Slashdot Mirror


First Cases of Flesh-Eating Drug Emerge In the United States

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Having spent the last decade wreaking havoc in Russia, a flesh-eating drug called Krokodil has arrived in Arizona, reports Eliza Gray at Time Magazine. The Banner Poison Control Center has reported the first two users of the drug which makes user's skin scaly and green before it rots away [Warning: Graphic Images]. Made of codeine, a painkiller often used in cough syrup, and a mix of other materials including gasoline, paint thinner, and alcohol, Krokodil become popular in Russia because it costs 20 times less than heroin and can be made easily at home. Also known as Desomorphine, Krokodil has sedative and analgesic effects, and is around 8-10 times more potent than morphine. When the drug is injected, it rots the skin by rupturing blood vessels, causing the tissue to die. As a result, the skin hardens and rots, sometimes even falling off to expose the bone. 'These people are the ultimate in self-destructive drug addiction,' says Dr. Ellen Marmur. 'Once you are an addict at this level, any rational thinking doesn't apply.' The average life span of a Krokodil user is two to three years, according to a 2011 TIME investigation of the drug's prevalence in Russia."

618 comments

  1. Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems to be a somewhat self-limiting problem. Users will die off fairly rapidly.

    1. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it's not. Drug users want something cheap and accessible. The market will always be there, even if only a few partake. If heroine were legal, nobody would die. But so long as we think they deserve it, it's ok to enforce policies that kill millions.

    2. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If heroine were legal, nobody would die.

      Like nobody dies from alchohol abuse?

      Maybe fewer people would die. But it's obviously not "nobody."

    3. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they aren't injecting themselves with SQL.

    4. Re:Gross, but... by nomadic · · Score: 0, Troll

      "If heroine were legal, nobody would die"

      People die from heroin overdose, or the effects of heroin use, all the time. Increasing the supply and decreasing the price of this is not the best way to stop that from happening.

    5. Re:Gross, but... by garyoa1 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Can't think of a single film where the heroine was illegal.

      --
      Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
    6. Re:Gross, but... by Kjella · · Score: 0

      If heroine were legal, nobody would die.

      Because heroin never killed anybody. Even in peer reviewed medical journals like the Lancet where they ranked alcohol #5, tobacco #9 and cannabis #11, heroin was by far #1. It's already the kind of drug no sane, recreational drug user would take only an addict looking to blast his mind and body into oblivion. Yes you might save a few who'd get hooked on Krokodil but if you get more heroin addicts instead you'll do way more harm than good.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked in a detox center, I can assure you that death from heroin overdose (too much heroin) is rare.
      This explains it better than I could:

      http://lifeprocessprogram.com/lp-blog/library/the-persistent-dangerous-myth-of-heroin-overdose/

    8. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about establishing a treatment program for krocodil users? We have methadone treatment for heroin addicts, so we could have jenkem treatment for krocodil addicts. Damn I'm good!

      -- Ethanol-fueled

    9. Re:Gross, but... by BKX · · Score: 5, Informative

      Heroin overdose among experienced users with steady supplies are unheard of. Heroin is quite safe, actually. The overdose problem is usually among black-tar heroin users who inject or snort (rather than smoke or eat) who then buy white powder heroin. Black-tar heroin is very impure (20-30%), being manufactured directly from unpurified opium or poppy straw extract, while white powder heroin is very pure(80%+, unless heavily cut), being manufactured from purified morphine. Even when cut, white powder heroin tends to be at least twice a potent as black-tar. Furthermore, black-tar and white powder are misnomers; both are yellow to yellowish brown, which is how those overdoses happen.

      Until recently, white powder heroin was only available in large cities such as NYC, but now it's moving West, leading to a string of overdose deaths along the east coast and as far west as Michigan.

      If it were regulated and legal, this entire class of overdose deaths would be eliminated. Considering that this type of overdose death is the majority of overdose deaths in the US, we are killing people by keeping it illegal. Considering the rate of overdose deaths among long-time users, legalization would result in fewer overall deaths, even if everyone picked up the habit. Now that you know all this, you and all other prohibitionists, especially those in Congress, are engaged in willful murder.

      Have fun sleeping tonight, murderer.

    10. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason people die from heroin is that they try to quit, can't, and go back to the same doage that they used before they tried to quit.

      Problem is that in the mean time their body has lost some of its resistance, and so what used to a safe dosage ends up being a potentially fatal one.

      Also, with no rating and regulatory system there is nothing but the dealers word that what they get is of such and such quality/potency.

    11. Re:Gross, but... by Garridan · · Score: 1

      In a well-regulated market where customers know what they're buying, you would be absolutely correct. However, you're ignorant about the reality of drug market, and it shows.

      Many dealers are sketchy assholes only out to make a buck. When demand drops on an already-cheap drug that they bought too much of, it gets cut into other more expensive drugs. If it gives a similar high to (say) heroin, then it'll get mixed with heroin. The effects will be less pronounced, but just as bad over time. The user gets addicted to it, and pretty soon, any other dealer's product won't give the fix.

    12. Re:Gross, but... by i · · Score: 1

      People die because the don't eat and because of infections. They don't eat because they have to use all their money to get he drug. And they get infections becuase they don't have access to clean injection needles - mainly because of the criminalization.

      --
      Mundus Vult Decipi
    13. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The market will always be there, even if only a few partake.

      i.e. a self-limiting problem. It's not like phones, where growth in cell phone use didn't seem to end until virtually everyone had one. We're never going to hit a situation where everyone in the country is injecting homemade opiates so toxically impure their flesh starts necrotising. There just aren't enough people stuck with a level of stupidity or desperation sufficient to want to escape into narcotic dreamland at that price.

    14. Re:Gross, but... by hydrofix · · Score: 5, Informative

      Like nobody dies from alchohol abuse?

      Actually, you mostly die of heroin through accidental or deliberate overdose, or through associated problems like contracting HIV through a dirty IV injection needle, that are not actually related to heroin per se. Because what comes to physiological effects, opioids, such as heroin, are actually less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, even in prolonged use. There is an increased chance of infections due to the suppressing effect opioids have on the body's immune system, but that's about it.

      Of course, this if you ignore the horrible consequence of extreme dependence and very difficult withdrawal from heroin (the withdrawal can actually be itself fatal), which means it's very hard to stop taking it once you get hooked on heroin. But you will not die of it, if you keep to your body's tolerance levels. Alcohol dependence could be considered much worse, because daily heavy drinking is so extremely detrimental for your health, and if you are unable to stop drinking, it will inevitably lead to a fatal failure of some vital organ, such as the liver.

      Smoking, too, is very bad for your health, and safely injecting high-purity heroin a few times per day is probably less harmful in the long run than smoking a pack of cancer sticks per day. It has to be noted though, that if you decide to become a heroin addict, your life will be absolutely dominated by the graving for this substance, probably for the rest of your life. This can have devastating effects on thing many people find very important in life, such as career and family relations. Smoking addiction, on the other hand, while physically probably more unhealthy, still lets you lead a relatively normal life.

    15. Re:Gross, but... by Splab · · Score: 1

      Nope, you wont save anyone on Krokodil, once the first hit has been taken, they are dead. You need to catch them before they turn to Krokodil.

    16. Re:Gross, but... by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "If heroine were legal, nobody would die."

      Are you a moron?

    17. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Heroin withdrawal is not fatal. Alcohol, benzodiazepines, and barbiturates are the three drug classes with life threatening withdrawal syndromes. Heroin withdrawal is still extraordinarily unpleasant, but it's not deadly.

    18. Re:Gross, but... by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have fun sleeping tonight, murderer.

      I was with you right up until that sentence and your reasoning leading up to it. TBH, claiming that making a drug illegal is equivalent to murder is, in short, bullshit. There are numerous valid ideological reasons why drugs should not be banned by governmental edict, but that argument is not one of them.

      This is why: In all honestly, it is not murder when someone willfully engages in the practice, knowing full well there are potentially fatal hazards involved (given the plethora of education on the subject, it's not like you can credibly claim a general ignorance here.) Long story short, while addiction is a tragedy, the participants are not exactly unwilling victims, either. Statistically, they all voluntarily jammed that needle into their arms (or smoked it, ate it, snorted it, whatever).

      It's like claiming that making base jumping off of a building illegal is tantamount to murder, when the base jumpers are the ones willfully doing it themselves.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    19. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's not. Drug users want something cheap and accessible. The market will always be there, even if only a few partake. If heroine were legal, nobody would die. But so long as we think they deserve it, it's ok to enforce policies that kill millions.

      I fail to see h the legality of heroine causes or prevents a lethal overdose? Maybe you mean because it's illegal, it's expensive and because it's expensive people will look for a cheaper alternative. But even that will still occur if it is legal. Many states have effectively legalized pot, and yet, the demand or the negative effects of it have not decreased. Please explain how legalizing heroine or other drugs would make them safer?

    20. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it were regulated and legal wouldn't change anything. Once you had your quota you would look for alternatives or once you were out of funds, you would look for alternatives. Many prescription drugs are legal, but there is still a thriving black market for them. Why would heroine be any different?

    21. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      There has never been a direct death from Marijuana. Most "hard drugs" would have death rates nearing caffeine, were they as available and inexpensive. Alcohol abuse directly kills few, mostly through OD.

    22. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they are more motivated to get their fix, than other users.

    23. Re:Gross, but... by flimflammer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Jeeze, did you even read the article you linked when pointing out heroin as the big bad or did you just look for the first article that had a bar graph with heroin seemingly on the top? It basically contradicts your entire attitude about heroin, and reaffirms the thought process of the person you're quoting, even if it was an exaggeration.

      Here, let me quote something from your own link:

      Firstly, the harms of a given drug will depend upon its legal status. The best way to demonstrate this point is with heroin, which is placed at the top of the Lancet-scale as the most harmful of all drugs. For street heroin this may well be the appropriate placing, but, if we are being scientific here, it is imperative to separate out the harms that follow from use of the drug per se, and the health and social harms exacerbated or created specifically by the drug's use within an illegal market. These, lets call them 'prohibition harms', include:

      * Contaminated/cut product (poisoning, infection risks)
      * Dirty/shared needles (Hep C / HIV risk)
      * Vast quantities of low level acquisitive property crime to support a habit: illegal markets inflate the cost of an essentially worthless agricultural product to one that is worth more than its weight in gold. People on prescriptions don't have to nick stuff.
      * Street prostitution (see above)
      * Street dealing, drug-gang violence and turf wars
      * Drug litter (needles in the gutter etc)

      More useful would have been to rank both illegal street heroin, associated with the above harms which aren't going to help its ranking much, and prescribed pharmaceutical heroin, associated with none of the above harms. The latter would certainly be considerably further down the scale. Luckily, we can theoretically do this with heroin as both legal and illegal markets exist simultaneously in the UK, although the number of prescribed users (approx 400) is rather eclipsed by the number of illicit users (approx 250,000+). It’s a great shame the authors of this study failed to make that comparison (we do, confusingly, get 'street methadone' in the ranking, but not the prescription variety).

      The harms from heroin don't generally come from heroin itself, but from the unsafe creation and use pervasive of today's users as a result of being illegal.

    24. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >"If heroine were legal, nobody would die"

      How the fuck did a comment so grossly incorrect get moderated as "Insightful"?!

    25. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can't think of a single film where the heroine was illegal.

      I'm pretty sure Natalie Portman was illegal in Leon.

    26. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The number one cause of heroine overdose is a heavy user giving a new user an OD, not realizing the level of tolerance they built up so that a half-dose is still lethal, ir irregular dosage through supplier variances. Were it legal, dosing information would be included, as it is in all drugs, and new-user ODs would decrease significantly. Active ingredient percentages would be listed.

      Yes, I'm asserting that making heroine legal will decrease direct deaths through OD. All we need is the US to legalize it and see if 'm right. Legalize heroine to prove me wrong.

    27. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it depends on the country / state you live in. But in California, the heroine of the first Hunger Games movie was illegal (she was supposed to be 16).

    28. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Milla was 16 in Return to the Blue Lagoon.

    29. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When alcohol was banned in the US, it strengthened the mafia to a ridiculous extent. Why would any other drug be much different?

      See? I can do that, too. Black markets for prescription drugs may exist, but they're not particularly dangerous or large.

    30. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Long story short, while addiction is a tragedy, the participants are not exactly unwilling victims, either. Statistically, they all voluntarily jammed that needle into their arms (or smoked it, ate it, snorted it, whatever)."

              It was voluntary at the first needle but not since. That's what addiction means, to have no choice.

    31. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      From your link:
      " I believe the collective harm the illegal drugs on this list cause to both the users and society in general is vastly compounded as a result of their illegality. "

      The list is "tainted" for use in a post-legalization society, as many (most?) of the harms are because of its illegality.

    32. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Alcohol is by far the worst drug. It doesn't matter in the least how many people it kills directly. It kills far more people than all the other drugs combined. Still, it remains legal in the US while we still often imprison the marijuana smoker just for having the plant. I wonder what the real difference between these drugs could be? If ever there was a classic example of "follow the money", the comparison and contrast here is it.

      I am by no means suggesting that we should make alcohol illegal. The point is, anyone who argues that keeping the other drugs illegal makes sense is either brainwashed, a complete moron, someone lying directly on the money trail, or some combination of some or all of those things.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    33. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because Heroin is a stimulant. Also, quite a few Heroin addicts I've encountered had a decent upbringing. They end up making poor choices in their teenage years, when their decision making is still immature. Having an addiction by the time they reach their 20's, they end up being marginalized by society and criminalized by the government, which is very likely clandestinely involved in the distribution of opiates.

    34. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxi Driver?

    35. Re:Gross, but... by just_a_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      There has never been a direct death from Marijuana.

      False. I remember reading about how someone got a bale of the stuff accidentally dropped on him, and got crushed.

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
    36. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ". Increasing the supply and decreasing the price of this is not the best way to stop that from happening."

      Ironically from your perspective at least, that is exactly the way to diminish the occurrence of said events. People die from overdose almost exclusively due to the fact that the doses are unpredictable. Legalizing it would also mean it was available in standardized potency. That is the difference that you have missed. You also haven't considered that prostitution and deaths involving gangs and other black market activity are also a major factor that play into the death toll, and those too would no longer be an issue. Finally, by legalizing it we can tax it and use the tax income to offer assistance for those who want to enter into rehab and stop using it, further diminishing the death toll.

      In other words, you couldn't possible be much less informed, or have gotten it more wrong.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    37. Re:Gross, but... by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1

      Many prescription drugs are legal, but there is still a thriving black market for them. Why would heroine be any different?

      Uh, isn't that because they are prescription drugs? I.e. you can't get them without a prescription. So if you want them without one, the black market is the only way.

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
    38. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I sure will. I'm fine killing off the lowlifes who's opinion of existence is so low that they feel the need to partake of illegal artificial stimulants in order to make it tolerable."

      They are usually taking it to deal with having to live on the same planet with people like you, actually.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    39. Re:Gross, but... by brit74 · · Score: 1

      Heroin overdose among experienced users with steady supplies are unheard of. Heroin is quite safe, actually.

      The letal dose of heroin is 5x an "effective dose". I suppose some people who know what they're doing can avoid an overdose, but the gap between an effective dose and a lethal dose is a lot closer for heroin than for - well - every other illegal drug on this list: http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/200645104835_307.pdf

      Now that you know all this, you and all other prohibitionists, especially those in Congress, are engaged in willful murder.

      That's a pretty serious charge. I think you should reevalutate your definition of "willful murder". There's a real difference between showing up at someone's house and shooting them, versus making a drug illegal, causing a drug-user to seek out less-safe alternatives, resulting in them overdosing. The thing is that if you make a drug legal, it has complex effects on usage. One result might be an increase in drug use and then an increase in death rates (not only from drug overdose, but also indirect increases in crime as users mug/steal from people to get drug money or driving cars while under the influence). Further, there are other things involved in the decision to make a drug illegal than simply "reducing the number of deaths in society" - for example, if legalizing heroin resulted in fewer deaths, but a lot more people destroying their lives with heroin (but still living to a ripe old age), the second alternative might be worse. In the Vice videos about krokodile, they claim that something like 20% of the population of one city in Russia is addicted to heroin. I question those numbers, but one can see how a city with 20% heroin addiction rates might be a worse fate than having a 1% addiction rate + a dozen addicts dying each year.
      http://www.vice.com/vice-news/siberia-krokodil-tears-part-1

    40. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only after the 17th century, and outside of the mid-east.

    41. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A well-regulated market where customers know what they're buying is achievable when prohibition is abandoned. See US history circa 1920.

    42. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      " Many prescription drugs are legal,"

      No. They aren't. By definition there is a law against the average citizen possessing them. You have a twisted definition of legal. Even with a prescription there is a limit to the quantity and frequency of consumption, which is actually a major reason why a lot of heroin addicts wind up becoming heroin addicts in the first place. They need or want more and can't get a doctor to sign off on it, so they turn to the black market.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    43. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd have to roll a 19+ to save.

    44. Re:Gross, but... by icebike · · Score: 0

      But it's not. Drug users want something cheap and accessible. The market will always be there, even if only a few partake. If heroine were legal, nobody would die. But so long as we think they deserve it, it's ok to enforce policies that kill millions.

      Kill millions?

      Have you looked at the pictures?
      People stupid enough to do that will not be missed. They will never produce anything of value to society, should not procreate, and simply raise health care costs for everyone else.

      Kill millions? They are the best deterrence you could possibly find.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    45. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Hank the dockworker in Rotterdam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KePBh1wtN0o --- in German.

    46. Re:Gross, but... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      It most certainly is moving west...I'm in the middle of the US and we've started seeing an upswing of deaths from it. People dying with the needle still in their arms, who are used to the "good stuff" and don't realize what their actually injecting. Around here, much of this blame can be laid at the feet of the cartels...they are the primary producer and distributor of it.

      As long as we continue to base our national policies on superstition and ancient mythological morality, stupid laws like this will exist and flourish. Luckily since I'm in IT I am shielded from most of the zealous young-earth conspiracy theorists, but every once in awhile one will show up. Now it's far more likely for people to think I'm an atheist as opposed to a "devil worshiper", so I guess that's an improvement. Sometimes I try to educate them that it's not that I don't "believe" in some higher power but 1. there isn't enough proof to show that "religious experiences" are much more than some evolutionary response to threat stress (aka Third Man syndrome) and 2. If these Gods are real, why would anyone want anything to do with some entity that really seems capricious, genocidal, bi-polar, and malicious?

      Maybe someday the US will make laws based on science and reality, as opposed to "morality" and "divine punishment". When we have legislation based on real-world results as opposed to "a human-like entity in the sky who spoke to me in a dream", then maybe we will be mature enough to fix our problems.

    47. Re:Gross, but... by ruir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fairly easy, the difference between alcohol and marijuana is that anybody can grow the plant without having middle man or paying taxes, and that cant be allowed.

    48. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who's means "who is", dumbfuck.

    49. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't eat because they have to use all their money to get he drug.

      Heroin, like any opiate, is an appetite suppressant. That's why heroin addicts look so emaciated: the really don't feel hungry and really don't eat.

    50. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Right. I already said that. Maybe you didn't understand the phrase "follow the money" or understand that " I wonder what the real difference between these drugs could be?" was what is known as a rhetorical device?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    51. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, but doesn't count in the same way that getting killed by having beer kegs dropped on you doesn't count as an alcohol-related death. Drowning in a vat of alcohol doesn't even count. So even choking on smoke from a warehouse full of burning pot wouldn't count.

      Also: [citation needed]

    52. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah that old fallacy, nobody has ever died of anything except with a cause of DEATH * - everything else may bring about a condition of impending death but its death that kills you.

      * Or maybe permanently stopping breathing.

    53. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fairly easy, the difference between alcohol and marijuana is that anybody can grow the plant without having middle man or paying taxes, and that cant be allowed.

      Yeh, because there has never been home-brew beer or moonshine stills.......

      Taxes would be paid on legal marijuana, bet your life on it!

    54. Re: Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If base jumping were addictive you might have a point. Since it is not, it just proves you are a fuckig idiot that couldn't come up with a car analogy.

    55. Re:Gross, but... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2

      Guy back in school had a jug of apple juice, yeast, sugar, and a heating register. They don't call it home brew for nothing.
      So I don't find your distinction compelling.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    56. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Possibly, sympathizing with bad behavior just reinforces it.

    57. Re:Gross, but... by gd2shoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember, logical reason doesn't drive political discourse. We are so jaded to politics that you need to elicit strong emotion to have any hope of affecting the average voter. Thus, we devolve into mindless rhetoric in a vain attempt to manipulate people into caring, instead of thinking.

      (Caring makes political accomplishment worthwhile; thinking makes it possible. We're currently way overbalanced in the "caring" direction... and graft, but that's a different topic.)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    58. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You probably didn't drink it. If you did, you would taste the difference.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    59. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Yeh, because there has never been home-brew beer or moonshine stills......."

      When did selling home brew and running moonshine stills (for profit) become legal?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    60. Re:Gross, but... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Do you have any insights as to why they might have been made illegal in the first place?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    61. Re:Gross, but... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Sure; he got busted: it was a barracks.
      But we're discussing availability, not quality.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    62. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, no? Allergic reaction to pain meds? Yep. Stop spewing bullshit you troll you.

    63. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      No. We were discussing legality, actually, and how it is related to the money. Since you didn't understand that, I can see where you went wrong now.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    64. Re:Gross, but... by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Insightful" is just some guy with mod points who happens to agree.

    65. Re:Gross, but... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1, Troll

      how would you know?

    66. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      drug legality and punishment is largely based on hallucinogenic nature (used to contact spirits by non bible based religions) or use by minorities that is spreading to whites

    67. Re: Gross, but... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      If base jumping were addictive you might have a point

      *ahem*...

      But, there's still the initial taking of the drug - or did you forget that part?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    68. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm an anesthesiologist who majored in chemistry in undergrad. Back when I thought I wanted two doctorates, I did a couple of years of work with the opioid systems of the brain. (I didn't finish the PhD, but I did put a fair number of rats through opioid withdrawal.)

    69. Re: Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same way a man might die from eating something he is allergic to. I'm not saying that making it legal would solve all problems, I'm just saying that your rhetoric is flawed.

    70. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Sorry, accidental early post. I've seen them in clinical practice, of course, and since I'm an anesthesiologist I have to account for these things professionally. I've also long had an interest in pharmacology as a science.

    71. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      See if you can figure out what category or categories you fit into.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    72. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same is true of alcohol.

    73. Re: Gross, but... by techprophet · · Score: 0

      I used up my mod points before reaching this, so I'm asking other /.ers to cover for me and mod parent up!

    74. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Yes, I look at statistics and reality, rather than demonizing things based on emotion. That makes me a "moron" in purityrannical societies like the USA.

    75. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to be pedantic, you need to remember to cite a source.

    76. Re:Gross, but... by quarterbuck · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hah! Best smack-down on /. ever (tied with when NYCountryLawyer used to reply to stories about himself).

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    77. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Republican fear that someone somewhere is having fun doing something they don't think is fun. Why was Prohibition passed? What makes you think the modern prohibition is any more successful? When can we just call it and re-legalize everything like we did with alcohol?

      And you may want to read the testimony to Congress on why to make it illegal (it makes Black men rape White women was one statement I remember). Or who funded the anti-hemp movement (lots of cotton farmers).

    78. Re:Gross, but... by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Heroin overdose among experienced users with steady supplies are unheard of. Heroin is quite safe, actually.

      The letal dose of heroin is 5x an "effective dose". I suppose some people who know what they're doing can avoid an overdose, but the gap between an effective dose and a lethal dose is a lot closer for heroin than for - well - every other illegal drug on this list: http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/200645104835_307.pdf

      That sounds indeed highly dangerous. But here is the kicker: The lethal dose for Paracetamol is only about 3x of that "effective dose". One of the reasons you can accidentally kill yourself with it if you do not follow the instructions carefully. Yet most people never have a problem.

      (No, I am not for legalizing the stuff. I am just pointing out your argument does not hold water.)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    79. Re:Gross, but... by f3rret · · Score: 2

      Not everyone who gets addicted to opiates start out with the needle or choosing they want to take the drug for fun. There are people who get prescribed opiate based painkillers, get hooked while in treatment, then continue using after the prescription runs out. They then have to source their opiates from a street dealer who might at one point offer heroin as an alternative to oxy-whatever.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    80. Re:Gross, but... by gweihir · · Score: 2

      I really do not understand that needle problem. All over Europe, you can get needles without problems in any pharmacy and very cheaply, or you can just mail-order a box full. I use them for some lab and technical purposes and a box of 100 runs you something like 5-10USD, with syringes about twice that. Yet people still share needles and syringes even here. Are you saying it is illegal to sell/buy syringes and needles in the US?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    81. Re:Gross, but... by JackDW · · Score: 0

      "Legalize heroin to prove me wrong"

      Some proof. It would not be a controlled experiment - the results would not be useful.

      We would simply end up arguing over the statistics. You'd say that fewer people were dying of overdoses - your criteria for success. Whereas I'd point out that society was damaged in other ways by the large increase in drug use that would inevitably follow legalization. Nothing would be proved either way.

      Case in point is, well, anywhere that any drug has been decriminalised. Some people say things are better, and others say they are worse, and both groups have some evidence to support their claims. Personally I would recommend not forcing radical, uncontrolled and potentially dangerous experiments on living people without their consent, particularly when the results are worthless, but then I'm one of those awful people who thinks that drugs should probably not be legalised, so my opinion hardly matters.

      --
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    82. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I fail to see h the legality of heroine causes or prevents a lethal overdose?

      How much active ingredient is in the junk you just bought? Don't know? Inject it and find out. You take a daily dose of 2000 mg after years of use. A new person indicated an interest in trying. What's the appropriate first-time-use dosage? How about those needles? If drugs were legal, then they wouldn't need to make needles illegal anymore, and a number of diseases and problems would be addressed.

      Most of the problems with drugs are caused by them being illegal, and not the drug itself. The worst drug of them all is one of the few select legal ones.

      And could someone explain to me how it took a Constitutional Amendment to make alcohol illegal, but making anything/everything else illegal is perfectly fine?

    83. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Poor, crazy Amy Winehouse being the perfect example of what you mean there. Her death is what clued me into the fact that alcohol withdrawal can be life threatening. Say what you will about her antics, but I would still take her music over what has come out of the pop scene this year. No question.

      But newly hearing about Krokodil today has my cynic badge revoked. I haven't been shocked by something in the news for a very long time. Appalled, yeah, of course. Truly shocked? Krokodil accomplished that today.

      Using Meth or Crack as a shorthand for drug addled will soon be overtaken by the word "Krok".

      I'm a military guy, but after seeing the pictures of this and that Vice documentary listed below, just...

      Oh my God

    84. Re:Gross, but... by ahodgson · · Score: 2

      That's 5-10 dollars you could spend on ... more heroin. Or, periodically, food.

      Drug addicts, pretty much by definition, don't make good decisions.

    85. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Whereas I'd point out that society was damaged in other ways by the large increase in drug use that would inevitably follow legalization. Nothing would be proved either way.

      Less people harmed is a bad thing if "society" was damaged. Can you even define that? The economy? Or some nebulous "family values" definition?

    86. Re:Gross, but... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Jeeze, did you even read the article you linked when pointing out heroin as the big bad or did you just look for the first article that had a bar graph with heroin seemingly on the top? It basically contradicts your entire attitude about heroin, and reaffirms the thought process of the person you're quoting, even if it was an exaggeration.

      Yeah it's a blog trying to dismiss a study made in a published medical journal, which I can't link to because it's only accessible to subscribers. It would be wildly invalid to compare a few hundred prescription users who have medical needs for it with appropriate dosage for those and are probably closely monitored for addiction problems related to it compared to what a bunch of addicts would do, even if they got it cheap and pure from a pharmacy. Furthermore, the blog author doesn't have anything to back up his claims except a lot of hand waving on how he thinks it might rate. It should be noted that heroin is by far the highest ranked of all other illegal drugs as well, which should all suffer the same "illegality" effects.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    87. Re:Gross, but... by ultranova · · Score: 0

      This is why: In all honestly, it is not murder when someone willfully engages in the practice, knowing full well there are potentially fatal hazards involved (given the plethora of education on the subject, it's not like you can credibly claim a general ignorance here.)

      No one needs to walk in a forest. Therefore, it's okay if a hunter blindly shoots at any noise without bothering to check his target, as long as he's made a public announcement of said habit beforehand.

      Of course this analogy fails in that the hunter is merely selfish and causes harm as a foreseeable but uninteded side effect, whereas drug prohibition specifically exists to cause harm to drug users.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    88. Re:Gross, but... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Yes- what you say ties in with things I've heard.

      Specifically, I've heard that a surprising number of GPs and people in medicine (IIRC) apparently have a heroin habit, yet keep it under control and are able to hold down their jobs because they have reliable access- through their job, albeit presumably illegally- to a clean, consistent supply of the stuff.

      I've also heard it said that the biggest (though not necessarily all) problems caused by heroin are essentially a consequence of its illegal status, and the effect that has on the supply of the drug and the behaviour of its users.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    89. Re:Gross, but... by lgw · · Score: 2

      Yeah - libertarian though I am, sometimes government intervention in someone's life really is the lesser evil. Sheesh.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    90. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear.

      Also, there is no such thing as 'addiction'.

      Read the books 'The myth of addiction' and 'Addiction is a choice'.

    91. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Before anyone goes on about who's seen worse shit as a member of the military, it is always going to be the case where someone has seen something more fucked up. Always going to be the case and always was, so it's a pointless debate to get into.

      My point there is that seeing the effects on that woman who's poisoned 65% of the meat from her bones, crying naked and living dead on the table? I would choose to unsee that. I would go to the clinic in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and pay to unsee that.

      Not something I say lightly. Don't even mind much for any opinions on that decision. I want to unsee the guy's dead white flesh plopping into a bucket after a nurse cuts open the plastic wrap the addict's used to have some semblance he still had a leg. (Spoiler Alert: He didn't)

    92. Re:Gross, but... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Alcohol is by far the worst drug. It doesn't matter in the least how many people it kills directly. It kills far more people than all the other drugs combined.

      Actually, alcohol is responsible for about 100,000 deaths a year in the U.S., but cigarettes are responsible for about 400,000.

      As I recall without looking it up, most of the direct deaths from alcohol are due to liver disease. Among those who consume 100 grams of alcohol a day, 15% of them will develop cirrhosis, and about 30% of those will develop liver cancer.

      Most of the deaths from cigarettes are due to increases in heart attacks and strokes, although a lot of them die from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Lung cancer is the signature disease of cigarettes, but it's only about 30,000 a year (check me on that).

      The point is, anyone who argues that keeping the other drugs illegal makes sense is either brainwashed, a complete moron, someone lying directly on the money trail, or some combination of some or all of those things.

      Or drunk.

    93. Re:Gross, but... by Lordfly · · Score: 1

      But... I just brewed 5 gallons of hooch mead inside of a month. Drinking 3 glasses of the stuff is better than Nyquil, and way tastier.

      Alcohol production is stupid easy. Sugars + yeast + sanitized brewing vessel + time = get 'er drunk.

      --
      hookers and grits.
    94. Re:Gross, but... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      No one needs to walk in a forest.

      Walking in a forest is not an inherently dangerous activity with well-known addictive effects. Sticking a needle full of heroin into your vein... is.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    95. Re:Gross, but... by nbauman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have fun sleeping tonight, murderer.

      it is not murder when someone willfully engages in the practice, knowing full well there are potentially fatal hazards involved (given the plethora of education on the subject, it's not like you can credibly claim a general ignorance here.) Long story short, while addiction is a tragedy, the participants are not exactly unwilling victims, either.

      So if you go to a street corner where drug dealers hang out, somebody shoots you and takes your money, that wasn't murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.

      So if you go to a bar looking for sex, a girl invites you home, kills you, and takes your wallet, she's not engaging in murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.

    96. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      This one is full of so much horror that it would be amazing if it didn't make political lines irrelevant. So of course I am preparing myself to be amazed.

      Estimated 1,000,000 of the living dead, I mean users, in Russia.

      Cheap codeine manufacturers making record profits. (Sigh. They just knocked on the door and gave me back my cynic's badge.)

    97. Re:Gross, but... by nbauman · · Score: 0

      Heroin overdose among experienced users with steady supplies are unheard of. Heroin is quite safe, actually.

      I'm not sure of that any more. The use of prescribed opioids, including oxycodone and morphine, has gone up significantly, as a result of patients demanding that doctors treat their pain and of drug company marketing. (They use it a lot for arthritis, back pain, and other chronic pain, even though there are some studies that it's not that effective for that application.) As a result, there's been a large increase in the number of opioid-related deaths. However, the next time I see the statistics I'll pay attention to whether they break down morphine separately and whether it's safer than oxycodone.

    98. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The libertarian in me says that nothing of this would happen if heroin was easier to get by those that need it. I highly doubt people really want to take that crap over heroin...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    99. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fairly easy, the difference between alcohol and marijuana is that anybody can grow the plant without having middle man or paying taxes, and that cant be allowed.

      Curious. The barrel of fermenting beer on my bench that I haven't and will never need to pay any alcohol tax on (ok, so there was a tax on the brewing equipment, but that has been amortized over many many batches of high quality beer) says otherwise. It is still perfectly legal for me to produce and consume my own alcohol from raw materials which do not attract the incredibly high sin tax. I'm just not allowed to sell it.

      Similarly, tobacco grows in the ground. I don't know what's involved in making a tobacco harvest, but I don't imagine it's much different to a weed harvest. Cigarettes are generally legal, but weed isn't. Curiously, in Australia at least, growing tobacco is illegal without a permit and one of the punishments seems to be paying the equivalent import duty. Your argument seems to stand if you were to compare apples and apples: http://www.howtogrowtobacco.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=3453

    100. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Most of the really heavy problems of heroin stem from its illegal status and the accompanying effects. A legal, clean and FDA controlled source of heroin would do away with the problem of overdose (since you'd KNOW for a fact how pure it is and how much you'd have to take) and there would be no side effects from cheap, potentially poisonous crap added to squeeze more money out of every gram. Not to mention the less than sanitary circumstances that usually apply when it is injected.

      It is still a drug, no doubt about that, and control needs to be enforced around it, but I'm still positive that a lot of the troubles that we have with heroin and other drugs can be avoided by offering those that want it badly enough to not only fuck up their own lives but also those of others just to get that crap to simply give them what they want. Call me a liberal nutjob, but I am all in favor of handing every man enough rope to hang himself.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    101. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A German court actually once finally settled the question why alcohol is legal and other drugs ain't. Their explanatory statement: Alcohol is not primarily consumed for its intoxicating qualities.

      Well, I pondered this at length in the presence of a few beer and the next day it hit me like lightning: No, I don't get drunk for the buzz, it's for that great head I have the next day...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    102. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      At least owning them is legal.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    103. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Rest assured, if other drugs were legal and commercially produced, nobody would dream of touching the "home brew" crap you get right now.

      I don't even want to know what kind of swill people drank during the prohibition.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    104. Re:Gross, but... by SylvesterTheCat · · Score: 1

      Are you a moron?

      SensitiveMale, that comment doesn't seem very sensitive of you.

      No, I could not resist.

    105. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You mean, like, replying to trolls?

      Oh damn, here you caught me!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    106. Re:Gross, but... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought too. I've seen it so often, though, I'm starting to wonder if that's the legitimate spelling somewhere.

    107. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it is certainly not the norm or even a particularly appreciable risk, I have heard of death(s) due to effects secondary to heroin withdrawal, specifically an extreme electrolyte imbalance caused by the losses resulting from vomiting and diarrhea not being properly replenished.

    108. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 0

      And your tiny little libertarian would be right. Hardcore addicts of heroin try to use it as a stopgap from what I've reading. I'd link a bunch of citations, but they are easily googled and found. I'm full up on the horror of it for one day to even google any more Krokodil links.

      Apologies if I sounded counter to your point. But that is a weird debate to have in the short term:

      Prescriptions for codeine seem more feasible in the very near term than allowing heroin in that same span of time. On the other hand, OxyContin is prescription and millions of people are addicted to that. Rich people's drugs versus poor people's drugs. Get's sticky pretty quickly.

      And sticky is what these people are becoming now. So as someone with a bit of libertarianism mixed in with my shotgun democrat leanings, I always come back to better education. At least the Oxyfools don't become a ramp down the living dead inside of three years. So prescriptions for codeine and ramp up methadone production and availability may work in the near term for Eurasia.

      Having the living dead roaming there is just going to make all the khat chewers around the world wonder what the hell is happening to the world.

      So yeah, again, your tiny libertarian is right while my tiny relativist went to go pour some homebrew while he ponders the fucked uppedness of the walking dead with bits falling off. Tough one. Russia better take some kind of action though, since taking none is making the problem worse in the short term.

    109. Re:Gross, but... by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the physical effects are not deadly, but consider the economic ones. Heroin isn't cheap and it's addictive. What are users going to do when they run out of money? Krokodil exists because it's cheap enough that once you're hooked, you'll take what you can get. Also factor in that many of the users often don't have a stable source of income and you can see that they'll resort to drastic means to obtain it, including those which involve a gun.

      I'm all for safe use of harmless drugs like marijuana if they can be controlled, but after watching this video (credit due to someone else's post in the comments), I think the economic impact of legitimizing the use of an addicting drug like heroin would be severe, if not fatal.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    110. Re:Gross, but... by bitt3n · · Score: 4, Funny

      I did put a fair number of rats through opioid withdrawal

      were any of them able to stay clean?

    111. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice backpedal.

    112. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      And most of us end up giving it away, sharing, or taking a loss. Profit? Nope.

      Now joy on the other hand...

    113. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody can't toss some yeast in a bucket of sugary liquid!? That's all you have to do to make alcohol, and it doesn't involve paying taxes.

    114. Re:Gross, but... by qwak23 · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure anybody can produce alcohol without interfacing with a middle man or paying taxes.

    115. Re:Gross, but... by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now joy on the other hand...

      Selling joy's only legal in Nevada.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    116. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to, you know, the highly specialized growing of the alcohol plant (sugar beet, cane, potatoes,)?

    117. Re:Gross, but... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      No, you're a moron. People die from heroin abuse routinely - mostly via overdose as you admit yourself in another reply. (Before going on to add a bunch of other codswallop about how such a powerful drug is as safe as daises.)

    118. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      Take away the assumption of Marinal vs Home Grown and you'd be right.

      Back to alcohol though, I would just advise to find better Homebrewers. We are pretty common now. Three words will help out your shitty homebrew analogy friend, should he exist:

      Homebrewtalk forums and Star-San.

      If these people are falling apart because of shitty methods, then if they just have to fucking have the desomorphine, then better the tools and methods. I don't condone a MAKErs movement for desomorphine, but I don't see zombies as the better option.

      Your analogy to bathtub gin is spot on, then. Only the people who don't know someone skilled in the art and tools of making desomorphine the correct way will become zombies.

      So that is the answer then, as much as I would never do it. Someone create a Russian/Serbian forum that has the correct methods/recipes that people iterate on, with a store link to the correct tools and ingredients. The deso fools with shitty methods will die off in three years, (given the occasional bathtub deso maker who kills himself, friends and customers), and those people who read the forums and buy from the store will end up managing like a GP with an Oxy habit.

      I'll state it again, that's very far from an ideal world, but in this one we have zombies. Mix in bath salts like someone will soon, and you get the rage virus brought to life.

      And then everybody will have to live life a little faster on the run.

    119. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And anyone can take 2 hours, boil some water, add grains, hops...add yeast and let it sit for 2 weeks, bottle and let sit for 10 days and you can have 5-11% abv beer.

    120. Re:Gross, but... by kermidge · · Score: 2

      The rational human in me agrees. I've long argued for the legalization of most recreational drugs. Caveat is combined with good education and better recovery/rehab/training/counseling. Main rule would be "do not operate under the influence" be it vehicle or in the workplace of power machinery.

      Intervention gets interesting. Do we intervene when someone seems bent on self-destruction to the point of death or decides while "drug addled" to commit suicide? So we sober them up. What if they still decide to die? I think we have to allow that choice. Making suicide a crime bespeaks a jealous god.

    121. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Various reasons. First and foremost, of course, financial ones. Manufacturers of legal drugs are of course not interested in sharing their market. And here you have three very powerful lobbies against you: Alcohol, Tobacco and (no, not Firearms) Pharma. The first two obviously have no interest in you having access to cheap and easy replacements for their drugs, especially ones you can produce far more easily than you could produce your own tobacco or alcohol. Pharma's spiel here is even more insidious.

      Their big problem is that, especially during the 50s and 60s, a lot of very potent and very useful psychotropics have been discovered. Actually, the "best" drugs have been designed and manufactured then. The stuff that could literally save lots of people today from their psychological problems, from anxiety to depression. And while we might think that it's awesome that these drugs are "perfect", they have a fatal flaw from the point of view of a pharma corp: Their patent expired.

      Now, how can you compete with a "perfect" drug? How could you market something that is inferior but patentable against something that is better but could be made by anyone. Hell, could be made with trivially available equipment to the average amateur chemist? Answer: You cannot. Without the aid of the law, that is.

      There are quite a few very potent and very useful SSRAs, SNRAs and other releasing agents out there that are, from a health point of view, at least as safe as many of the contemporary SSRIs and SNRIs while also having the advantage of actually doing something for the patient... but they're invariable Schedule I/Class A.

      You can actually check for yourself, simply follow the timing of drug law changes and patent expiration. It's quite ... interesting.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    122. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I guess "nobody" is a bit too much of an absolute, just like with any drug out there, there is a potential for abuse and a potential to cause self harm and even harm to others, but if you consider the various crime and health issues associated with the illegality of drugs, I dare say with some faith that fewer people would die as a result of drugs. Just subtract crime (murder, manslaughter, bodily harm) associated with acquisition, turf wars amongst warring dealer groups and health issues associated with inferior sanitary situation and quality of product and I'm pretty sure you'll end up with a lot fewer people hurt or dead.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    123. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Needles are illegal?

      What kind of fucked up country makes sterile needles illegal?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    124. Re:Gross, but... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Heroin withdrawal is not fatal. Alcohol, benzodiazepines, and barbiturates are the three drug classes with life threatening withdrawal syndromes. Heroin withdrawal is still extraordinarily unpleasant, but it's not deadly.

      Benzos? Why, he asked seriously? Suicide risk or seizures? Knowing lots of people on long-term benzos, that's kind of alarming, to say the least, that they're in your top three for withdr^B^B^B^B^B^B discontinuation problems.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    125. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      Sugar beet wine tastes like vermouth, if anyone is wondering. Haven't made a potato wine yet.

      Curious now, thanks!

    126. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      Possibly, sympathizing with bad behavior just reinforces it.

      Legislating ideals of morality against real life humans doesn't seem to be working either.

      Evidence = real life walking dead (while their moving bits still move that is)

    127. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although it was initially suspected that she died of alcohol withdrawal, the autopsy showed otherwise.

      Amy Winehouse died of overdose. A very typical overdose, actually. Alcoholics get used to drinking a certain amount. Their bodies have built up a tolerance. Then they quit drinking and go through rehab. The tolerance goes away. The problem is that when they relapse, they often drink as much as they did at the height of their addiction. Without the tolerance they once had, this is often fatal.

    128. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...you mostly die of heroin through accidental or deliberate overdose...

      Fascinating. So you're telling me that an overdose might be intentional or unintentional? I suppose overdoses tend to affect people who are either male or female, and may be associated with people who are or aren't breathing?

    129. Re:Gross, but... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 0

      But... I just brewed 5 gallons of hooch mead inside of a month. Drinking 3 glasses of the stuff is better than Nyquil, and way tastier.

      Alcohol production is stupid easy. Sugars + yeast + sanitized brewing vessel + time = get 'er drunk.

      I assume that on your list of motivations for doing this -- a list that probably includes but is not limited to, fun, a sense of accomplishment, curiosity, a feeling of independence, pride -- avoiding the taxes levied on Thunderbird is way, way down there, right?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    130. Re:Gross, but... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      And anyone can take 2 hours, boil some water, add grains, hops...add yeast and let it sit for 2 weeks, bottle and let sit for 10 days and you can have 5-11% abv beer.

      If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say: "I'm gonna get soooo drunk three and a half weeks from now . . . I'd be broke.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    131. Re:Gross, but... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Taxi Driver?

      Jodi Foster. 13. Nicely done.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    132. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      And those effects don't even last as long as those from Krokodil!

    133. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      That's pretty far out on a limb to go, but sure. It could happen.

    134. Re:Gross, but... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Fairly easy, the difference between alcohol and marijuana is that anybody can grow the plant without having middle man or paying taxes, and that cant be allowed.

      Trust me, anybody can brew a batch of alcohol without a middle man or paying taxes also. They even do it in prisons.

    135. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Funny

      They didn't have a choice either way.

    136. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Alcohol, benzos, and barbiturates all potentiate the GABAergic systems of the brain - the inhibitory pathways. Over time, the brain becomes accustomed to their presence and more or less compensates - this is why chronic alcoholics can tolerate blood alcohol levels that would be immediately fatal to most people, and how some people can actually function while taking Xanax (as opposed to having ten-hour chunks of their life simply forgotten).

      However, if you abruptly discontinue these drugs when they are being regularly consumed at high doses, the resulting hyperactivity of the brain and nervous system can prove fatal - if you'd like a nice, detailed view, look up delirium tremens.

    137. Re: Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you overall in that most heroin overdoses are due to unexpected or unknown variances in potency of the drug, but I do have to disagree on a few of your points.

      Now I am not a professional involved in any field that would know these kind of statistics, but I am a former heroin addict. this isn't something I am proud of, but it does at least give me some first-hand, although admittedly anecdotal, experience and evidence.

      When I first got addicted and was doing heroin, it was in a large (multi-million person population) city in the western half of the US, pretty close to the Mexican border. So as you or maybe someone else said, the dope in this city was of the black tar variety. And it was, in fact, black in color and while not always sticky as tar, it was definitely usually at least somewhat sticky and always solid, that is to say not powder in any way.

      I lived there for about 6 months before moving back east. The biggest city I lived in then was around 500k proper, and about 1m including the immediate suburbs. I say this to point out that while not a huge city, certainly big enough to have a fairly substantial drug culture and accompanying supply. In other words, heroin was not hard to come by.

      But my experience with the preferred varieties back east was the opposite of what you were saying. The powdered dope was consistently much weaker than the black tar out west, and significantly so. It was at best half the strength for the same weight amount, and more often it was only a third or even just a quarter of the strength. This was my experience over the course of about 4 months, and then also repeated in 2 other cities in the east as well. Now granted this was not in the northeast area of New Jersey, New York or Baltimore where there is a general reputation of high quality heroin, presumably because it is closer to the source (ports), much the same as the black tar I had was fairly potent given the proximity tothe Mexican sources out there.

      But I say all this to basically agree with you in general about the main cause of overdoses, but to add that it is actually even more of an issue than you stated. Even among the regular heroin users, you can not even trust or count on a general rule of thumb such as "tar is always much weaker, use 2-3x more" (or something like that) to give you some kind of idea of what a safe dose is for yourself.

      In fact I even had a fellow addict from back east visit me out west one week (misery does love company, after all!) who was operating on the same assumption you had voiced, that tar was much weaker, on the order of a half to third less. I tried to tell him otherwise and he listened somewhat, but still ended up doing quite a bit more than what I told him was a strong dose. He did not die, but he came much closer than I was comfortable with given that he was in my apartment.

      So yes, the wild variance in strength is I would say probably the number one contributor to heroin overdoses, and uniformity and purity control would drastically lower those unfortunate statistics. In fact, there is one European country that has a program that does that to a certain degree. They have a program somewhat like methadone replacement treatment in the US, but for the worst off of addicts, they actually supply them with clean, pharmaceutical heroin. They go every day, are given clean equipment and a safe, medical setting to get their fix, and if I remember correctly, I think the nurses may even administer the shot for them. The public health department in this country said that even these addicts with heavy habits and horrible life conditions before they entered the program are able to maintain relatively stable, normal lives now, including working and contributing positively to society once all the illegal and dangerous activities that are normally part of the addict lifestyle were removed. I believe the country is Switzerland, but I could be wrong. I watched a program aboutit on National Geographic i believe, but I may have the channel wrong. but my poi

    138. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      Yeah. So I see this is still an information and tools problem. Your method for an all grain brew is off by quite a few hours and most likely you just made bottle bombs. That 2 week wait might save you from the bottle bombs, but I still ain't going near those damn things until I chuck a few quarters at them from across the room with safety glasses on. I'll gladly watch you open one up though to see it self empty!

      Now I understand how Krokodil is made and why. Not enough people who are passionate/artistic about their desomorphine and its quality like homebrewers are with their brews.

    139. Re:Gross, but... by tibman · · Score: 1

      Legal medicinal whiskey, lol. Funny how we keep running into that kind of "loophole".

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    140. Re:Gross, but... by tibman · · Score: 1

      If one of the ingredients was scarce to find commercially but highly concentrated in the human body.. i could see it : )

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    141. Re:Gross, but... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      In Vancouver there is a safe injection site, just celebrated their 10th anniversary. Supplies clean needles, a safe spot to shoot up with nurses available. While there has been quite a few overdoses (484 out of 276178 visits) there hasn't been any deaths due to the availability of medical attention and it has also cut way down on communicable disease due to clean needles. The addicts love it as it removes most of the fatal risks involved in addiction.
      The Conservative federal government tried their hardest to close it and only failed because the Supreme court said it violated the rights of addicts to remove something that made their lives much safer (section 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.). The government then made regulations that would ensure another such clinic will never open.
      This attitude that addicts should die because they're doing bad stuff is equivalent to murder in the same way that not throwing that rope at your feet to the drowning person because you don't like them is murder. Perhaps manslaughter would be more legally accurate.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insite

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    142. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      I don't even want to know what kind of swill people drank during the prohibition.

      Being a fervent Homebrewer, I did: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html

      "Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people."

      http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3383

      "Prohibition did briefly pay some public health dividends. The death rate from alcoholism was cut by 80 percent by 1921 from pre-war levels, while alcohol-related crime dropped markedly. Nevertheless, seven years after Prohibition went into effect, the total deaths from adulterated liquor reached approximately 50,000, and there were many more cases of blindness and paralysis. According to one story, a potential buyer who sent a liquor sample to a laboratory for analysis was shocked when a chemist replied: "Your horse has diabetes." "

      "Even today, debate about the impact of Prohibition rages. Critics argue that the amendment failed to eliminate drinking, made drinking more popular among the young, spawned organized crime and disrespect for the law, encouraged solitary drinking, and led beer drinkers to hard liquor and cocktails. One wit joked that "Prohibition succeeded in replacing good beer with bad gin." The lesson these critics derive: it is counterproductive to try to legislate morality. "

      So in regards to Krokodil:
            freely available precursors that have legitimate uses
      + clampdown on information to iterate the impurities/efficiencies out of methods and tools
      + belief that addiction is lack of morality and willpower
      = actual, not a joke, they were fiction and now they are here "ZOMBIES" (minus the "crossed over the actual deadline" of the fictional version.)

      Morality or Zombies, Morality or Zombies..... Hmmmmm. What's that Senator Cruz? You said you enjoyed that show on AMC? Well shut things down and get up there and talk it out, son!!!

    143. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Street heroin stength also varies, wildly, which makes dosage control much more problematic.

    144. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but no.

      The city I live in has a recent (1-2 year) epidemic of heroin users crashing their cars into shit and ODing in mall parking lots and it has absolutely nothing to do with going from black to white, and everything to do with the supply becoming suddenly available and prices dropping so people can afford to do more and more.

    145. Re:Gross, but... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      If Paracetamol came in 20% to 80% purity and you had no way of knowing besides testing the number of people dieing of Paracetamol overdosing would go way up.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    146. Re:Gross, but... by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gee, you think? It appears that American society has collectively learned nothing from the Prohibition days.

      Rather than trying to understand why people use drugs or doing something to help people, society at large just likes to judge and label them "losers". For a supposedly "Christian" nation this is pretty f'ing pathetic.

      I live in Chicago and have seen what happens to people when they can't get access to treatment or when they decide to take a trip to the 'hood for their fix. Most of the addicts I have known have wanted to quit, but the help's not there for them in many cases. One of my ex-girlfriends died from an overdose a few years ago. Thankfully some of the other people I knew were able to get clean after many years of trying.

      We should be pursuing harm reduction strategies, but again, these are just "losers", so it's good if they die. Right?

    147. Re:Gross, but... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      There was a famous study on rats which were given access to all the morphine (the researchers couldn't get heroin) they wanted. Two groups, one in a really nice cage with lots of toys and no overcrowding and one in a horrible overcrowded cage with nothing to do. The rats in the first cage hardly ever took the morphine and usually took it in a party attitude whereas in the overcrowded horrible cage the majority of rats quickly became addicted.
      The Russian city is probably a really horrible place to live.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    148. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      +1 thanks.

    149. Re:Gross, but... by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      It's not just opiates. There are plenty of classes of drugs where ignorant physicians prescribe inappropriately and get people addicted or harmed. Then the doctor blames the patient for the problem he created, labels them "junkie", refuses to see them or help with a taper which then pretty much forces them to seek out the black market.

      Read up on what happened to the people who got hooked on Paxil before the physicians knew it was addictive. Doctors actually told people their withdrawal symptoms were due to mental illness and kept on prescribing. Or read some stories of people who were prescribed benzodiazepines incorrectly and lost years of their memories.

    150. Re:Gross, but... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Around here (west coast of Canada) it is almost always a batch of unusually pure heroin that causes a flurry of overdose deaths. Best so far has been making sure that people injecting illegal drugs do it around trained medical personal. Insite ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insite ) has had close to 500 overdoses and zero deaths and as a bonus by supplying clean needles has cut down communicable disease.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    151. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the Usenet days someone had a disagreement with either Larry Wall or Randall Schwartz, and derisively asked him "Do you even know anything about Perl?"

    152. Re:Gross, but... by dryeo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or who funded the anti-hemp movement (lots of cotton farmers).

      Actually one particular media mogul by the name of Hearst who had heavily invested in pulp paper combined with parts of government who had gained much power during prohibition and wanted to keep it after prohibition was repealed.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    153. Re:Gross, but... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Heroin is dirt cheap to produce. If an addict can support his habit easily then most of the problems with addiction go away.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    154. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      Apologies for the out of nowhere Cruz joke. Tuesday's possible train wreck has my inner political sportscaster drunk and mouthing off to random people in the bleachers on the way to his seat. Please disregard.

    155. Re:Gross, but... by NoZart · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the real difference between these drugs could be?

      I always thought alcohol gets a free pass because back in the days wine and beer was made by christian monks. And what comes from God is ok, so to speak.

    156. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he's educated?

    157. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      They are "illegal" because they could be used to safely administer an unauthorized chemical to a willing recipient. Welcome to the USA, The most free nation on the planet. Except for all the others.

    158. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      OD is easy when the drug is unregulated and dosage varies wildly between doses. Legalizing it fixes all that.

      Before going on to add a bunch of other codswallop about how such a powerful drug is as safe as daises.)

      People OD on caffeine. Caffeine was picked for drinks because it was the closest drug to cocaine that was legal. "Powerful" has no medical definition. It's a scare word used by those who don't know what they are talking about. Alcohol is often considered a "strong" drug for its physical and psychological effects, but a dose of pure caffeine many times smaller than a "regular" dose of alcohol would result in death. But, though deadly, it isn't "common" to OD. The effects are known and predictable, and the dosing is designed to make ODs hard, though they do still happen. Regardless of how "powerful" a drug is, it isn't hard to do that.

    159. Re:Gross, but... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Seems to be a somewhat self-limiting problem. Users will die off fairly rapidly.

      Which makes you wonder who gains from selling this product.

      Certainly not drug dealers as they lose their market so quickly.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    160. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES! Prison is not so bad, you can make sangria in the terlet. Of course, it's shank or be shanked.

    161. Re: Gross, but... by Nocturna81 · · Score: 1

      I still don't get one thing: if it's legal there's still the problem of an addict getting enough money to fuel their raging addiction. I a lot of the stories I hear about addicts it's usually that that drives them to crime and prostitution. I'm all for legalising drugs but I think legalising drugs like these would result in more crimes being committed to get the now legal stuff. Also heroin is one of those drugs where it's way to easy to develop a crippling addiction unlike say marihuana. IMHO there's more to it being illegal then the usual rhetoric.

    162. Re:Gross, but... by JackDW · · Score: 1

      Gladly: More crime. Poorer grades in school. Higher unemployment, lower employability. General decline in public health and living standards. The emergence of neighborhoods where nobody would choose to live. Large numbers of cases of child neglect handled by the police and social workers.

      Not good things. But these are the results of non-enforcement of drug laws. If you look for the evidence you will find it, and if you really want specific examples of places to look, then I can tell you about those. Really, science is not on your side here.

      --
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    163. Re:Gross, but... by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Tracy Lords made a few films when she was 17 IIRC.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    164. Re:Gross, but... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      If you call 2-3 years of burglaries, copper stealing and begging; rapid.
      It seems like an unusually long time to tolerate them.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    165. Re:Gross, but... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Little late to the theater there Marc. This is brought to you by the same government that approved spraying marijuana w/ paraquat.
      No surprises here. Yes, many junkies would die regardless of legality. The urge to bump it up to be as good as last time comes as surely as tolerance raises. There is a ceiling.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    166. Re:Gross, but... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Don't forget "air " withdrawl. Test subjects passed fairly quickly when deprived of this chemical mixture.....

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    167. Re:Gross, but... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Seems like there was a drug drop from a plane in the 70s that resulted in a broken neck fatality from a bale landing on a chump in Texas. Maybe Oklahoma.
      I always pictured some moron running in circles with his arms out shouting " I got it, I got it, MINE! " THUMP!!!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    168. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was probably only an overzealous law enforcement officer. Hardly a loss for society.

    169. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Prostitution is legal in Nevada?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    170. Re:Gross, but... by Entropius · · Score: 1

      You would, though -- it's an opiate, and one strong opiate is pretty close to the same as another.

      I remember when Krokodil first became a thing in Eastern Europe; I read an article with an interview with an addict who said "I'd do anything to get some nice clean heroin, but since I can't, it's this stuff..."

    171. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ok, but I think you'll agree that the main reason for your home brew booze being on par with "commercial" production is that you're able to communicate freely with other hobby brewers and enthusiasts who might have more insight in the matter than you had at the beginning (maybe because they themselves learned it, legally, as part of their trade or education). Information that can be spread legally (which should be the norm, btw) can only lead to a greater good in the end.

      Imagine you could not buy certain quality ingredients (because they're deemed "precursors" to your "drugs") or certain machinery or tools (because they are deemed "manufacturing aids" for your "drugs"). Imagine you could not freely tell others who want to join the group of brewers what you learned and how they can improve their product. You'll end up with very a very bad product, produced from impure and unsuitable raw materials with a far from optimal production method.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    172. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      "But ... but ... that's medicine!"
      "Ok, tell us for what illness so we can get sick right"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    173. Re:Gross, but... by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Because opiate addiction causes a lot of harm, and people have always fallen for the fallacy that the best way to decrease the harm associated with something is to ban it.

    174. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Actually, alcohol is responsible for about 100,000 deaths a year in the U.S., but cigarettes are responsible for about 400,000."

      Even if those easily questioned statistics are ttue it doesn't change the fact that alcohol is by far the worst drug. Alcohol destroys many lives and tears apart families without killing anyone. Many children experience severe psychological trauma without ever picking up a drink. Nobody ever woke up in a jail cell with no recollection of having killed someone after smoking a cigarette. These same things cannot be said about nicotine.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    175. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      In certain parts of it, yes. You must not be from the United States. Google the Bunny Ranch.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    176. Re: Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      The cost will be much less, because the black market makes for much higher cost. People can go to jail for distributing it for a long time, so the black marketers charge a huge markup. There is a reason why you don't hear a lot of stories about people breaking into homes to pay for their alcohol addiction, even though you can die from alcohol withdrawal but not heroin withdrawal. You don't need to spend hundreds of dollars a day to feed it. The same would be true if the other drugs were legalized. Also, the price could then be regulated. HTH.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    177. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sweeping conclusions only make sense if you had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that having these drugs be illegal doesn't decrease consumption of those drugs in any way. Clearly you haven't, so right there is a perfectly good argument for a reasonable person to believe that these drugs should be illegal. Or perhaps they should be illegal until you can demonstrate that you're an addict, at which point you can legally buy it very cheaply in quantities for personal use - the drug dealers then will have no repeat customers, tanking the business model, and the addicts won't have quite so horrible lives and won't need to inflict crime on the rest of us. It's a win for everyone but the dealers. Throw in a standing offer of rehab for the addicts and you're good to go.

    178. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lethal dose for Paracetamol is only about 3x of that "effective dose". One of the reasons you can accidentally kill yourself with it if you do not follow the instructions carefully. Yet most people never have a problem.

      I often find that 1 pill of paracetamol is effective for me, even though the upper allowed limit is 2. You seem to be stating that if I accidentally took 3 paracetamol pills, then I'd be dead. I know for a fact that that isn't true, since I was asked to take a much larger dose of paracetamol right before surgery once and so far I'm still alive. As I understand it, the point is that paracetamol increases the effectiveness of other analgesics, and it's less dangerous than those other analgesics, so no, they didn't do surgery with JUST paracetamol :)

    179. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      Great point! The world is full of people who would do heroin in a heartbeat, but don't do it because it is illegal, I'm assuming that is your reason for not smoking crack today, right? (I'm operating on the possibly specious assumption you didn't smoke crack before you posted)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    180. Re:Gross, but... by hankwang · · Score: 1

      You seem to be stating that if I accidentally took 3 paracetamol pills,

      See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol_toxicity . Short version: maximum recommended intake is 3 grams per 24 hours; a single dose of 10 g can be fatal, as are a few days in a row at 10 g per day spread out over multiple smaller doses.

    181. Re:Gross, but... by Festering+Leper · · Score: 1

      Actually it can be. In opiod withdrawal the user goes through a phase where their blood pressure rises to dangerous levels. Heart attacks do happen, and can be fatal. Longterm IV drug users often have circulatory system issues caused by their drug use (impurities).

      --
      if you want people to think you know what you are talking about, just put ".com" at the end of everything you say.com
    182. Re: Gross, but... by Optali · · Score: 1

      Heroin is a very bad example as the population of users are now resticted to an elite able to pay the price of good stuff... Here in Europe it's almost unheard off, and from what I konw about the states there haven 't been too many deads in the latter decade or even longer.
      And if any he/she would surely have died even of the drug was legal as there is no point in altering the stuff being it such a niche market.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    183. Re:Gross, but... by doccus · · Score: 1

      Not everybody that uses benzos develops noticeable withdrawals.. unlike opioids, which has a component of duration involved, but is almost entirely dose dependant as to the likelihood of physical withdrawals , benzo withdrawal becomes more severe as the length of time on them increases. After a year, for instance, life threaatening withdrawawal can easily occur, especially if one is coming off the long half life (persistence on the body) ones. Complicating matters is that diazepam, for instance, breaks down into doxens of , also active, metabolites, a good half dozen of which are *also* marketed as tranks.. No kidding.. Coming off of that is like coming off six different prescriptions at the same time! And.. the stress on the body especially the CVS, is astonishingly severe, and the acute phase of withdrawal, (which is the worst part where fatalities are most likely to occur) can last, if untreated, over 30 days. If treated only to the extent needed to prevent the likelihood of death, this phase can last as long as 90 days, with BP as high as 230 over 160. Awful... And then theres the extended withdrawal where one can suffer nervous conditions, moderate visual and sensory disturbances. It is a horrible withdrawal indeed. Now.. compare this to opioid withdrawal with severe deep bone, spasms, pain chills and fever, for 4 to 5 days, and uncomfortable pain for anoither week, and that's pretty much it (other tham Methadone where you can triple that all around).. Sure know which I'd choose. (None of the above...). PS I am not (anymore) a T.V. I only play one on my doctor... ;-)

    184. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep talking. Some are listening, some are not, just remember something. The only people who really care about this problem, are those directly affected by it or those that stand to make money on either side of the fence.
      Making drugs legal, or at least semi-legal would blunt the money issue somewhat.

    185. Re:Gross, but... by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, obviously you're American. In Germany we have alcoholic drinks that taste good

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
    186. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      You are spot on and I came to that conclusion above and below. The Krokodil problem is one of information and tools being restricted while the precursors are not. Absolutely agree.

      Prohibition and lack of realistic rehabilitation/interventions is the clear problem in this worst case scenario. One of the rare cases where it appears to be a better solution to have their low levels of heroin abuse from before than a walking dead problem.

      What kinds of opportunistic disease rise up out a segment of the population that is literally rotting to death? What happens when these shitty methods/recipes that are cheap hit the drug users of China and India? Nightmare scenarios.

    187. Re:Gross, but... by Cammi · · Score: 1

      This, this, and this. All idiots will die from this, elevating the average gene pool intelligence until all the idiots are dead .. I see no problem with this.

    188. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't made a potato wine yet.

      Has little to recommend it, at least, as far as making it with my local water supply is concerned, though like a lot of home brewing, part of the fun is in the discovery of things like this, YMMV.

      I've just started another batch of Cider after a 15 year break from home brewing, I'm out of practice as fermentation was stuck for a week, but has kicked into frothy life over the past couple of days.
      As a student I usually had at least a gallon of cider on the brew every couple of weeks (usually fermented with champagne yeast), as well as a 5 gallon batch of varying beers per month (usually stouts, made with yeast cultured from bottled guinness), and usually the odd gallon or two of vegetable wines (carrot and parsnip, mainly) on the go as well, alas, that was the other side of the country and on a particularly nice artesian water supply.

      Now, let's see about getting a shitload of overripe bananas and a damn good Tokay yeast for my next experiment..
       

    189. Re: Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heroin is a very bad example as the population of users are now resticted to an elite able to pay the price of good stuff..

      Oh boy, have I one word for you there.. Glasgow.
      Glasgow skagheads, an elite?
      There was an issue a while back that thanks to the falling demand (and the increased supply from Afghanistan), it wasn't worth the dealers' while cutting the stuff they were peddling, so the poor bastards were getting a fairly pure product and were OD'ing on it.

    190. Re:Gross, but... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, what's funny about heroine is that we actually have stats about when it was legal.

      it was a life saving drug in some countries and the UN made sure to stop that. now it did put things like "in my age we skiid to the school 20 kilometers each day even if we had flu" into new perspective since their flu meds were heroin...

      this crocodile epidemic shows just how fucking cheap a dose of the drug could be. I mean, fuck, why not give them free doses of the stuff without phospor and heavy metals?? the drug itself is addicting but it's super super super cheap to make per dose. the PROBLEM with making it at home from matchsticks and over the counter shit is that if made that way it has poisonous impurities. and lots of them. but the dose is still just 20 cents. were it made industrially I would bet the dose to be 3-4 cents - for pure stuff. that's fucking under 30 cents per day to satisfy their need for the drug for a day.

      of course, codeine doesn't exactly need to be over the counter in the first place and it's stupid that it is because it's a potent drug by itself(if you're trying to restrict sales of such drugs then it's stupid that it's over the counter... if it's stupid to restrict sales of drugs being a whole another matter).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    191. Re:Gross, but... by tanorangutan · · Score: 1

      I'm an anesthesiologist who majored in chemistry in undergrad. Back when I thought I wanted two doctorates, I did a couple of years of work with the opioid systems of the brain. (I didn't finish the PhD, but I did put a fair number of rats through opioid withdrawal.)

      Odd question, but had to make an account for this, any reason why you didn't continue with the PhD? from another md-contemplating-phd.

    192. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I don't get drunk for the buzz, it's for that great head I have the next day...

      I thought you had to get someone else drunk for that, and that it happens after the bar closes but before they sober up? :)

    193. Re:Gross, but... by romons · · Score: 1

      Right, just like crack!

      --
      Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
    194. Re:Gross, but... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      I had the opposite takeaway. This is the best proof you could ever ask for that "harsh penalties for drug use" just don't work.

      As another poster already mentioned, nobody would take this if the others weren't expensive... and they're expensive because they're illegal.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    195. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I realized that I wasn't cut out for lab work. The stuff you learned was interesting and I enjoyed grad school classes much more than med school classes, but I wasn't making good progress and I realized I was wasting everyone's time.

    196. Re:Gross, but... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Have fun sleeping tonight, murderer.

      it is not murder when someone willfully engages in the practice, knowing full well there are potentially fatal hazards involved (given the plethora of education on the subject, it's not like you can credibly claim a general ignorance here.) Long story short, while addiction is a tragedy, the participants are not exactly unwilling victims, either.

      So if you go to a street corner where drug dealers hang out, somebody shoots you and takes your money, that wasn't murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.

      So if you go to a bar looking for sex, a girl invites you home, kills you, and takes your wallet, she's not engaging in murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.

      No, those are all just plain murder. This is a bit more like somebody jumping off a cliff because you chased them to the edge with a flamethrower. While they killed themselves, we created the conditions knowing this was the expected outcome.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    197. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that info! I was wondering what a potato could add other than yeast food and flavorlessness, but I also thought that about the sugar beet wine that ended up tasting like a good vermouth. My thoughts were going to the colored potatoes and such, so you are right about the desire to experiment.

      Banana wines are one of my absolute favorites and is quickly becoming a standard in my pipeline. Tokay yeast is perfect for it. If you've been out of the scene for awhile you may be interested that people are getting away from using golden raisins for body and using welch's white grape juice concentrate instead. Even Jack Keller has largely moved away from golden rasins in the last few years to concentrate to take the obvious raisin character they add along with the body they impart.

      Good luck with the banana, you won't be disappointed!

    198. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      America has quickly become like Germany in regards to small brewers with incredible brews only available at a local scale. I agree that the joke will apply for a long time and will always be funny, but it is completely untrue now.

      And the company that bought all of our prohibition era mistake breweries resides on your own border. You can blame the Netherlands now, like I do.

      Now the parts of our culture that still buys the InBev crap because that is all they know about slightly beer flavored water, you are still correct. I still feel that shame for them too.

    199. Re: Gross, but... by Optali · · Score: 1

      Well, I am more informed about the USA and mainland Europe.
      It had been a real plague here back in the 80's and 90's with people falling dead between the parking cars in the very centre of Hamburg, Amsterdam or Zurich to such extend that Switzerland legalised drugs partially...

      but then it fell into disgrace as youth culture shifted towards party drugs like MDMA, which here in Holland is largely tolerated and even consumed by normal people when they go to dance events. A drug that may have somewhat similar effects to heroin is GHB, many users "cook" is at home. But it doesn't seem to be spreading too much, specially when you can get real MDMA easily or weed just around the corner in our traditional coffieshops.

      In the US there is an heroine culture among the artists, models and even (from what I read) executives but it is a niche market, surely lucrative as the production has been taken over by the South American Mafia but still niche while the popular drugs are methamfetamines, coke, crack and the now semi-legal weed.

      I guess that the shift in preferences is due to the fact that heroin is an isolating drug, where the user is isolated from the world while modern society is much more into socializing and there is where drugs as MDMA, speed and even weed or the common alcohol excel.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    200. Re: Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      This comment deserves much more than the 0 AC score it has now. Thanks for commenting and glad to hear you made it out.

    201. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      Having worked in a detox center, I can assure you that death from heroin overdose (too much heroin) is rare.
      This explains it better than I could:

      http://lifeprocessprogram.com/lp-blog/library/the-persistent-dangerous-myth-of-heroin-overdose/

      Lot of great AC posts sitting at 0 in this thread, mods.

      This whole conversation has been one of the better ones on Slashdot recently, in my own biased memory. My faith in Slashdot has been restored to go along with the aggravation everyone always has with /. Learned and realized quite a few new things just by paying attention to this thread. So I agree with the notion "Slashdot is in no way pretty, but just take a look at the other guys."

    202. Re:Gross, but... by hovelander · · Score: 1

      Exactly! It isn't like all the crack users died out and no more were made in nature. Hell, Nicole Kidman even married a former crack addict. The current Krokodil users won't just die in 3 years and the problem goes away. If it is cheaper and more addictive than heroin its use will become more widespread and destructive. Everyone has the "it won't happen to me" syndrome when they will first try it when they can't get their normal fix, then hop on the krokodil hamster wheel to rotten bits.

      To think it's a phase or scourge that will take care of that segment of drug addiction? Might as well pray to Jesus to give you a pretty pony in 3 years, cuz you aren't going to get either outcome you are seeking.

      This is the best drug deterrent and way to get rid of some losers? Bullshit. I can see a virulent and nasty antibiotic resistant TB coming out of this situation soon.

    203. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truth. Physically, heroin is one of the most benign substances known to mankind. I have seen heroin withdrawal, and it is very unpleasant for the user. But they don't die of it.

    204. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also true, and way more common than most would believe. I see several of these people in my practice who are so dependent that they are unable to tolerate any additional opiate load without sleeping forever. Some of them actually have chronic medical issues that they were medicated for in the first place. Pain is all that they have to look forward to.

    205. Re:Gross, but... by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      It has to be noted though, that if you decide to become a heroin addict, your life will be absolutely dominated by the graving for this substance, probably for the rest of your life.

      Actually, several studies in Europe have found that the vast majority of heroin addicts lose interest in the drug and quit using on their own within a decade.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    206. Re: Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! Finally a self fixing drug addiction. People that go this far will never do anything with their lives and will always be a burden.

    207. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Gladly: More crime. Poorer grades in school. Higher unemployment, lower employability. General decline in public health and living standards.The emergence of neighborhoods where nobody would choose to live. Large numbers of cases of child neglect handled by the police and social workers.

      Oddly, the US saw the proliferation of these problems *after* the regulation of drugs began.

      Not good things. But these are the results of non-enforcement of drug laws. If you look for the evidence you will find it, and if you really want specific examples of places to look, then I can tell you about those

      Yes, confirmation bias. You wish to see them, so if there are 1000 applicable locations and 10 follow this pattern, you'll see that as a confirmation of this occurring, when it's only 1% of the time it happens. Yes, if you really want to find it, you'll find a way. But I'd rather find the truth, than "proof" that your pet opinions are correct.

    208. Re:Gross, but... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well. if the doctor they have is responsible he will cut their doses when he is about to put them off from them(this phase can take _months_ so imagine when a junkie using them for self medication goes off 'em).

      even then it's more likely it's the stupid stuff they do when in withdrawal that gets them killed than the actual withdrawal...

      but as a good rule of thumb if you hear that someone is abusing benzos then it's very, very likely they'll end up in some fucked up situation or another in few months(just drinking while taking doctor ordered portions counts as abuse too).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    209. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They started using drugs with some knowledge that some people before them get addicted? So why didn't they get help before touching any drug?

    210. Re:Gross, but... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup - the only reason most of the over-the-counter remedies in your local drugstore are legal is tradition. If a Pharma company invented any of them today there is no way they'd even be allowed for use with a prescription, let alone stocked in 500-count bottles on shelves in the local Walmart.

      Granted, their downsides are much better understood than with many of the newer drugs. The fact that acetaminophen is so dangerous is actually half the reason it is formulated into so many pills. Can't have junkies getting high on codeine - better to have them dead instead...

    211. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, some of us unfortunates have to stay far away from weed. Found that out during an OSI briefing (now, you can be a certified sniffer, like a dog) so we could have "probable cause" to direct a room search. Everything was cool until my left arm went numb and my heart rate went bonkers. Hopefully, I won't catch cancer or glaucoma (knock on wood).

    212. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember when #4 Heroin showed up in San Francisco during the Vietnam period. The users didn't know it was USP grade 98% pure di-acetyl morphine and didn't know how to cut it. Talk about a terminal high.

    213. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I have to confess a small amount of evil laughing occurs whenever drug-related topics come up, because someone who doesn't know the subject always tries to argue with me.

    214. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with the banana, you won't be disappointed!

      Cheers!
      I should have also added that the last time I did brew anything from our old friend the potato, I also had access to a still..so I had a go at making my own vodka from the less than brilliant (but still approx 11% alcohol content) results.
      From the little I can recall, that was a fun night..(Student life, eh?)

      Out of interest, what yeast did you use for your sugar beet wine?

    215. Re:Gross, but... by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sorry for the joke. There are now some great beers to be had in the USA. Even the now ubiquitous Samuel Adams is a pretty good staple.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
    216. Re:Gross, but... by cavebison · · Score: 1

      > Seems to be a somewhat self-limiting problem. Users will die off fairly rapidly.

      That's a completely ridiculous thing to say. The users die off, but the *reasons why they started using* are still around, so there will always be more users.

    217. Re:Gross, but... by hankwang · · Score: 1

      If a Pharma company invented any of them today there is no way they'd even be allowed for use with a prescription, let alone stocked in 500-count bottles

      Here in Netherlands, they are not allowed to be sold in greater quantities than 20 pills, just to reduce the perception that they are harmless. The strange thing with paracetamol toxicity is that it would be trivial to add a harmless antidote against overdosing to the pills, but this isn't done despite the fact that paracetamol poisoning is the most common type overdose of pharmaceutical products.

    218. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a friend of someone who had a heroine overdose a few years ago, I can tell you that making it legal would not save lives.

      My friend who died of a heroine overdose did not die of impurities in the drug. He died because he took too much of it. I'm not sure how making it legal would have stopped him from doing that.

    219. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The cynic in me would say that this should take care of the overpopulation problem...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    220. Re:Gross, but... by Quila · · Score: 1

      Imagine if with alcohol you couldn't tell the difference in strength by taste, and people drank all they were going to drink to get drunk in one chug. Say you know chugging a bottle of 80 proof liquor would get you blitzed, but not dangerously so.

      Now imagine Alcohol were illegal, no labeling for strength. So you go to chug that 80 proof and find out on the way to the hospital that it was actually 180 proof. Worse, quality suffers. As in prohibition, you find that your booze has methanol in it, and you're now blind.

      Or we can just make it legal, regulated and standardized, with purity and dosage labeled and guaranteed.

    221. Re:Gross, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Most people who take too much of it do so because they don't know what a "safe" (or "regular" dose, if you object to the use of the word "safe") dosage is. Legal drugs have lots of dosage information on the dispenser (usually bottle).

    222. Re:Gross, but... by Xest · · Score: 1

      "If it were regulated and legal, this entire class of overdose deaths would be eliminated."

      Because no one has ever died from alcohol poisoning?

      Unfortunately contrary to your apparent belief, legalisation doesn't eliminate human stupidity. People will still be stupid enough to OD.

      It may decrease the problem, but it may also increase the problem. I don't know why so many people think legalisation is a magical cure. It may well improve things, that's a perfectly possible outcome, but it may also make things worse (just as we have major issues with alcohol abuse), the fact is we don't know, anyone pretending to know either way whether legalisation would improve or make things worse is talking shit.

      It's a big unknown and THAT is the problem with legalisation - no politician wants to risk being the guy that introduced a whole new set of problems so none will risk it. We need research that looks at the bigger picture and not just small facets (i.e. those that show a reduction in crime from removing the black market, or an increase in schizophrenia from some drugs). Until we can weigh up all the benefits and negatives it's going to be difficult to get any kind of change.

      It's not easy - it's like global warming, we can easily model and prove different sub-elements of the climate, but modelling the whole thing to prove with a high degree of certainty that man is to blame is fucking difficult and requires a LOT of resources.

      FWIW I think carefully regulated legalisation would probably be a net benefit, but I'm not even going to pretend that I know that with any degree of certainty, it's just gut feeling based on the pros and cons that I'm personally aware of.

    223. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      De gustibus non est disputandum - In matters of taste there is no dispute.

    224. Re:Gross, but... by hazah · · Score: 1

      They're not in it to create an awesome drug. They're into it because it's a quick buck off of desparate people. These aren't the same leagues at all.

    225. Re:Gross, but... by hazah · · Score: 1

      In both cases, you should have known better. It is as much the fault of the victim as it is of the perpetrator. Natural selection is the scientific term.

    226. Re:Gross, but... by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the DTs killed my grandfather. They are deadly.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    227. Re:Gross, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But then again, we know sarcasm when we see it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    228. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fewer? Lucky prohibition ended. If more people would have died from alcohol if it were still banned there'd only be Mormons and Muslims left in the US.

    229. Re:Gross, but... by causality · · Score: 1

      Maybe someday the US will make laws based on science and reality, as opposed to "morality"

      I'm not an atheist and I sincerely believe that one of the most immoral things we tolerate today is the effort to tell other people how they should live. That desire is the primary motive behind the War on (some) Drugs. What other people read, watch, think, believe, ingest, and generally anything (anything) consenting adults wish to do is absolutely none of my fucking business. Government has no case for its involvement unless a third party is victimized in some way.

      I believe your problem is with organized religion, not with the concept of God itself and certainly not with any kind of genuine spirituality as practiced by thinking individuals. Incidentally I also can't stand the people who must win a convert and cannot respect that you believe what you believe (or not) for your own reasons. It's again a desire to control and make others like oneself and it's just plain evil trying to masquerade as good.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    230. Re:Gross, but... by causality · · Score: 1

      Do you have any insights as to why they might have been made illegal in the first place?

      Because telling other people how they must live is an irresistable urge among the small-minded. All of the reasons boil down to that. Drugs are hardly unique in this sense.

      If the intention were to reduce harm as much as possible, prohibition is one of the least effective methods and all of the research shows this. But these are not people who are interested in facts, in measuring the effectiveness of their own solutions and no longer using methods that don't work. That would lead to conclusions that would interfere with pontificating to others about how they should live.

      "Live and let live" and the notion of "consenting adults" do not occur to the small-minded.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    231. Re:Gross, but... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      "Have fun sleeping tonight, murderer."

      Whoa, dude, how did you figure out I am the same person who drafted U.S. anti-drug laws and engineered their passage into law??? I thought my slashdot anonymity would prevent that realization!

    232. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The letal dose of heroin is 5x an "effective dose". I suppose some people who know what they're doing can avoid an overdose, but the gap between an effective dose and a lethal dose is a lot closer for heroin than for - well - every other illegal drug on this list

      I know people who can drink half a gallon of coke in a few minutes. Let's call that their "effective dose". Now, multiply that with 5, giving 2.5 gallons.

      Enough to kill them? I'm not sure, but it would definitely feel that way.

    233. Re:Gross, but... by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      And when the government poisoned the alcohol supply those that died "deserved it" (note, I'm not in favor of the attitude).

      IMHO pretty much all narcotics should be legal to use/buy with whatever resources possible.. you buy without a prescription, and/or abuse it.. and do harm/endanger someone else, then there is a criminal problem. Not before.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    234. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weird thing is that I've known about Krokodil for a few months now. People have already discussed it on 4chan, and I would imagine on Reddit as well. I am in Arizona. I'm trying to figure out how Krokodil made it here. Unless the two cases involved people who recently travelled to Russia and tried it, then chances are, they read about it, maybe on 4chan. If that was the case, surely they saw the photos or read a description of what happens after just the first use. Why did these two make the drug and take it? Curiosity maybe?

    235. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The libertarian in you would be wrong. There are a number of cheap highs someone can make using ordinary household goods. The availability of heroin or anything else would not deter someone from making meth or growing something else. This is why legalization of pot shouldn't make people want to move on to harder drugs. It's very much about preferences for highs and even curiosity. Given the cost of producing Krokodil and its characteristics, a certain demography will be attracted to it. They're not just looking for cheap highs, they're looking for extremely potent highs at near-zero cost.

    236. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for one, I can enjoy a few shots of scotch and be capable of functioning in a socially acceptable way without being a threat to myself and others. I can drink a bottle of merlot and be fine. Many American beers later, and I'm nothing more than an annoyance. You could probably say the same for marijuana, I wouldn't know. Only did pot once. But I can tell you positively that other drugs have horrible variances in their effects. It takes a lot of coke to settle me, but then it wouldn't take much more coke beyond that to make me violent.

    237. Re:Gross, but... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Many American beers later, and I'm nothing more than an annoyance."

      You seem to be of the mistaken impression that beer is required.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    238. Re:Gross, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The land of the free.

      Anything any man would want is illegal. Marrying young girls too.

      This is a woman's cuntry. So is anything america conqures.

  2. Natural selection by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I think the availability of this substance should be encouraged. If anyone is supremely dumb enough to inject this into themselves, our overall gene pool can only benefit as a result.

    1. Re:Natural selection by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ahh, the soft empathic voice of Slashdot.....

      TLDR; this is an incredible dumbass drug. They take codeine, which apparently is easier to get than heroin Russia, run it through some Mad Men style kitchen chemistry, don't really bother filtering it, don't have a clue about what they made then... wait for it... inject it. Bypassing every single organismal defense mechanism save for the few remaining T-cells that the user's bone marrow has scrounged up.

      Violence will ensue....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Slashdot. Filled stem to stern Dwight Schrutes of the world - posting vitriol on a saturday morning.

    3. Re:Natural selection by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny
      If you read the article, some of the images are rather horrific. That said, the best parts are some of the comments, like this one:

      Oh, sure, but if someone tries to climb Mt. Everest and ends up losing their fingers, toes and half their face to frostbite, it was an exhilarating human adventure, eh?

      Mt. Everest kills a higher percentage of its users than methamphetamine.

      Though, okay, I suppose injecting gasoline into your veins is a pretty bad idea.

      That guy should join a debate club because he would win after his opponents all fell over laughing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Natural selection by NettiWelho · · Score: 2

      I think the availability of this substance should be encouraged. If anyone is supremely dumb enough to inject this into themselves, our overall gene pool can only benefit as a result.

      There is a world of difference between not caring if you're alive 3 years down the road because you perceive your life not worth living and doing it just 'for fun'.

      Besides, it is not a 'flesh eating drug'. The problems are caused by the impurities because these amateur chemists have no idea what theyre doing.

      Furthermore, none of those people would be making it themselves if more safer alternatives were available.

    5. Re:Natural selection by ericloewe · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure the supremely stupid will ever be productive members of society. Stupid people don't just develop out of great kids, now do they?

    6. Re:Natural selection by GNious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're missing something ...

      Krokodil is NOT for those wanting to get high/stoned/whatever for cheaps.

      It is a drug for when everything else is just not cutting it anymore.
      It is a drug for when nothing in life really matter, besides the next fix.
      It is a drug for when you've accepted that you're going to die from drugs.

      Krokodil is the thing users turn to when everything else has been tried, when all there is left is the pain and the high and when you're beyond the regular kind of drug-addict-gone-fucked-up.

      "Dumb" has nothing, what-so-ever, to do with it.

    7. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should include it as well on cheap Double Sized McDonalds combos, two birds in one shot, maybe three depending on weight.

    8. Re:Natural selection by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I saw an independent Australian documentary on Krokodil in one of the southern Russian cities, like Novobirisk. The addicts (in theit teens or twenties) figured they had about a week to live, and cared about nothing, living in a garbage pile in an abandoned building. The film crew tried to observe a drug buy, but ended up being chased by someone who spotted them. It was a incredibly sad, terrifying film.

      For their part, Russian officials are claiming that the Taliban is shipping cheap drugs north across the steppes in an attempt to corrupt and destabilize their cities.

      I'm all for legalization of a lot of substances and ending the Violence Due To Illegalization, but this one is so over-the-top in terms of both addiction and toxicity that I don't know what a rational response could be.

      --
      John
    9. Re:Natural selection by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Sorry but any teens shooting codeine and gas into their veins? not gonna be worth anything to anybody but the prison industrial complex. i live on what is called "the meth highway" so I see this kind of shit all the time and even if they quit meth after only a few years? they still have lifelong mental and physical problems and usually end up on disability or homeless.

      So sorry anybody that is THIS hardcore when it comes to getting high? Not gonna be useful down the line.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:Natural selection by damaki · · Score: 1

      You know, drugs are not about being smart, these are about having a shot at it, feeling good, then getting addicted.
      But well, with an average 3 year life expectancy for Krokodil users, it's not going to be a problem for long...

      --
      Stupidity is the root of all evil.
    11. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the addicts are after are something that can satisfy their morphine (heroin is refined morphine basically) addiction, but at a lower cost. This insane blend supposedly does.

      As such, making safer alternatives available under controlled conditions for cheap prices would in essence undermine the market.

    12. Re:Natural selection by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm all for legalization of a lot of substances and ending the Violence Due To Illegalization, but this one is so over-the-top in terms of both addiction and toxicity that I don't know what a rational response could be

      Even if drugs were legalized, this one would still be illegal, much like adding melamine to children's food is illegal. Legalizing drugs doesn't mean we have to legalize everything.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing is, the western concept of teenager may be exasperating the issue.

      Kids that get to experience responsibility early rarely develop the "teenage" phase.

    14. Re:Natural selection by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      As a hypothetical, suppose there is a person, who, life rocked by tragedy and depression, turns to krokodil in his desperation. I intervene, manage to convince him to get checked into rehab and seek medical treatment, he recovers, becomes a productive member of society, has a family, spends weekends volunteering, takes care of his neighbors and friends, etc. Maybe he even gets some tech sector job and is directly or indirectly contributing to the state of human progress.

      How does this affect the 'stupid people should die' maxim? Have I done something morally wrong by saving this person, even if there are good effects? Would you consider this particular case a desirable result, but that the value of the outcome is outweighed by the desire for other 'dumb people' to die such that in general it is not worth trying to achieve? Or is this a sufficient counter-example to merit us being compassionate in all cases?

    15. Re:Natural selection by xaxa · · Score: 4, Informative

      I saw an independent Australian documentary on Krokodil in one of the southern Russian cities, like Novobirisk.

      Was it this: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/vice-news/siberia-krokodil-tears-full-length ? (Narrator is British, btw).

    16. Re:Natural selection by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with this drug isn't so much the drug as the incredibly low purity standards.

    17. Re:Natural selection by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      You know, drugs are not about being smart, these are about having a shot at it, feeling good, then getting addicted.

      You know? One would almost think that this little drug is a eugenicist's wet dream...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    18. Re:Natural selection by Garridan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obligatory: you don't know shit about the decision-making process of addicts. These aren't idiots fouling the gene pool. You're no smarter. Ignorant judgmental creeps like you should be culled from the gene pool -- we'd all be in a better if trivial levels of compassion were among "common sense".

      Treat addiction like the disease it is, and it goes away. Encouraging addicts to off themselves only puts money into the pockets of the crooked assholes who peddle these drugs, exacerbating the problem. This drains the resources of the host society, reduces the available talent pool for the arts and sciences, and guess who can't afford birth control: addicts.

      Self-righteous assholes like you are what got us to this place to begin with. May your ignorant worldview fuck off and die.

    19. Re:Natural selection by IAmR007 · · Score: 2

      I find that when discussing social issues, in general, people tend to assume everyone is rational. Many social problems wouldn't exist if people were always rational. However, you have to expect such failures when dealing with a large number of people. Just as in engineering, the goal should be for things to fail gracefully rather than catastrophically. There will always be people who take horrible drugs, and there isn't enough emphasis on the "fail gracefully" part: programs that will help them recover.

    20. Re:Natural selection by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      The Darwin Awards method of evolution, Brilliant!!!

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    21. Re:Natural selection by Belial6 · · Score: 0

      Insightful comment from an Anonymous Coward. Teenager is a paper demographic. Biologically, you are a child or an adult. Teenagers are just adults who have been told that they have no responsibilities and no rights. How can anyone expect that combination to produce responsible citizens?

    22. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It is a drug for when you've accepted that you're going to die from drugs."

            Maybe we should just terminate these people on the spot then. The dealers should get slow death during the half-time of whatever local sport is going on.

    23. Re:Natural selection by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

      I actually read through that discussion, and believe it or not, he has a decent point, though it wasn't immediately evident. He eventually explained what the purpose of the exercise was, as well as his own stances on the issues. And contrary to his initial, inflammatory remarks, he seems like he's actually a rather rational and coherent individual who simply wanted to illustrate a problem in the most direct way possible.

      For instance, he never suggested that the drug should be legalized or that climbing Everest should be outlawed (quite the opposite, in fact), though people assumed that was what he intended. Rather, his point was that we, as a society, have lost much of our capacity for evaluating risk, since the rhetoric we choose to apply to certain topics is blowing the risks involved out of proportion and blinding us to how dangerous they actually are. To demonstrate that, he made some blanket statements about climbing Everest using the sort of rhetoric that is typically reserved for describing dangerous behavior that is frowned upon, such as drug abuse. To say the least, the reaction he got was predictable: outrage, dismissal, the construction of straw men, and ad hominem attacks, rather than rational rebuttals to the facts and logic he was providing.

      His point wasn't that climbing Everest should be outlawed because it is too dangerous, nor that the drugs should be legalized because there are other things we allow that are more dangerous. He was simply asking people to think critically about how the way that we present risks and have been trained to think about certain topics has colored our perceptions. I actually thought he had a rather good point, and that he did a great job of demonstrating the problem by placing himself in a position where the other commenters would construct straw men to tear down while vilifying him as a horrible person.

      In truth, I actually thought it was something a lot of people here on Slashdot would appreciate, rather than something they'd laugh at, since we're supposed to value facts and truth over rhetoric and soundbites, though, at least taken out of context, I can see why it'd be seen as ridiculous. I actually started reading the discussion just because I wanted to see how ridiculous the raving lunatic would get, but then I found out that he was anything but what I had initially thought of him.

    24. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of a slow, self-induced anti-hospice (or suicide) then... anti-hospice in that the end is the same, an acceptance that one truly is fucked, but this is beyond even a cynical slo-mo death spiral. Kind of similar to end-stage alcoholism, then...

      Oh sweet jesus I hope my kids don't fall into this.

    25. Re:Natural selection by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      OK, you need to get your thinking cap on and look at this thing a little more critically. Maybe you agree with the ultimate point he was trying to make, but he did not support it, and his failure to support it was absolutely hilarious and entertaining.

      First he is posting a comment that sounds supportive of using certain drugs where the average user (in Russia) dies within three years. That's not a good place to pick a fight. This drug is clearly bad news (not in the least because it is made out of gasoline).
      Then he is comparing death rates on Everest and meth users. It's a poorly formed statistic because it's not even clear how he measures the death rate of meth users. Furthermore, it doesn't take into consideration the other harmful effects of meth.
      To reiterate, if you measure death rate in one way, the meth death rate will be somewhat lower than the death rate on Everest. If you measure it another way, it will be much higher.
      Finally he contradicts himself, saying that injecting gasoline is a bad idea (what happened to the exhilarating adventure??)

      I applaud the fellow, it's not easy to fit that much wrongness into three sentences, he is truly an artist.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re:Natural selection by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Oh, I fully agree that his initial few posts were inflammatory, unsupported, and largely not constructive. Sorry, I should have been clearer that I was referring to what he said as a whole. If you re-read the discussion, he did eventually support what he was saying with links to his sources, the basis for the statistics, etc., though clearly those weren't present up front.

      And I do agree that he had some mistakes in his comparisons (some rather severe, in fact, of which you cited the biggest issue I had, which was that he was comparing lifetime mortality rates for Everest against annual mortality rates for meth users, even though the nature of the activities would dictate that we should be comparing lifetime against lifetime), but that's attacking a part of what he said without recognizing what it means to the whole. The point he was making is that people stop thinking critically when they hear certain topics broached, and then he demonstrated that. He could have just as easily replaced "climbing Everest" with something we do on a daily basis that is risky but that we all find acceptable, and he'd be making the same point.

      Attacking him on that point would be missing the forest for the trees.

    27. Re:Natural selection by plover · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was it.

      --
      John
    28. Re:Natural selection by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Biologically, that's a load of crap. Unless by "adult" you mean "completed physical development" in which case everyone younger than mid twenties is a child. Teenagers certainly are.

      "Teenager" covers reasonably well the biological period known as adolescence. People in that stage aren't anything like adults, biologically, including their brain development. In terms of experience they're even more child like.

    29. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i live on what is called "the meth highway"

      And you still can't sell Windows 8 machines?

    30. Re:Natural selection by haruchai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Based on what's happened to people I know, especially to one close friend who was very gifted, I can tell you that anyone can lose their way or be forced off the path.
      In my opinion, those who possess rare mental or creative gifts seem to be much more susceptible.

      Horrifying as the images of Krokodil images are, it's really a testament to the destructive power of addiction.

      It's easy to theorize that this is just winnowing out the useless but that ignores so much history where talented and wealthy individuals have destroyed their lives through addiction.

      Regardless of how superior you believe yourself to be, these people need help and compassion; not to be marginalized as convenient practitioners of auto-eugenics.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    31. Re:Natural selection by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, the western concept of teenager may be exasperating the issue.

      Kids that get to experience responsibility early rarely develop the "teenage" phase.

      Your point (however valid) was lost in the howls of laughter precipitated by your most ingenuous substitution of a word that sounds vaguely similar to the one you were groping for. Thanks for the giggle! :)

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    32. Re:Natural selection by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Attacking him on that point would be missing the forest for the trees.

      Realistically speaking, I think it's important to realize the distinction between attacking someone and mocking someone. I was doing the latter.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    33. Re:Natural selection by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Fair point, and well taken. As I said, I initially read the discussion because I wanted to be entertained by the lunatic. I got something other than I expected out of it.

    34. Re:Natural selection by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I truly hope you got some good value out of it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    35. Re:Natural selection by george14215 · · Score: 1

      Legalization of drugs like heroin and morphine would allow the street value to plummet, thus eliminating the demand for Krokodil.

    36. Re:Natural selection by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      But suppose he becomes a brilliant scientist and invents a time machine, travels back to the early 20th century, grows a little mustache and kills six million Jews? My god, what kind of monster are you?

    37. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ultimate, most painful, kind of meaninglessness comes from not those who are weary of pain but those that are weary of pleasure. The deeper meaning of human connection transcends desperately trying to evoke another secretion in the brain. If you can't love someone for their own sake...

    38. Re:Natural selection by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I think the availability of this substance should be encouraged. If anyone is supremely dumb enough to inject this into themselves, our overall gene pool can only benefit as a result.

      Stupidity is not really a threat for the human race, but sociopathy - lack of empathy - is. Stupid people are unlikely to harm anyone besides themselves, and frankly, it doesn't take an Einstein to survive and even be productive in modern society. Someone needs to flip the burgers and haul garbage, after all. On the other hand, socipathy got us slavery, eugenics, Civil War, Word War 2, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Vietnam, 9/11, the War on Terror and the associated side wars, and various assorted genocides and conflicts around the globe.

      tl;dr a guy who kills himself is less of a burden on humanity than the guy who's cheering him on.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    39. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Vice documentary in question: http://youtu.be/JsUH8llvTZo

    40. Re:Natural selection by ultranova · · Score: 1

      That guy should join a debate club because he would win after his opponents all fell over laughing.

      Just out of curiosity, can you come up with an argument for why he's wrong - why endangering your life or health for a thrill is okay when doing so with extreme sports but not with drugs - without resorting to begging the question? Because an appeal to ridicule doesn't actually prove anything, and in any case classes of drugs such as psychedelics are often used for the supposed spiritual experience rather than mere thrill.

      Terms like "adrenalin junkie" exist for a reason.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    41. Re:Natural selection by icebike · · Score: 2

      Because there are standards for injected Gasoline?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    42. Re:Natural selection by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      Sorry but any teens shooting codeine and gas into their veins? not gonna be worth anything to anybody but the prison industrial complex.

      As far as I can tell, this seems to be favoured by people who are *already* deep into heroin/opiate addiction and don't care about anything but a cheap hit.

      So even the brain-dead teenager probably wouldn't start out on this stuff- the depressing thing is that they'll quite possibly end on this drug.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    43. Re:Natural selection by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I myself never inject anything less than 97 octane.

    44. Re:Natural selection by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oh no, it's not just drugs, it's a specific drug which is especially known to be bad. If you're taking this drug you're an idiot, because of how bad it is.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    45. Re:Natural selection by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      No idiocy, and wanting to do good got us those.

      Hitler was not a psychopath/sociopath, he was a deluded, arguably stupid, patriotic person who wanted to improve the world.
      And I could argue every one on that list is attributed to similar peoples/groups.

      Racial hate is not propagated because of sociopathy, indeed I would say that sociopathy would be resistant against it. It is propagated on ignorance and stupidity.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    46. Re:Natural selection by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      As long as you don't have any unnecessary knocking, you can inject yourself with lower octanes. I prefer 85 octane but I'm a mile high so can use lower octane without worrying about knocking.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    47. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell them it's the new and improved meth! Microsoft will approve, I'm sure.

    48. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few molecules wouldn't hurt.

    49. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should just terminate these people on the spot then.

      If you're being serious, then fuck you. If you're not being serious, then fuck you. In short: Fuck you.

      You, and the other few but loud and obnoxious piles of dung posing as human beings, are a disgrace for the rest of humanity, making the world worse with every breath you take.

    50. Re:Natural selection by rve · · Score: 1

      ... (not in the least because it is made out of gasoline). ... injecting gasoline ...
       

      No, it's made out of codeine from over the counter cough medicine. The synthesis path is on the wikipedia page for desomorphine.

    51. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to theorize that this is just winnowing out the useless but that ignores so much history where talented and wealthy individuals have destroyed their lives through addiction.

      All wheels are round, therefore anything round must be a wheel.

      Just because some people who have contributed to society turned to drugs does not mean all drug users have something to contribute to society. Sometimes scumbag drug addicts are just scumbag drug addicts. 7 billion people in the world is plenty, if a few want to flesh rot themselves into an early grave by getting high on this shit, that's just Darwinism, sorry.

    52. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Octane rating?

    53. Re:Natural selection by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

      I think you're inhuman and should never be allowed to make a decision for someone else again.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    54. Re:Natural selection by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I saw a monk of all people that worked with junkies and the word he said frankly should be enshrined and used by ALL that want to help junkies: "Drug treatment doesn't work because there is nearly always ONE thing, one horror in their past that they can not face. Help them get over the one thing? You can cure them of their addiction".

      He showed two of his cases to illustrate what he was talking about, with one her mom was actually making CP with her and her scumbbag BF, once she got the girl to confront her mom and have her arrested? She was able to clean up easily. In the other a guy had been in a car wreck at 19, he had been trapped with the body of his dead sister pinned against him for four hours. Even though it was a drunk driver that caused the accident it was one of those "one child is golden, the other is unwanted" with his family who disowned him because the golden child died in his car, once he took the guy across the country to vent his anger at his parents graves? He was able to easily get clean. Both hold down jobs now and are completely clean and sober.

      Living on the meth highway that is what all these folks, which the monk called "broken people" seem to have in common, there is a single trauma that they just can't face and which eats at them until they take anything they can to forget. Look at Jake The Snake Roberts, his sister was coming to visit for a funeral and he couldn't take off to go get her as he had a match...she disappeared and hasn't been seen since. the fact that he didn't just go get her eats at him like a cancer, he hasn't been clean and sober more than a few weeks since the tragedy.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    55. Re:Natural selection by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen any evidence that large numbers of people are irrational (in the game theory sense). Generally it just turns out that we're wrong about what they value and how they value it.

      I agree, however, that we need a harm reduction approach. These things work every single damned time they're tried, but people just ignore them. Speaking of "irrational", I think people honestly prefer the psychological boost of perceived superiority over saving lives.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    56. Re:Natural selection by s2v16 · · Score: 1

      +6 to you, sir.

      I was at a loss when I saw the OP's comment at +5 Funny, because I couldn't understand why the ridicule was valid. Having now read the rest of your discussion with him and his replies to other posts, I'm convinced it was not, even though a couple of moderators went along with it.

      Sadder still, I also read the original comment on the article and the discussion that follows it, and for the most part it seems that posters there were actually less prone to immediately criticizing that poster - at least a first, most tried to better understand what he was saying.

    57. Re:Natural selection by hovelander · · Score: 1

      The ultimate, most painful, kind of meaninglessness comes from not those who are weary of pain but those that are weary of pleasure. The deeper meaning of human connection transcends desperately trying to evoke another secretion in the brain. If you can't love someone for their own sake...

      Wow. People will never see this because of the 0 AC, or laugh because it is pretty deep and they don't get your point, but I personally thank you for this. I know people suffering from exactly what you point out and worry about them all the time. Well done.

    58. Re:Natural selection by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      That was very informative, thanks.

      I'm willing to accept what that guy was saying in that it's what a *lot* of people say about drug addicts; that the drugs are a (non-)solution for an underlying problem and that solving the addiction without fixing what it was trying to cover is just going to move it on to something else. While I'm not 100% convinced that all underlying problems are as clearly-defined (and hence easily fixable) as that "ONE" comment implies, I do agree somewhat with the general principle of what he says.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    59. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a lot about the decision making processes of addicts, I know hundreds of them. They aren't all fools by any stretch of the imagination, however, there is no rational process involved once they are engaged with the drug other than rationalization about why they want or need more of it. If addiction is a disease, the cure is very simple. Quit taking the drugs that cause your disease. Your brain will slowly return to normal.

    60. Re:Natural selection by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Your comment is a perfect example of why there are "teenage" problems.

    61. Re:Natural selection by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Care to clarify?

    62. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Novobirisk

      *Novosibirsk ;)

    63. Re:Natural selection by GodGell · · Score: 1

      I'm all for legalization of a lot of substances and ending the Violence Due To Illegalization, but this one is so over-the-top in terms of both addiction and toxicity that I don't know what a rational response could be.

      You forget the fact that the only reason these people are injecting this shit is because they're hooked on heroin, and can't get any of it.

      Addiction at this level is not like how most Slashdotters seem to imagine it, it's not just a strong craving "that you will weather if you are smart like me". The physical pain is just one part; the psychological addiction part is the one that will short-circuit your rationality by simply changing your thoughts (pretty much all the time) from how bad or dangerous this is, to how good it feels when you do it. And when you're deciding whether or not to do something, and the only argument your mind even takes into consideration is "it feels fucking awesome and I want to feel it again", it doesn't matter how smart you are; you're going to do it.

      --
      [SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10
    64. Re:Natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's the idea, gasoline is an impurity

    65. Re:Natural selection by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You think that contrary to millions of years of human evolution, history and parallels to virtually every mammal on the planet, humans to do not become biologically adults around the age of 13. That somehow, within that last few generations, the age has shot up to the mid twenties. I can't speak for your genetic line, but my genetic line is still intact.

      You take biological adults, declare them to be entirely different, remove their rights and responsibilities, and then use the fact that they get screwed up to be proof that they are biologically different because they behave just like any other adult would behave given their position.

    66. Re:Natural selection by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Contrary to what you might assume, brain development isn't complete until about the mid twenties. Various other, more externally obvious, physical changes aren't complete to seventeen, eighteen or sometimes a little later (height being one of them). Has it been so long since puberty that you've forgotten? It is VERY clear that physical development isn't finished at 13. Brain development is a little more subtle, not being of the "I'm getting hair where??" type of change, but it's very real. Brain growth is easily measured during puberty (because it's freaking fast) and histopathological studies have indicated that primary myelination isn't complete in some structures until the mid twenties.

      Maturation schedules have actually been changing in recent decades, with puberty tending to begin earlier, which is a cause for concern.

      Have I addressed all the errors (all the things you said) in your post? If not, I apologize. I don't know about your "line," but if your people really reach physical maturity at 13 you probably want to check your synthetic estrogen-mimicer exposure, right away.

      By the way, I am a working scientist studying brain development. I can give you peer reviewed references for any of the above if you like. I sincerely hope you don't need peer reviewed references to tell you that 13 year old girls and boys are not physically mature though.

    67. Re:Natural selection by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Actually, Krokodil is for those who cant afford Heroin.

      One of the reasons it's big in Russia is that Heroin is very expensive in Russia. There are plenty of alternative "cheap highs" but it's people looking for extreme pain killers like Heroin.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    68. Re:Natural selection by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well being a long haired biker type and playing music in bars I have met a LOT of junkies in my time and if you sit down and talk to them? yeah...he is kinda right. Nobody wakes up and says "I want to be a crack whore" its something in their past they want gone, something they can't deal with that the drugs help numb.

      To give just 2 examples that I can relate easily, i know a guy from HS that is now a homeless addict, i still see him from time to time and throw a few bucks his way when I can. His "one thing" was the fact his mom was getting him high from age 8 onward and she would fuck anything and everything, he learned about the birds and the bees by seeing his mom get banged up the ass as she was doing a three way on the couch. the second is a hooker that used to live down the hall from me at this place in TN. All the women naturally treated her like shit and made sure their men would have nothing to do with her, but since I didn't give a fuck what her profession was nor desired her services we got to talking. her "one thing" was the fact that her mom's BF was banging her for several years, we are talking starting age 9. When she went to her mom for help? her mom told her to STFU as she wanted his money and "she should put out more" so mommy wouldn't have to give him any. Turned out mommy was the one that told him to start banging her!

      so while this naturally doesn't come into play with so called "party drugs" like your pot or vitamin K because we humans do like to have our senses altered occasionally when it comes to hardcore users? From what I've seen over the years...yep, there is one or more nasty things in their past they want gone. BTW nobody says it is easy, in the two examples the monk gave they both still needed major therapy, but you can't even begin to help them until you find out what is eating them in the first place.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  3. Someone call walter white by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    the drug apparently needs some work....

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Someone call walter white by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Walter would just make it pure: he really had/has no idea about the medical side of things.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    2. Re:Someone call walter white by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      yes, but this is mostly fresh eating due to impurities.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  4. Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I didn't read the article, but I did watch a documentary on this. The drug is not flesh eating per se, it is just supposed to be injected IV and if you miss and inject subcutaneously it causes necrosis. At least that was my understanding.

    1. Re:Misleading by lxs · · Score: 1

      That and the soup of leftover reagents and reaction byproducts that accompany the opiate. This is crude kitchen chemistry that omits the final step of isolating the desired product from the toxic gunk.

  5. Solution by blue+trane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Legalize heroin.

    1. Re:Solution by dk20 · · Score: 1

      doesn't have a good control framework like Cigarettes/alcohol which are legal and profitable for the government, especially here (Canada) with the "SIN TAXES".

    2. Re:Solution by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      More importantly, it doesn't have a powerful lobby like Cigarettes/alcohol do. Someone has to pay off those senators!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Solution by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a solution like legalizing stabbing is a solution to gun violence.

      By all means, legalize non-addictive drugs (e.g. marijuana, MDMA, LSD), but heroin is something else entirely. People shouldn't have their lives destroyed just because some skilled salesman convinced them to try it. It's not good for the user, and it's not good for society. It's only good for the dealer. The last thing this country needs is the marketing arm of Philip Morris or InBev pushing an even worse drug.

    4. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, that would make too much sense.

    5. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when something even worse comes along legalize Krokodil.

      The problem with this drug isn't the drug itself (desomorphine) but with the manufacture process. IF it was legalized and produced in labs with proper regulation and oversight it wouldn't cause the damage that it does, other than the addiction. And that can be treated in other ways...

    6. Re:Solution by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      That would only help if it significantly reduced the price. Pot is legal in some instances now, and it is cheaper it get illegally, from what I have seen.
      Also, people like illegal drugs, not legal ones, so it would just encourage Krokodil.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when something even worse comes along legalize Krokodil.

      The problem with this drug isn't the drug itself (desomorphine) but with the manufacture process. IF it was legalized and produced in labs with proper regulation and oversight it wouldn't cause the damage that it does, other than the addiction. And that can be treated in other ways...

      Who shall pay so that unproductive members of society can keep on being unproductive? Is it a human right to abuse any substance whatsoever? Who shall produce the high quality drug and who shall pay for it? The users? Good luck, perhaps if they break into your home and steal stuff to pay for their addiction.

      Guess I have very little understanding for addictive substances. If your life is so miserable that you need shit like this to get through, you need serious help, not more drugs. Cure the causes, not the symptoms.

    8. Re:Solution by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So why do we screw up their lives after a skilled salesman convinces them to try it by throwing them in jail? Isn't that bad for all the reasons you mentioned?

      I don't think we want active sales and marketing for heroine, but jailing addicts and driving them to dangerously impure and inconsistent street drugs seems like a bad idea. Especially if it eventually drives them to krokodil.

      Perhaps the clean stuff should be legally sold at the pharmacy but with no advertising at all and the pharmacist must giv you a pamphlet on drug treatment and tell you heroine is a bad idea when he hands it over.

    9. Re:Solution by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Legalize heroin.

      No, no, no... we can still solve the drug problem if we just drop more bombs on it.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    10. Re:Solution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Colorado is working on it for marijuana. They appear to be taking a careful, considered approach and I'm going to bet this is the framework for all sorts of 'bad for you but good for the economy' things to wander down the pike.

      This country is looking like something out of a Robert Heinlein novel. Where's The Prophet?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:Solution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nah, legalize everything.

      Let God sort it out.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:Solution by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      doesn't have a good control framework like Cigarettes/alcohol which are legal and profitable for the government, especially here (Canada) with the "SIN TAXES".

      In the places where it has been decriminalized, the problems associated with the use of drugs like heroin were not just significantly but drastically reduced.

      That doesn't prove cause and effect but it has been consistent enough to suggest that inductive logic is appropriate here.

    13. Re:Solution by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Great solution, there. Should we legalize Sarin too, so that homicidal dictators don't use the stronger stuff?

    14. Re:Solution by nomadic · · Score: 0

      If you legalize heroin, you will get many, many, many more people trying it. I am not for jailing addicts, but the dealers, why not?

    15. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, how dumb. You are ALREADY paying for drug addicts' healthcare--and their health problems are much worse here than they are in sane countries that don't have our attitude towards addiction.

    16. Re:Solution by Garridan · · Score: 2

      Implementation of a good control framework is implicit to almost all pleas to legalize drugs. Don't just stop cracking down on drug labs. Tax the drugs, crack down on unlicensed labs, and audit the licensed ones frequently to make sure they're making pure stuff and selling it unadulterated. Regulate the entire supply stream, like Washington and Colorado are doing with pot, and organized crime dries up. Unless the tax is unreasonably high (as I expect to be the case in WA).

    17. Re:Solution by jcr · · Score: 1

      What's your next guess?

      Go find out why heroin use is down in Portugal over the last decade.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    18. Re:Solution by sjames · · Score: 1

      What happens when you get rid of all the dealers? One answer, some of the addicts must become dealers just to keep their supplies coming. What then? You're back to jailing addicts.

      Meanwhile, you continue to support the cartels by keeping it illegal (and so fantastically profitable) to sell.

      If you like, keep it prescription but make heroine addiction a valid indication for prescription and make sure there are free clinics that can write scripts for addicts.

    19. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was a problem when it was prescribed in the US; but at least it was manageable. So. If you mean, "make it available by prescription", I might go a long with that. Apparently, after it was made illegal there were some doctors that managed to keep their patients going and reasonably healthy with good unadulterated product.

      As for a totally unregulated market, that's where I draw the line. Let me cite my own experience with Vocodin. I was prescribed that for back pain, along with a muscle relaxer. When the back pain went away I had about half the bottle left, maybe 10 pills or so.

      Now, in those days I was under a lot of stress and got headaches sometimes--migraines. Sometimes Tylenol was all I needed; but when I really bad one came along I'd say to myself... Vicodin. That'll really knock it out, and it did.

      Now when that bottle was used up is where the turning point comes. I decided NOT to go back to the doctor and have more "back pain". I knew where this could lead. I said, OK fine... you used up that bottle, from this point forward it's OTC pain killers and relaxation techniques, like always.

      Even under the current regime, a lot of people find loose doctors. If Vocdin or God forbid, Heroin were available right off the shelf... whoah. Yeah. Heroin. That'll really knock out my headache. Next thing you know, you're getting headaches all the time and Heroin is the only fix.

      You just don't understand how insidious drugs can be. I'm lucky. I'm educated enough, I'm disciplined enough... for now. I've poured alcohol down the sink a couple times and sworn it off; but I'm usually a social drinker. I apparently have the ability to pull myself back when addictive behavior emerges. Not everybody has that.

      In short, it's not an easy question. Prohibition is obviously a failure; but total and absolute legalization of everythign probably isn't such a bright idea either.

    20. Re:Solution by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt it. I've never used heroin or cocaine; heroin never appealed to me and cocaine seemed like the kind of thing I couldn't trust myself with. The illegality is a pretty minor thing by comparison.

    21. Re:Solution by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Heroin is actually LESS addictive than nicotine.

    22. Re:Solution by pspahn · · Score: 1

      We're voting in November to approve the taxes on recreational pot (Colorado version).

      Off the top of my head (the little election booklet is downstairs... it's Saturday, I'm not getting it) it is something along the lines of:

      15% excise tax on wholesale (any sale from a cultivator to a processor).

      10% sales tax on purchases, in addition to 2.9% state sales tax and I am assuming the additional municipal sales taxes (the booklet didn't really mention municipal sales taxes, though only really currently relevant for Denver since that's the only municipality that has approved recreational sale. Denver is I think 4.85%, so 7.75% total sales tax).

      While these figures may seem high (hehe) it will only be the recreational shops that will be dealing with this. If you grow your own in the closet, you don't have to pay tax on it. One of the main points of Amendment 64 that proponents mentioned was the potential tax revenue being a boon to the state. Now, it remains to be seen, will the heavy tax simply push users to grow their own to avoid the tax? That much is expected from regular users, but not the occasional user who isn't going to bother growing as much as a basil plant.

      In the end, though, I don't suspect my source of pot will change much if at all. I don't grow pot and I don't buy pot, yet, there is always pot around. Friends who work at grow-ops might stop by... "Oh you don't have any? Here's a jar full to keep around..." People give pot away all the time, and it is entirely legal to do so. Heck, one of my roommates works for a company that is selling these sweet vaporizers and catridges. If nothing else, there's usually "promotional models" laying around to use.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    23. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're very right, providing drugs to addicts is simply treating the symptom. It's part of what's referred to as harm reduction. The idea is that by setting up safe injection sites and providing clean (and strictly regulated) drugs you can attract the majority of users that have gotten hooked and get them into treatment programs voluntarily rather than criminalizing the act of using drugs. This way we can prevent them from breaking into homes to steal to support their addition.

      You also brought up another very other point about "Who's going to pay for these programs?" We are currently already paying for the costs of addition through our Justice and Medical systems. Property theft is a major problem and costs the victims directly and our society indirectly through the increased cost of policing those areas, processing people through the legal system and then incarcerating them if convicted. The medical costs are obvious if you've looked at any of the photos in the article. The idea is that we'd save money by treating the addicts before they turn to crime and then get them into rehab programs to turn them into productive members of society again.

      The idea is to treat the symptom to reduce the harm caused by addiction and also treat the causes that led these individuals down such a destructive path.

    24. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Portugal has not legalized heroin, only decriminalized it. The state continues to direct those with addiction issues into rehab clinics. It is a humane policy provably superior to that currently in force in the US, but it is not the sort of libertarian environment that many slashbots or redditors think it is.

    25. Re:Solution by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      we can still solve the drug problem if we just drop more bombs on it.

      It's the only way to reassure.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    26. Re:Solution by PRMan · · Score: 1

      The misery of a society with hundreds of people sitting around in Chinese opium houses wasting their lives MADE it illegal. I like how everyone thinks it will be a panacea when it only became illegal because of the horrible, deadly outcome.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    27. Re:Solution by PRMan · · Score: 1

      According to people I work with, heroine was immediately addictive to the point that it was the only drug that scared them so much that they NEVER tried it again. I have seen people quit cigarettes but I have never seen anyone quit heroin without a religious conversion.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    28. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i was on morphine for months in hospital, and were it not for my nice job, I would easily become a heroin addict.
      For generally laid back people, it may not seem interesting. But for any anxious or stressed person, it is glorious relief.
      Once released, I felt nauseated and useless without a fix. I bought and stole oxy to feel normal. Keep in mind this was not recreational use, it was in hospital. My addiction symptoms were not textbook, so I was discounted.
      Turned to Mary Jane for relief and got dried out proper. Now back on codeine to stop shutting myself daily, and it gives be none of the analgesia.
      An unrelated trip to the e.r. got me a shot of morphine, and it felt great. If available legally, I would throw money at it until I got arrested for something, and lose my job.
      Point is, decriminalization allows for different ways of stopping both addiction and impurities, as well as other problems. Making it available on demand is a terrible idea, an opinion formed of ignorance and oversimplification. Many habitual users if addictive drugs are able to control themselves because they have to hide signs of excess use. Sober up enough to get through the work day, as well as not drawing attention while in public.
      General availability would not remove these restrictions, but it certainly would ease them enough to make uncontrolled use far easier to slip into.
      There are drugs that should be considered for general availability, but heroin is not one of them. This story is proof of how powerful addiction can be. And I am certain that half of these people, if they could sober up for long enough, would prefer not to be this far down the rabbit hole, and never intended to.
      Say you can handle it all you want, I thought the same thing. Strip the penalties, but steer people towards treatment. A pamphlet will not replace the tough love of court ordered rehab when you get out of control.
      We cannot save everyone in a free society, but we can have the basic civility of making it harder to lose control of yourself.

    29. Re:Solution by Garridan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that sounds more reasonable. In WA, there will be three licenses: grower, processor, retailer. There's a 25% excise tax on grower -> processor and processor -> retailer and a 25% sales tax. I think that's too much: it nearly doubles the price (%95 markup), which leaves a good margin for organized crime to profit in. But unfortunately, it's what we voted on. Promotional givaways to the public are illegal in WA, though growers and processors can give free samples to the next up the chain.

    30. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not an American so its an honest question do they put the same level of sales tax on other equivalent legal products ie Booze and baccy?

    31. Re:Solution by pspahn · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that one of the considerations when coming up with these tax levels is that the price of pot in general is going to nosedive, especially compared to inflation.

      I assume it is still common for pot to cost somewhere between $40-50 for 1/8 oz everywhere else in the country. This price has been fairly stable since I was a teenager in the 90's. However, at least here in Denver, the price has been more than cut in half already, and I can only see it going down further. Like I said, I almost never pay for it, as there are plenty of people (even strangers) that are willing to give it to you for free ("oh man you have to try this new bozzanical freedom red kush I grew!").

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    32. Re:Solution by sjames · · Score: 1

      Do you really think you would be better off with a felony drug conviction? How would that nice job handle the news that you would be going away for a while and come back a convicted felon? Wouldn't you have preferred not to be driven to steal?

      I can only guess your doctors didn't want to be sued for getting you addicted because what you describe sounds a lot like classic addiction symptoms after the acute drying out phase.

      Perhaps you'd be best off with voluntary addiction treatment. It sounds like you are more than ready to kick it if you can.

      If you can't, I don't believe you deserve prison and I doubt you do either.

    33. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New strawman

    34. Re:Solution by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what happened at first? Then peoples across history, independently across geographical areas, evolved societies with rules and laws.

      Maybe we as a species prefer limitations on our freedom in exchange for our survival and comfort.

      Man doesn't have an inability to govern himself, He has a fundamental inability to refrain from governing others...

      -=Geoskd

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    35. Re:Solution by gregor-e · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Addiction is a health issue, not a criminal issue. Making drugs illegal has never worked. Ever. We should handle drug use in much the same way we handle other risky activities - by testing and licensing. Just as one must pass written and practical exams before driving, flying or hunting, we should issue substance licenses only after the prospective user has demonstrated comprehensive understanding of the properties and risks of whatever substance they're interested in, including alcohol and nicotine. If they mess up and cause harm to themselves or others, they are punished and their license may be revoked. We should also offer free drug treatment for anyone who wants it.

    36. Re:Solution by gregor-e · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is estimated that only about 23% of people who use heroin become dependent on it.

    37. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That just makes you a reasonable person. The problem is that most others aren't.

    38. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's surely better today when it's all illegal, right? Drug free panacea all around. Nope. People still sit around and waste their lives doing drugs. Apparently, the modern twist now also has these people literally rotting to death from using substances prepared in much more dangerous conditions, because there is such strong financial incentive. Yep, everything is sooo much better, uh huh.

    39. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God help us if we legalize all drugs and give capitalists a profit incentive to sell new 21st century-engineered drugs to permanently-addicted customers. The drugs of today will seem quaint in comparison.

    40. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The science is pretty simple.

      Some people will seek out heroin.
      Black market controls the price of heroin.
      If you're a drug user and you can't afford the price, you turn to crime.

      Now, the alternative is...

      Some people will seek out heroin.
      Black market doesn't control the price - it's provided free.
      If you're a drug user, you don't need to bash someone/break into a house to get a fix.

      Having having many conversations with ex-addicts over the years, they all say that they committed the majority of crimes to get the drugs, not as a result of taking them.

    41. Re: Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legalise ... And _regulate_
      If you legalised everything without regulation, you'd have anarchy.

    42. Re:Solution by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      New WTF more like. I can't think of many dictators that operate under US law.

    43. Re:Solution by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      Opiates are far more purified than Cannabinoids and far more addictive. Russia is right above Afghanistan which is the world capital of Opium production. The US equivalent of this would be legalizing of Cocaine, not marijuana.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    44. Re:Solution by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Legalize it and someone will "fix it" so it doesn't eat flesh.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    45. Re:Solution by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Personal Responsibility. Don't try heroine. It can fuck your life up. The side effects of Heroine are bad enough, without jailing you on top of that.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    46. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China did a good job of making Heroine illegal. But dragging people out into the streets and shooting them in the head for being a user or dealer certainly curbs the behavior.

    47. Re:Solution by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Apparently not that addictive if they never tried it again.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    48. Re:Solution by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      That's because the sale if it is still confusing and not wide spread. It will go down over time. However, it is a cheap plant to grow, so their will always be a "black market" for it. But it won't be a billion dollar black market.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    49. Re:Solution by tsotha · · Score: 1

      If you legalize heroin, you will get many, many, many more people trying it.

      I doubt it. That's not the experience of countries that have tried decriminalization, and it's not like you can't find heroin if you want it.

    50. Re:Solution by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Pot is legal in some instances now, and it is cheaper it get illegally, from what I have seen.

      Not where I live. We have legal dispensaries, but the legal stuff is triple the price of what you can buy from "my buddy who knows a guy".

    51. Re:Solution by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Opiates are far more purified than Cannabinoids and far more addictive. Russia is right above Afghanistan which is the world capital of Opium production. The US equivalent of this would be legalizing of Cocaine, not marijuana.

      So what the US would need, then, would be some cocaine equivalent of krokodil whose effects start with the nose and face?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    52. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama?

    53. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It actually wouldn't be so bad, if we incarcerated these addicts in rehabilitation centers as they do in China, Iran and Germany, to name a few. These people need treatment, and most of them need help sorting their lives out and developing vocational skills.

      Instead we put them in cages where the only people than can associate with are other drug addicts and a bunch of violent thugs, treat them like shit and verbally, physically and psychologically abuse them, for years on end. Then we let them out with no support framework and a couple of hundred dollars, and yet, some people are surprised by the predictable outcome.

      If you want to see what prison for junkies should look like, this is what Iranian propaganda says Iran's jails are like.

      Now, I don't know if I entirely believe them (Iranian state media are renowned liars), but regardless of if this is staged or not, the example it gives paints a much better picture of how we should be treating addicts than we do in the US.

    54. Re:Solution by drolli · · Score: 1

      The solution is to provide the substance in a clean way to people who are addicts. As far as i understood the negative effects of crocodile are not due to its active compound but due the fact that it is produced in a way that even if you had sugar in it as the active compound you still would poison yourself. I youe would produce asprin under the circumstances which crocodile is produced you also may get a problem.

      I think we could lower overall healthcare costs if clean drugs could be prescribed by doctors (but paid by the patient). Doctors could also advise you and help you to prevent adverse effects. They could give you an easy access to further help, if needed. Obviously "clean drug" excludes everything you can smoke, including tobacco.

    55. Re:Solution by Entropius · · Score: 1

      It depends on where you are: the taxes on tobacco are very high, in particular.

    56. Re:Solution by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      I think we don't see how much damage these things can do to society in a long-term look at things. I think the best case study to look at would be China in the late 19th century, where the opioids grown in India were cheap and accessible in the country spurring a 10% addiction rate in the population. It caused very serious societal problems which eventually lead to a major clean-up phase involving the ban and blocking of imports.

      People arguing cheap and available are superimposing their rationality on addicts. Addicts, regardless of cost, will destroy every aspect of their life for more. This can be seen with fairly cheap alcohol, fathers spending their kids college savings and opening joint credit accounts with their family to steal their credit and burden them for life with their parent's debt, running up payday loans and not paying the mortgage, and so on. I've seen this first hand.

      I agree certain drugs shouldn't be treated this way like pot, but opioids are not one of them.

    57. Re:Solution by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      I did say "operate under US law". ;)

    58. Re:Solution by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "I think we don't see how much damage these things can do to society in a long-term look at things."

      I wasn't referring to speculation, but rather to research that studied that very thing.

      Read The Portugal Experiment, for example. You might have to hunt a bit but you can find it online.

    59. Re:Solution by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So heroin is so addictive it makes you never touch it again, and you've never seen anyone quit heroin without a religious conversion, apart from the people you work with who did just that. Gotcha. I think. On second thought, nope. I've no idea what you're on about, and I think if you read what you wrote, you'd realise you have no idea either.

    60. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Afaik, testing for a hunting license consists of buying one at Wal-Mart.

      A Powered Parachute, which I'm currently very interested in, requires one or two days training and no pilot's license.

      The flaw in your solution lies in the fact that testing and licensing create artificial barriers to entry that the enterprising poor will circumvent by making low grade drugs or reusing needles or popping the first pill they're handed...

      Hell, i've been poor enough to smoke butts from ashtrays to curb hunger.

      I could follow up with a statement like "if crackheads could afford high quality drugs and a team of healthcare professionals to monitor their use, they'd choose to be safer in their use" but that will never be true.

      The human condition will always allow people to drop, to isolate and to self abuse.. There will always be a low and, like has been mentioned here previously, there will always be a hideous new bottom.

      Some of us should just just plain never be aware of those extremes... No need to be aware, we don't question, we're content, we'll never encounter it.. just.. a boundary we don't need to cross.

      Some of us should use them as cautionary tales.. To make us aware of the path we're on and where it leads us. Of course, chances are that this class's primary concern is not education about the dangers of the methods we choose to escape. More likely we just... don't.. care... ..And some of us should use them as learning tools to council and support.. to get some grasp of what the people we deal with are capable of.

      but..

      In the end, the entire issue is rooted in a lost cause.. I have to think people that live in this realm are statistically written off... MAYBE there might be a success story or two.. a tale of faith for the other lost souls to latch on to.. the way the middle class uses those tales of that one kid from the neighborhood that became rich or famous and broke out. Most of us that get here will stay here. Most of us that start that road will die on it...

      We need to see root causes.. isolated teens unable to relate to their peers looking to escape their anxiety.. abused kids unable to cope with their pain, battered wives desperate to keep their children safe in an abusive environment.. bored rich kids looking behind the wrong doors simple because they can..

      Eh.. as with every argument/comment.. the answer is always "balance".. balance of helping ourselves enough so that we can help others, balance of managing our pain with experiencing joy..

      Shock stories wake us up for brief moments, but at the end of the day we still livehere

      yeah yeah.. preachy.. but any society that makes idols of people that play games for 12 year olds.. that builds their economy on them..

      My soul hurts now... someone please pick up the argument and continue by explaining the correlation between prioritizing sports and abusing alcohol, why the latter fuels the salaries of the former, and how it only serves to exacerbate the problem of substance abuse.. how its far more "part of the problem" than it could ever be "part of the cure"

    61. Re:Solution by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      I think most people are for things like hard-core drugs. It's trivial to buy any drugs here, with little or no chance of arrest and even less of prosecution, yet most people just are not interested in anything harder than dope, for the most part.

    62. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't doubt that at all, but I will absolutely agree with the GP's point about it being scary. Heroin is the only drug I've ever run across that scared the shit out of me -- I felt *way* too good. Once was enough; I got a glimpse at how easy it'd be to fall into the trap of addition with it and never touched it again.

    63. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should we spend public tax dollars to provide treatment for people who can't handle their vice? The libertarian argument is that it is our right to get high if we want to. Where's the libertarian argument that it is our right to demand that other people pay to fix us after we've made ourselves sick? Legalize if you must, but zero, absolutely zero, public funds should be used to care for these people. They decided for themselves. They bear the risks, all of the risks. Yes, this will lead to crime among addicts, but really the only way legalization of dangerous drugs reduces crime seems to be if society bears the risks for addicts. Why should we?

  6. So what makes this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    So where do the side effects (of rotting skin, etc.) come from? The active ingredient itself?

    If not, this is in fact a strong argument against blanket-banning of drugs (a long-term favorite of US and US-backed international policy makers), since criminalising encourages home making, impure drugs, uncontrollable use, and so on, and so forth.

    The alternative is to decriminalise use, then regulate, and make sure people who lose themselves in drugs get the help they need to get back on their feet. Like Portugal did, and does. But the US won't like that because then it can't go on waging war on drugs. And that would cut into the DEA's playtime. Can't have that, now can we?

    1. Re:So what makes this bad? by harperska · · Score: 3, Informative

      The linked io9 article suggests that the rotting skin effects are due to the horribly impure byproducts. Krokodil gets you addicted from the potency of the Desomorphine. Krokodil rots off your flesh because of the gasoline and paint thinner used in its production and then not purified out before injection. Apparently gasoline circulating in your veins causes blood vessels to burst leading to necrosis.

    2. Re:So what makes this bad? by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      It's not like the article provided multiple links that all discuss how the rotting skin happens...

    3. Re:So what makes this bad? by p00kiethebear · · Score: 1

      No, desomorphine does not rot flesh. It's the impurities that are left when people simply throw the ingredients together and "cook it down" and inject the left over crap.

      --
      The Blade Itself
    4. Re:So what makes this bad? by mirix · · Score: 1

      Bingo. I see this argument pretty frequently with any reaction-derived drug, take meth, for example. Oh it contains ammonia, lye, solvent, iodine, etc, which is why it is terrible and must be illegal.

      But those things are only in it because of it's illegality, and backyard hack chemists. It's pretty disingenuous to imply that these contaminants are an essential part of the drugs.

      Funny thing, I'd imagine desomorphine or meth from Novartis or Merck & Co. doesn't have these problems. Oddly their heroin is pure too, not black tar, and I imagine their cocaine isn't half cut.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    5. Re:So what makes this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing, I'd imagine desomorphine or meth from Novartis or Merck & Co. doesn't have these problems. Oddly their heroin is pure too, not black tar, and I imagine their cocaine isn't half cut.

      That's because Novartis hasn't moved production of their heroin to a plant in India yet ... http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/16/us-ranbaxy-fda-alert-idUSBRE98F0RX20130916

    6. Re:So what makes this bad? by russotto · · Score: 1

      Funny thing, I'd imagine desomorphine or meth from Novartis or Merck & Co. doesn't have these problems.

      Sure doesn't. Not even if it's being made on the side by an employee looking to supplement his paycheck. Unfortunately when pharmaceutical-grade meth starts hitting the streets, the cops pretty much can figure out where to go looking.

    7. Re:So what makes this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, here's the thing. The idea is to convert codeine to deso-morphine. This isn't a difficult process in an actual lab (theoretically, never tried it). However, when you're working with things you found in the yard and were able to kludge together using soda bottles it is more difficult. More difficult still since your reagents aren't going to be anywhere near pure or used in the correct quantities. In the end the process ends up only a few percent efficient. So people are injecting a substance that's ~10% pure for its pharmacological effects (aka getting high) when 90% of that is byproducts and unreacted reagents. Contaminated with bacteria as well.

      So what you have is a combination of reduced immune function (from the desomorphine and malnutrition that comes with chronic drug addiction) combined with an easy pathway for bacteria to get into the blood, combined with injecting toxic chemicals (byproducts/reagents of the conversion). So it's a whole host of different things that leads to it. I should note that there are plenty of 'healthy' heroin users in the world that are hopelessly addicted but have the funds to keep up their lives and their addictions...they rarely end up looking like this. Especially if they eat a normal diet and keep up with their hygiene.

    8. Re:So what makes this bad? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      They should start in Albuquerque.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    9. Re:So what makes this bad? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The ingredient list includes gasoline, and this drug is injected.

      Just injecting tap water into your blood is very unsafe and could cause all manner of problems. I guess the gasoline is less likely to be loaded with bacteria, but that's because it destroys bacteria as easily as it destroys human tissues. Your cell membranes are composed of phospholipids, and I'm sure those are fairly soluble in gasoline - it would basically dissolve your tissues away.

      Cut up two pieces of raw steak. Place one in a jar of water, and the other in a jar of gasoline. The former will probably turn fuzzy in a few days, but will stay intact for weeks until it is consumed by fungi/etc. I'm guessing that the meat stored in gasoline will largely dissolve away into it.

      It is hard to manufacture solutions that can be safely injected into the blood, and even pharmaceutical companies run into quality problems. There is no way some guy cutting drugs in their kitchen can do it properly. Start throwing gasoline and such into the mix and it is amazing that people live more than 5 minutes after taking this stuff.

  7. Re:Blindness and hypocrisy by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Hey, if someone wants to take this garbage, who am I to stop them? I'd say it's a decent way to get rid of a few imbeciles.

    --
    Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
  8. Another failure of the drug war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we treated addiction like the disease it is instead of moralizing it as a crime, we could help these people become productive members of society again instead of driving them to slow suicide. If safe drugs were available in free clinics and addicts received treatment, nobody would choose krokodil, nobody would be robbed for drug money, gangs would have one less source of funding, and these victims would be able to overcome their disease.

    1. Re:Another failure of the drug war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There _are_ safe drugs available in free clinics. There are inpatient and outpatient addiction facilities practically EVERYWHERE that prescribe these safe drugs as a means to break the cycle of addiction. Addiction treatment is free in the US for everyone.

    2. Re:Another failure of the drug war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drug advocates don't endorse "treating" an addition, they don't even think drug addiction exists. They are adamant that drugs like marijuana have zero addictive properties.

      They think self-harm is a right, and the choice to harm your body must be respected. Somewhat curiously, they also insist drugs can do no harm and are incapable of causing any injury. Therefore everybody must have unfettered, untaxed, unlimited access to drugs.

      Don't fool yourself into thinking drug advocates want drug addicts to get helped, or that they want the public to be informed about the dangers of drug use. Those two things are the polar opposite of their beliefs. It's all about getting high and getting money -- just what any bottom-feeding drug dealer would want out of their clientele.

    3. Re:Another failure of the drug war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And LEO's would have less reason to get more funding and to increase their militarization. TPB will never go for it.

    4. Re:Another failure of the drug war by dcollins · · Score: 1

      It's a problem that we should definitely help people with, and not incarcerate them over.

      But this argument that it's a disease is bullshit propaganda and needs to be ejected.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    5. Re:Another failure of the drug war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice strawman you got there.

    6. Re:Another failure of the drug war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Addiction isn't a disease and addiction isn't treated as a crime. (Consider alcoholism: an addiction, but not treated as a crime. Violence and drunk driving are the "crimes", as are robbery and burglary.)

      Criminals often turn to heroin, heroin isn't the cause of their criminality. I don't have the numbers but I strongly suspect the vast majority of regular heroin users don't start out as productive members of society to begin with. Heroin addiction also doesn't happen with one or even a few uses of the drug, it requires a long time to become addicted.

      Solving addiction itself doesn't solve what causes people to want to use drugs in the first place, which is often an escape from their shitty lives.

      None of this isn't to say addicts should be helped, of course.

    7. Re:Another failure of the drug war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh, we do treat it as a disease. First offenders arrested for possession usually get probabtion based on participation in a treatment program.

    8. Re:Another failure of the drug war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then we wouldn't be punishing them.

    9. Re:Another failure of the drug war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are adamant that drugs like marijuana have zero addictive properties.

      I hear the jury's still out on science.

    10. Re:Another failure of the drug war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I generally agree with your train of thought, but I think you've got an unproven conclusion. The people who take krokodil know what it does. They know the risk. They have other cheap alternatives for highs. In these Arizona cases, these people must have learned the risks when they learned about the drug in the first place. They didn't just coincidentally invent their own version of krokodil on a whim. They could have made meth if they wanted. They could have made a number of things. They specifically wanted to try out krokodil. Legality would not have made them less interested in trying a new high.

  9. Good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, a weapon against our reptilian overlords.

  10. tt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Krokodil become popular in Russia because it costs 20 times less than heroin

    Wow, even once less than heroin would seem like a bargain.

  11. Photo NSFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Just wow!

    Captcha reads: painless

    I seriously doubt that.

    1. Re:Photo NSFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Captcha reads: painless

      I seriously doubt that.

      If it starts hurting you just take another shot. If that starts hurting, you take another shot. And so on and so forth...

      It's like quantitative easing for the body.

  12. Reefer madness bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd give a Krokodil user more credit than a writer for Time any day of the week.

    And dirty injectables are nothing new.

    What is also nothing new is media hype over another killer drug that is probably 90% hype and the 10% real damage is collateral to drug war unintended (intended) consequence.

    I've found drugs users are never as self-destructive as reported in media and if something starts spreading on the street is because the risk benefit makes sense. Which means the scaremongering must be ratcheted up.

    I await face biting crack baby history to prove the media yet again wrong.

    1. Re:Reefer madness bullshit by nomadic · · Score: 0

      "I've found drugs users are never as self-destructive as reported in media and if something starts spreading on the street is because the risk benefit makes sense. Which means the scaremongering must be ratcheted up."

      Not familiar with the meth epidemic, then.

    2. Re:Reefer madness bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason, it's not considered an epidemic when a doctor being paid by insurance companies prescribes methamphetamine manufactured by a pharmaceutical corporation under the brand name "Desoxyn", even though it's the exact same chemical, atom-for-atom.

    3. Re:Reefer madness bullshit by pthisis · · Score: 2

      For some reason, it's not considered an epidemic when a doctor being paid by insurance companies prescribes methamphetamine manufactured by a pharmaceutical corporation under the brand name "Desoxyn"

      Yes it is.

      NIH: "The original amphetamine epidemic was generated by the pharmaceutical industry and medical profession as a byproduct of routine commercial drug development and competition" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377281/

      White House: "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has classified prescription drug abuse as an epidemic". http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/prescription-drug-abuse

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    4. Re:Reefer madness bullshit by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I've found drugs users are never as self-destructive as reported in media and if something starts spreading on the street is because the risk benefit makes sense. Which means the scaremongering must be ratcheted up.

      That was definitely the case for MDMA. There were all those horror stories about "burning out your dopamine receptors" and how once you took it you would never be able to feel happy again. Turned out it was all bullshit.

  13. just in time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for Halloween

  14. Thank you, prohibition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'd all be better off if you we just legalized/regulated the old stuff, as it would prevent this new, more harmful stuff from ever being created at all.

    1. Re:Thank you, prohibition by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      Heroin was actually a very effective medical painkiller with a low level of lethality, after it was outlawed it was replaced by things like morphine that were far more dangerous.

    2. Re:Thank you, prohibition by Entropius · · Score: 1

      How is morphine more dangerous than heroin? (Honest question.) I thought that they were both basically interchangeable in a medical setting (with proper dose adjustment, etc., to get an equivalent analgesic effect.)

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The countries where this is actually problem, codeine is available OTC. This isn't the case here in the US. It's probably easier for people here to get their hands on heroin.

    1. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, in at least the Old City of Jerusalem in the 1980's you could get foil wrapped bundles of 30 mg codeine tablets (no acetaminophen) in little boxes that looked for all the world like Pez containers.

      Made a 6 week sojourn into the Middle East with a dozen other family members a much more pleasant experience.

      What I remember, anyway.

    2. Re:Slow news day? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I can get heroin on any street corner 24/7. Where can I find a package of Hostess Cupcakes?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Codeine isn't hard to get in the US. There are a lot of older pharmacies that will sell you codeine cough syrup if you ask for it and show them a drivers' license. You can also order it online from a whole host of other countries. The closest situation I can think of that reminds me of Krokodil is meth. Pseudoephedrine is readily available and 'the main ingredient' used to make meth, and meth is widespread. The thing is, pseudoephedrine does nothing by itself in terms of recreation. I hope it doesn't get banned because it's one of the few OTC medicines that actually work.

    4. Re:Slow news day? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I can get heroin on any street corner 24/7. Where can I find a package of Hostess Cupcakes?

      Don't tell anyone, but I've got a guy with a hookup. His codename is "7-11".

      Shh.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    5. Re:Slow news day? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Does he deliver?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  17. Stupidity or Suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Stupidity isn't necessarily required to use this - that is just if you don't know or consider what you're putting yourself in for. A lack of value for your own life could also suffice. Like suicide bombers who may really undervalue their life more than holding their cause at extremely high values. I understand that there can be very pretty dark places where one would knowingly take some temporary relief for horrific side effects. Slow form of suicide essentially.

  18. Seriously? by Alsee · · Score: 2

    Someone please tell me this is an Onion story.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    1. Re:Seriously? by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it's real. Google around for the videos if you have a strong stomach. There have been a few videos floating around for years, I think Vice magazine did a piece on the drug as well. It is truly terrifying stuff.

  19. chemistry is the study of change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sit back and respect the chemistry

  20. It acts too slowly to prevent reproduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So no, it's not any good.

    1. Re:It acts too slowly to prevent reproduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convince users it works best when injected directly into their reproductive organs?

  21. Re:Blindness and hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no intention trying to stop people from eating chocolate or drinking tea or coffee either.

  22. desomorphine does not rot flesh by p00kiethebear · · Score: 5, Informative

    Something needs to be made clear. Desomorphine itself does not rot flesh. With a little extra work the solution can be purified and there are users that DO take the time to do this. It's when the solution is simply thrown together and 'cooked down' that health problems occur. Street level users making it on their own don't take the time to purify it.

    --
    The Blade Itself
    1. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      We need another warning label on gasoline.

      "Do not inject directly into veins."

      That should solve the problem.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by p00kiethebear · · Score: 0

      First someone will have to sue chevron for NOT putting a warning label on it. Hot McDonalds coffee anyone? anyone?

      --
      The Blade Itself
    3. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I buy a cup of coffee in the morning I operate on the general assumption that what they hand me is not going to be BOILING. Sorry, but if some sadistic McDonalds peon handed me a cup of boiling coffee I'd fucking sue too.

    4. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Informative

      The lady tried to settle with them for her current and expected future medical costs before even retaining a lawyer (i.e. $20K, of which $10K had already been accrued). They offered her $800 in return, despite the fact that she had been hospitalized for 8 days, undergone a series of skin grafts to replace the skin that had suffered third-degree burns, and faced another two years of treatment following the hospitalization.

      Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?

    5. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [cough]loser[/cough]

    6. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=stella+liebeck

      Fused Labia.

      Stop spreading propaganda.

    7. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When water is at 140F it can cause a third degree (full thickness) burn in just five seconds. Coffee is best served at a temperature between 155F and 175F . Most people prefer it towards the higher end, at about 175F. So I would say most coffee when served can give you third-degree burns. yes.

    8. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3rd degree burns burn your skin away down to the bone. Anything you buy to immediately eat shouldn't do that. The jury awarded fees far greater than what the lady asked for because McDonalds had been warned multiple times before to lower their temperature and hadn't done so.

    9. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, nothing hot I've ever spilled on myself gave me third-degree burns, because I've never been so clumsy as to spill a full cup of a fresh hot beverage on myself and then just panic and leave it to soak in.

      Water can only get so hot before it boils. There is no "too hot to serve" for a hot beverage or soup. It is entirely normal to put boiling water into a cup with a tea bag, and then serve it to the customer, as hot as a beverage consisting primarily of water can be served.

      It's not the restaurant's responsibility to keep coffee from being "too hot". That's absurd. Hot beverages are dangerous. Safety is the customer's responsibility.

    10. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by quarterbuck · · Score: 2

      Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?
      No, but I do not pour it down my crotch either. Coffee is meant to be made with boiled water, which if poured down the pants, burns. Coffee made with unboiled water does taste different (bad, in my opinion).
      I am waiting for someone to burn their beard with a cigarette lighter and then sue Zippo for not putting a label saying "Contents inflammable, do not light anything with it".

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    11. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impure synthetic heroin similarly can cause instant later-stage Parkinson's decease. Drug addiction and manufacturing tend to attract people with lesser ability to concentrate and self-regulate their actions. The "Moral Drug Manufacturing for Dummies" should be stable reading for person aspiring for a career in drugs.

    12. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by gknoy · · Score: 1

      I tend to feel that considering the expected failure modes of your product when sold at a drive-through is wise and considerate to other humans. People drive, and people drop things. It's not something one plans.

    13. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Coffee is actually not meant to be made with boiled water. The water is supposed to be brought to a boil, then backed off by a bit. Keeping it at a boil or near-boil over-extracts the grounds and leads to the more bitter flavors coming to the fore. Even McDonald's doesn't boil the water for their coffee, though they do keep it hotter than most places typically do, since it allows them to cut costs, as I recall.

    14. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Someone should sue the warning label makers for choosing a word that seems like it should mean "not flammable" but in-fact means "flammable".
      Anyone who puts "inflammable" on a warning label is an idiot. It is a stupid dangerous word that should never be used.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    15. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      So your solution is to sell cold coffee?
      Coffee, at the temperature people like it at, can cause significant burns. Unless you are suggesting some anti-spill cup I really do not think people are likely to go for the only other possible solution.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    16. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coffee made with unboiled water does taste different (bad, in my opinion).

      I see. And you think McDonalds coffee tastes ... good?

    17. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by khallow · · Score: 1

      Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?

      There are plenty of things that will hurt you, if you are careless with them. Most hot coffee is indeed that hot.

    18. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by houghi · · Score: 1

      Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?

      If it comes out of the machine, the water is 100C. If I put that in my crotch in a moving vehicle, I should expect a burn wound. If you know how they made the temperature go above 100C, please let us know. Science wants to know. (Yes, I am aware of superheating.)

      I am guessing that this was worse was because the lady was sitting in a car. That means the hot fluid had nowhere to go, except of where she was sitting. So the exposure time of the hot fluid was more then standard.

      However I fail to see how that is the responsibility of the place that served it. If I ordered a fondue and I put it right at the end of the table and it then falls into my lap, I should expect terrible burning wounds as well. Should I then be able to sue, or should I take some responsibility and NOT put it at the end of the table.

      If you put hot beverages in your lap that are in a cardboard cup in a moving vehicle, then you should expect to be burned. If I put a clod beverage there, I do not expect the place to pay for the dry cleaners if it went wrong. The question is not how high the price was, the question is about who was responsible. I say the woman was responsible, no matter how terrible her ordeal was.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    19. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 1

      The lady was also 79. The burns she suffered would not have been as severe if she was able to move off her seat. However, given her advanced age she was unable to move once she spilled and hence she sat in the hot coffee much longer than a average person would. The jury decided that she was 20% at fault and McDs was 80% at fault. Many common misconceptions are false though: she was not driving, she was in the passenger seat, the car was not moving. The injury was very gruesome, but again it was so bad because she just wasn't healthy enough to react in a normal way that would have prevented injury.

      Having bought McDonald's coffee before, I would never try to open it over my body. I think most people know that's stupid. Given that people of that age shake like a minor earthquake I can't believe her grandson let her open her coffee over herself in the car. Her grandson was in the drivers seat.

    20. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 1

      Also forgot to add that she was wearing sweatpants which soaked up the liquid making the injury much more severe because it held the liquid against her body. If you ever see pictures (you might not want to see these pictures) you might be surprised how much damage was done.

    21. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?

      There are plenty of things that will hurt you, if you are careless with them. Most hot coffee is indeed that hot.

      Actually, it's not. I'd encourage you to read the facts about the Hot Coffee case. McDonald's coffee was about 50 degrees hotter than home-brewed, and significantly hotter than most other establishments.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    22. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by khallow · · Score: 1

      McDonald's coffee was about 50 degrees hotter than home-brewed

      Uh, no. Fresh coffee is hotter than 135-140. I'm not playing this game. The "actual facts" include that the person knowingly put a cup of dangerous hot fluid between her legs. That careless activity voids her claim as far as I'm concerned.

    23. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?

      No, but I do not pour it down my crotch either.

      Of course not, it's coffee, not grits.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    24. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by ClintJaysiyel · · Score: 1

      No, the solution is to sell coffee at the national standard temperature, which they were not. McDonald's knew they were serving it too hot, knew people were getting hurt, and still refused to do anything about it. The lawsuit is and has always been valid, but you have to actually examine the actual facts instead of making up what you thought happened and attacking that. Some kind of lazy strawman method with this one; people don't care about the facts. They make up what they think the case was then argue against that, instead of the actual case and actual facts.

    25. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Negative, it is prepared between 195 and 205ÂF and to be SOLD at 180ÂF. Their machine produced coffee well above that 180Â mark which resulted in the damage. Had the temperature been where it should be, it wouldn't have been as bad.

    26. Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go watch the documentary on the Hot Coffee incident. It will change your opinion of the case.

      http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/

  23. Does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I make a beowulf cluster of Krokodil?

  24. Re:This is the result of the counterrevolution by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pure c1ommunism has no more answers that pure capitalism.

    The ideal is somewhere between. Where capitalism reigns for all luxury goods and services, but the basic necessities are made available by the state, either directly as the case for utilities and healthcare should be, or indirectly with a non means tested basic income system that provides enough income to every household for a meager subsistence.

  25. The only surprising part by Captain+Arr+Morgan · · Score: 1

    is it didn't land in Florida first.

    1. Re:The only surprising part by nomadic · · Score: 2

      As a Florida resident that comment offends me. Or, it would offend me if it wasn't completely a valid and well-earned insult.

  26. media inaccuracy by drwho · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is not the drug (desomorphine) that kills, it is the impurities, mostly silica put into the codeine pills to poison people who try to make illicit drugs out of them. It is the government that is killing people by requiring these adulterants.

    1. Re:media inaccuracy by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Protip: If you're going to cook a pill, any pill, so as to inject it:

      1) Reconsider strongly what you are going to do - it's not very smart no matter how you prep it.
      2) Filter the solution. Lots of organic chemistry stuff available online for your safety and enjoyment.
      3) Consider an organic chemistry course in college. Attend the labs.
      4) Do not watch Mad Men reruns.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:media inaccuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do I keep seeing people referring to Mad Men? Are you sure you don't mean Breaking Bad? Then again I don't have a TV or a Netflix account so what the fuck do I know....

    3. Re:media inaccuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protip: If you're going to cook a pill, any pill, so as to inject it:

      1) Reconsider strongly what you are going to do - it's not very smart no matter how you prep it.
      2) Filter the solution. Lots of organic chemistry stuff available online for your safety and enjoyment.
      3) Consider an organic chemistry course in college. Attend the labs.
      4) Do not watch Mad Men reruns.

      Nah, too much trouble. This is the way to do it:
      1. produce a good quantity of Krokodil (and don't worry about impurities)
      2. sell it
      3. profit!

    4. Re:media inaccuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4) Do not watch Mad Men reruns.

      But how else will I come up with jingles for my new wonderdrug?

      I'm thinking you mean Breaking Bad. I could be wrong though, I stopped watching TV ages ago.

    5. Re:media inaccuracy by jon3k · · Score: 1

      That is some interesting logic.

    6. Re:media inaccuracy by dcollins · · Score: 1

      The truth is short, clear, and depressing.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    7. Re:media inaccuracy by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Silica is inside great many pills as a filler.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    8. Re:media inaccuracy by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      Having been exposed to a couple of episodes, I suspect #4 is just good advice in general.

    9. Re:media inaccuracy by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      The article clearly says it is not Silica.
      The users make desomorphine by cooking Codeine with phosphorous (matchsticks), gasoline and a few other chemicals. Silica is, on that scale, very harmless.Phosphorous will react with practically anything organic next to it. Gasoline in blood kills every cell it touches (and breaks blood vessels in the case of Krokodil). Silica will clog the arteries and dry out blood, but it is not half as bad as others.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
  27. Re:"20 times less?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    X costs 20 times what Y costs: X = 20Y
    X costs 20 times more than Y: X = (20 + 1)Y
    so the reciprocal should be 1/21

    but if it really was 1/20, why not just say "only 5% of the cost of heroin"?

  28. All drugs should be legal to avoid this crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legalize and tax all non-flesh eating drugs. Thin the herd and balance the budget at the same time. Win-win.

  29. Hooray for prohibition... by bluescrn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Make it hard to get hold of pure, *relatively* safe drugs... and people end up doing shit like this...

    1. Re:Hooray for prohibition... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      But there are loads of legal drugs available.
      These people either choose to take the illegal ones, or were forced too because of cost.
      But there is not much the government can do about that. Drugs that are easy to make at home will always be cheaper than buying the legal alternative. Have you see how much they charge for legal pot? I do not know why anyone would pay that much for a drug that is so readily available and easy to grow yourself for cheap.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  30. How desperate do you have to be by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    For the short term high here to be worth your flesh rotting off? I can only imagine you start on the good stuff and descent to this, like an alkie starting on top shelf and descending to drinking aftershave.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  31. A Disease of the Mind by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone who uses something so destructive to his own body has a sick and twisted soul. But the good response to a twisted soul is not to say they deserve what is done to their body, anymore than the good response to a sick body is to say that it deserves to be separated from its soul. The good response is to seek the healing of both.

    I do not believe in the drug war, but neither do I agree with those who would scoff, shrug, and say that it doesn't matter. Some of the comments in this vein are lacking in compassion and in humanity. I cannot see a great distinction in kind, though perhaps their is some difference in degree, between the mind of the inhumane person who would be rid of those who would harm themselves and the mind of the diseased man who would take drugs to rid him of himself. Both are antithetical to life.

    I do not believe in the drug war because the fighting metaphor is taken too literally. A drug war ought to be fought as we fight diseases, with treatment and medicine meant to heal, rather than as we fight foreign enemies, with guns and internment.

    I do not believe in the drug war because there are people willing to take a drug like this, a drug whose very name indicates its self-destructive potential, and therefore I cannot believe that the nightmare of the prison system or the fear thereof would end such self-abuse. Whether people do such drugs out of desperation or vice, punishment can have little positive effect on those whose recreation looks nightmarish to a person of ordinary psychology. They need help and help directed at the root of the problem. And since this becomes a political question, I would add that I would sooner taxes be spent helping people awaken from old nightmares than wake up to new ones. I do not believe in the drug war, but I do believe that we should do what we can to heal diseases of the mind which accept the destruction of the body.

    1. Re:A Disease of the Mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Life is not a book like you write here. I believe this I believe that ... your beliefs are bull and will evaporate the minute you experience real danger. You do not understand nor perceive reality as it is.

    2. Re:A Disease of the Mind by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      This drug is ONLY being used BECAUSE of the War On Drugs.

      It is a direct result OF the War On Drugs.

      And this is not "recreational drug use", it is chronic addiction.

      Everyone that rated this post so it hit +5 IS THE PROBLEM.

    3. Re:A Disease of the Mind by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

      Dude, I think you're a bit confused. I would agree that people resort to a drug like this because of the high prices imposed by anti-drug prohibitionism. I also oppose the war on drugs. I said as much repeatedly. And by repeatedly I mean that I literally repeated my objection to the drug war.

      As for this being a consequence of "recreational drug use," I never said it was. Once someone resorts to something like this I rather doubt they're involved in much that can be termed recreation.

      I'm sure you're objecting to something, since you say, "Everyone that rated this post so it hit +5 IS THE PROBLEM." If you'd like to talk, I'm always happy to do so. But reading what you say here it almost seems as though you didn't read the post to which you so vehemently object.

    4. Re:A Disease of the Mind by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it was a mispost to the wrong thread.

    5. Re:A Disease of the Mind by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

      Ah. No problem. I wasn't kidding when I said it seemed as though you hadn't read what I'd said. But the way message boards on the internet work, we've all had people accuse us of arguing the exact opposite of what we were. Have a nice evening.

  32. First patented in the United states in 1932 by behrooz0az · · Score: 0

    Article sayes First Cases of blah blah blah and http://www.google.com/patents/US1980972

    I feel so like Breaking Bad right now.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
  33. Codeine in cough syrup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't they stop adding codeine to cough syrup, like 40 years ago? At least in the US? When I was a very young kid, all the TV commercials for cough syrup emphasized that they were "non-narcotic" and thus much safer. If junkies can get their hands on codeine or cough syrup with codeine in it, isn't that good enough? I guess not.

    1. Re:Codeine in cough syrup? by mirix · · Score: 1

      I think it's still OTC, in Canada at least. but I thought the US as well.

      You have to ask for it, andi It's always got tylenol mixed in as a denaturant. (i.e. if you drink a whole bottle, they would prefer you die instead of get high. solid logic).

      Codeine is still the gold standard for cough suppression, so it seems unlikely that it's outright banned. Maybe Rx only in the US, though.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    2. Re:Codeine in cough syrup? by russotto · · Score: 1

      Codeine is still the gold standard for cough suppression, so it seems unlikely that it's outright banned. Maybe Rx only in the US, though.

      You've greatly underestimated the fanaticism and mean-spiritedness of the drug warriors. Having made pseudoephedrine (the gold standard for decongestants) very risky to buy if you don't want to have your house raided next time meth shows up at the local high school, they're already working on making it outright illegal (as they have in Mexico).

      They've also recommended banning of Percocet and Vicodin on the grounds of liver damage -- due to the acetaminophen the drug warriors themselves wanted included so they could kill addicts slowly and painfully. Making codeine outright illegal would be right in line for them. Their answer for pain: man up and suffer. Their answer for congestion: man up and suffer. Their answer for coughs will likely be no different.
       

    3. Re:Codeine in cough syrup? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I think it's still OTC, in Canada at least. but I thought the US as well. You have to ask for it

      As I understand it, in the US if "you have to ask for it" then it's not OTC. The only person you can "ask for" something from is a doctor. Pharmacists can advise you on things like drug interactions, etc., but they can't actually give you drugs without a prescription, and they can't write prescriptions themselves.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    4. Re:Codeine in cough syrup? by mirix · · Score: 1

      Well, they aren't on the shelf like normal 'OTC' stuff, yet they also don't require a prescription. The pharmacist typically logs the sale, to thwart people buying oodles of things.

      Here's what wikipedia calls this in the US:

      Restricted OTC Substances

      An ill-defined third category of substances comprises those products having over-the-counter status from the FDA, while being simultaneously subject to other restrictions on sale. While these products are legally classified as OTC drugs, they are typically stored behind the counter and are sold only in stores that are registered with their state. Such items may be unavailable in convenience or grocery stores that stock other non-restricted OTC medications.

      For example, many U.S. drugstores have moved products containing pseudoephedrine, an OTC product, into locations where customers must ask a pharmacist for them. A prescription is not required; the change has been made in an effort to reduce methamphetamine production. Since the passage of the Illinois Methamphetamine Precursor Control Act and the subsequent federal Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, the purchase of pseudoephedrine in the United States is restricted. Sellers of pseudoephedrine must obtain and record the identity of the purchaser and enforce quantity restrictions. Some states may have more stringent requirements [ ... ]

      Canada is same / similar (for weak codeine things, at least), there's a bit of an inquisition but you don't need a prescription.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    5. Re:Codeine in cough syrup? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      I hate those assholes. I flew with a cold once and was dying from (negative) sinus pressure until I could reach a pharmacy and get some pseudophedrine inside me Whatever it is you can buy without going through the Naziesque collection of personal information in many/most states these days is a fraction as effective

    6. Re:Codeine in cough syrup? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Back when I was playing with propolis resin straight from the hive, and wanted to filter the bits of dead bee out of it, I went to the pharmacy and bought a large bottle of ether. I figured I could dissolve the propolis in ether, filter it and the ether would just evaporate very easily. It worked nicely. I also got insanely high and probably almost exploded the kitchen.

      When I wanted to get a small bottle of ethanol alcohol to make propolis tincture the pharmacist tried to convince me to use isopropyl alchohol instead. After asking him if he was a real pharmacist because surely a real pharmacist would know that isopropyl alcohol in a tincture would be toxic to the user he sold me the bottle of ethanol but I had to sign for it and give my address etc.

      Ether; fine, no id, no sign-off just buy it and walk out.
      Ethanol; "who are you where do you live???"

      LOL

      (this was New Zealand in the 1980s)

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    7. Re:Codeine in cough syrup? by synaptik · · Score: 1

      Pseudoephedrine: You have to ask the pharmacist for it, but you don't need a prescription.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
  34. Definitely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The grossness factor of this drug compared to our elected leaders, and corporate lobby is nothing. Lots of blood on are their hands.

  35. It is not the silica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is actually the various acid (i.e. chlorihydric) used to fabricate the sutff. It is quite mentionned clearly in the linked articles.

  36. As usual, problem seems to be the adulterants... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Desomorphine itself, while highly addictive, doesn't seem to be the cause of the horrific symptoms of "krocodil" use. Like many other street drugs, the worst of the negative effects are caused by the lack of regulation and dodgy manufacturing conditions.

    If pharmaceutical grade opiates were available to addicts, nobody would willingly inject this gasoline-laden crap into their body.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  37. jeeezzee what crazy bastards by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    i guess a few cold beers and the occasional bit of pot just isnt enough for some people, getting a buzz wont do it for them, they gotta go to marz and self destruct along the way

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:jeeezzee what crazy bastards by mjwx · · Score: 1

      i guess a few cold beers and the occasional bit of pot just isnt enough for some people,

      More along the lines of cant afford a few beers and the occasional bit of pot.

      People on these kinds of drugs are hardly living a normal suburban life and all of a sudden say, I'm going to try something that'll make my flesh rot.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  38. What a crock of *bleep!* by sirwired · · Score: 2

    Why on earth would the Taliban give one flying *bleep!* about what happens in freakin' Siberia? This crap isn't even made from illegal drugs; it's made from Codeine, which is avail. OTC in Russia (and many other countries, for that matter.)

    In any case, if drugs were legal, this witch's brew simply would not exist. There would be no need for it to be specifically made illegal because nobody in their right mind would use this over actual Morphine, Heroin, Hydrocodone, whatever... or even if they did use it, it would be something out of an actual drug factory, not some horrible mix of petrochemicals, phosphorus, and iodine out of some junkie's basement.

    1. Re:What a crock of *bleep!* by nadavwr · · Score: 1

      The Taliban pushes opiates, and some of that ends up in Russia. That's where the relation ends -- the Taliban aren't related to Krokodil.

      In recent years, Russia has been more successful in limiting drug trafficking, which resulted in dwindling supply and soaring costs. Pair that up with addicts, and you get the perfect target audience for this terrible homebrew drug.

      For those prescribing to the libertarian view on this subject -- consider what would happen if there were to be a sudden drop in supply due to, say, natural disaster... addicts will do everything to get their fix.

    2. Re:What a crock of *bleep!* by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would the Taliban give one flying *bleep!* about what happens in freakin' Siberia?

      They dont.

      Much like revolutionary movements in South America, the drug trade is used to finance their military operations.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  39. Re:Opportunity by pthisis · · Score: 1

    Right, and then let's start mixing it into aids victims treatments, and then let's mix it into the food at homeless shelters, and then let's coat welfare checks with it, and then let's let's let's...
    And then let's... http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

    --
    rage, rage against the dying of the light
  40. MMMMM, the ironing is Delicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    artificial stimulants in order to make it tolerable.

    Commented the nerdling from his likely under lit computer lair. They just chose to do things that ACTUALLY make them feel good, instead of beating it to shemale porn and playing the latest electronic dopamine addiction/reward pathway simulation ^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V video game.

  41. Insite - a Success Story by rueger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is likely a good time to talk up Insite, a "safe injection" site in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

    The premise of Insite is simple: provide a clean, safe place for addicts to shoot up, under medical supervision. Insite doesn't provide drugs, but at least it offers some kind of controlled environment for injection.

    The upshot is ten years of servicing addicts, and not one death. It Just Works.

    Of course our law 'n' order neo-con Harper government is determined to shut it down, crying "Think of The Children" while pocketing donations from the big US private prison companies...

    1. Re:Insite - a Success Story by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The upshot is ten years of servicing addicts, and not one death.

      That they know of. Or are willing to admit to. Or... well, you get the picture. There's plenty of ways to spin positive and avoiding taking credit for the negative.

    2. Re:Insite - a Success Story by mjwx · · Score: 1

      This is likely a good time to talk up Insite, a "safe injection" site in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

      The premise of Insite is simple: provide a clean, safe place for addicts to shoot up, under medical supervision. Insite doesn't provide drugs, but at least it offers some kind of controlled environment for injection.

      The upshot is ten years of servicing addicts, and not one death. It Just Works.

      Of course our law 'n' order neo-con Harper government is determined to shut it down, crying "Think of The Children" while pocketing donations from the big US private prison companies...

      This, Australia has a couple of safe injection rooms. The theory goes that people who do heroin will do heroin anyway. Before the safe injection rooms, they would inject in parks at night, leave the needles in the park and during the day kids would play in the same park where there are used needles. Safe injection rooms get them out of the parks and give them a way to dispose of the used needles.

      Methadone clinics are another thing we've done, an attempt to wean addicts off of Heroin.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  42. That's a solved problem by sirwired · · Score: 1

    When this particular drug was/is sold as a prescription (wikipedia says it's still for sale in Switzerland), I imagine it's not full of Phosphorus, Gasoline, etc. by the time it gets administered.

    1. Re:That's a solved problem by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So walt would be able to fix it so your skin didn't fall off... bonus.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. Question about the second picutre in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't the person in the second picture be in so much pain they would basically need to be put into a coma? Or wouldn't they get an infection from the exposure or something like that?

    1. Re:Question about the second picutre in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "Krokodile is an opiate" don't you understand? They are in pain which is why they take more and more to make the pain go away!

    2. Re:Question about the second picutre in TFA by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      I am also assuming that the area is dead, so the nerves maybe be non-functioning as well.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    3. Re:Question about the second picutre in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would the person be able to hold up their arm then?

  45. Legalization is the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to legalize, because;

    1. it's a matter of freedom - what I want to do, so long as I don't force myself on others, is up to me
    2. so horrors like this don't need to happen.
    3. because the direct cost of keeping the drug-convicted population is jail is some tens of percent of typical State budgets, and the indirect costs are huge - all those people *not* working, *not* with their families, having their lives ruined

  46. Gasoline, paint thinner, and alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gasoline, paint thinner, and alcohol... I know a lot of "every day things" made out of the same materials as these....

  47. Darwin by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is hard at work.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You think this is a fucking joke? Darwin would turn over in his grave to hear assholes like you attach his name to that anti-humanist sadistic bullshit now known as "Social Darwinism". Social Darwinists are a toothbrush mustache away from being the worst douchebags of the 20th century. These are fucking people. They didn't choose to get addicted to poison any more than people choose to starve to death in the street.

    2. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're wrong. They damn well *did* choose to take the first hit of crack or krok or meth.

  48. Where's Robocop ? by doubletalk · · Score: 0

    Where's Robocop when we need him ?!

  49. Re:As usual, problem seems to be the adulterants.. by phantomfive · · Score: 0

    Are you in favor of legalizing e-coli laden beef for sale?
    Are you in favor of legalizing unregulated antibiotics of unknown strength?
    Are you in favor of legalizing pork sales with trichinosis?

    There is a reason we have some regulations, because without them, bad things happen. So saying, "I am in favor of legalizing drugs" does not mean you also have to favor legalizing Krokodil.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  50. Malnutrition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Malnutrition is one of the more dangerous/deadly effects of opiate/heroin use. It suppresses appetite to the point it makes people susceptible to malnutrition related diseases and sicknesses. Have you ever seen a fat junkie (aside from Rush Limbough)? No. They don't exist. A lot of junkies get sick and die because their bodies are too week from malnutrition.

  51. If heroine were legal, nobody would die. by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    Sure they would. People die every day from alcohol and its legal.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:If heroine were legal, nobody would die. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Alcohol is a lot worse for you then heroin, at least in the quantities that an addict consumes.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  52. "paint thinner"? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Made of codeine, a painkiller often used in cough syrup, and a mix of other materials including gasoline, paint thinner, and alcohol, Krokodil become popular in Russia because it costs 20 times less than heroin and can be made easily at home

    If people are willing to go to these lengths just for a buzz, wouldn't it be better just to let them have narcotics that will give them what they want without eating their flesh away and making them an even greater burden on society?

    We've already learned that people addicted to opiates can live crime-free, productive lives if they aren't made de facto criminals, so really, what's the harm in them being able to buy pharmaceutical opiates at market prices without a prescription?

    Before they die, I wonder what the average "krokodil" user costs society in medical treatment and welfare, not to mention their families. Prohibition was tried and deemed a disaster, so why do we still criminalize drugs and drug users?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:"paint thinner"? by Cassini2 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take long to do the economic calculations and justify giving drugs to addicts for free. Crime is very expensive. Criminals steal $50 by smashing windows that costs $3000 to replace. A heroin addict needs a great deal of money to pay for his habbit. That means one addict can cost society $100,000 to $1,000,000 dollars a year, very easily. Worse, jailing addicts does not eliminate this cost. Jail costs on the order of $100,000 per year, and doesn't cure an addicts addiction.

      In comparison, forcing a heroin addict into therapy and giving them a supply of heroin can cost as little as $5,000 per year. The expense pays for itself after one robbery. Additionally, the drug dealers go bust - they have nothing to sell. This ends a great deal of gang related turf war crime too. Some heroin addicts, if given a safe and reliable supply of the drug, can even hold down jobs. This means they pay taxes - which wouldn't happen if they were in jail.

      Unfortunately, the US likes to punish criminals. We jail more people in the US as a percentage of the population than anywhere else in the world. We fail to understand that addicts will do whatever is required to cover their addiction. As such, jail is not a deterrent. All jail does is increase the cost and amount of the crime. A different approach is needed to overcome addiction. Something that does not force addicts to crime to pay for their addiction.

  53. Time to laugh harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If pharmaceutical grade opiates were available to addicts, nobody would willingly inject this gasoline-laden crap into their body.

    That's like saying that if healthy, tasty food were available to Americans then nobody would willingly ingest fat/sodium-laden crap fast food into their body.

    As long as crap can be cheaper and/or more conveniently accessible people will buy it.

    1. Re:Time to laugh harder by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      So the obvious answer is to criminalize healthy food. Gotcha.

  54. don't look at the images MENTAL HEALTH WARNING by hebertrich · · Score: 2

    there's no words to say the shock i was just dealt. freaking destroy the links to the images .NOONE NEEDS TO SEE THIS .

    1. Re:don't look at the images MENTAL HEALTH WARNING by gweihir · · Score: 2

      There were enough clear warnings. If you cannot read, you are bound to run into nasty things now and then....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:don't look at the images MENTAL HEALTH WARNING by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      You must be new to the Internet.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:don't look at the images MENTAL HEALTH WARNING by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      You were shocked?

      Well, then, Mission Accomplished. It is reality. Sometimes there are things in this world that are so horrifying, that someone feels compelled to publish images/videos of it, so that people can wake up and realize that there is something dangerous going on.

      I dug a little deeper, and found some videos that were, uh, well, extremely disturbing. Yes, you say, that one, where the nurse uses a wire saw to cut the tibia and fibula, removing the necrotic foot. Directly into a trash bin — while conversing with the COMPLETELY AWAKE patient. Take my advice; don't look for the video.

      Of course, trauma and tragedy are not new. Anyone who was on the internet in 1995 knows. For example, "Dan's Gallery of the Grotesque." Don't even Google it. I'm warning you. Horrific images that will indelibly burn into the viewer's mind. DO NOT GO. DO NOT GO.

  55. We must take responsibility for policy outcomes by elipsey · · Score: 2

    It is appalling to see so many people blaming users for the results of a policy Americans keep voting for. This is a public health outcome of the "War on Drugs", which, like any other war on a thing, is really just a war on people.

    Blaming addicts is a craven political tactic used by powerful incumbents to protect their incomes: Local and federal law enforcement agencies who's funding depends on drug prohibition, privatized prisons and their lobbies, grandstanding politicians who campaign on "getting tough" on things, and gangsters and smugglers all have a vested interest in the status quo. The outcome cannot improve until we refuse to be duped, demand reform.

    Desperate users who are already opioid addicts are exploited by sellers of krokodil, they are not normal healthy people who "choose to try it". It is unreasonable to assume that users of this substance have given informed consent to be poisoned; they do not enjoy the same autonomy that you and I do, they are desperate, and they are not easily able to evaluate the quality or authenticity of black market drugs.

    Drug prohibition is economically nonsensical. It is an explicitly stated aim of law enforcement to increase the street price of narcotics. Therefore, prohibition incentivizes the black market and makes users less safe and more desperate. Black market opioids are expensive and contaminated _because_ they are criminalized, and the desperation of addicts is exacerbated by our policy. We have deliberately created a situation where heroine costs $250 per gram and addicts must choose between getting DT's and robbing houses.

    Drug prohibition is predicated on the ideas that narcotics diminish our autonomy, and that we are all susceptible to addiction to some degree. It is incoherent to support prohibition and blame addicts at the same time. It's also hypocritical. How many of you have consumed a pharmaceutical opioid or other narcotic, and thereby chosen to risk addiction?

    We are not morally or intellectually superior to addicts. Moreover, blame is no solace to the millions of people who are imprisoned, killed by gangsters, or poisoned, and it is cruel, pedantic, and beneath us... oh wait, this is slashdot.... but seriously:

    Even if we don't care an iota for the welfare of drug users, we ought to resent the fact that we are footing the bill for a colossal boondogle which is perverting our legal system, and destabilizing neighboring states.

    Krokodil is a market outcome of drug prohibition. We should stop voting for it.

  56. Heinlein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Most do-gooding reminds me of treating hemophilia-the only real cure for hemophilia is to let hemophiliacs bleed to death before they breed more hemophiliacs."

  57. Doesn't seem likely to catch on by russotto · · Score: 2

    Codeine (the main precursor to krokodil) is already prescription-only in the US, so the precursors aren't cheap and available. So there's no great advantage for opiate addicts; they seem more likely to stick with oxy, heroin, or other already-common opiates that kill you somewhat slower and without the flesh-eating side-effcts.

    1. Re:Doesn't seem likely to catch on by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

      People have been and are on those drugs their entire lives under prescription lead a normal length of life.

    2. Re:Doesn't seem likely to catch on by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Opiates do NOT kill you. The only deaths from opiates are overdose or drug interaction (such as combination with another drug that suppresses breathing). The only reason anyone overdoes is because the stuff because the are using products of unknown strength and underestimate the potency, or because they intended to commit suicide.

      There is no known limit of opiates that will cause death, with sufficient tolerance someone can take almost unlimited doses. I believe the record is 35grams of morphine, which if you know anything about morphine doses would shock you with the severe quantity. A normal morphine does to your average patient is 5 milligram. The record 35 grams is 8000 times the average non-addict severe pain dose.

    3. Re:Doesn't seem likely to catch on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While codeine is prescription only, it's Schedule III and Schedule V (depending on the strength). Schedule V drugs are not watched nearly as closely as something like Oxy.

      And I'm not sure, but I think you can get it OTC in both Canada and Mexico. Still, you're probably right that it won't catch on due to its effects from impurities unless the DEA successfully cracks down on stronger drugs.

    4. Re:Doesn't seem likely to catch on by akozakie · · Score: 1

      Yes, the home-brewing is less likely. But since only one component is prescription-only, I would bet the drug will hit the market. The component is readily available over the counter in several countries and actually legal to possess in the US (with prescription). This makes acquiring codeine a lot easier and cheaper than many alternatives. Plus, the drug is actually great to sell if purified - it is very highly addictive, doesn't last long and doesn't kill the client too quickly. Goldmine. Then the client is not able to pay for that anymore - cool, you tell him to get more money just once and sell him some codeine and the instructions (not saying anything about purification methods) and it's quite likely he won't bother you anymore.

  58. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't they learn from TV that the only drug suppliers you can rely on are chemistry teachers?

  59. In Soviet Russia... by Picass0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...drug consumes addict.

  60. Think of it... by Huge_UID · · Score: 2

    ...as evolution in action.

    1. Re:Think of it... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      You may not know why you wrote that, but it was my first thought.

      Let them take it and die, without issue. Self-limiting problem.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  61. Bogometer at red alert, Captain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds more like something from a cyberpunk novel. Gimme a break!

  62. Old news is old by allo · · Score: 1

    slashdot is now 2-3 years late with the news ... -.-

  63. Home-brew hard cider is good. by billstewart · · Score: 1

    It can be really good stuff, if you start with decent ingredients and keep everything clean, and it's trivially easy to make, compared with making beer. However, you can probably do it badly instead :-)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Home-brew hard cider is good. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Why would I do it at all? I'm not a hobbyist distiller, and if I wanted to drink, there is plenty of very high quality stuff available for purchase without the effort involved. I mean ... not that I would ever do drugs ;-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:Home-brew hard cider is good. by hovelander · · Score: 1

      Because it becomes a passion after you've made good batches of wine from things other than grapes, beer from the base grains you've crushed yourself to get the hulls to slip off without too much tear, spirits out of left field with essences of lavender you've grown yourself.

      Say what you will about just buying it, but some of us have gotten a mind virus that wants to start slapping bud lights out of people's hands.

      Ciders are what kept the founding fathers alive, not to mention the rest of chimpdom for the majority of written history. Prohibiton's last laugh was that its effects were felt long after its repeal.

      Pruno is what you make on the heat register. Glory is what you make in the carboy.

      After you've done that a few times, there just is no going back.

    3. Re:Home-brew hard cider is good. by billstewart · · Score: 2

      Cider's not distilled, just fermented. After you've done that, distilling is optional (or freeze-concentration - you leave it out in the cold and keep skimming the non-alcoholic ice off the top until what's left has concentrated into applejack, though I haven't actually tried that.) Basically you just take some good juice, add an appropriate yeast, stick a fermentation lock on top and wait a week. Yum!

      I've only made one batch of beer, and it was from a kit that did basically all the work for you (it has a malt-hops syrup that you ferment.) Once I've used up a bit more of it, I'll try a small batch of with a somewhat more authentic method. (If I'd known there were kits for brewing a gallon at a time, I'd have started brewing years ago; homebrew used to be a 5-gallon-and-up activity, which is way more beer than I can consume before it's gone bad, and you need to do a few experimental batches before you've got anything you can dependably bring to a party, unless you're a college student with friends who'll drink anything they can get.)

      Why do it? Same reason it's worth baking your own bread on occasion, you get to experiment, make something tasty, and have fun.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    4. Re:Home-brew hard cider is good. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Well, that explains why most people bake their own bread, anyway.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    5. Re:Home-brew hard cider is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its worth noting, if you're not aware, that "Johny Appleseed" was spreading fruit seeds far and wide to promote growth for cider (hard) and was branded a terrorist (as such) by abolitionists.

    6. Re:Home-brew hard cider is good. by hovelander · · Score: 1

      +10

      Isn't it grand, that a figure from history went around finding plots of land that were going to be future settlements to plant apple trees for hard cider production, is one of the US' children's most known citizens?

      John Chapman didn't even care what the apple varieties were. Just apple trees from seed which mostly produced wildly variable size and quality. All for cider. Chapman was a shrewd business wanderer who became immortal in story. Fascinating.

    7. Re:Home-brew hard cider is good. by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 1

      I look forward to spring each year for the fresh stinging nettles to brew up a gallon of nettle beer Surprisingly bitter and strong, but very good out of the fridge on a warm evening!

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
    8. Re:Home-brew hard cider is good. by hovelander · · Score: 1

      I've consistently forgotton to make nettle wine every year and kick myself for it. Thanks for the reminder!

    9. Re:Home-brew hard cider is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I brew beer quite a bit. I use the all-grain process and make the beers I like, exactly the way I like them.

      The fact people use this drug really kind of freaks me out though.

  64. Re:As usual, problem seems to be the adulterants.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a reason we have some regulations, because without them, bad things happen.

    regulations are there to give a venear of legitimacy to governments so the have an excuse to take your money.

    Nothing in the constitution mentions trichonosis.

    --
    roman_mir blocked by the mod's again

  65. Re:As usual, problem seems to be the adulterants.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, go for it. I'm a vegetarian.

  66. W.W. back on service... by Arkh89 · · Score: 1

    Or when Breaking Bad merge with a Zombie series...
    Breaking Dead sounds cool as a title, very pictural...

  67. Stop injecting drain cleaner then by gelfling · · Score: 2

    Or, in the long run it's a self correcting problem.

  68. Re:As usual, problem seems to be the adulterants.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That isn't what he said at all. He said if they could get the clean stuff ie: beef without ecoli, pure antibiotics, trichinosis free pork, then this shit wouldn't even have to be made in the first place. What side are you arguing besides the straw men side?

  69. Re:This is the result of the counterrevolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with that approach is that it puts the burden of work on the people who want more than a meager subsistance. That may seem fine, but as the burden of work on those people increases, they tend to drop out, which increases the burden of work for those remaining, accelerating the process. Eventually the whole house of cards collapses.

  70. Re:"20 times less?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "a costs 20 times less than b"
    a = b - 20b
    simplify
    a = -19b

  71. oh my god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...mod parent down.

  72. Fearmongering at its finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a website that prides itself on the scientific approach, this is the most sensationalist article I've ever read.

  73. Darwin in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As others have pointed out, this is a stellar example of natural selection in action. Maybe the stupid will kill themselves off before they have a chance to reproduce. I say this as an avid marijuana smoker and an avid alcohol drinker.

  74. Almost as scary as that flesh bloating drug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Corn syrup.

     

  75. Something that is not mentioned in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am Russian (though live in Baltimore), and kept a constant eye on the news about Krokodil for about last 10 years or so.
    One thing that was no in the article and rarely mentioned is why pharma. drugs containing codeine were so readily available ???

    As it turned out, Russian pharmaceutical company "FarmStandart" () basically flooded the market with drugs containing codeine. Firm had direct "ties" with minister of heath Golikova () (Google for ).

    In 2011 all the codeine drugs were sold only by prescription !!! As a result, sales of those drugs fell drastically.

    Guess, what have happened to ??? As of May, company lost 40% of it's value (http://newsland.com/news/detail/id/1212125/), since it planning to sell or spin-off it's over the counter drugs division.

    Bitch should be hanged with rest of FarmStandart managers and owners.

    1. Re:Something that is not mentioned in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edit: I wrote company name in Russian, apparently Slashdot does not like Russian Alphabet !!! Racist /.

  76. Good, make it free by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    Pay for it with my tax dollars. Give it to anyone who wants it, above the age of 14.

  77. Re:This is the result of the counterrevolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's "more... THAN", you American cretin...

  78. Thank China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oddly, this drug is NOT coming from Russia, but from China. Sad. But, China is at war with the west and even with Russia.

  79. Re:This is the result of the counterrevolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you kidding? Almost everyone wants more than a meager subsistence. Your premise is flawed.

  80. You people are just not trying hard enough. by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    I am certain we can come up with something that works faster than 3 years.

  81. Nothing is better for society than remove the by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    Profit. A pint and a half of laudanum from sears for 5 cents, Is the very best thing we could go back to.

  82. I feel sorry ... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    For the cops/ambulance people who have to clean up those bodies. At least most other drugs leave decent corpses (not necessarily any worse than the typical accidental death corpse).

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  83. Crocodile? by WD · · Score: 2

    A drug that causes scaly green skin and is called crocodile? Ok, I have to admit that I had to look up that this isn't an early/late April fools joke.

    1. Re:Crocodile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A drug that causes scaly green skin and is called crocodile? Ok, I have to admit that I had to look up that this isn't an early/late April fools joke.

      *facepalm* Have you considered that this was the reason it was called Krokodil in the first place? Krokodil is the street name for the drug.

  84. Re:As usual, problem seems to be the adulterants.. by dryeo · · Score: 1

    There is a reason we have some regulations, because without them, bad things happen.

    regulations are there to give a venear of legitimacy to governments so the have an excuse to take your money.

    Nothing in the constitution mentions trichonosis.

    --
    roman_mir blocked by the mod's again

    The founders probably thought it was a States right to regulate trichinosis. Lots of regulations are done at a more local level.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  85. Re:This is the result of the counterrevolution by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    If I am not going to correct c1ommunism, i am not likely to fix that.

  86. Indictment of life in Russia by LazLong · · Score: 1

    Life in Russia sucks, and it doesn't surprise me at all that this was developed there and gained such widespread use. I bet the rural population was hit particularly hard by this drug.

    I also won't be surprised if it finds a receptive userbase in US cities.

  87. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost 500 messages of this marginal event. Why?

  88. Re:This is the result of the counterrevolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one knows what pure communism would solve, or pure capitalism for that matter.

    Humans are not good at doing "pure". If there are rules, there needs to be someone with more power than the general population who can enforce these rules. This person or group of people are going to game the system for their own advantage.

    PS on paper the system you described is a pure version of modern china (communist base with capitalism now neatly folded over the top for the upper classes). However as china demonstrates, those in power can still screw the common person.

  89. The solution is obvious... by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

    Krokodil should be legalized!

  90. Fuck I'm itchy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep scratching. That'll save ya...

  91. Depends by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    the problem with Krok isn't the drug, it's the impurities and how cheap & easy it is to make. In a completely free market ''entrepreneurs" could make Krok and sell it as heroin. Sure, they'd get found out. But Russia's a big place and they could just move every time the heat got too much.

    The Socialist in my says this wouldn't happen if people weren't trying so hard to escape from the brutal reality of our dog eat dog society.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Depends by lgw · · Score: 1

      The American poor live better than almost everyone who has ever lived. Even if you just look at this century, the top 1% of income worldwide is something like $30k.

      That's the fundamental flaw in Socialism: you simply cannot make people happy in the long term by (collectively) giving them things. Some can be happy if they have more than their neighbors, but then multiple neighbors are likely unhappy about that. Some can be happy if you give them more than they're used to, but obviously you can't keep that up.

      No matter how you order society, there will always be people who try hard to escape from reality. No matter how you compute the average, there will always be people below average who just can't live with that.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Depends by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      That's progress. Every year we redefine the poor until the word is just a dim memory. There will be people that long for something beyond reality, but that's different from trying to escape from it.

      And yes, there will be outliers in any system. I know I can't make everyone happy by taking away the constant battle for survival. What I can do is ease their pain and eliminate as much of it as I can. Again, progress.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    3. Re:Depends by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure, but almost everyone in America can get a "survival" job by just showing up on time and well groomed for a McJob. Anyone who thinks they shouldn't ever need to work a minimum wage job in their life is just a twit, and needs a dose of reality, not more coddling.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  92. Education won't work by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    and you actually hit on the reason why when you mentioned rich vs poor people's drugs. A lot of these people have serious chemical imbalances in their brains. They aren't taking heroin because they lack moral fiber and they can't "Pray it away". They're self medicating. See this comic for anyone that doubts.

    As for action, why would Russian need to do anything? From a practical standpoint these people have little or no impact on the general populace. They die quickly and mostly keep to themselves. In order to take action Russia would have to move away from Libertarian ideals of "Free choice" and towards Socialism (hopefully real Socialism and not the phoney kind loved by Fascists).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Education won't work by hovelander · · Score: 1

      Because there isn't a finite number of users who will just die out and then the problem goes away.

      Not to mention that at a current estimated user base of 1,000,000 million users will impact whatever healthcare system they have in Russia negatively. What about all the opportunistic diseases that happens when you have a large base of severely compromised immune systems?

      Not a simple case of let the druggies kill themselves and leave the gene pool. Not even close.

    2. Re:Education won't work by hovelander · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Education won't work by nobodie · · Score: 1

      The Russians are in the worst cultural/psychic/self-destructive meltdown imaginable. Not content with a slow die-off through low birthrates (1.37 births /couple last I heard) they have to feed this stuff to their people to get rid of them faster. What no-one is considering is that there is a part of Russia that is growing in population: the Turkic peoples in the South. The ones that breed the nastiest kind of terrorists like the Boston marathon bombers and the Chechens, the Turkmen, etc, lots of people you don't know and hopefully never will.

      But it is probably a forlorn hope. They will be able to take over the northern parts in a decade or so. Siberia is almost empty. I rode across by trin two years ago and it was rapidly emptying. Villages that were full of empty houses, weed choked yards and gardens, roads in name only. It is a mess.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  93. Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These people are going to be the zombies.

    This is the first time I've heard of a realistic source for zombies in the future of the world. There won't be many, but they will be pretty nasty.

  94. First examples of drug that photoshops thei users! by Optali · · Score: 1

    Mates, the pictures are as real as Micheal Jackson's nose.
    For fuck's sake, the chick lifting her arm looks as if she were bored to dead... And the pieces of yellow stuff look totally PAINTED, with a brush. The bone looks like something cooked, I dare say it's a beef bone from a stew with a steak pasted one layer below... and the Green Hand... The household products in this case haven't been used for making a drug but for making a cheap halloween make up.

    The question is: does this drug work only in RGB or also in CMYK?

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  95. I wonder... by CmdrEdem · · Score: 1

    ... if /. will be the first site to have flesh-eating posts.

    --
    This combination doesn`t exist: ETIs that know about humanity and want to see us dead. Otherwise we wouldn't exist.
  96. This Article ... by yakinican · · Score: 1

    Nice Article and so I Like this ...

  97. Say goodbye to your sensibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Vice documentary provides enough information for a thoughtful person to realize how bad things can be for someone, that they would take this road. This drug (Krok) is the most destructive one have ever heard of. This drug is truly evil.

  98. It's not the fucking drug that eats flesh!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For christ sake get you damn facts right. It's not the drug that eats flesh, it's the contaminants from "home cooking" the drug!!

  99. Easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just say no.

  100. desomorphine isn't the issue by K10W · · Score: 3, Informative

    desomorphine isn't so bad if you purify it, or at least take a lot of the crap out like alkanes it's often cooked in. Krokodil is bad due to the lack of purifying step, I first heard of it a year ago but deso has been used in likes of Australia due to heroin shortages for much longer just not in such a dirty form hence lack of necrosis associated with it now.

    My degree was in biochem but even I know enough drug purification techniques to separate enough of the desomorphine from the crap and generally it wouldn't be so bad for you even IV, so i'm surprised no-one street level has figured out something similar. I mean even cynical view the customers live longer you sell more. The active ingredients are fine in right does, the impurities downright nasty and some of the adulterants/deliriants are not so great for the body such as the eye drops it's mixed with.

    Some adulterants are not so bad in opiates such as diphenhydramine (1st gen antihistamine to make it dreamy feeling) and benzos etc although much of the heroin and opiates knocking around on the street has too much shit like that in hence many users I know say the nod off it is shit but alright legs (duration of the hit). Obviously stuff like temazepam mixed in also cuts the craving somewhat and is noddy still so means you can drop the amount of actual gear in the mix. Some of the bulking agents are ok like lactose but some is downright shitty to cut with, there are always some too. Recent outbreak around city centre where i live of heroin with suboxone in (the buprenorphine is fine but the naloxone causes major issues when injected and has killed or hospitalised a few local addicts and a lot of outreach workers I know are warning about the batch).

  101. Not true by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    lots and lots of old people (40+) are finding themselves completely unemployable, especially back East in places like Detroit. Doctor's are giving them bogus 'disabilities' so they don't starve to death and die on the streets, but the right wing is already going after them...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Not true by lgw · · Score: 2

      If you live in Detroit, leave. It's not a city, it's an apocalyptic wasteland. Outside of actual disaster areas, no one who can show up on time and well groomed, and is a citizen, is "unemployable". My brother (40+) went through this recently when his career crashed. There are no shortage of unskilled jobs to work while you look for something semi-skilled to give you time to figure out what to do next. That is, if you don't turn your nose up at washing dishes.

      And, yes, the "right wing" has this bizarre notion that disability insurance fraud should be treated as such. Most of the "right wing" I know give to charity, though - you know, their own money, not someone else's.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Not true by entrigant · · Score: 1

      There are no shortage of unskilled jobs to work

      You must not be paying attention. There's been a shortage of jobs for a few years now. Started around '08? Called a recession? Ringing any bells?

    3. Re:Not true by lgw · · Score: 1

      You moved from my "unskilled jobs" to your "jobs", I notice. There are many available jobs that pay less than unemployment (part of the point of unemployment is to keep skilled workers out of the unskilled market). It's hard to find semi-skilled work because employers generally don't want people who will leave as soon as the "real" job market returns. Minimum-wage jobs are different, as high turnover is the norm. I think you'll find most people saying "I'm unemployable" simply aren't considering washing dishes or bagging groceries as an option (well, outside of Detroit, where I can believe there are no jobs of any kind - and look for more failed cities to come).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  102. I'm an active addict by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am an active heroin user; have been for the past 11 years. I have also held accomplished jobs in IT for the past 11 years as well. Let me describe to you the rationale behind this drug - opiate withdrawal is very nasty. While people are saying it cannot be fatal you're wrong. I know people that have died from embolisms etc. When you're "dope sick", your body sweats but is hot and cold at the same time, your skin crawls, your nose constantly runs and you sneeze constantly. You can't sleep, your legs are restless, your bones actually hurt, your blood is itchy. It's pure hell. All of a sudden, a drug pops up while you're sick, that you can purchase for mere pennies on the dollar and it gets you well. Bingo, when you don't have the money for heroin, this is the next best thing - but now you always are buyin this krokodil shit because its cheaper

  103. They're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Desomorphine does not cause these problems, it is the poor chemistry methods they use, from the doco's I've seen about it, most of them just mix all the chemicals together and boil down, rather than doing a liquid-liquid extraction to get just the good stuff out. I only saw one doco where the cooks were doing a proper separation.
    strong acid will definately dissolve all the flesh around the injection site.

  104. Timing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strange that this story should come out just before Zombie Season. Maybe it's just publicity. Zombies aren't so funny now, are they?

  105. Re:As usual, problem seems to be the adulterants.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes they would. Krokodil addicts want krokodil. They keep going back to it, and in their condition, they're hardly able to go down to the local clinic to get a safe alternative. Not everyone using krokodil is an addict that would rather be taking something else. Many are thrill seekers looking to experience increasingly more potent highs. That's the allure of krok.