Slashdot Mirror

I think the main difference is that I have never heard of any caffeine overdose related deaths.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15935584

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/caffeine/caffeine_health.shtml

Now you have.

Uh, according to all the growers up in Oakland and San Francisco, this is completely false. It's the large industrial hemp growers that are growing the good quality pot,

You're a fucking fraud. You have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever. Hemp is the name for a group of strains of Cannabis which have little THC content. The plants are not separated because the seeds are not a problem; in fact, they are a potential product. These strains are also bred to have as little flower and as much stalk as possible, because that's where the fibers come from, but wild hemp looks just like something you'd want to smoke. Nobody is growing marijuana with hemp.

Interestingly, George Washington recorded the fact that he separated his males and females... Which can only have been for medicinal/recreational purposes, since it does not substantially alter the character of the fibers.

Also, education is key. EVERY parent with a teenage child needs to let their kids know about http://www.erowid.org./ It very well may save their children's life or one of their children's friend's life some day.

Education and knowledge are unbelievably important. False statistics, fear-mongering, and hearsay only encourage kids to try it, minus the knowledge of how to remain as safe as possible.

Online pharmacies only provide what the people want.

It is the equivalent of this:

Doktors...
Oh no no no no no, you can't have that!!
You wouldn't be able to handle it.
at least
not
without
A PRESCRIPTION!!!!
That'll be 75 dollars
thank you

the Lawyer/DA/Judge rotation...
Pick a side, any side.
you gotta pay, if you wanna slide
Now you see 'em, now you don't,
maybe they did, and maybe they won't
  set 'em up, knock 'em down,
if they ain't six feet in the ground,
  we'll cut 'em loose, or take 'em down,
it's a cash flow thing, in a BOOMIN' TOWN

https://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/popeye/popeye.drugwar.txt

    HAHAHAHAHAHAA

    Nope, drug labs were created in 1990. There were no illegal drugs before that. Well, except:

• Opium
• Morphine
• Heroin
• Cocaine
• Crack cocaine (popularized in the 1980's)
• Marijuana (sorting and processing counts as a lab),
• Methamphetamine (invented 1893, popularized in the 1960's)
• Crystal methamphetamine (invented 1919)
• Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA/Adam/Ecstasy/X) (invented 1912, popularized in the 1970's and 1980's),
• and we can't forget the all time favorite Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) (invented 1938, popularized in the 1960's)

    Sorry, it's not an all inclusive list, it's just a sampling of .... well .... popular non-pharmaceutical drugs. Some were pharmaceuticals, but most that you'll find on the street aren't commercially produced.

  You can find more information at Erowid and Lycaeum

    The Chernobyl accident happened April 25th, 1986. Since I'm guessing you weren't alive yet, or old enough to remember, there was a bit of a pesky problem of nuclear fallout that spread quite a bit.

    Drugs a bit tainted by radioactive fallout could still be sold for a profit. Who are you going to complain to. It's just like if you buy an 8 ball of coke, but it turns out to be baby powder. It's not like you can just call the cops and say "I paid for coke, but he gave me baby powder!" Drugs destroyed because they may be radioactive are lost money. Drug manufacturers and dealers are just like any big business. They want to make a profit. They aren't going to throw away perfectly good product, if they can sell it.

LSD won't give you that kind of hallucination. Tree bark will move up and down a tree, grass will swirl into a sort of whirlpool, and lights will become spectral and dance like a thousand tiny ballerinas, but you won't manifest insects on your desk. Psychedelics tend to meddle with your senses to where you hear parts of what you see, and see part of what you hear. The baseline to "All Tomorrow's Parties" becomes everyone's visible heartbeat. The sunset produces a low, comforting drone that pulses with shadows cast by breezy trees. Sex becomes... well, sex on LSD is how I believe we humans came up with God.

I know your post was a joke, but misinformation about LSD is bad, m'kay. Its an absolutely beautiful drug, and if used responsibly and in good company, it can lead to some truly amazing insights and lasting happiness. I don't mean that if you take LSD you'll become Jimi Hendrix, but in the 8 hours of tripping, you will find out more about yourself than you ever thought possible. Oh, and its literally impossible to overdose, but don't take my word for it. If you must do drugs, do them responsibly!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Dangers
Don't take any drug without visiting this site: http://www.erowid.org/

Correct, it does have an LD50: source. It's just so damned high that it's incredibly unlikely any normal LSD user would ever die from an overdoes.

Forgot to mention - it is easy and even fun to find truthful information about methamphetamine.

If you'd like to learn about methamphetamine from a well-produced television drama that has won multiple Emmy awards, there's always Breaking Bad. The depiction of methamphetamine's effects on the human body, as well as the nature of the illicit methamphetamine market, is surprisingly accurate.

If you'd prefer a more scholarly source of information about methamphetamine (and just about any other recreational drug out there, including some real weird ones like Bromo-Dragonfly), Erowid is your place.

They are required to identify themselves in person, are they not?

No, they're not.

Why should online be any different?

It shouldn't.

source

Are Police Allowed to Lie?
The question of whether or not the police may lie during the course of their work goes hand in hand with the question of entrapment.

It is well accepted that deception is often "necessary" to catch those who break the law. There is no question that police officers are allowed to directly mislead and/or deceive others about their identity, their law enforcement status, their history, and just about anything else, without breaking the law or compromising their case. Conversely, it is illegal for an ordinary citizen to lie to the police in many jurisdictions.

Acetaminophen is one of the active ingredients in NyQuil. In order to ingest enough DXM through NyQuil in order to robotrip, you would ingest FAR more acetaminophen than what would generally be considered "safe". Death is a very real possibility from ingesting too much acetaminophen (this usually occurs when people ingest multiple bottles/boxes of medicine that has acetaminophen in it), and it wreaks absolute havok on your liver in even moderate doses. NyQuil also contains doxylamine as an active ingredient, which just pushes your liver to work even harder than it already would be from the acetaminophen and DXM. If you plan on robotripping, the three safest ways are Robitussin Max (only active ingredient is DXM), Robitussin gelcaps (again, DXM is the only active ingredient, although the gelcaps cause some people to vomit), or DXM powder loaded in gel-caps (DXM in powdered form is considered a controlled substance however, and requires a federal license to purchase...so that isn't a realistic option.) I would recommend any robotripper stay away from any and all other options other than the three I just outlined.

That being said, DXM in general is harmful to your liver. The same enzyme that breaks down dextromethorphan is also the same enzyme that breaks down alcohol...that's one of the reasons why mixing robo with booze is so dangerous. You can overload your liver really easily, and if you don't give yourself enough of a break between robo trips you can cause serious and permanent damage to your liver (one-two weeks per "plateau" achieved is the commonly followed rule.)

More info here: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/dxm.shtml

Remember, people: know your drug before it knows you. Stay happy, and trip safe.

Thus if all your guns and ammunition are manufactured within the state you live, they can't bring a federal case.

Well, despite your assertion, that's exactly what they did in the Stewart case. Anyway, your arguments seem to be summarized by your final statement:

Which is that the federal government is in its rights to prevent the creation of an interstate market for an illegal good.

You beg the question... under which Constitutionally-enumerated power does the Federal government have the ability to designate machine guns or even drugs as illegal? Oh, right, the original theory they used was the interstate commerce clause--thus making your argument circularly referential.

Case in point: back in the beginning of the 20th century, the Powers That Be decided that drugs are bad (mm'kay?). They hadn't invented twisting the commerce clause beyond belief, so they attempted to tax it out of existence. That wasn't very effective as a total ban, so they decided to escalate.

Think of Prohibition. When it was imposed, Constitutional interpretation indicated that an entire amendment was necessary to ban alcohol. In today's world, this could be accomplished by a simple law under the twisted commerce clause theory.

Actually, I misspoke: in today's world, all it would take is a bureaucrat making a decision, much less a law or (god forbid) an amendment. Look what happened with MDMA -- the DEA criminalized its possession (ie. Schedule I) by regulatory fiat in 1985. No law, not even a Congressional debate.

We have certainly come a long way in Constitutional interpretation, and not necessarily in an intellectually honest fashion.

2 things on that point:

1) In September 09, in the Journal of Experimental Botany, research was published to demonstrate all of the genes required for THC synthesis in cannabis. Thus an RNAi or Knock-in(knockout), or possibly a GMO using Agrobacter tumefasciens, can now easily be done to ensure there is no THC production in the plant.

2) Despite my belief of it to be irrational, they can still maintain that the THC-laden cannabis production to be illegal, and the crimes can still be investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and punished. I'm reminded of the common flawed thinking/argument of decriminalizing drugs in which it is assumed that doing so would permit people to do all kinds of drug-fueled crimes like driving under the influence (lets ignore that most drug fueled crimes emit from the black markets of prohibition); the problem in this idea is that it somehow assumes that, for example, a rapist on decriminalized crack is any less punishable now that the crack is legal to use. That's simply not so. In that case, rape is still a crime and can still be prosecuted. The rapist goes to jail for rape. We don't ban alcohol just because drunk guys don't ask drunk girls for permission to date rape.
----

I'd like to argue that the government is more strongly opposed to Hemp because its widespread permission in our culture would further expand the public awareness of the benevolence and lack of hysteria-causing effects of cannabis. Put alcohol, cigarette, and pharmaceutical lobbies into political pockets and you've got plenty of reason to keep people in a state of "reefer madness".

As for taxation, you should come to Cali and talk to a medical marijuana dispensary. They are ALWAYS selling out of stock. The patients are not usually so disabled they could not grow it themselves but simply prefer the easier method of purchasing it. These transactions are all recorded and taxed, and if not, that is illegal as well and can be investigated and prosecuted. It may be easy to grow, but that doesn't mean people will always do it on their own.

Liquor and Beer are actually easy to make, too. People pay a premium for something off the shelf, and that is where it is taxed. A legitimate farm with organic conditions and desirable strains of cannabis could EASILY attract a number of consumers. Amsterdam is also a standing example of this. People *could* grow it in their closet, but its much easier to walk down the street to a coffee shop for a J and a cup of coffee, spend $5 and have a nice day.

On a related note:
Its really funny, though, our politicians who have also smoked pot, still pander to the old (and likely those lobbies) when it comes to cannabis. The cat is literally out of the bag and now about a half mile down the road away from it. Most people under 50 either have personal experience with cannabis, or have at least witnessed first hand how the drug is nothing like it is pretended to be by our government. Most citizens still against its legalization are from the reefer madness era and their minds are still unchanged from the irrational hysteria they were fed by people they trusted. As those irrational old people pass away or finally share a J with their grandkids and see the truth, times will definitely change.

Check this out:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_stats.shtml

That's a LOT of people finding out. I hope I'm speaking to someone of experience.

Check out the UK.
http://www.idmu.co.uk/cannabis-use-in-britain.htm

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ibogaine/ibogaine_basics.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syztZcpj69U

http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.cgi?S1=28&S2=-1&C1=-1&Str=
(These are actual experiences by people who took ibogaine. Some of these people were hardcore drug addicts, others just curious psychonauts.)

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ibogaine/ibogaine_basics.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syztZcpj69U

http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.cgi?S1=28&S2=-1&C1=-1&Str=
(These are actual experiences by people who took ibogaine. Some of these people were hardcore drug addicts, others just curious psychonauts.)

THC can definitely be a hallucinogen.

Most of the time, however, it is not used in such a way as to trigger these effects.

If one would want to enter an hallucinogenic state using THC, here's what I would recommend:

1) Go to Amsterdam
2) Buy 1-5g of good hashish, probably an 'ice' variety (as with many drugs, a higher dosage means a 'heavier' journey)
3) Go back to a secure location with a sitter (no, seriously, ground control should always be present)
4) Eat it
5) Wait
23) P0rTiF!

To just do so vicariously, there are really excellent accounts, some quite rigorous, especially those by doctors of the time. It's just a matter of finding them.

As far as physically addictive, there is no evidence of that. This would require the cells themselves to crave it and the studies have shown they do not (unlike, say cocaine).

It can by psychologically addictive, but so can shoes, or just about anything else.

I think that where DARE and the like do their greatest harm is when they lie about drugs.

Not so much because they demonize the drug they are lying about but because people are then apt to disbelieve it when they tell the truth about the potential horrors of some (other) drugs.

Luckily, these days, places like http://www.erowid.org/ exist to present full spectrum viewpoints.

Regards

Nor any evidence that it impairs driving. There was a great study done that concluded that all of the previous studies they could find were seriously flawed in that they either looked at crash statistics that didn't separate stoned drivers from drunk drivers, or they did functional impairment studies on people who don't smoke. Yes, great science.

Anyway, long study short, they found no significant impairment. Slightly decreased reaction times, but the test subjects adequetly adjusted by driving more cautiously. But...don't take my word for it, Actually... there have been a couple:

http://www.cannabisconsumers.org/rpt_view.php?rec_num=17

Or maybe you don't want to trust Cannabisconsumers.org...

http://www.ukcia.org/research/driving2.htm

Or the actual study I read from: (I found it on the actual UK government site a few months back, can't find it now, I welcome the new link if its out there)

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving6.pdf

So really, the main argument against pot legalization was another misconception.

But who would have expected what some of the other things studies have found. Damned sciend!

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

-Steve

marijuana impairs driving far less than alcohol. marijuana still IMPAIRS driving

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving.shtml

do you honestly want to fucking express anything different? how stupid do you want to appear?

i am not in any way off in this argument, in the least. you, apparently, on the in the other hand, are seemingly operating under two really fucking moronic assumptions:

1. marijuana doesn't impair driving
2. no one will ever be irresponsible and get behind the wheel while stoned, whether marijuana were legal or not

do you really think we need no road side tests for drugs? do you really believe that?

"This device isn't for finding drunk drivers, it's for filling our prisons with 'intoxicated' pot smokers and making the private prison complex, the court system, and the LE system richer"

yes, you apparently do. you're a deluded moron

make believe that the american system of justice is just a vast orwellian human processing machine for slave labor on arbitrary and illogical premises, in the worst recesses of your fear addled little mind

in such a world, people will still get stoned and kill innocents from behind the wheel! REGARDLESS OF LEGALITY

do you really believe otherwise? do you really?!

look, i'm being serious: it would help the marijuana legalization effort if complete morons like yourself were hogtied and hid in a basement until it is legalized. because when you open your mouth, you hurt the marijuana legalization effort. because you're an idiot

as someone who would like to marijuana legalized, please shut up, so marijuna will be legalized. the argument for legalization should proceed in logic and reason, and not be drowned about by the braying of complete retards like yourself on the issues

marijuana obviously impairs judgment

you should not drive while stoned

it impairs less than alcohol, certainly, but it still IMPAIRS

do you honestly want to suggest otherwise and sound like a complete moron?

look, i'm being serious: it would help the marijuana legalization effort if complete morons like yourself were hogtied and hid in a basement until it is legalized. because when you open your mouth, you hurt the marijuana legalization effort, because you're an idiot

as someone who would like to marijuana legalized, please shut up

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving.shtml

Some guy likes to smoke a joint on Friday night, for the next month he'll test positive for marijuana, even though he's never never been high at work

Most of the studies I've read suggest that the detection range is usually less than a month for the occasional smoker, though as with anything biological it can vary tremendously depending on your metabolism/diet/routine and other factors. It can be detected for a longer period of time in daily smokers though.

Knowing full well that they've been bullshitted by the government about pot, they figure that Nanny Government has been lying about crack, too. So they switch from pot to crack and wind up fired anyway, because they've become addicted and are smoking the stuff daily.

I don't have much sympathy for anyone who is that stupid. Unbiased information is out there -- there's no excuse in the information age for not finding it. Erowid is a great resource and starting point.

Thanks for the detailed reply! I certainly concur with all the suggestions you provide regarding dextromethorphan, and I should have mentioned the dangers of taking it mixed with other products (particularly acetaminophen). I myself have used DXM probably around 200-300 times, although my experience is very noncharacteristic because I am one of the unfortunate few that is CYP4502D6 deficient, so I don't get very much at all in the way of dextrorphan metabolization and thus my trips are dramatically different than a normal metabolizer. Back when I was a user (my last time was 1999), I could achieve a profound experience from 300 mg, and the one time I stupidly tried 830 mg was such a wicked mindfuck that I can say I have not been the same person since. When I do use, I am high for an uncomfortably long period of time (generally in the ballpark of 25-30 hours), which was what finally led me to stop: I don't enjoy being high for that long. I would probably use it again if my trip lasted the typical four to six hours. I must say, however, that I miss DXM hangovers: I found them to be an utter delight, and better than the drug itself. I've never experienced such energy and lucidity. I used to jog regularly, and on a DXM hangover, I never got fatigued. I eventually had to stop my jog because to continue would be absurd.

I, too, believe that I reached plateau sigma once, and it was extremely uncomfortable. I would not care to repeat the experience.

DXM, as others I have spoken to have stated, is pretty much exactly what I imagined drugs to be like prior to having tried any of them.

As for deleriants, my only experience is with diphenhydramine. Before I begin, you mention 500 mg as a "high" dose; it's my understanding, I think, that 500 mg is a fairly standard recreational dose, with some people going as high as 1000 mg. I believe I took about 400 mg when I tried it, while drunk (it seemed like a good idea at the time - admittedly, it was dumb as hell), and I don't recall a single detail of the experience. I awoke the next day to find a note on the floor next to my bed with absolute gibberish on it, thus leading me to believe that I had had at least something of an interesting time.

I suspect that you would be fine with tropanes. It's my understanding that they're extremely similar in action to diphenhydramine / dimenhydrinate, so I don't think that you would have much over which to worry. I love daturas and brugmansias, but I find that they do have a "dark presence" to them, as ridiculous as that sounds, and they creep me out. I have certainly never eaten any part of one.

No experiences with nutmeg here; I've just heard too many negative things about it on Erowid and elsewhere. I think it's fantastic that you have had good success with it. I personally would recommend one to try other substances first and proceed with caution with regards to nutmeg.

Nitrous was definitely the most life-changing drug for me. I have used it over 700 times, typically five whippets at a time, and have had profoundly mind-altering experiences with it, especially in conjunction with marijuana or oxycodone. I used to be a Christian, but I'm now a Taoist because of nitrous. I did have a nitrous-pot induced traumatic experience of severe nihilism on my 25th birthday that led to me being emotionally dysfunctional for about three days and gradually returning to normal over the course of several months. I posted a retrospective of my nitrous use on Erowid:
http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=31722

The best way to use whippets is to acquire a cracker, which breaks them open, and then release the gas into a balloon to allow it to warm up. It is extremely dangerous to inhale directly from the whippets and will cause frostbite and possibly death.

I think I'm largely done with drugs. Right now, due to a chronic health condition that has left me in significant amounts of pain, I'm dealing with an extremely irritating oxycodone addiction

I've tried Amanita muscaria and absolutely nothing happened. A friend I talk to online has done the same; we both bought them from web suppliers, so it could be that these sites were scams, or, as I suspect, the psychoactive material in the mushrooms had long precipitated out of the mushrooms--in other words, it may be that they need to be picked fresh for maximum effectiveness. The seller I bought them from happens to be fairly reputable. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to post their name or not; I suppose I don't see why not, apart from the fact that wider recognition may spoil it for us all. Note: I'm not trying to slander or libel anyone.. I'm an actual customer, and it may be entirely my error that the Amanita experience failed.

Salvia is now illegal in my state, and it is illegal in several other states as well, so that's something to watch out for. You can check if it's legal in your state here (or browse around Erowid for your country's laws in case you're not a US citizen): http://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia_law.shtml#state
If it weren't for that, I'd love to try it.

Nitrous is something that I've been interested in and I think I will try soon. I'm a little unclear about how to consume it effectively and healthily, though. I'm goin to have to read up on that.

Dextromethorphan, ah. Our love is bittersweet. I have used this substance on five different occasions. As it happens, three of those were within the last week, and I reached the fourth plateau and possibly plateau sigma. The experience was a very frightening one, but I managed to handle it quite calmly and take it in stride. It's a learning experience, and I don't regard any of my trips as overly negative, though they can be very hard to endure. I'm still hungover four days later from my experience, but I'm slowly improving. I would recommend that anyone consuming this substance be sure that they are doing so in such a way as to ingest only the active ingredient dextromehorphan hydrobromide, and I would recommend against using the "time release" formula dextromethorphan polistirex, as found in the over-the-counter cough formula Delsym (which is what my recent experience was with; prior experience was with dxm HBr). and I would recommend a starting dose of perhaps only 100-200mg, in case the hypothetical user has a sensitivity, which some do (supposedly a deficiency of the enzyme CYP2D6, which dxm and other drugs act on). a good starting dose, once you're sure that your tolerance is normal, is 354mg, which is what you'll find in most over-the-counter 4oz bottles of cough syrup, though in the case of Vicks 44 you'll need 6z for the same amount of active ingredient (177mL at 2mg/mL, whereas Robitussin and most others are 3mg/mL; Delsym is 6mg/mL and actually the liquid is clear and quite tasty. I also have yet to become nauseous with Delsym, whereas, unfortunately, I haven't been able to avoid vomiting with other syrups). It is also possible to take dxm in the form of pure powder which can be bought online, Sucrets cough gels (hard to find), or Zicam Cough Max, which are taken sublingually--rumored to be one of the better methods of ingesting dxm. I would add that this is a drug to be respected very, very heavily, and do not think that just because it's over the counter and something 13 year olds use to "get high"* that it is not intense. It can be very, very, very intense, even in small doses.

With all that out of the way, it seems that you have a problem with deliriants. I would be interested to know if that is out of personal experience. For me, nutmeg has provided positive results overall, being very much like a marijuana high, with only really minor negatives, the biggest one being its really long onset. It's also possible that a nutmeg high can last a day or longer, which is unpleasant for some. And the drymouth can be very severe. But for me, this would almost be my drug of choice, except for one small caveat: I seem to have a very high tolera

I'm ignoring, by the way, the fact that something like having taken cough medicine could also affect the results.

Don't worry, cough syrup can affect a lot more than just the results of a breathalyzer.

> Acid is not a toy. As a "bathtub" drug there is no consistency of dosage or quality.

    You've just posted the most reasonable reason for legalizing recreational drugs that I've ever heard. No, you're not the first one to say it, but it's a very valid argument.

    Street drugs may be recreational, but you don't know the dosage that you're buying. If it were legalized, and sold in stores at reasonable prices, blackmarket vendors would be out of business. You'd know if you're taking 50ug (nominal recreational dose) or 400ug (high dosage). If you just purchased what you thought was a light dosage of say 25ug (will induce light hallucinations), but were looking for a "heavier" trip, you could take a dozen hits. I've never heard of anyone doing it intentionally, but you could. If they were actually 400ug, you're already 25% of the way to a lethal dose (12,000ug).

    And for the reference minded, look here.

    I've read many studies on the long term effects. In the 60's, they believed the drug caused long term side effects, such as flashbacks. Now, the "flash backs" are more like a PTSD moment, where traumatic memories are recalled in a fully believable and current fashion.

    PTSD exists. I have flashbacks from a particularly traumatic event. I don't take LSD, so you can't blame that. :) I know people with severe PTSD, usually from military service.

    Voluntarily creating moments in your head that could be traumatic (i.e., bad acid trip) are a bad thing. Then again, drinking heavily and doing something bad could be just as traumatic. DUI involving fatality can be bad for your psyche. It could be just as traumatic for the non-DUI driver. At least alcohol has a measured and rated influence (alcohol proof). People don't necessarily follow guidelines, but then again, at least they have guidelines.

Hey, fuck you. This shit is fascinating, but I don't care to go trawling through the dark underbelly of the internet to get to it. People who actually plan to write rootkits can already get this information. Curious onlookers can't get it easily, until now.

I've never synthesized a drug in my life, and don't plan to. But PiHKAL is still one of my favorite books. What's so bad about that?

Are you a bit dim mate?

Read the bloody summary, it's a link to a site that links to a site that links to an anti-abortion site that got them on the blacklist.

http://www.erowid.org/

There. Now Slashdot *must* be put on the list as well, pro-illicit drug sites are censored, as are pro-euthenasia sites and I assume anti-censorship sites (such as wikileaks). And inevitably anti-government and anti-globalisation (anti G8, etc) sites.

Slashdot is all of those things at some time or another...to bad bye bye Slashdot.

At least productivity will go up in Australias IT sector without it.

This is NOT about childporn it's not even been sold as such.

wild tobacco is almost hallucinogenic and non-addictive whereas commercial tobacco is just addictive because of its extreme nicotene content.

Sorry, but that's simply incorrect. From "Growing the Hallucinogens":

Uncured tobacco is very potent -- the Indians who used it would often pass out after as little as one cigarette, and "communicate with the gods." This type of tobacco should be smoked with caution. The danger here is death from overdose rather than addiction. When used as a ritual narcotic it is not smoked often enough to result in addiction.

And Wikipedia's entry on wild tobacco:

Wild tobacco is native to the southwestern United States, Mexico, and parts of South America. Its botanical name is Nicotiana rustica. [snip] "Nicotiana rustica" is the most potent strain of tobacco known to man it is commonly used for tobacco dust or pesticides.

Note that article quotes a nicotine content of 6.5% for Y1, while the entry for Nicotiana Rustica claims 9%; in other words, the wild variety contains more nicotine than the cultivar specifically bred for a high nicotine content by tobacco companies.

Finally, New World Encyclopedia's entry on tobacco:

Nicotine is also a powerful psychochemical, which acts on the nervous system. In large doses it can be a hallucinogen. In smaller doses it affects the functioning of the nervous system in various ways, as well as affecting the circulatory and endocrine systems. These effects are considered pleasurable and desirable by tobacco users.

The hallucinogenic compound in wild tobacco is nicotine. It isn't addictive is because it simply isn't possible to smoke wild tobacco in the same quantities as the cured tobacco used in cigarettes without dying; or, looking at it the other way, cigarettes are addictive because they aren't strong enough to have a hallucinogenic effect, so you can chain smoke them and remain conscious.

The thought had occurred to me...

But the sample size would not nearly be large enough to make an accurate scientific assessment. I refuse to belief that a significant portion of college students do not use caffeine in some degree (ie, soda, energy drink, tablet, chocolate, guaranine, taurine [similar amino?], xanthine, matenine, theine), the environment is simply too stressful and users may simply not be aware that the foods and products they ingest contain caffeine.

I don't doubt that these symptoms can occur with caffeine users. But this study seems like it is based more on conjecture then actual science (a growing trend). To me, it suggests that people suffering from schizophrenia (~0.5% of populous) prefer coffee as 10% of polled users "hear voices."

I would like to propose changing the /. title of the story to "Study Proves Schizophrenics Love Coffee."

sorry, i didn't have time to look up all the sources when i made my post, but if you are indeed interested in this type of info i would highly recommend erowid.org and The Drug Policy Alliance. another great source for opiate-related information in particular can also be found at HeroinHelper.com. i hope that help.

I recommend Piracetam: the first Nootropic ("smart drug").

It is extremely safe, and is widely used in Europe to help reverse the effects of aging and to help against the deterioration of memory, among other things (note: I am not a doctor).

There are numerous forums and communities on nootropics, both for anti-aging and productivity-boosting needs. However, make sure you take the advice from those places with the appropriately-sized grain of salt, and always double-check everything with a proper medical resource (i.e. peer-reviewed studies).

I won't get into the details here, because I already did that in an older post (related to stimulants, but it is nonetheless relevant here too). Yes, I guess this qualifies as karma whoring ;)

My previous post on Piracetam: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=562684&cid=23523554

Wikipedia on Piracetam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracetam

Erowid on Nootropics: http://www.erowid.org/smarts/

what's a drug warrior?

if you're implying that drug users are all failures, you're sadly mistaken. even if we incorrectly assume that alcohol isn't a drug because it's legal, there are an endless list of people who are evidence of the contrary:

• Steve Jobs (lsd)
• Bill Gates (lsd)
• The Beatles, Jimmy Hendrix, Ray Charles, and just about every other well known musician.
• Benjamin Franklin (opium, cannabis)
• Ken Kesey (lsd)
• William S. Burroughs
• Philip K. Dick
• Paul Erdos (used amphetamines daily)
• Hunter S. Thompson
• Aldus Huxley
• Francis Crick
• Andry Warhol
• Alex Grey
• Marcus Aurelius (opium)
• Charles Baudelaire (absinthe)
• Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carroll)
• Winston Churchill (nitrous)
• Grover Cleveland (cocaine)
• Samuel Taylor Coleridge (opium)
• Samuel Colt (nitrous)
• Salvidor Dali
• Thomas De Quincey
• Charles Dickins (opium)
• Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (opium, cocaine)
• Alexandre Dumas
• Anthony Eden
• Thomas Edison (coca wine)
• Sigmund Freud (cocaine)
• Allen Ginsberg
• Ernest Hemingway
• Abbie Hoffman
• Albert Hoffman
• Thomas Jefferson (grew cannabis)
• Stephen King (cocaine)
• Alexander Shulgin
• Terrence Mckenna

frankly, there are just too many to list here. and statistically speaking, young people who experiment with drugs are generally more healthy socially & emotionally than young people who completely abstain from any kind of drug use. the intoxication instinct exists in most animals, not just human beings. and social/recreational drug use has been a part of our culture and civilization from the very beginning. there's nothing wrong with drinking a beer/glass of wine, or smoking a joint once in a while if you can exercise moderation.

that's why i don't get many people's irrational hostility and condescending attitude towards drug users. if you want to be straight edge, that's your prerogative. but why should it bother you what someone else does in their free time when it doesn't effect you in any way?

I'm willing to bet that 1/100,000 chance of dieing from a first dose of coke is mainly because only 1/100,000 people are able to afford that much coke for their first dose.

Seriously, if the chances of OD are the only things keeping you from dusting up I'd say you should give it a go. Get a gram cut it up into 10 equal sized lines. You'll almost certainly be OK. As with all new to you substances, read up on the Erowid page first though.

Of course the Coke trade is a dodgy business and you'll be giving money to bad people, so don't make a habit of it mmkay?

Are you honestly going to tell me PCP doesn't cause violence/insanity (which leads to violence most times)?

That's what the studies referenced say.

And here's another that notes that "Within this group, violent episodes were found to be rare, mainly involving efforts by law enforcement or hospital treatment staff to restrain users, thereby seeming to set off panic reactions and struggle." And here is more on the study that found PCP users no more violent then heroin users.

Do you have peer-reviewed studies saying otherwise, that PCP use causes violent behavior? Or are you just parroting more bullshit from the drug warriors?

I'm not recommending PCP - it's got nasty toxic effects, and better drugs will get you the effects you want, if that's your thing, with less danger. But paranoia about PCP is dangerous to us all, as you so well illustrate by your apology for the assault on Rodney King under the excuse "PCP! PCP!"

1. Acute panic reaction.

The acute panic reactions associated with cannabis are similar to those previously reported to be caused by hallucinogens. ...

Depersonalization may be more long-lasting and recurrent, somewhat akin to "flashbacks" reported following hallucinogens;

These unpleasant experiences were not always associated with unfamiliarity with the drug; some subjects experienced these adverse reactions after repeated use

Very high doses of cannabis may evoke a toxic delirium...

3. Acute paranoid states.
In a laboratory setting, they are frequently encountered. .. ...but has been reported fairly often with cannabis use. ...experience indicates that it occurs in those whose sole drug use is cannabis...

4. Psychoses.

A variety of psychotic reactions have been ascribed to cannabis use. Many are difficult to fit into the usual diagnostic classifications. Two cases of manic reaction were reported in children who were repeatedly exposed to cannabis by elders. Both required treatment with antipsychotic drugs but ultimately showed a full recovery (16). Hypomania, with persecutory delusions, auditory hallucinations, withdrawal, and thought disorder, was observed in four jamaican subjects who had increased their use of marijuana (71). Twenty psychotic patients admitted to a mental hospital with high urinary cannabinoid levels were compared with 20 such patients with no evidence of exposure to cannabis. The former group was more agitated and hypomanic but showed less affective flattening, auditory hallucinations, incoherence of speech, and hysteria than the 20 matched control patients. The cannabis patients improved considerably after a week, while the control patients were essentially unchanged (146). Thus, a self-limiting hypomanic-schizophrenic-like psychoses following marijuana has been documented.

http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/hemp/medical/hollis1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPPD#What_causes_HPPD.3F

http://www.erowid.org/experiences/subs/exp_Cannabis.shtml

There's evidence, you just have to seek it.

But where did you get this opinion? Did you do a lot of clinical research or did you just hear everyone else and the media saying it? The truth is the latter, making you the traditionalist. So how much of your argument is derived from popular opinion?

I used to think weed was benign even after I smoked it and found it was a nightmare. I had pseudo-hallucinations, I felt like I was dying, I was trapped in a time loop, I became painfully detached from my body, yet I still thought it must have been laced, and everyone told me the same or they said that sounds cool. It wasn't cool, and the detachment lasted for a long time.

It wasn't until I did some research about it and found those are all effects of weed alone, and they match negative experiences in the Erowid Vault, but you and everyone else like you overlook that and propagate a myth that weed is harmless and the stance about it is irrational.

I think alcohol should be restricted MORE; it just isn't. That doesn't mean that I irrationally think it's okay. And that alcohol is worse by this 'comparison' doesn't mean weed is now SOFT. Moreover, that we can't eliminate substance abuse is hardly a reason to do nothing about it.

As Gateway: cross-sensitisation of cannabis/opioid receptors

Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis"

Psychological Responses To Cannabis

Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer

I've seldom seen anyone smoke so much pot that they got into a fight.

Yeah, that and the fact that you just don't want to believe that something bad happens to people after getting high, prove therefore that it must not happen.

So while you were busy at the current popular tradition of missing people do fucked-up things while high, or at least laughing at them and pretending they don't exists right now, you must have been too busy to notice the negative experiences in the Erowid Vault.

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/countries/law_china.shtml
China has never had a Christian theocracy and still has drug laws.

I don't care who you are. You're wrong. And come off it with the paper crap. It's illegal because it's abused and makes people retarded and psychotic much like other drugs that are abused and illegal. Those driving studies are flawed anyway. The participants were all experienced pot-heads, the adverse reactors were excluded, and it was on a restricted area due to "safety reasons". Why restrict driving for safety reasons and exclude normal people if it's so safe?

Even the Erowid Experience Vault has people describing adverse experiences where people started driving backwards and wacky.

I don't want more pot-heads on my streets either.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=611847&cid=24170595

Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance Executive Summary National Highway Traffic Safety Administration By Robbe HWJ, O'Hanlon JF November 1993 http://www.erowid.org/ Abstract Abstract: This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. It presents the results of one pilot and three actual driving studies. The pilot study's major purpose was to establish the THC dose current marijuana users smoke to achieve their desired "high". From these results it was decided that the maximum THC dose for subsequent driving studies would be 300 mcg / kg (0.3 mg / kg). The first driving study was conducted on a closed section of a primary highway. After smoking marijuana delivering THC doses of 0, 100, 200, and 300 mcg / kg, subjects drove a car while maintaining a constant speed and lateral position. This study was replicated with a new group of subjects, but now in the presence of other traffic. In addition, a car following test was executed. The third driving study compared the effects of a modest dose of THC (100 mcg / kg) and alcohol )BAC of 0.04 g %) on city driving performance. This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small. Marijuana Use and Driving By Robbe HWJ November 1994 http://www.erowid.org/..._driving3.shtml Abstract Abstract: This article concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. It presents the major results of one laboratory and three on-road driving studies. The latter were conducted on a closed section of a primary highway, on a highway in the presence of other traffic and in urban traffic, respectively. This program of research has shown that marijuana produces only a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight into their performance and will compensate where they can (e.g., by increasing distance between vehicles or increasing effort). As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appeared relatively small in the tests employed in this program. Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance By Hindrik W. J. Robbe, Ph.D. and James F. O'Hanlon, Ph.D. 1999? http://www.erowid.org/..._driving5.shtml In a previous series of studies on the effects of THC alone we concluded that THC given in doses up to 300 1lg/kg has "slight" effects on driving performance (Robbe & O'Hanlon, 1993). The results of the present study now compel us to revise that conclusion. The present subjects' performance was more affected than their predecessors'. The present subjects showed impaired car following performance after THC 100 1lg/kg whereas the previous ones were not impaired by doses up to 300 1lg/kg. In the present study, road tracking performance after 200 ~g/kg was worse than the performance after 300 ~g/kg in the previous study. We believe that these differences are attributable to the groups' respective experience with THC smoking and to driving under the influence of THC. The present group was less experienced and probably had not developed the same degree of behavioral tolerance as their predecessors. Yet

Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance Executive Summary National Highway Traffic Safety Administration By Robbe HWJ, O'Hanlon JF November 1993 http://www.erowid.org/ Abstract Abstract: This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. It presents the results of one pilot and three actual driving studies. The pilot study's major purpose was to establish the THC dose current marijuana users smoke to achieve their desired "high". From these results it was decided that the maximum THC dose for subsequent driving studies would be 300 mcg / kg (0.3 mg / kg). The first driving study was conducted on a closed section of a primary highway. After smoking marijuana delivering THC doses of 0, 100, 200, and 300 mcg / kg, subjects drove a car while maintaining a constant speed and lateral position. This study was replicated with a new group of subjects, but now in the presence of other traffic. In addition, a car following test was executed. The third driving study compared the effects of a modest dose of THC (100 mcg / kg) and alcohol )BAC of 0.04 g %) on city driving performance. This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small. Marijuana Use and Driving By Robbe HWJ November 1994 http://www.erowid.org/..._driving3.shtml Abstract Abstract: This article concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. It presents the major results of one laboratory and three on-road driving studies. The latter were conducted on a closed section of a primary highway, on a highway in the presence of other traffic and in urban traffic, respectively. This program of research has shown that marijuana produces only a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight into their performance and will compensate where they can (e.g., by increasing distance between vehicles or increasing effort). As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appeared relatively small in the tests employed in this program. Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance By Hindrik W. J. Robbe, Ph.D. and James F. O'Hanlon, Ph.D. 1999? http://www.erowid.org/..._driving5.shtml In a previous series of studies on the effects of THC alone we concluded that THC given in doses up to 300 1lg/kg has "slight" effects on driving performance (Robbe & O'Hanlon, 1993). The results of the present study now compel us to revise that conclusion. The present subjects' performance was more affected than their predecessors'. The present subjects showed impaired car following performance after THC 100 1lg/kg whereas the previous ones were not impaired by doses up to 300 1lg/kg. In the present study, road tracking performance after 200 ~g/kg was worse than the performance after 300 ~g/kg in the previous study. We believe that these differences are attributable to the groups' respective experience with THC smoking and to driving under the influence of THC. The present group was less experienced and probably had not developed the same degree of behavioral tolerance as their predecessors. Yet

Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance Executive Summary National Highway Traffic Safety Administration By Robbe HWJ, O'Hanlon JF November 1993 http://www.erowid.org/ Abstract Abstract: This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. It presents the results of one pilot and three actual driving studies. The pilot study's major purpose was to establish the THC dose current marijuana users smoke to achieve their desired "high". From these results it was decided that the maximum THC dose for subsequent driving studies would be 300 mcg / kg (0.3 mg / kg). The first driving study was conducted on a closed section of a primary highway. After smoking marijuana delivering THC doses of 0, 100, 200, and 300 mcg / kg, subjects drove a car while maintaining a constant speed and lateral position. This study was replicated with a new group of subjects, but now in the presence of other traffic. In addition, a car following test was executed. The third driving study compared the effects of a modest dose of THC (100 mcg / kg) and alcohol )BAC of 0.04 g %) on city driving performance. This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small. Marijuana Use and Driving By Robbe HWJ November 1994 http://www.erowid.org/..._driving3.shtml Abstract Abstract: This article concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. It presents the major results of one laboratory and three on-road driving studies. The latter were conducted on a closed section of a primary highway, on a highway in the presence of other traffic and in urban traffic, respectively. This program of research has shown that marijuana produces only a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight into their performance and will compensate where they can (e.g., by increasing distance between vehicles or increasing effort). As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appeared relatively small in the tests employed in this program. Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance By Hindrik W. J. Robbe, Ph.D. and James F. O'Hanlon, Ph.D. 1999? http://www.erowid.org/..._driving5.shtml In a previous series of studies on the effects of THC alone we concluded that THC given in doses up to 300 1lg/kg has "slight" effects on driving performance (Robbe & O'Hanlon, 1993). The results of the present study now compel us to revise that conclusion. The present subjects' performance was more affected than their predecessors'. The present subjects showed impaired car following performance after THC 100 1lg/kg whereas the previous ones were not impaired by doses up to 300 1lg/kg. In the present study, road tracking performance after 200 ~g/kg was worse than the performance after 300 ~g/kg in the previous study. We believe that these differences are attributable to the groups' respective experience with THC smoking and to driving under the influence of THC. The present group was less experienced and probably had not developed the same degree of behavioral tolerance as their predecessors. Yet

That's why they started with child pornography. As TFA states, who can protest anything that appears to be a blow in the fight against child pornography? Anyone who protests this move will be easily labeled as either being naïvely soft on child porn, or as being some sort of pedophile themselves.

The next step? A "family friendly" ISP, that blocks all pornography all together. Then ISPs that block websites or forums where people discuss controversial topics like drug use. All in the name of being "family friendly," and at each step, pointing to the previous step when someone questions it ("Why are you blocking http://www.erowid.org/ ?" "Well, we block objectionable content all the time, such as pornography, because we are family friend.").

How can smoking up harm society if it has no impact on others?

Again, he said earlier, and we are not in agreement that weed is harmless or has no impact on others. Especially when said impact is a car. And then there's the whole concept of what drug abuse does to families and society. Don't deny these facts and promote weed irresponsibly, because I list that as another example of how people abuse drugs and therefore can't be trusted to responsibly use, distribute and recommend them to others.

I'm sensing this'll go in circles so I'll just state my opinion and provide some links.

Weed impairs motor skills, is a gateway drug in teens, causes seriously adverse and psychotic reactions, and hallucinations and depersonalization that can recur or persist.

So I think it's very powerful and unpredictable and therefore dangerous.

Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis" following the administration of oral cannabis

Cannabis psychosis following bhang ingestion.

Psychological Responses To Cannabis
Cannabis and acute functional psychosis (in individuals who have no history of severe mental illness), chronic psychosis, amotivational syndrome, Evidence for dependence..

Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer

"Tolerance and dependence"

As gateway in teens:
issue of cross-sensitisation of cannabis/opioid receptors

Cannabis use increases risk of psychotic illness

Cannabis link to mental illness strengthened

Erowid has an Experience Vault where you can read about negative reactions, but it probably never occurred to you to do that. I'd quote the relevant sections but there are a lot of them, and it's daunting. Maybe I'll organize them one day.

Psychosis and Eventually Schizophrenia

How can smoking up harm society if it has no impact on others?

Again, he said earlier, and we are not in agreement that weed is harmless or has no impact on others. Especially when said impact is a car. And then there's the whole concept of what drug abuse does to families and society. Don't deny these facts and promote weed irresponsibly, because I list that as another example of how people abuse drugs and therefore can't be trusted to responsibly use, distribute and recommend them to others.

I'm sensing this'll go in circles so I'll just state my opinion and provide some links.

Weed impairs motor skills, is a gateway drug in teens, causes seriously adverse and psychotic reactions, and hallucinations and depersonalization that can recur or persist.

So I think it's very powerful and unpredictable and therefore dangerous.

Two cases of "cannabis acute psychosis" following the administration of oral cannabis

Cannabis psychosis following bhang ingestion.

Psychological Responses To Cannabis
Cannabis and acute functional psychosis (in individuals who have no history of severe mental illness), chronic psychosis, amotivational syndrome, Evidence for dependence..

Animals Exposed To Marijuana's Active Component Will Self-Administer

"Tolerance and dependence"

As gateway in teens:
issue of cross-sensitisation of cannabis/opioid receptors

Cannabis use increases risk of psychotic illness

Cannabis link to mental illness strengthened

Erowid has an Experience Vault where you can read about negative reactions, but it probably never occurred to you to do that. I'd quote the relevant sections but there are a lot of them, and it's daunting. Maybe I'll organize them one day.

Psychosis and Eventually Schizophrenia

Ritalin (methylphenidate), Provigil (aka Modafinil), Adderall (mixed amphetamine salts), etc are not the only options. In fact, there is a whole class of cognitive-enhancement drugs, called Nootropics.

The best of these (and arguable one of the safest), in my non-medical opinion, is Piracetam. It is a cyclic derivative of the neurotransmitter GABA, and has been used extensively since the 1960s in clinical studies, for treatment of Alzheimer's (and more), and off-label as a "supplement." Many studies suggest it increases blood flow (and hence oxygenation) to the brain, and protects the brain against damage from alcohol poisoning. It has no known LD-50, and has been clinically tested in daily doses exceeding 50 grams!

I personally use Piracetam to help study, and through my (obviously non-blinded and partially-biased) self-tests, I found that it really does help me learn things faster. After a cramming/studying session, I'll usually look back and realize how much material I've been able to learn in such a short time. All friends I've recommended it to have come to the same conclusion. My dosages vary from 1 gram up to 5 grams at a time, repeating every 3-4 hours.

Unfortunately, the reason why Nootropics aren't used much is because they don't have the intense effects that *stimulants* such as Ritalin do. The effects of Piracetam are very subtle (though the first time is more noticable)--enough so that its easy to get discouraged. However, when you take Ritalin, the stimulation effect is VERY noticeable (and fun, for many people).

The big problems with stimulants are that they aren't great for your body, they can encourage bad sleep habits, they are fun to use (possibly leading to irresponsible use), and they can lead to distraction for those not used to the effects at the used dosage. Additionally, they have terrible come-downs. A responsible stimulant user must recognize these aspects and make efforts to control them, otherwise they will not get any work done, or worse harm themselves!

Disclaimer: I'm not licensed to give medical advice. These are my opinions and are for informational purposes only. Using the mentioned stimulants without a prescription is stupidly illegal (but illegal nonetheless). I won't get into how prohibition is stupid and doesn't work (I think free-use regulation and accurate dispersion of information is the way to go). More importantly though, using these drugs improperly can be unsafe. Make sure you thoroughly research any drugs you use, including over-the-counter drugs, and consult a medical professional when unsure about possible interactions with other drugs or your health conditions.

Wikipedia on Piracetam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracetam

Erowid on Nootropics: http://www.erowid.org/smarts/

Take it one step further, can you imagine the government developing a strong fast acting (lsd /peyote, mushrooms takes 30 min to an hour to hit) hallucinagin that could be delivered on a dosed dart being released to the wild? It would have to posses the strength of LSD with the speed of salvia or DMT, and would be a nightmare far harder to control by the government then what they would get. The government has gone through many steps to eliminate the creation, or import of the precursors of LSD to try and stop lsd sales which has had moderate success, but never been eliminated. Even if it was acceptable by society and was short acting I have to agree I don't see the government going near that one. http://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia.shtml http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt.shtml

Take it one step further, can you imagine the government developing a strong fast acting (lsd /peyote, mushrooms takes 30 min to an hour to hit) hallucinagin that could be delivered on a dosed dart being released to the wild? It would have to posses the strength of LSD with the speed of salvia or DMT, and would be a nightmare far harder to control by the government then what they would get. The government has gone through many steps to eliminate the creation, or import of the precursors of LSD to try and stop lsd sales which has had moderate success, but never been eliminated. Even if it was acceptable by society and was short acting I have to agree I don't see the government going near that one. http://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia.shtml http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt.shtml

People of unusual intelligence who assist government agencies but whose personal avocations run counter to or diverge from The Man's tend to get railroaded, like Sasha Shulgin, John Ramsey and Alan Turing. Take into account that Reiser was partially funded by DARPA and see if that produces any reasonable doubt...

That sort of report usually relates to any of the amphetamine relatives or methylphenidate (ritalin) relatives (the two are related but not the same). By amphetamine relatives, I include amphetamine, methamphetamine, dexedrine, Adderall (mixed amphetamine salts), and some others. Methylphenidates include Ritalin and Focalin and some others. Brand names vary, especially by country.

All the amphetamine derivatives have the same mode of action in the brain, but they aren't all "the same." Delivery route (oral, injected, insufflated, smoked) matters, as does the specific salt (eg amphetamine sulfate vs amphetamine hydrochloride). These have an impact on how rapidly your body absorbs the drug, and therefore the response vs time curve. Extended release versions also exist (Adderall XR, Concerta (methylphenidate)), which has a similar effect -- the duration is extended, and the response vs time curve flattened (generally considered a good thing -- the response varying with time is generally not what you want).

As always... don't take without a prescription. If you must take it without a prescription, you're much safer buying illicit Adderall than street meth, and you'll probably like the results better too (especially for functional, rather than recreational, purposes). Use an appropriate dosage (aka do your research), realize that the effect will be stronger in someone who doesn't take it regularly, and be aware of what drugs it reacts badly with. (Most notably, avoid mixing stimulants to excess, though the results of mixing with weak ones like caffeine won't surprise you. Do not, under any circumstances, mix stimulants with MAOIs (some antidepressants, possibly other uses) -- that can be fatal.)

I'm not a doctor, this is not medical advice. Don't take drugs you haven't researched. Taking them without a prescription is likely illegal. In general: do your research before taking them, and be really sure you know what you're taking!

Erowid is a great place to start said research, though it's more geared toward recreational / spiritual / exploratory drug use. Wikipedia has a lot of good info. In any case, beware of inaccuracies.

"if you visit Erowid, I'd call it a good bet you don't want recommendations on a cheese to go with dinner"

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/heroin_article1.shtml

Kenaf certainly has it's uses. So does hemp. Look here, for example. Marijuana consumption should be legalized, too.