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."

48 of 618 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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.
    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. Re:Gross, but... by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    13. 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.)

    14. 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.
    15. 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

    16. 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)

    17. 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.
    18. 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?

    19. 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.
    20. Re:Gross, but... by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Funny

      They didn't have a choice either way.

    21. 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.

    22. 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?

    23. 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
    24. 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"
  2. 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!
  3. Solution by blue+trane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Legalize heroin.

    1. 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.

    2. Re:Solution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nah, legalize everything.

      Let God sort it out.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. Re:Solution by gregor-e · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is estimated that only about 23% of people who use heroin become dependent on it.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

  6. 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."
  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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
  13. 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."
  14. 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).

  15. 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.

  16. 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
  17. 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...

  18. 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.

  19. 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