (2789879) | about 3 months ago | (#46108099)

Brilliant! It won't actually do much to reduce recreational drug use, but it will mean a lot more restriction on companies developing legal drugs. Big pharmaceuticals should love that, because in the end, only a few of them will be left who are actually able to pay for the licenses and security associated with drug development under such restrictions. Crony capitalism at its best!

Re:Federal Analog Act? (4, Funny)

lucm (889690) | about 3 months ago | (#46108147)

You don't read the right kind of websites. The reason why the coke business is thriving is that it has the blessing of the Secret Government who has agents in South America injecting a DNA marker in the raw product so drug users can be detected and prevented from joining the Secret Government. This strategy was inspired by the bomb-sniffing dogs who actually can't detect bombs but rather are sensitive to a specific compound injected in the explosives for the purpose of detection.

As for designer drugs (aka the generics of the illegal drug trade): they are a shameful byproduct of greed and are standing in the way of chemical innovation by depriving mainstream drug labs from a large proportion of the revenue they should get. Like the Goophone.

Re:Federal Analog Act? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 3 months ago | (#46108299)

That's why they always claim 'not for human consumption'.

There are many things normally used for perfectly legitimate purposes that will also act as a drug if 'misused'.

Re:Federal Analog Act? (4, Insightful)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | about 3 months ago | (#46108535)

Obviously enforcement of every bespoke chemical being synthesized to order is impractical even by the standards of the drug wars; but are substances such as the one described in the article actually 'legal'?

In Australia where the story is based, maybe (Designer Drugs Legislation), but would it be enforced? No. Sythetic Cannabis analogs are illegal here under the same legislation, but before seizing them they have to be run through Lidcombe labs where there is a long waiting list, in the meantime the distributors are making a lot of money - and have legal heavyweights that can and have stalled the process.

One of the things the sensationalised story overlooked is that the same compound could be manufactured to order almost anywhere in the world - China just happens to give the story more zing.

It should also be noted that these and other "designer" drugs are not very enjoyable. The reality is that all the "good" drugs (relatively harmless, few unpleasant side effects) are either illegal or heavily taxed and subject to production and distribution monopolies.

In New South Wales they have laws in place that can make possession of a length of garden hose and a milk bottle illegal. The laws against drugs have a purpose and it's not to stop people taking them. Good luck banning them - I studied organic chemistry and pharmacology, everything on your spice rack, even your lawn itself has non-amine precursors. But that'd involve a bit of work and an outlay. Give me a truck, a woodchipper, a chainsaw, and malicicious intent and I can actually get paid big money to legally collect large amounts of (very) rich *amine* precursors for Alpha Methyl PhenEthyl Amines (MMDA and speed/Ice etc) - as could any number of people who likewise have no motivation to get rich from recreational drugs - or compete with very competitive existing marketers, and the host of "officials" who live off them. By rich I mean 5 - 8% and in semi trailer loads. Continuously.

The drug industry, the other industry that calls their clients "users".

Re:Federal Analog Act? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108813)

Fortunately, the Federal Analog Act doesn't apply outside the USA (yet).

Sew my eyes shut to save the children! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46107915)

If we can't see the internet, it can't hurt us!

Why wait? (5, Insightful)

Krneki (1192201) | about 3 months ago | (#46107935)

Legalize everything and fight abuse with proper education, not the duck and cover shit!

Re:Why wait? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108005)

Yes, I'd rather the idiots of the world killed themselves sooner rather than later, and the best way to accomplish this is to let them smoke, snort, or shoot anything they damn well want.

Re:Why wait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108371)

Yes, I'd rather the idiots of the world killed themselves sooner rather than later, and the best way to accomplish this is to let them smoke, snort, or shoot anything they damn well want.

Uh, that shit didn't work when we drove the country into obesity with the infectious fast food industry.

Seems we still have armies of idiots waddling around.

Re:Why wait? (3, Insightful)

kesuki (321456) | about 3 months ago | (#46108019)

"Legalize everything and fight abuse with proper education, not the duck and cover shit!"

that fails to satiate the power grab of being able to arrest dissenters at any time for having a tiny bit of drug planted on or near them by the Powers That Be.

Re:Why wait? (5, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 3 months ago | (#46108043)

that fails to satiate the power grab of being able to arrest dissenters at any time for having a tiny bit of drug planted on or near them by the Powers That Be.

They can just plant a pirated movie. Stiffer fine. Point is, the arguments for criminalization are based on a lie: Properly regulated, there wouldn't be any more harm from most of these drugs than what you can do getting piss drunk.... which is legal. Until they ban alcohol, anything less dangerous than that is a disengenuous argument; It's hypocricy.

Re:Why wait? (1)

geniice (1336589) | about 3 months ago | (#46108317)

One of the issues these new drugs throw up is that there is no way to properly regulate them. They make 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol look well documented. Probably the closest you could get is "we have no idea what this chemical does if you do decide to take it please let us know what happens".

Re:Why wait? (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 3 months ago | (#46108321)

that's not true

meth, heroin, and coke are for more addictive than alcohol

so it's as hard to quit as nicotine, but as inebriating as alcohol. meaning you can't quit, like nicotine. but unlike nicotine, which actually enhances concentration, on meth/ heroin/ coke, your focus is for shit. so you can't hold a job/ maintain a relationship

that's why society outlaws drugs

not because society is hysterical killjoys. but because highly addictive hard drugs really do destroy lives. just the drugs: not social attitudes, not personal psychological, the actual chemicals. no one is immune to basic biochemistry, no willpower is stronger than the pharmacology of addiction

marijuana, the hallucinogens, etc., they should be legal: not highly addictive + highly inebriating at the same time like hard drugs

and addicts should get treatment, not jail

but legalize meth? heroin? coke?

no, never

because even with the negative prohibition effects (funding drug cartels, etc), drug addiction itself to highly addictive HARD drugs, is still more harmful to society than prohibition

the war on hard drugs is not new. and will never end. it's just a maintenance function of civilization. no, we'll never get rid of hard drugs completely. but that's not the point. the point is just to minimize the negative social effects of drug addiction by minimizing the addict population. we're also never going to completely stop rape, murder, robbery. so we give up fighting that too?

we just need better tactics: portugal for example has a better attitude than the usa. but the war on drugs still goes on in portugal. dealers are still criminals in portugal. in fact, addicts are still criminals: they just get treatment instead of jail, as it should be in the usa

it didn't start with reagan. and the war has been going on every since we noticed droog would spend all day eating fermented fruit at the caveman campsite instead of helping with foraging and hunting. why does islam prohibit alcohol? too many useless wasted human shells on the street. why did the usa even experiment with prohibition? it wasn't just busy body prudes. because alcohol really does destroy lives

study the opium wars:

http://www.sacu.org/opium.html [sacu.org]

the drug dealing british weakened and defeated china, and won hong kong, just so it could keep pushing drugs on china, destroying chinese society. something which china is still humiliated about, and gave rise to the boxer rebellion and the revitalization of modern china against imperialism. but the foundation of the rebirth of chinese pride and nationalism was a reaction was against imperial and colonial enforced drug addiction by british drug dealers. like fire water on native americans. drugs themselves are the actual problem. drugs are the tool of destruction

it was a problem then. it's a problem now. it always will be a problem. like war, slavery, racism, etc., drug addiction is just one of those timeless tragedies of the human experience

how we handle hard drug addiction? yeah, we need to change that. we need better tactics, absolutely

but the war on hard drugs will never end

it's just a maintenance function of civilization

Re:Why wait? (3, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#46108593)

So why should we buy that "hard" drugs are bad enough to ban them, based on the experiences of the Opium war? Wouldn't instead the conclusion be that the harsh ban caused more problems and societal weakness than the drug use did?

Re:Why wait? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 3 months ago | (#46108789)

the problem was the drug addiction. the policy was a reaction to that. then the drug merchants force it further on your society, and steal some of your land

again, i simply don't understand people who think the social reaction the drug addiction, however malformed, is somehow worse than the drug addiction itself

the addiction is the root of the problem. not the social policy

Re:Why wait? (1)

khallow (566160) | about 3 months ago | (#46108913)

then the drug merchants force it further on your society, and steal some of your land

So the ban didn't get rid of the monopoly on opium production or the technology advantages of the opium dealers either.

again, i simply don't understand people who think the social reaction the drug addiction, however malformed, is somehow worse than the drug addiction itself

It's simple. We can compare.

Re:Why wait? (3, Insightful)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 3 months ago | (#46108659)

Perhaps you should try the drugs you write about first.

More or less everything you write about nicotine, meth, heroine and cocain (I asume that is what you mean with coke) is: wrong.

Re:Why wait? (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 3 months ago | (#46108779)

right

the simple biochemistry of addiction and inebriation to substances like heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine is a lie

Re:Why wait? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 3 months ago | (#46108973)

How do you conclude that? I did not claim that. Nearly every substance causes addiction if abused, simplest example: sugar.

Read the nonsense my parent wrote ... my comment refers to him.

Re:Why wait? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 3 months ago | (#46109235)

you really should educate yourself before you register an uneducated opinion on a subject

you really wish to represent your opinion that all substances have the same addiction potential? or inebriating effects? there's no difference? you think this intellectually dishonest know nothing approach tells us anything except something about you?

Re:Why wait? (5, Informative)

Procrasti (459372) | about 3 months ago | (#46109179)

The drug war leads to the cartels in Mexico being stronger than the government. When the mexican drug cartels start overtaking the US, the way the British drug dealers overtook China... then you will wish that they had have been defeated by the simple economics of regulation.

The drug war leads to children having easier access to illegal substances like meth and heroin than legal substances like alcohol. Drug dealers don't check ID, and have there is no disincentive to sell to them... they're already breaking the law. The three drug addicts I know all started these drugs when they were 15 or younger.

Drug wars cannot work, because drug demand is inelastic. This simply means that demand does not change very much with regards to price (including other costs such as legal consequences)... Where there is demand, there is supply... All the drug war does is line the pockets of violent criminals. Drug use does not decrease significantly as price increases, and conversely, does not increase significantly when it decreases... You would not expect everyone to start using heroin if it was made legal. Only an hypocritical idiot like you would claim you would begin using heroin if it was legal. Truth is, I really doubt you would.

Philip K Dick wrote most of his books high on amphetamines... Your statements about these drugs destroying focus are provably false.

The problems of addiction are merely exacerbated by the legal environment, the high cost and illegality leads to greater crime, mostly acquisitionary. You understand that addiction, once satiated, is no longer the concern of an addict? You are addicted to food, for example, if food was hard to come by, you will do anything to get it, including theft and violence... when it is easy to obtain, you have the ability to focus on other things. This is why the Swiss harm reduction experiments (giving heroin addicts heroin) seem to work so well... Addicts were able to return to work and function once their addiction was satiated.

There is no drug that is safer under prohibition. There are no gangs that are weaker under prohibition. There are police less corrupt under prohibition. There are no fewer victims of theft and violence under prohibition.

No one should be denied the right to do with their own body as they desire... until they harm another. If you don't regulate the supply side, you still deny that right... Portugal is only a step in the right direction.

Re:Why wait? (-1, Flamebait)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 3 months ago | (#46109293)

every single problem you can find with fighting hard drugs is smaller than the negative effects of hard drugs themselves (heroin, cocaine, meth)

we can of course find bad tactics in fighting hard drugs, and we should

but what we can't do is say there should be no fight. and we won't

addiction to hard drugs destroys lives. this is the primary and ultimate problem. if you don't understand that problem as the root cause of everything else, you're an idiot on the subject matter

i have no problem with criticisms of various malformed social reactions to drug problems

i have a very big problem with idiots who think these bad reactions are somehow the real problem

no, the hard drugs are the real problem

Re:Why wait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46109011)

They can just plant a pirated movie. Stiffer fine.

The 'beauty' of certain charges is the social stigma that goes with it.

Person A: Charged with Reckless driving (Road rage like swerving and brake checking intimidation at 110MPH)
Person B: Charged with possession of cocaine (let's pretend the quantity is whatever one hit of cocaine is)

In our society if you had to pick a charge, which one do you think would carry more social stigma?

Re:Why wait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108065)

Oh, but they have so many other options now for what to plant: child porn (even remotely), "pirated" movies, national security documents, guns, etc. Surely they can give back drugs.

Re:Why wait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108035)

Exactly. I think that technological advances should force many governments to start dealing with issues rationally. Otherwise they are going to be overwhelmed by these advances.

Re:Why wait? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#46108077)

The whole legislative around drugs is selective and by no means in any way coherent. Drinking alcohol is legal, smoking cigarettes is legal. Smoking marijuana is not. And why are Oreos legal [medicalnewstoday.com] ?

Ok, that last one was more a joke than anything. But there simply is no rhyme or reason in laws concerning sex, drugs or copyright.

Not to mention that "Alcohol, tobacco and firearms" is more a name for a store than anything else!

Re:Why wait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108227)

Does this include nuclear weapons? Should we legalize personal nuclear weapons and count on "proper education" to fight abuse? how about we legalize murder and count on "proper education" to fight abuse?

what effing naivete. im not saying "make everything illegal", but i AM VERY MUCH saying that your theory is not worthy of somebody out of junior high school.

Re:Why wait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108709)

... your theory is not worthy of somebody out of junior high school.

Your bad analogies are not worthy of someone out of grade school.

Re:Why wait? (3, Interesting)

symes (835608) | about 3 months ago | (#46108341)

Exposure is an important predictor of misuse in a population. If you legalise (which decreases the costs of use) then there will be an increase in those using and therefore an increase in those suffering harm. Just like alcohol - the more bars there are in an area, the cheaper the alcohol, the more accessible the alcohol the more people drink. I am not against legalisation. But at the same time it is a policy that will probably reduce the criminal side of drug use (e.g. theft to support an addition) but also increase the number of those suffering harms because of drug use. It is hard to know what the best course of action is.

If you're concerned about novel chemicals (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46107981)

You might want to read up on Monsanto's novel organisms...

Re:If you're concerned about novel chemicals (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#46108083)

Actually, I'm more concerned with those organisms than the chemistry.

I can avoid the chemistry, ya know...

Too many people willing to self experiment. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46107993)

A target rich environment for some product testing. After all, we trust the invisible hand of the market to keep us safe, right fellas?

Capitalism allows profit from harm: news at 11. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108011)

Yes, the drugs war is about monopolising the production and supply of certain chemicals, as has been obvious since VIetnam and continues to be clear with Afghanistan.

In particular, it has nothing to do with protecting people from harm.

However! this doesn't mean that taking recreational (medical uses not included here) drugs is a positive experience. It can be relatively harmless, as with the occasional puff of cannabis, but ultimately it's about escaping reality. And, if you're trying to escape reality, it means you have some problem with reality. Deal with that.

And that's before you get onto the not-so-benign physiological effects that many drugs have, which in the case of new synthetic randomness is likely to be unknown. I know a few extremist libertarians are genuinely misled into thinking that any sort of drugs regulation is wrong, because "the market" will weed out those who kill too many people (let's hope you or your daughter aren't the ones killed, eh?), but we have society for a reason.

Re:Capitalism allows profit from harm: news at 11. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108045)

However! this doesn't mean that listening to recreational (medical uses not included here) music is a positive experience. It can be relatively harmless, as with the occasional listen of Beethoven's 9th, but ultimately it's about escaping reality. And, if you're trying to escape reality, it means you have some problem with reality. Deal with that.

FTFY.

Seriously, you're clueless if you think recreational use of drugs is ultimately about "escaping reality". You're equating "fun" with "escaping reality".

Re:Capitalism allows profit from harm: news at 11. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108113)

If you need to directly instruct your brain to have fun via chemical doping (recreational drugs) because you cannot enjoy it via the senses (e.g. music), like I said, you're escaping reality at the most fundamental level.

Goodness knows I'm not going to stop you - even when drugs are self-harm, banning self-harm rather than treating it as a social or medical issue is barbaric. But if you seriously can't find anything better than a short-term, direct hit of pleasure, which bypasses any interaction with the world (even computer games employ the senses, exploit cerebral skills, often require a level of social interaction, etc.), at least don't deny it.

Re:Capitalism allows profit from harm: news at 11. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108351)

Interesting argument. But listening to music causes chemical reactions. Playing vidya games causes chemical reactions. Eating food causes chemical reactions. Drinking coffee causes chemical reactions.

All of the above involve those wonderful little receptors that you're so adamant about existing only for escapism purposes.

Oh, and dropping LSD often involves a hell of a lot more cerebral skill than watching Duck Dynasty.. Smoking some weed causes chemical reactions, and generally involves a hell of a lot more social interaction than sitting behind a keyboard in a dimly lit room.

You really can't make the argument that drugs exist solely for escapism, unless you're willing to admit that the vast majority of things humanity does exist solely for escapism. That even includes eating, as the average person does it - there's plenty of completely bland food you can consume that will allow you to survive, without the reward centers of your brain lighting up like the sky on the 4th of July. Drop that chocolate, yo.

Re:Capitalism allows profit from harm: news at 11. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108797)

You're missing my point: reality is experienced only through the senses, so it is in the most basic sense escaping reality to stimulate the brain without involving the senses. The ultimate action in any enjoyable process is a chemical reaction giving good feeling, but I am considering the journey (and implying that the journey tends to have value). Even eating chocolate involves sight, taste and smell - but, yes, if you're eating it in excess just for the chemical effect upon digestion, then it's worth asking what's up.

When people smoke weed socially, the smoking part shouldn't be necessary for the social part. Again, I'm not judging anyone for smoking it - people are welcome to enjoy themselves as they wish if they don't harm others in the process - but I wonder why some people are unable to enjoy each other socially without needing direct chemical stimulation.

I am not sure that merely dropping LSD requires any cerebral skill. It might alter your thinking patterns, but again, it's more interesting to ask what's constraining you from widening your perspectives without dropping LSD? I don't have an answer to that question, but it seems like it's worth asking.

Re:Capitalism allows profit from harm: news at 11. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#46108093)

As if there are not other ways to escape reality. There are enough legal means to get away from this hellhole if you really want to, so please don't tell me we need to ban drugs as long as we have Alcohol, Social Networks and MMOs.

Re:Capitalism allows profit from harm: news at 11. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108137)

harm is very subjectively defined

especially with all the S&M out there

it is completely possible for people to have very different values and belief structures

save them all, and let god sort them out

The lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108013)

Use blotters, not powders.

this is your brain on anti-drug policy (4, Insightful)

stenvar (2789879) | about 3 months ago | (#46108039)

The "traditional" drugs are known risks with known treatments; we should simply legalize them and offer support and treatment to those who want it. There would be less suffering and as a society, we'd be a lot better off.

Re:this is your brain on anti-drug policy (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 3 months ago | (#46108139)

The opinion of the "chief of operations" at the DEA on decriminalization
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/dea-operations-chief-decries-legalization-of-marijuana-at-state-level/2014/01/15/17af548a-7e38-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html [washingtonpost.com]

"Every part of the world where this has been tried, it has failed time and time again."

This is why we're not going to offer support and treatment.
This is why there will not be less suffering in our society.

It's not just enough for there to be a change in public opinion, there has to be a change in political will and a massive bureaucratic upheaval to push out everyone who has invested decades in being afraid of the public's consumption of drugs.

Re:this is your brain on anti-drug policy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108287)

"Every part of the world where this has been tried, it has failed time and time again."

He's lying ... to help maintain the status quo.

Re:this is your brain on anti-drug policy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108315)

The opinion of the "chief of operations" at the DEA on decriminalization
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/dea-operations-chief-decries-legalization-of-marijuana-at-state-level/2014/01/15/17af548a-7e38-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html [washingtonpost.com]

"Every part of the world where this has been tried, it has failed time and time again."

This is why we're not going to offer support and treatment.
This is why there will not be less suffering in our society.

It's not just enough for there to be a change in public opinion, there has to be a change in political will and a massive bureaucratic upheaval to push out everyone who has invested decades in being afraid of the public's consumption of drugs.

I would strongly disagree.. Your going to believe an agency, that by the way, wouldn't exist or be sufficiently reduced if drugs were legal, the same goons who continue to taboo marijuana with this 'it is a gateway drug', and all the other BS they continue to come out about with marijuana or any 'illegal' drug? There probably so delusional and confused if they watched Cheech&Chong movies they'd completely miss the irony of those movies, which makes fun of the taboos, to them they'd believe this is how and why marijuana should remain illegal.

Amsterdam legalized marijuana feeling that in doing so it would drop the abuse of Heroin and Cocaine, and while the DEA and other US agencies laughed it off waiting for failure it had an immediate impact on getting people off hard drugs, the other thing Amsterdam foresaw and warned the US about was the impending Meth epidemic, particularly labs popping up everywhere, which became another reason for them to legalize marijuana, figuring it would divert people from producing meth and growing marijuana, which worked, but if a person has the means and supplies there going to go another route..

And more to the point of 'legalize everything'. They also have clinics for Heroin users to acquire medical grade heroin, while it isn't country wide 'legal' it is legal to an extent, which is designed to teach users ways of getting off heroin, but should they feel the need to do it they can go to the clinic and be safer. Or get more personal care to get off of it completely.

There are ways to make it 'legal' without it being legal in the sense your thinking, hopefully you read this and realize it can be done, IF it is done the right way.

And to the /. article itself...... Which I must warn!! I cannot confirm it to be linked to the internet, as far as these people learning how to make this drug, but I will search it, I know a handful of sites where I can get the formulas for anything illegal, or 'prescribed'.

Here in western PA, we are seeing heroin OD's from the addition of fentanyl, not prescription grade either, this is real "Breaking-Bad" [in the sense Walt created a pure form of meth, compared to the mediocre shed lab grade] type fentanyl being made in a some underground lab. Most people can take 5-7 "bags" of the, usual, run of the mill heroin, even dealers are warning users not to do more then one bag of this stuff which has the stamps of "Theraflu" "BudIce" on them, but I seriously doubt that the suppliers are going to keep stamping the bags with those names.

Ironically this is a double edged knife, on one hand the State authorities came out and went public, after debating the fact that by publicly coming out, hardcore users are going to try and seek out this heroin, on the other hand a number of users going into rehab has risen because they fear this batch of heroin is going to be distributed in unmarked bags.

An instance where prescription drug formulas are causing just as much harm if not more so then illegal street drugs, in this case it is being mixed in with Heroin, but black market prescription drug abuse, and prescription drug abuse has a sizable lead on all illegal street drugs combined, and I don't see that lead changing if they legalized illicit drugs and used medical clinics, or even create special rooms/clinics within hospitals or emergency care center to deal with the problem similar to Amsterdam..

Re:this is your brain on anti-drug policy (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 3 months ago | (#46108433)

There are certain drugs that should be made legal and have supervised usage. Like marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol.

Then there's bad stuff which has little to no use in society, where drug rehab programs should step in. Like PCP and heroin.

Then there's crazy shit, where society in general would benefit if it was uninvented. Like krokodil.

Re:this is your brain on anti-drug policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108475)

Krokodil is a direct product of the war on drugs. It's made to be low-cost and based on substances easy to find on the street. Drugs are expensive because since it's illegal, the only source of drugs are criminal organizations, that work with huge margins on every step and with little concurrence. Drugs like krokodil can be done by anyone who's not in the criminal circle of hard drugs and sold easily on the street.

That's a basic offer and demand economic problem, and war on drugs encourages it. Lack of proper infrastructure and support for desperate drug users is also source of the problem.

Fucking druggies ruin it for everyone (5, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 3 months ago | (#46108067)

See, there are two sides to this story and they always talk past each other. One side says drugs are cool, and everyone should do a little, just to see what it's like and if it's not your thing then it's OK. They only see the positive effects. The other side works in emergency rooms and treatment centers and only sees the negative effects, and warns everyone to stay away, don't even try drugs once because we hear that story everyday of the guy who tried it once, liked it, and ruined his previously promising life.

What do these two views have in common? Fucking druggies. People who are wholly incapable of controlling themselves so they ruin it for everyone. There is a certain kind of person that freaking loves drugs. They'll structure their entire lives so that they can do drugs, and they don't care about who they harm in the process. They will steal from and hurt people they love. Hunter S. Thompson said, "You can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back on a drug," and he knew what he was talking about. Other people don't care for drugs at all. I've known veterans who have been prescribed the best sorts of opiates for legitimate medical reasons, and all they do is complain about how their minds "feel fuzzy and can't think straight". This fuzzy feeling is exactly what pleases druggies the most.

So, what do you do? Legalize drugs and let druggies run wild? Put them all on an island where they don't pay rent, eat for free and get all they drugs they want? Hell, why should I work for a living when I can just do that? Keep drugs illegal and scare away most of the good people? Who knows, maybe I've been looking all my life for methamphetamine and just don't know it yet because I've never tried it because I'm scared of going to jail. The main problem that both sides have is the fucking druggies. If it weren't for them, we could have safe, legal drugs and it wouldn't be a goddamn problem.

Re: Fucking druggies ruin it for everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108143)

Um.. Ok. But that's part of reality. So, here in the real world, your choices are free will and coercion. So what will it be? Free will with all of the attendant negatives, or society will -as delineated by the chosen- with all of its attendant negatives?

Re:Fucking druggies ruin it for everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108193)

" They only see the positive effects "

Bullshit, your two-party line of thought system is absolute bullshit.

Its people with addictive personalities (3, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | about 3 months ago | (#46108195)

Some become addicted to drugs, others drink or gambling or base jumping. They're part of the human spectrum and you'll never get rid of them. Some would argue (and I'd agree) that a healthy civilisation needs all types of personalities to function. However because of their type of personality they need to be protected from themselves when it comes to really dangerous stuff and drugs comes into this category. Whats the solution? I don't know. Complete prohibition never works , but then a free for all would be a disaster for all concerned too. *shrug*

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108301)

Right.

"A gambler tried to drive while in severe gaming withdrawal and swerved into incoming traffic"
"A man turned to robbery to support his base jumping addiction"
"Videogame addict jumps Gamestop clerk after being told he needs a prescri^Wpreorder to get GTA V"

PS: Alcohol _is_ a drug, with same problems as any other drug addiction.

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 3 months ago | (#46108385)

Plenty of gamblers have commited fraud and other crimes to feed their habit. You might want to read the papers occasionally. As for base jumping or video games , if those "addicts" had to buy new equipment every time they jumped/played then some would soon turn to crime if they couldn't afford it any other way. The addiction is the same - the method is different, nothing more.

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108445)

Plenty of gamblers have commited fraud and other crimes to feed their habit.

You didn't address that part where if they failed to do that their body turns on them, making them unable to meaningfully do anything except for lying down shrivelling in pain.

As for base jumping or video games , if those "addicts" had to buy new equipment every time they jumped/played then some would soon turn to crime if they couldn't afford it any other way.

And if my grandma grew a pair of balls, she'd be my grandpa. Don't you love them hypotheticals?

The addiction is the same - the method is different, nothing more.

I take it you've never seen a real junkie in your life, at least not close and personally.

I've known a gambler, a few alcoholics and a heroin addict - no, first one is completely not the same as the others. May be you should get out more. Or may be you're just lucky, and it's all good, but don't proselytise about things you only know because you've read about them on a forum.

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 3 months ago | (#46108483)

"first one is completely not the same as the others."

Clearly this is all a bit complicated for you to understand but I'll try and make it simple for the hard of thinking such as yourself - they have the same personality type. Got it? A junkie doesn't start out as a junkie , the drugs change them, whereas base jumping - unless you die - generally doesn't change someones mental health.

"Or may be you're just lucky, and it's all good, but don't proselytise about things you only know because you've read about them on a forum."

My father was an alcoholic so get off your fucking cross.

Now run along sonny, I think your school bell is ringing.

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (2)

Splab (574204) | about 3 months ago | (#46108555)

Get off yours...

The stuff that goes on in a base jumpers mind is exactly the same. They are addicted to the rush, they are willing to commit several crimes to get their fix and they will hurt their loved ones in the process.

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 3 months ago | (#46108687)

Most of tehm actully commit "crimes" by jumping at places where it is forbidden :D

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (1)

Splab (574204) | about 3 months ago | (#46108723)

My point exactly - there is almost no legal places to base jump from.

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 3 months ago | (#46108965)

Don't know where you live, but we have plenty of legal place. Like a cliff in the mountains. However jumping from a skyscraper is usually not legal.

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108747)

We should ban base jumping then.

Also, everything else that can make anyone addicted to anything. /sarcasm

You can't seriously mean "The stuff that goes on in a base jumpers mind is exactly the same [as a heroin addict or alcoholic]. They are addicted to the rush, they are willing to commit several crimes to get their fix and they will hurt their loved ones in the process."

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 3 months ago | (#46108307)

I've never heard of a base jumper who robbed his mother to get money to buy a parachute.

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 3 months ago | (#46108373)

If they had to buy a new parachute for every jump I suspect some probably would.

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108895)

If they had to buy a new parachute for every jump I suspect some probably would.

Inversely, if a drug addict high was $1500 a pop, I promise you we would have far fewer drug addicts. Ironically at that point, only the 1% could afford it.

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108607)

Some become addicted to drugs, others drink or gambling or base jumping. They're part of the human spectrum and you'll never get rid of them. Some would argue (and I'd agree) that a healthy civilisation needs all types of personalities to function. However because of their type of personality they need to be protected from themselves when it comes to really dangerous stuff and drugs comes into this category. Whats the solution? I don't know. Complete prohibition never works , but then a free for all would be a disaster for all concerned too. *shrug*

Currently caffeine is a free-for all. Highly addictive. Should we be protecting ourselves from that? I find it horribly ironic that we continue to compare the number of cannabis dispensaries in a given area to the number of caffeine dispensaries, as if the java junkies aren't addicts themselves.

You bring up base jumping, and yet I can't find too many laws prohibiting me from partaking in that very dangerous activity.

You mean, all I have to do is study this comic book for a couple of hours and take a 5-minute driving test, and I get to drive 4,000 pounds of steel down a congested highway at over 70MPH!?! The sheer insanity that we don't protect ourselves more...

A free-for-all does work, in the same way that it's rather self-regulating now. There are plenty of people who choose not to do even legal drugs in which the legality of any drug has no effect on their decision to partake or not. And let's just stop with the gateway drug bullshit already. If you keep that up, I'm going to start campaigning to ban all carbonated drinks on the planet. Obviously they are all a gateway to beer, and bubbles are highly addictive.

Re:Its people with addictive personalities (2, Insightful)

evil_aaronm (671521) | about 3 months ago | (#46108859)

Currently caffeine is a free-for all. Highly addictive.

Where do you get this? How do you define "highly addictive"? Are you reading stories of people sucking dick for caffeine?

Re:Fucking druggies ruin it for everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108235)

yeah, it's so easy to blame it on 'druggies'. What do you do then with people who get injected against their will with heroin (which gives them instant addiction)? Dismiss their rehab stories as druggie self-justifications ... then dismiss the police corroboration of their stories as well? You see, there's money to be made from drugs, so forcing some people to become 'customers' is good for business in some parts of this world.

If you're going to blame some people for 'addiction prone personalities' then you've got to lay some of the blame at the feet of those addicted to money and power as well. These are stronger drugs than most. Then you might want to take a step back and look at human nature and perhaps climb down from your high horse for a spell.

Re:Fucking druggies ruin it for everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108325)

What do you do then with people who get injected against their will with heroin (which gives them instant addiction)?

Instant addiction? People don't become addicted to heroin the first time they try it. If this was the case, then there would be a lot of addicts who have been given diamorphine in hospitals as part of their treatment.

Re:Fucking druggies ruin it for everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108637)

This so god damn much.

If it weren't for them, ecstasy would also be getting used to treat major negative emotion disorders like severe depression, anger, PTSD, etc.
It is only just NOW getting attention again because of trials that were being done by a bunch of random people anonymously due to fear of arrest.
The live tests on channel4 in the UK were a really good push for more research on it.
So many people have been clouded by the STREET uses of it, which are quite often mixed with a bunch of crap, or other people take other crap while doing it an think "oh, it is fine, they won't mix", what?!

These addictive personality types are some of the worst people in society, no ifs or buts about it, they are, it is a fact, not an opinion, numbers don't lie.
They ruin everything they touch and attack anyone that says anything against them, drug culture or supports drug companies or government. (admittedly I am more in favor or small government than large government. Large always leads to abuse over a small time period)

Barking up the blatantly wrong tree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108649)

People who are wholly incapable of controlling themselves so they ruin it for everyone

Talk about a red herring. As long as those people don't employ coercion against others (meaning theft, fraud, or physical force), then they have done absolutely no moral wrong. The people doing the moral wrong -- quite contrary to what you've suggested -- are the people exploiting the misfortune of drug addicts in order to expand the business of drug prohibition. I understand you're too young to realize (or accept) the truth, but drug prohibition (and its circular justification, the black market) causes more violent crime in one month than drug use has caused in a century.

Re:Barking up the blatantly wrong tree (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108919)

Ahh, but NOW you are wrong. Now that they get subsidized health coverage, and doing these drugs can cause medical issue, and I pay taxes, I get to have a say on the issue.

You don't get to have me pay for your treatment then say I shouldn't be allowed to have a say on why you can't ruin your life. You begged for me to pay your way, well I think if I pay your way I get a say.

Re:Barking up the blatantly wrong tree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46109195)

Ahh, but NOW you are wrong. Now that they get subsidized health coverage, and doing these drugs can cause medical issue, and I pay taxes, I get to have a say on the issue.

And that's yet another red herring. The leading causes of death are heart attacks, stroke, cancer, etc, most of which being associated with obesity (read, too high of a caloric intake) and cigarette smoking. Yet we don't ban or otherwise regulate peoples intake of certain foods or quantities of foods and we don't ban cigarette smoking (and the regulation is pretty minor). More the point, medicare/medicaid have resulted in an effectively subsidized health care system for decades, so it's not even a new fact that the tax payers are, directly or indirectly, helping to treat these medical issues. Finally, all the anti-drug laws involved in this predate any of the real medical coverage issues and focus on basically drug use as a social ill.

You don't get to have me pay for your treatment then say I shouldn't be allowed to have a say on why you can't ruin your life. You begged for me to pay your way, well I think if I pay your way I get a say.

Congratulations. You've just signed yourself up for a dictatorship that controls your every waking movement. But feel free to try to weasel out by claiming you didn't actually beg for certain components. I'm sure a druggie on their death bed would reject drug use too, until they're all better and go back to using drugs again. So, how many things of society paid by society would you really give up? And why aren't you giving them up now? Because, last I checked, government money was used to subsidize the internet, the government clearly has an agenda against anonymity (supposedly for terrorism reasons), and here you are partaking in internet and anonymity.

Re:Fucking druggies ruin it for everyone (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 3 months ago | (#46108679)

When drugs are legalized they cost nealry nothing and could be distributed via normal drug stores or medical stores.
Hence the "druggies" you are so afraid of don't have to "structure their entire lives so that they can do drugs" and they don't have to steal to get the drugs.
This fuzzy feeling is exactly what pleases druggies the most. That feeling comes from abuse, hint: overdose. Not from ordinary consumption of 'clean' opiates.

Bottom line with legalized drugs there won't be any "druggies" anymore or at least it would drop to a very low amount of druggies.

Re:Fucking druggies ruin it for everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46109051)

It's worth pointing out that studies (and practical trials) have shown that it's cheaper to supply alcoholics with all the booze they can swill and free housing with nursing staff than to pay cops to arrest them, pay prisons to house them, pay insurance to restore the things they stole to get another drink...

Unless you just want to shoot them, you're going to be paying one way or another. As much as it might offend your sense of justice it might actually be cheaper to go with the island option.

Re:Fucking druggies ruin it for everyone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46109141)

That certain kind of person is more common than you seem to think. Everyone gets there eventually. No one starts out thinking they're going to live on the streets and use everyday even if it means stealing from old ladies. It's where it takes you. You may not be there now, but everyone starts out thinking "oh, I'll only use on the weekend." It might take months, years, or decades, but eventually it will catch up with you.

This is How the War on Drugs Ends (1)

mentil (1748130) | about 3 months ago | (#46108187)

With designer drugs, scientists can't agree on what exactly a 'drug analogue' means, so an analogue law would be unenforceable. All drugs invented after, say, 1950 without FDA approval could be banned; but then trade of the drug wouldn't be prosecutable until it were proven that it's artificial and invented; if it were naturally occurring (say, from Psilocybin mushrooms) then it can only be discovered and not invented. The drug scheduling works as a blacklist, but could be reworked to only allow whitelisted drugs.

A law targeting artificially-created drugs or GMO-created drugs would be unenforceable. Many pharmaceuticals are mass-produced nowadays with genetically-engineered organisms (fungi, often) that secrete the target chemical. There's no way to always distinguish a GMO from a crypto-organism, or in other words, an artificially-created drug factory from a naturally-occurring drug factory. Therefore, there'd be no way to prove that a drug was made artificially rather than naturally. So White-listing could still stop trade, but that'd only work until...

Homebrew. As genetic modification tech gets cheaper and easier to use, there will be cheap DIY kits to make your own designer drugs and the organisms to produce them. Later, easily-obtainable underground apps will help you design drugs with certain target effects, based on (but sufficiently modified from) existing recreational drug molecules. Once the international effort to use supercomputers to model the human body's physiology gains open access, people can submit potential molecules to the system and see their effects (and side-effects). No 30-year studies with methodology errors mixed with decades of FUD and hand-wringing, just the truth in black and white for everyone to see. New molecules that aren't simply modified versions of existing chemicals can be brute-forced that have certain effects, avoiding any existing analogue laws. This will enable an explosion in the effectiveness and safety of designer drugs, as there's an uncomfortable (to some) overlap with the effects of medicinal pharmaceuticals, leading to the end of support for drug restrictions.

Re:This is How the War on Drugs Ends (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | about 3 months ago | (#46108591)

With designer drugs, scientists can't agree on what exactly a 'drug analogue' means,

Where do you get this shit? Or do you just make it up? We know exactly what an analog is, and how to design them to give fairly predictable effects. Replace the benzene ring with Sulphur etc.

PiHKAL [wikipedia.org]

The rest of your argument sucks balls too - the government has no problems legislating against nature. Existing laws already hamper "medicinal" drug research, even with the recently enlightened changes to cannabis legislation in some States of the US, it's still extremely difficult to get funding or approval for research into non-recreational use of the "traditionally" illegal drugs (i.e. morphine, cannabis, cocaine). You might want to look up "reversal of onus" too, being sent to jail while you endeavour to prove beyond reasonable doubt you are not guilty as charged is just as bad as actually being proven guilty.

Ban the internet! (2)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | about 3 months ago | (#46108241)

Joking. Interesting read. Clearly some drugs, by all means not all, should be legalised - better quality, increased safety, less incentives to invent untested and often hazardous chemicals and, last but not least, PROFIT for the country's budget! Old school politics and the WOD nonsense have caused enough damage already. Even the head of UK Police is saying it: End war on drugs, says Durham police chief Mike Barton [bbc.co.uk]

Market forces at work (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | about 3 months ago | (#46108303)

[sarcasm]

Obviously we need more legislation, not just against these insidious drugs, but also against bad weather and sharp corners on furniture. Zeus forbid we stop for a moment and consider why people throughout history take drugs. Cue King Cnut [wikipedia.org] . Personally I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on a more productive excercise than pissing up a rope.

[/sarcasm the lowest form of wit... except for the witling fools (f* wits) it's aimed at]

Oh, and kudos and more funds to Caldicot, the man in the middle of this stupidity.

War on drugs = war on consciousness (3, Insightful)

TractorBarry (788340) | about 3 months ago | (#46108323)

Trying to stop people altering their consciousness with chemicals is a waste of time. As long as people aren't driving around under the influence, or otherwise endangering third parties, who gives a shit ? If someone is stupid enough to get addicted to something that's their problem. Give it to them free and give them free treatment until they get clean (i.e. don't force them to become petty thieves to sustain a habit)

The real problem with drugs is that they can cause people to lose their societal conditioning and they will no longer play the game and act like a good sheeple.

Not forgetting that prisons and the court system are a great money spinner for the privileged classes.

Look at Victorian England. Laudenum, Cocaine, Opium, Heroin all available over the counter from the local chemist. High society parties where people would have a good dinner then sit around sniffing glue and ether. Did society collapse ? Did people spend all day high doing nothing ? No. A myriad of wonderful mechanical inventions came about, amazing stuff got built and people got on with their lives.

If that's what happens when people can get high in peace bring it on.

Re:War on drugs = war on consciousness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108359)

Pretty sure glue-sniffing high society nobs weren't the people inventing wonderful mechanisms and amazing stuff, and opium dens were places for broken souls, not temples of enlightenment.

I'm gonna apply your logic next, observe how many inventions and heart-rending art sprung out of World War II, and declare that a bit of good old genocide is awesome for civilizations - we should do it more often!

Re:War on drugs = war on consciousness (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | about 3 months ago | (#46108603)

Pretty sure glue-sniffing

The result of drug laws.

opium dens were places for broken souls

As are pubs. Oh wait.... maybe it's only a small minority that seek solace in continual inebriation. Like the lazy kid up the back of the class - he needs a little peer group pressure correctly applied and some coaching, don't hold the whole damn class back.

And your history "knowledge" sucks.

3D print the drugs (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108335)

Surely, if we are close to a Star Trek replicator and can 3D print human organs (!), surely printing out a simple molecule as many times as is required should be trivial. Trivial! So please, 3D printing fans, show me where we can 3D print molecules.

I learned a lot, good article. (1)

advid.net (595837) | about 3 months ago | (#46108387)

TFA is worth reading. [medium.com]

The part with the Chineese lab is in the middle, search "I decided to get one made myself"

Also:

A single gram of 25i-NBOME contains up to 10,000 doses; it is as potent as a chemical weapon in the wrong hands.
A typical line of a powdered drug might contain around one hundred milligrams—for Bjerk, that was enough for a thousand-fold overdose. He died quickly in the street.

I really don't get it: how people can trust anyone selling such drugs ?
Even when the dose is correct, pills can contain so many other unknown substances...

Re:I learned a lot, good article. (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | about 3 months ago | (#46108633)

A single gram of 25i-NBOME contains up to 10,000 doses; it is as potent as a chemical weapon in the wrong hands. A typical line of a powdered drug might contain around one hundred milligrams—for Bjerk, that was enough for a thousand-fold overdose. He died quickly in the street.

I really don't get it: how people can trust anyone selling such drugs ? Even when the dose is correct, pills can contain so many other unknown substances...

Ask yourself the same question when you pour yourself a bowl of CocoPops in the morning and add that permeated milk. 25i-NBOME, easier to dose by several factors than d-lysergic diethylamide tartrate. And, how much contaminants can there be in 100mg?

Legalise! (or should that be 'Regulate!) (3, Insightful)

PeerWat (247790) | about 3 months ago | (#46108495)

It's only because drugs are all banned that the problems exist. If someone wishing to get high could take a drug which has been regulated, they would be less interested in taking any old crap their mate recommends, in what could be a completely incorrect dose.

Surely, as technology improves the number of drugs will increase? Just banning every single drug is barely feasible now, as the article makes clear, and the problem is just going to get worse. If society is going to tolerate the consumption of any kind of mind-altering substance, we will have to learn to investigate and regulate them.

PeerWat

Re:Legalise! (or should that be 'Regulate!) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108545)

That's not quite correct. Drug laws often ban chemical compounds with have certain cyclic rings - for example part of the classification of Class A Drugs in the UK:
"any compound (not being a compound for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (a) above) structurally derived from tryptamine or from a ring-hydroxy tryptamine by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the sidechain with one or more alkyl substituents but no other substituent."

Or conversely have a whitelist of 'approved' chemicals - and anything is illegal otherwise.

Food for thought.

Re:Legalise! (or should that be 'Regulate!) (1)

PeerWat (247790) | about 3 months ago | (#46108605)

I'm not an organic chemist, but "structurally derived from tryptamine" sounds to me like you have to start with tryptamine. If you fabricate your new molecule another way, it's not banned. This highlights the problems of lawyers telling chemists what to do....

In any event, banning groups of drugs with similar structures is a stop-gap solution; there does not appear to be a simple relation between structure and effect. It we could predict the effect that a compound will have on the human brain, then we may be able to formulate a reasonable approach to banning.

I imagine the pharmaceutical companies would just love the idea of having to get each new drug they manufacture unbanned and removing it from the whitelist.

Until we can predict the effect that a new compound will have on the brain, we may have to consider some form of regulation of new substances which are designed for human consumption, but whose effects are not known or understood.

What a gang of assholes (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#46108599)

There's a picture of the Beatles not even most of their fans have seen, which we will prevent you from saving conveniently through the RMB because although it's your culture, it belongs to us. Had to save the whole article just to get the images.

from a career junkie (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108669)

No thanks I don't want drugs that make my legs fall of in two years and turns me into Hannibal.

I'll stick with the Methadone Clinic I wish there was a better way to feel normal, unfortunately I never found out how without narcotics. People wake up and go hell yeah it's going to be an awesome day should be happy with that because I would. The first true happiness I experienced was at 8 when I woke up after having my tonsils removed pumped full of morphine. "and no I had a great childhood by most standards" The next more permanent came at 15 after 3 years of failed anti-depressant trials and extremely costly doctor bills and hanging myself which led to a 17 day coma "go figure I couldn't even kill myself correctly". It was in the form of powder "heroin" which led to me living pretty normal for a very long time without anyone knowing.
I heavily regulated my usage just enough to be happy so I could go on about my normal day and it went on like that for 11 years. I woke up, did my shit, went to work and worked my ass off for my family, hung out with normal "clean" friends, paid my taxes, and trying to be a good citizen.
Then I was busted which led to some hard times like losing my job, family, and pretty much everything else which is way too long of a story to get into. Luckily a few years ago I tried going to a clinic which I'm very glad I did because they gave me everything back and now I'm finally living a normal life again.

That said drugs are necessary for people like me and they can actually do a lot of good when carefully regulated.

My eyes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46108801)

Does anyone actually LIKE websites like this? Can you even read this shit?

azaborines (1)

snoop.daub (1093313) | about 3 months ago | (#46109131)

Tip of the iceberg. I'm waiting for someone to start taking advantage of azaborine chemistry to make new stuff. Just replace a C=C bond in a carbon ring with a N=B. It's recently been applied to indoles, which opens the door to a couple dozen psychoactive chemicals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1... [wikipedia.org]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...