Testing Legal Highs Would Save Lives(buzzfeed.com)
buzzfeed.com
Testing Legal Highs Would Save Lives
http://www.buzzfeed.com/timchester/testing-legal-highs-would-save-lives-so-why-isnt-it-happenin
11 comments
Nicotine and alcohol are two quite unpleasant drugs: addictive, rather poisonous (alcohol) or customarily consumed in an especially harmful way (smoking tobacco).
Compared to these, LSD is much safer. Doses are ridiculously low (most poisons don't work in doses of 100µg), huge overdoses are not immediately dangerous, and an addiction does not form.
One can invent many reasons to ban LSD, but preserving public health can't be sensibly among them.
Compared to these, LSD is much safer. Doses are ridiculously low (most poisons don't work in doses of 100µg), huge overdoses are not immediately dangerous, and an addiction does not form.
One can invent many reasons to ban LSD, but preserving public health can't be sensibly among them.
Addiction can form over pretty much any substance or behaviour as this is mostly unrelated to the substance itself but to the living conditions of the addicted and his personal life experience.
See the works of Bruce K. Alexander on this: http://www.brucekalexander.com/
See the works of Bruce K. Alexander on this: http://www.brucekalexander.com/
Funny to be instant downvoted like this when the provided materials takes at least ten minutes to skim over.
You're right. Addiction can happen with anything, it just may be less common with LSD or certain other substances. I have taken LSD and other tryptamines 100s of times and at times my intake patterns probably resembled an addiction.
Psychological addiction could form to anything pleasant, from peanut butter to MMORPG sessions. A real physiological addiction takes growing doses and a withdrawal syndrome. As far as I understand, LSD lacks both.
LSD absolutely requires increasing doses if you take it more than once every 1-2 weeks. When you take it daily, your tolerance sky rockets. There is also cross tolerance between LSD and other tryptamines/phenylethylamines.
There is a withdrawal in a different sense I think. I had HPPD for around 3 months after heavy psychedelic use with LSD as the centerpiece of that. I was doing up to 10 tabs at once and using mushrooms and certain research chemicals every two or three days for a few months.
Not to excuse my risky behavior, but other people go much harder than I do. MDMA is a favorite choice, especially in Europe where it is cheaper. There are endless stories on Erowid and Bluelight of young people buying 10 grams of a research chemical and plowing through it in a summer. Often it's stuff like MDPV or 25i NBOME, with a short history of human use and carrying cardiac risks.
A wide range of psychedelic drugs have addictive potential IMO. I'm not sure how meaningful the distinction really is between psychological and physiological in the context of addiction.
There is a withdrawal in a different sense I think. I had HPPD for around 3 months after heavy psychedelic use with LSD as the centerpiece of that. I was doing up to 10 tabs at once and using mushrooms and certain research chemicals every two or three days for a few months.
Not to excuse my risky behavior, but other people go much harder than I do. MDMA is a favorite choice, especially in Europe where it is cheaper. There are endless stories on Erowid and Bluelight of young people buying 10 grams of a research chemical and plowing through it in a summer. Often it's stuff like MDPV or 25i NBOME, with a short history of human use and carrying cardiac risks.
A wide range of psychedelic drugs have addictive potential IMO. I'm not sure how meaningful the distinction really is between psychological and physiological in the context of addiction.
> People have been getting high for thousands of years, and many drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol or nicotine. The solution to the drug problem is to provide safe and legal avenues for drug use, and healthy environments for detecting and treating abuse.
Your statement assumes that drug prohibitions exist to protect the health of the public. This is, as you've pointed out, demonstrably false. If, on the other hand, you view drug laws as a means to criminalize a large percentage of the population and give police a ton of discretion in declaring who is and isn't a criminal, the situation become entirely consistent and you realize that drug laws are nothing more than a way to keep prisons full and allow police to remove "undesirables" (read: minorities) from society.
Allowing the the drug war to be framed as a public health issue means arguing on terms chosen by proponents of the drug war. We need to reject that premise and discuss it for what it really is, a racially-motivated tool for social repression. If those that argue against what you suggest (safe an legal avenues for drug use) were forced to show that, absent the current drug laws, the damage to society would be greater than the damage inflicted by the drug laws themselves, their arguments would look even more foolish than they currently appear.
Your statement assumes that drug prohibitions exist to protect the health of the public. This is, as you've pointed out, demonstrably false. If, on the other hand, you view drug laws as a means to criminalize a large percentage of the population and give police a ton of discretion in declaring who is and isn't a criminal, the situation become entirely consistent and you realize that drug laws are nothing more than a way to keep prisons full and allow police to remove "undesirables" (read: minorities) from society.
Allowing the the drug war to be framed as a public health issue means arguing on terms chosen by proponents of the drug war. We need to reject that premise and discuss it for what it really is, a racially-motivated tool for social repression. If those that argue against what you suggest (safe an legal avenues for drug use) were forced to show that, absent the current drug laws, the damage to society would be greater than the damage inflicted by the drug laws themselves, their arguments would look even more foolish than they currently appear.
Sorry, but that's an outright conspiracy theory you have there. The drug policies are nothing but a populist response to the public demands to "do something" by politicians who know no ways to deal with undesirable phenomena other than trying to ban it. The same knee-jerk reaction is behind many if not most policies (most famously, rent controls).
In my country there are no private prisons and no racial minorities to criminalize but the drug laws are just as bad as in the US. Actually, much worse. And if you go to the comments section under any article about legal highs on the local news sites, most people are demanding even more draconian measures, including death penalty for possession.
In my country there are no private prisons and no racial minorities to criminalize but the drug laws are just as bad as in the US. Actually, much worse. And if you go to the comments section under any article about legal highs on the local news sites, most people are demanding even more draconian measures, including death penalty for possession.
It's not really a conspiracy theory. No one (or at least very few) actually support drug laws for the express purpose of criminalizing a certain population, and no sane person is suggesting that they do. The important thing, however, is that that's their real fundamental motivation, and the reasons people actually cite are usually just moral rationalizations.
In your country, wherever that is, the undesireables are the poor, as they are most everywhere.
In your country, wherever that is, the undesireables are the poor, as they are most everywhere.
> the undesireables are the poor
No, that doesn't work. The inequality here is minimal.
No, that doesn't work. The inequality here is minimal.
When you consider the safeness of a drug, do you also take into account the environment where the drug is taken?
I had a friend die while on LSD when I was a kid. He didn't die because of the drug, but as a hallucinogen, it is suspected he got himself into a situation where he followed his fancy unaware of the danger of the environment he had entered.
Of course, you could say 'but people trip and hit their head and die all the time when they are drunk too', but the difference is, people hit their head and die when are not drunk in equal measures.
As a self-declared LSD user, do you consider things other than the long-term chemical effects of the drug? If so, what are those things?
If it sounds like I'm picking a fight or trolling, that is not the intention, I am genuinely curious.
I had a friend die while on LSD when I was a kid. He didn't die because of the drug, but as a hallucinogen, it is suspected he got himself into a situation where he followed his fancy unaware of the danger of the environment he had entered.
Of course, you could say 'but people trip and hit their head and die all the time when they are drunk too', but the difference is, people hit their head and die when are not drunk in equal measures.
As a self-declared LSD user, do you consider things other than the long-term chemical effects of the drug? If so, what are those things?
If it sounds like I'm picking a fight or trolling, that is not the intention, I am genuinely curious.
The rate of tripping when drunk is much, much higher. I've tripped many more times while drunk than sober (not counting childhood), and I'm drunk fairly rarely. A friend of mine broke his teeth falling down stairs face first while drunk, someone in my school died from falling off a fence while drunk. I've never heard of comparable sober incidents sober outside of high speed sports.
>people hit their head and die when are not drunk in equal measures.
[Citation Needed]
I read stories about college kids falling, drowning, crashing their cars, and almost always it's because they were heading home totally smashed from a party. I would say, from my impressions, that the proportion of people hitting their head (or falling into a lake and drowning, or what have you) is far lower for sober people than it is for people intoxicated by alcohol.
[Citation Needed]
I read stories about college kids falling, drowning, crashing their cars, and almost always it's because they were heading home totally smashed from a party. I would say, from my impressions, that the proportion of people hitting their head (or falling into a lake and drowning, or what have you) is far lower for sober people than it is for people intoxicated by alcohol.
I knew someone who died aged 20 because he was drunk, tired, and decided to go to sleep at the side of the road. It rained. He drowned in a few inches of water.
A sober person has reflexes that would have prevented that.
A sober person has reflexes that would have prevented that.
> people hit their head and die when are not drunk in equal measures
That's just absurdly wrong.
That's just absurdly wrong.
I assume this is true of most alcohol-related deaths: DUI's, people tripping/falling or just doing something plain stupid.
So one thing I can't rationalize is that people claim to be users of a drug, but are you doing independent purity tests yourself? I mean you take LSD and yet you're part of the same pool presumably that doesn't necessarily have access to the purity information of the drugs you're consuming.
Not knowing the purity and the fact that I can be extremely neurotic/overly analytical just immediately worries me that I'll have a bad trip and cause irreparable psychological damage. Is there anything to be said about the psychological effects of these drugs? Sometimes I feel like when they assess "safe" they're assessing this from a toxicological perspective only, and not on the psychological well-being of the people who are consuming them.
Not knowing the purity and the fact that I can be extremely neurotic/overly analytical just immediately worries me that I'll have a bad trip and cause irreparable psychological damage. Is there anything to be said about the psychological effects of these drugs? Sometimes I feel like when they assess "safe" they're assessing this from a toxicological perspective only, and not on the psychological well-being of the people who are consuming them.
Unfortunately, we are not able to be certain about the quality of the drug we are taking. We buy from the Silk Road (well, Agora now I guess - still waiting for things to calm down), where we read reviews and base our decisions on the gossip posted by other users.
Something about our current batch seems off, everyone's been having weird trips. Despite this red flag, we've taken over 2/3 of the batch. You can't be 100% certain doing testing-at-home either, because there are inert compounds that will test positive for LSD - a careful dealer can fake the test results.
And it's a damn shame, because if you are uncertain about the quality of your substance, those doubts will amplify throughout your trip (that is the nature of psychedelics), and every little effect that you aren't expecting will cause a flurry of uncertainty.
Something about our current batch seems off, everyone's been having weird trips. Despite this red flag, we've taken over 2/3 of the batch. You can't be 100% certain doing testing-at-home either, because there are inert compounds that will test positive for LSD - a careful dealer can fake the test results.
And it's a damn shame, because if you are uncertain about the quality of your substance, those doubts will amplify throughout your trip (that is the nature of psychedelics), and every little effect that you aren't expecting will cause a flurry of uncertainty.
Why are you speaking of yourself using the royal pronoun?
...also known as the first-person plural pronoun. It's a common feature of the English language.
Only amongst the pompous.
LSD is the one drug where if your test kit shows you have the actual substance, then contamination isn't really an issue. There are only a handful of drugs that are active in the dose levels that fit on a square of blotter paper, and if the blotter has actual LSD on it then the chances of someone bulking it out with something else are basically zero.
Basically the risk of getting 25x-NBOMe or DOx instead of LSD is very high, but the risk of getting NBOMe mixed with LSD is negligible.
Basically the risk of getting 25x-NBOMe or DOx instead of LSD is very high, but the risk of getting NBOMe mixed with LSD is negligible.
> The government has aggressively banned all highs, which are clearly a pretty standard part of human behavior.
Amusingly, we keep inventing new drugs to "fix" the old ones, discovering that they're just as bad (if not worse), and rinse/repeating.
Believe it or not, heroin was originally sold by Bayer (yes, as in "aspirin") as a "safer, less addictive" alternative to morphine. Both drugs were very commonly used as cough medicine (as was morphine's predecessor, laudanum).
Now, of course, we know that heroin is actually rather addictive, and instead we treat heroin addiction with other opiates that have a similar effect[0]. And so the cycle continues.
[0] Usually which bind to the same receptors, to reduce issues of withdrawal.
Amusingly, we keep inventing new drugs to "fix" the old ones, discovering that they're just as bad (if not worse), and rinse/repeating.
Believe it or not, heroin was originally sold by Bayer (yes, as in "aspirin") as a "safer, less addictive" alternative to morphine. Both drugs were very commonly used as cough medicine (as was morphine's predecessor, laudanum).
Now, of course, we know that heroin is actually rather addictive, and instead we treat heroin addiction with other opiates that have a similar effect[0]. And so the cycle continues.
[0] Usually which bind to the same receptors, to reduce issues of withdrawal.
Actually we've got a lot better since then, and know a lot more about the neuroscience of addiction. Longer acting opiates are better at treating addiction and helping people get free of it - see suboxone.
The belief that heroin or cocaine cause addiction has been seriously challenged for a while, you should read "The Myth of Drug-Induced Addiction", the speech to Senate of Canada by Bruce K. Alexander of rat park fame.
http://www.brucekalexander.com/articles-speeches/demon-drug-...
http://www.brucekalexander.com/articles-speeches/demon-drug-...
While rat park is fascinating, it's not the only part of the picture by a long way, and his views aren't exactly mainstream even amongst controversial and outspoken drug scientists like Prof Nutt.
I would be very hesitant to call addiction a myth when we can measure it, and measure the relative addictivity of various substances.
Bruce K Alexander has some interesting views and some unteresting data but AFAICT has failed to really prove his case or overthrow the current models.
I would be very hesitant to call addiction a myth when we can measure it, and measure the relative addictivity of various substances.
Bruce K Alexander has some interesting views and some unteresting data but AFAICT has failed to really prove his case or overthrow the current models.
LSD is less toxic than aspirin
This statement makes little to no sense by itself.
Take as much aspirin as a psychoactive dose of LSD (say 100µg) and there will be no toxic effect from aspirin, but take as much LSD as an active dose of aspirin (400mg every 4 hours for an adult to to treat fever/pain) and you have a dose of 33 times the LD50 of LSD which is quite toxic imo.
Take as much aspirin as a psychoactive dose of LSD (say 100µg) and there will be no toxic effect from aspirin, but take as much LSD as an active dose of aspirin (400mg every 4 hours for an adult to to treat fever/pain) and you have a dose of 33 times the LD50 of LSD which is quite toxic imo.
What's important is the average active dose as a fraction of the toxic dose. For asprin (400mg dose, 70kg body weight), that's about 1.9%. For LSD (100µg, 70kg), that's about 0.7% (numbers gathered from wikipedia).
Because of its minute dose, LSD has the problem that it's hard to know how big the dose you're taking is, since most people don't have analytic balances in their kitchens. Even still, most people are going to need to take at least 10mg of LSD to overdose, even with the highest toxicity results published, which is pretty easy to distinguish from a high recreational dose of 200µg.
Because of its minute dose, LSD has the problem that it's hard to know how big the dose you're taking is, since most people don't have analytic balances in their kitchens. Even still, most people are going to need to take at least 10mg of LSD to overdose, even with the highest toxicity results published, which is pretty easy to distinguish from a high recreational dose of 200µg.
No, legalizing safe illegal highs would save lives. People are using these dangerous, untested chemicals because they can get them without running afoul of the law. People don't smoke spice because they prefer it over cannabis, they smoke it because they can buy it at a headshop.
This. Cannabis and MDMA are thoroughly tested, MDMA especially since it was intended for clinical use. They are about as well undersood as any psychoactive substance. It is batshit insane to insist that rather than legalise them, it's better to test a whole other class of substance that are just trying to replicate the same effect.
It would probably save more lives to just legalize all drugs. Until drugs are legalized and quality controlled there will be no way for consumers to even know what they're getting.
You must take the harm that these drugs can cause into consideration when you say that you want to legalize them all - it is unfortunately not that black and white.
Heroine is a prime example. Whilst the argument could be given for "Educated use" you must take into account that the greater population at large will not educate themselves, and will come to harm - mainly through addiction.
Cigarettes are a nice example. We spend vast quantities of money on health care for people who smoke - the information is there, everybody knows that it causes cancer, yet huge amounts of people do it. We would be better off as a planet if everyone just stopped.
Whilst incarceration clearly is not the correct response to addicts, some form of regulation is needed to protect idiots from themselves.
Heroine is a prime example. Whilst the argument could be given for "Educated use" you must take into account that the greater population at large will not educate themselves, and will come to harm - mainly through addiction.
Cigarettes are a nice example. We spend vast quantities of money on health care for people who smoke - the information is there, everybody knows that it causes cancer, yet huge amounts of people do it. We would be better off as a planet if everyone just stopped.
Whilst incarceration clearly is not the correct response to addicts, some form of regulation is needed to protect idiots from themselves.
I tend to agree with you, but looking at heroin I see most of the harm comes from it being illegal.
The supply chain funds warlords and criminal gangs. Impurities in the heroin cause abcesses and the need for amputation for injecting users. Restrictions on needles cause spread of blood-borne disease - and this also affect low wage workers who have handle sharps in public bathrooms and so on. People need money to feed their addiction and so they turn to prostitution[1] or acquisitive crime.
Treating heroin as a criminal problem has failed to protect people from themselves, but it also fails to protect wider society.
I do agree that we need to be cautious though. Look at the mess caused by alcohol. (That may be more true in the UK than the US.)
The supply chain funds warlords and criminal gangs. Impurities in the heroin cause abcesses and the need for amputation for injecting users. Restrictions on needles cause spread of blood-borne disease - and this also affect low wage workers who have handle sharps in public bathrooms and so on. People need money to feed their addiction and so they turn to prostitution[1] or acquisitive crime.
Treating heroin as a criminal problem has failed to protect people from themselves, but it also fails to protect wider society.
I do agree that we need to be cautious though. Look at the mess caused by alcohol. (That may be more true in the UK than the US.)
Of course - the war on drugs itself is a failure and the morals and reasoning behind it is suspect at best, if not downright wrong.
And you only have to look at Russia to see what happens when supply completely dwindles to addicts of hard drugs, the krokodil epidemic is truly horrifying.
My point is just that a free for all on all drugs no matter what harm they cause could be disastrous for society as a whole, as you mention there are plenty of people that currently use alcohol to escape their problems that are in difficult places, especially in poorer demographics. Imagine if they could get hold of heroine or methamphetamines on a whim.
It's a fine balance and I personally cannot see a good way to strike one that will keep everybody safe and happy.
There are plenty of drugs which if used responsibly I could see being legal though, marijuana, ecstasy and some hallucinogens to name a few. If taxed the government could stand to make a lot of money from them as well.
And you only have to look at Russia to see what happens when supply completely dwindles to addicts of hard drugs, the krokodil epidemic is truly horrifying.
My point is just that a free for all on all drugs no matter what harm they cause could be disastrous for society as a whole, as you mention there are plenty of people that currently use alcohol to escape their problems that are in difficult places, especially in poorer demographics. Imagine if they could get hold of heroine or methamphetamines on a whim.
It's a fine balance and I personally cannot see a good way to strike one that will keep everybody safe and happy.
There are plenty of drugs which if used responsibly I could see being legal though, marijuana, ecstasy and some hallucinogens to name a few. If taxed the government could stand to make a lot of money from them as well.
The problem is that you're looking for a solution that keeps everyone safe. We need to give up on the idea that we need to protect people from their own decisions. Legalizing heroin will make it safer for the vast majority of users, and completely eliminate the deaths caused by criminal organizations that arise from its criminality.
Yes, legalizing will be dangerous; people will still do heroin, become addicted, and possibly die. But the harm of such use is shifted from a wider group, to a much smaller group largely consisting of users who have made the decision for themselves.
Yes, legalizing will be dangerous; people will still do heroin, become addicted, and possibly die. But the harm of such use is shifted from a wider group, to a much smaller group largely consisting of users who have made the decision for themselves.
One of the issues with legalising a drug at this point in time is that it sends a signal that it is safe. This is fine for drugs like Cannabis or even LSD/Ecstacy which are relatively benign and non-addictive.
But drugs like Ice, Meth or Heroin are incredibly dangerous, toxic and addictive regardless of how well they are made. Making them readily accessible to existing addicts makes sense. But to first-time users ? No way.
But drugs like Ice, Meth or Heroin are incredibly dangerous, toxic and addictive regardless of how well they are made. Making them readily accessible to existing addicts makes sense. But to first-time users ? No way.
Heroin isn't especially dangerous from a medical standpoint. Heroin cut with god knows what injected with a reused needle is incredibly dangerous.
Most heroin ODs are actually the reverse problem....a frequent user gets something that for once ISN'T cut, takes their normal dose and instantly ODs. Even that is easily handled if Narcan is available.
I'm not saying anyone should use heroin, but from a purely pharmaceutical standpoint it isn't an especially dangerous drug, and in many places (but not the US) is used for the treatment of severe pain. Something like Oxycontin is harder on the body due to the acetaminophen.
Most heroin ODs are actually the reverse problem....a frequent user gets something that for once ISN'T cut, takes their normal dose and instantly ODs. Even that is easily handled if Narcan is available.
I'm not saying anyone should use heroin, but from a purely pharmaceutical standpoint it isn't an especially dangerous drug, and in many places (but not the US) is used for the treatment of severe pain. Something like Oxycontin is harder on the body due to the acetaminophen.
Even making heroin available to addicts doesn't make sense, when you can feed them subutex as a ready alternative.
Anyway, you can legalize all these drugs, but make the harder ones prescription only and highly taxed.
Anyway, you can legalize all these drugs, but make the harder ones prescription only and highly taxed.
Its not just taxation that needs to occur with legalization of harder drugs. Its a comprehensive reaction from the social safety net - no more unemployment, no welfare, and CPS comes to check on your kids if you have them.
Why? Just treat those drugs like we treat alcohol today. (Or find a better solution, and apply it to alcohol, too.)
If you're willing to expand the definition of "saving lives" to include people who would otherwise be thrown into prison and enter into the cycle of violence, recidivism and minimal job prospects, then your plan would literally save millions of lives. And when you consider that drugs are used to finance some seriously bad shit around the world, the number of "lives saved" grows even further.
According to Wikipedia, it's 120,000 alone in Mexico's recent drug war. Colombia has been one of the most violent places on earth for decades now. And it's not a coincidence that we're dealing with terrorism threats from the country that produces 70% of the world's opium. The number of people who've had their lives ruined by illegal drugs goes way beyond those that consume those drugs.
According to Wikipedia, it's 120,000 alone in Mexico's recent drug war. Colombia has been one of the most violent places on earth for decades now. And it's not a coincidence that we're dealing with terrorism threats from the country that produces 70% of the world's opium. The number of people who've had their lives ruined by illegal drugs goes way beyond those that consume those drugs.
Columbia is far safer now than several decades ago. It is in fact a great example of a Latin American country that has really turned its economy around.
They still have, according to Wikipedia, the 12th highest homicide rate in the world. They've got nearly the same number as the US, a country with 6 times the population. It's much safer than it used to be, but it's still not that safe.
Or is it ? There was an interesting program on the BBC a few years back dealing with this question titled "If… drugs were legal".
In this program they explored something not so obvious about legalizing drugs, namely that the pharmaceutical industrial complex would fill the market with many new drugs, think the current issues with legal highs but industrial scale. Another point is drug interactions are very unpredictable and very difficult to test.
This show is probably available on the web somewhere, here's the bbc page about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/if/4075235.stm
In this program they explored something not so obvious about legalizing drugs, namely that the pharmaceutical industrial complex would fill the market with many new drugs, think the current issues with legal highs but industrial scale. Another point is drug interactions are very unpredictable and very difficult to test.
This show is probably available on the web somewhere, here's the bbc page about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/if/4075235.stm
Awesome. Let them. We absolutely should have the industry doing research into drugs that are safer and less addictive but still fun.
Imagine if we unleashed the full power of science and capitalism at the problem!
Of course we would need to find a regulatory framework that allowed us to optimise for that outcome rather than for addiction...
Imagine if we unleashed the full power of science and capitalism at the problem!
Of course we would need to find a regulatory framework that allowed us to optimise for that outcome rather than for addiction...
I'm not how viable this would be. There are hundreds of "legal highs" out there. To fully understand their safety you'd have to run clinical trials with hundreds of subjects for each drug. Not exactly a cheap proposition.
You're correct but testing some is better than none.
A good primer on why we need testing is the Bunk Police's documentary "What's in My Baggie". In it they travel to festivals testing people's drugs. Nearly every drug they test is misrepresented. Most people believe they have MDMA when they have "bath salts". Even the positive tests may be adulterated or one of several compounds that give similar test results. www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYzmZ1IU4zY
Not that MDMA is safe; it's without question a dangerous drug. Hundreds of thousands[1] of people taking unknown substances in unknown quantities is a much much larger problem.
[1]Electric Daisy Carnival alone attracts 150,000 people and runs 3 nights. There are several other festivals of similar size, and dozens that attract tens of thousands per night.
A good primer on why we need testing is the Bunk Police's documentary "What's in My Baggie". In it they travel to festivals testing people's drugs. Nearly every drug they test is misrepresented. Most people believe they have MDMA when they have "bath salts". Even the positive tests may be adulterated or one of several compounds that give similar test results. www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYzmZ1IU4zY
Not that MDMA is safe; it's without question a dangerous drug. Hundreds of thousands[1] of people taking unknown substances in unknown quantities is a much much larger problem.
[1]Electric Daisy Carnival alone attracts 150,000 people and runs 3 nights. There are several other festivals of similar size, and dozens that attract tens of thousands per night.
The article isn't talking about running clinical trials, it's talking about making GCMS equipment and the like available.
That would help stop people from taking things that are adulterated, but I'd be concerned about the toxicity of the pure drugs as well.
A great example of what can happen is Fen-Phen, the diet drug that was taken off the market a while back. The drug fenfluramine also activates the 5-HT2B receptor and causes heart valve damage.
All of these designer drugs out there could certainly have off-target effects that would never be noticed unless a clinical trial was run (even then maybe not!) or unless enough users have enough problems that it's noticed (MPTP is great example).
A great example of what can happen is Fen-Phen, the diet drug that was taken off the market a while back. The drug fenfluramine also activates the 5-HT2B receptor and causes heart valve damage.
All of these designer drugs out there could certainly have off-target effects that would never be noticed unless a clinical trial was run (even then maybe not!) or unless enough users have enough problems that it's noticed (MPTP is great example).
OTOH it would be easier than usual to find subjects for the trials, you could even have them partially foot the bill.
It's one of the few major societal problems that can completely fund itself to the full extent current science permits. Unfortunately, many states, such as Colorado, are already blowing it by using the tax revenue from marijuana sales as supplementary income. Looking at state lotteries shows us that this path leads straight to hell as government becomes reliable and dependent on this money so much so that they actively push, and twist to appear noble, clearly destructive activites.
Washington, on the other hand, appears to at least be funneling revenue soley into the health department.
Washington, on the other hand, appears to at least be funneling revenue soley into the health department.
They mention the New Zealand testing scheme in the article, but it ran aground because of the issue of animal testing. The main way to test the drugs (apparently) is on laboratory animals, and there was a lot of opposition to killing animals to test unnecessary drugs.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...
[deleted]
Am I right in thinking a number of legal highs are based on illegal counterparts, by modifying the molecule a small amount.
Is it possible to predict how close the effect to the illegal one, will be.
[Edit] Also I'm wondering how is it possible that chemists like Shulgin, have an ability to create such a large number of molecules, with psychoactive effects.
Is it possible to predict how close the effect to the illegal one, will be.
[Edit] Also I'm wondering how is it possible that chemists like Shulgin, have an ability to create such a large number of molecules, with psychoactive effects.
Nope, most 'legal highs' are manufactured to behave like legal alternatives, but are chemically different. FAA: "the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II" is illegal. Designer drugs have to be made chemically substantially different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analog_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analog_Act
The key here is "if intended for human consumption." This is why legal highs are frequently sold as "plant food" or "bath salts." Some vendors are more careful than others, in the height of the first "wave" of designer drugs around ~2004, some vendors were as brazen as to offer "sample packs" and the like. And then Web Tryp [1] (my favorite codename ever) happened.
Many designer drugs are close analogs of schedule I substances.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Web_Tryp
Many designer drugs are close analogs of schedule I substances.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Web_Tryp
That's a US-specific law though. The article is mostly about the UK market, and in the UK the law bans specific chemicals, and attempts to address families of chemicals. It invariably falls short and molecule-tweaks can skirt it.
The drugs mentioned in there - Benzo Fury (I hate that name, let's call it 6-APB because that's the molecule on the wrapper) is extremely close to MDA, aMT is a tryptamine which escaped the generic tryptamine regulations and the NBOMes are a twist on the generic 2C-x structure.
The drugs mentioned in there - Benzo Fury (I hate that name, let's call it 6-APB because that's the molecule on the wrapper) is extremely close to MDA, aMT is a tryptamine which escaped the generic tryptamine regulations and the NBOMes are a twist on the generic 2C-x structure.
Aha interesting, I didn't realise that.
You can make educated guesses about the effects, but at the end there is no substitute for genuine data. You'd think that a good enterprising chemist makes field trials and pays close attention to user reports: "Hey, I love the pills with the skull on, but those with the rabbit just give me palpitations."
Alexander Shulgin was able to do what he did in his home lab because he got himself a DEA Schedule I license for an analytical Laboratory.
Also he was friend with Bob Sager and he worked with and for the DEA.
Also he was friend with Bob Sager and he worked with and for the DEA.
The NPS market is very interesting. There are a small proportion of users who are genuinely into NPS or RCs. These are people who want to try new things, who are fascinated by what happens if you tweak the molecule this way or that way, or you stick this extra bit on here and wow... Not all are chemistry geeks but some are, other just find it interesting, may have spiritual reasons for investigating all avenues etc. For this group legality is often a secondary concern compared to novelty.
Then there are the majority of the users, who are looking for a legal alternative to <insert popular drug here>, who effectively fund the production and marketing of the scene, and without whom the first group would not have such an easy time of it. The main concerns with this group are legality and ease of access.
The first group are likely to have their use under control, to be very clued in about allergy tests, measured doses, side effects mitigation etc. They may have lapses into unhealthy use patterns but generally are in control. They are served well by the current system and find services like WEDINOS invaluable.
The second group tend to be far less interested in what they're doing, may not be educated about any of it, probably aren't part of an online community to ask for help, they may even buy into the fallacy that legal == safe. They are effectively playing russian roulette. One of the cases mentioned in the article was one of these - that kid from Southampton died from taking over a gram of aMT. The dose range for that substance is usually around 30-50mg, the kid took 20 times that and died.
This group would be best served by legalisation of things that are known to be mostly safe. MDMA (or some of its safer derivatives like MBDB), cannabis etc.
All this said, if any of the many bans were effective at stopping the proliferation of NPS, it's not actually going to help anyone, because you'll just end up back at square one - kids buying unknown substances of unknown purity from unknown sources.
Then there are the majority of the users, who are looking for a legal alternative to <insert popular drug here>, who effectively fund the production and marketing of the scene, and without whom the first group would not have such an easy time of it. The main concerns with this group are legality and ease of access.
The first group are likely to have their use under control, to be very clued in about allergy tests, measured doses, side effects mitigation etc. They may have lapses into unhealthy use patterns but generally are in control. They are served well by the current system and find services like WEDINOS invaluable.
The second group tend to be far less interested in what they're doing, may not be educated about any of it, probably aren't part of an online community to ask for help, they may even buy into the fallacy that legal == safe. They are effectively playing russian roulette. One of the cases mentioned in the article was one of these - that kid from Southampton died from taking over a gram of aMT. The dose range for that substance is usually around 30-50mg, the kid took 20 times that and died.
This group would be best served by legalisation of things that are known to be mostly safe. MDMA (or some of its safer derivatives like MBDB), cannabis etc.
All this said, if any of the many bans were effective at stopping the proliferation of NPS, it's not actually going to help anyone, because you'll just end up back at square one - kids buying unknown substances of unknown purity from unknown sources.
Regulating drugs properly also, as well as treating addiction as a medical problem rather than a criminal problem.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
And yet we love LSD, and we still try to find safe sources of the drug. We don't like playing with fire and would much rather pay even heavily marked up prices to buy LSD from a pharmacy where we can get guarantees about the purity and dose.
The government has aggressively banned all highs, which are clearly a pretty standard part of human behavior. People have been getting high for thousands of years, and many drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol or nicotine. The solution to the drug problem is to provide safe and legal avenues for drug use, and healthy environments for detecting and treating abuse. Legal pot is a good first step, but we've got a long way to go.
People don't need to die trying to get high when the drug they want is safe in the first place.