Slashdot Mirror
Opioid Dealers Embrace the Dark Web To Send Deadly Drugs by Mail (nytimes.com)
Anonymous online sales are surging, and people are dying. Despite dozens of arrests, new merchants -- many based in Asia -- quickly pop up. From a report on the New York Times: In a growing number of arrests and overdoses, law enforcement officials say, the drugs are being bought online. Internet sales have allowed powerful synthetic opioids such as fentanyl -- the fastest-growing cause of overdoses nationwide -- to reach living rooms in nearly every region of the country, as they arrive in small packages in the mail (syndicated source). The authorities have been frustrated in their efforts to crack down on the trade because these sites generally exist on the so-called dark web, where buyers can visit anonymously using special browsers and make purchases with virtual currencies like Bitcoin. The problem of dark web sales appeared to have been stamped out in 2013, when the authorities took down the most famous online marketplace for drugs, known as Silk Road. But since then, countless successors have popped up, making the drugs readily available to tens of thousands of customers who would not otherwise have had access to them. Among the dead are two 13-year-olds, Grant Seaver and Ryan Ainsworth, who died last fall in the wealthy resort town of Park City, Utah, after taking a synthetic opioid known as U-47700 or Pinky. The boys had received the powder from another local teenager, who bought the drugs on the dark web using Bitcoin, according to the Park City police chief.
therefore, not newsworthy
I love oh bitcoin is "Evil"; but the amount of crime in which dollars are used is ok.
Dealers should be lauded for helping clean the gene pool. Like guns there should be more drugs, not less. Society won't be satisfied until enough stupid people kill themselves.
...Y2K wants its story back.
Who knew?
Dialectician. Archology.
Gary Johnson might not have been a very good candidate, but one good point he made was the U.S. has the best policies in place to cause drug users to die. Trillions of dollars spent, and they can't even keep the drugs out of prisons. Everyone would be better off if you could just buy crack, meth & heroin at your local party store, and rededicate the money being spent on imprisoning people to treatment programs. I just saw an article that said it now costs more to keep someone in prison than it does to send them to Harvard for a year.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Everything from guns, to drugs, to any number of other illegal things get shipped through the USPS all the time. This has been an open secret for decades. It's just that someone at the Times took a day off from the usual neo-liberal propaganda to report on something most normies don't know about. The only real change is that someone has refined one of the channels for communication.
Modern media must need to sensationalize everything. Just because something is on the Internet doesn't make it "virtual". Did I make a "virtual" purchase on Amazon? Or send a "virtual" message to my boss via email? I think they mean "currency like Bitcoin."
As we read stories about how demonic the dark web is in perpetuating the opioid problem, I wonder how many deaths occur every day from legalized use.
I'm willing to bet more opioid addicts are created from prescription bottles than the dark web could ever create.
I bet the leakers are selling these drugs on the dark web to make Trump look bad.
You appear to be operating under the assumption that he needs help in that regard.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
You MUST shut down the Interwebs because think of the CHILDREN!
No, they're doing to make the internet look bad, so people will demand more control and censorship.
Of course that's not true either. They're doing it to make money, plain and simple.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
May I point out that the fucking stupid $25 billion dollar wall is going to do didly squat to this druggie epidemic. But is the Hair in Chief going to admit error and redirect the cash to something more productive?
Don't hold your breath, you'll turn purple.
"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history."
The War on Drugs was and is nothing more than Prohibition 2. And like most Hollywood sequels, everything involved, bootlegging, corruption, and violence, are simply done over on a more massive scale to impress the audience.
Just another sign that we ought to legalize _all_ drugs, not just marijuana.
Aside from the big three (alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana) they ought to be available only from stores licensed by either the state or the Feds (like liquor stores in some states) but you should be able to get whatever drugs you want from those stores. But those drugs should be regulated for quality and they should be heavily taxed, with the proceeds used for education, health care, and detox centers. (Even with taxes the price will probably remain comparable to current values once the overhead of having to circumvent the police/military is taken into account.)
Yes, some people will become addicted and their lives will be ruined, and some people will die. But we have proven over and over again that you can't _force_ people to live responsibly if they don't want to. We can try to educate people when they're young, and the detox centers will be there for people who've gotten into trouble and want to get their lives straightened out. Even so, there will still be those who are unable or unwilling to control their impulses, and that's sad. But criminalization has ruined far too many lives, too often those who aren't even involved, and wasted way too much government money while putting way too much money in the pockets of those benefiting from the illegal drug trade.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
When my late father required maintenance drugs to keep living, a one-month supply of the drugs cost $120 per month. He found a pharmacy in India that would sell him a six-month supply for the same price. When he got his first package, it was the same drugs that he got at the local pharmacy.
You forgot the /s tag.
I thought you were serious at first xD
Chainsaws are extremely dangerous if mishandled.
Drugs are tools. Amphetamines, opiates, and paracetamol are dangerous. People overuse caffeine; it's less-dangerous than amphetamine, and provides a sort of illustration about why we don't just give you a stock of 2.5mg d-AMP capsules instead of morning coffee.
The kind of pain for which you need opiates will fuck you up. Pain does extreme psychological damage, and chronic pain is debilitating. Opiates provide an important component of a barely-adequate essential medical system.
Opiates will also fuck you up if misused.
Deal with it. There's a reason we have Codeine and Morphine, but don't use Diamorphine: it's ridiculously-addictive, physically harmful, and generally just no good for pain management. Diamorphine will work, but damn.
I'd be okay with more latitude for self-care. Allow pharmacy technicians to prescribe more drugs after brief counseling; give patients with physician-approval a limited allowance to self-prescribe or to have a pharmacy tech prescribe. My doctor knows I'm not trying to get high and would have little problem just writing up sleeping med prescriptions--which has been done now and then, and I've found I really don't work well with GABA drugs; I don't have a standing Rx for Suvorexant or any Rx ever for Ramelteon, and I can't just walk into a pharmacy and get myself 10 of those to have on-hand or to test how they affect me. It would not be unreasonable for my doctor to have sent a class-based approval that allows me to say "I have X and want to try fixing it with Y" and get the pharmacist's opinion on that, followed by a pharmacy-tech prescription, no doctor's visit.
There is, however, a reason we don't just let you walk into Rite-Aid and pick up a bottle of Adderall off the shelf. That doesn't mean Amphetamine is bad; it's just a very dangerous tool. Same with opiates.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
1) People who want to self-medicate are going to self-medicate. If you restrict the natural options, then they'll opt for less natural ones that tend to be more harmful.
2) If you don't want people to self-medicate to escape reality, then stop building a reality that they are willing to risk death to escape from.
3) Far more people die from prescription drugs than from anything illegal. Get off your high horses you pathetic hypocrites.
4) Plenty of people die sooner than and / or die in far less comfort than is available because of pointless and counterproductive drug regulations.
5) If your kid is hooked on drugs, it's because you're a shitty failure of a parent (see #2 above). Period. There are no exceptions. Stop blaming others for your failure.
What kind of garbage is that? There were other darknet markets still up, and more appeared in days. Nobody with an IQ above room temperature would have thought for a second that shutting down Silk Road would impact darknet sales for anything resembling a significant time period.
And once again, not the slightest recognition that this entire problem with fentanyl analogs was caused exclusively by US drug policy throwing pain patients and addicts alike out of a setting with access to medical doctors and regulated pharmaceutical products and onto the street. The the NYT-type liberals were all for drug policy reform until the latest epidemic once again made them throw all logic and reason out the window in the face of emotion and once again screaming for law enforcement crackdowns, because somehow throwing more people in prison for longer periods of time will absolutely work this time, because opiates are BAD!!! Nevermind the collateral damage of people living in absolute agony who no longer have access to the kinds of medications that made their life bearable, people who vastly outnumbered the people misusing their medication for recreational purposes. Far more important that no one gets high from a doctor and pharmacy instead of from a gang and cartel drug lab. Doesn't matter how many people suffer from how much pain, that's nothing compared to the moral failing of getting high.
Pain management, now a medical field whose practices are determined by narcotics officers and not doctors, is, to great popular applause, the inverse of Blackstone's ratio.. Better 10 pain patients suffer in agony than one junky gets high on a known pharmaceutical instead of black market random powders.
"Thieves use roads to travel and money launders use cash to transfer funds, news at 11"
I'm continually amazed at the propensity of news agencies/government officials to vilify niche parts of society (3d printing, internet, drones, bitcoin, etc) in their quest to catch the "bad guys". Often these areas make up the tiniest fraction if illegal activities yet they become the primary/sole focus.
Translation: "Police want the power to intrude on your privacy on the Internet even further and to treat Bitcoin like child pornography." And the reason government hates Bitcoin and other new currencies has little to do with drugs, and a lot with power, control, and the financial interests of crony capitalists.
The reason this keeps happening has nothing to do with Bitcoin or Chinese dealers or the "dark web", it has to do with the fact that our insane drug policy creates a demand for designer drugs with highly variable properties.
If you want to reduce harm and drug deaths, stop this cat-and-mouse game with designer drugs and just legalize the traditional, plant-derived drugs (and the plants themselves, of course).
It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than bleeding away our civil liberties for a pointless and ineffective war on drugs.
In the US, about 16 deaths a month (~200/year) occur because the roads are built such that wildlife can get on them. A collision with some form of wildlife occurs, on average, every 39 minutes. Is the government panicking about this? Are they doing anything significant about it? No (notable exception, Indiana... they have IR wildlife detection on some highways, or at least they did at one point, it's been a few years since I drove through there.) And generally speaking, they won't. Because they don't care about you, or risks to you, or your children. Also because doing so wouldn't pump enough money into enough people's pockets, unlike the drug war, which is a nearly bottomless moneypot for all manner of interests. Also because its a lot harder to scare moms with as compared to OMG DRUGZ.
Q: How do you protect yourself against a drug overdose or addiction?
A: Don't take them, or, stop taking them.
Correcting the highways - protecting us - from our becoming victims of wildlife incursions, we need big money and big government. Because it's naturally pretty expensive, effort-intensive, and it's a serious problem.
Protecting ourself from drugs: We can do that ourselves, if we want to. If we don't want to, then we aren't being "protected" when we are interfered with... we're just being interfered with.
Liberty is, essentially as its fundamental character, that thing that that says we can do things that we are are informed about and which we personally, or consensually, choose to do; and that we are protected from others by the agreement that things we don't consent to, or are lacking understanding of, are not foisted off upon us against our will or by our lack of understanding.
Government's role is such protection is exemplified as education: striving to make the citizens reach an informed state about the world. It can also have a valid role in preventing non-consensual action, which ranges from being forced to do something, to running into an animal because they are not kept from the roadways as they should obviously be.
Please vote for people who will end the "war on drugs." It is the very antithesis of liberty. While you're at it, learn about drugs, and convey that information downstream to your kids and students and via any mentor relationships you may enjoy.
And throw some money at a low-IR camera for your vehicle. It could save your life. Because the government doesn't care to.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If they were deatha from legally prescribed pills, of which there are thousands in this country every year, would anyone care? The problem isn't that people die, it's that pharma isn't the one making money in this case.
Maybe you'd prefer "digital" currency?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
What? Who believes this crap? You're Poe'ing my leg, I hope.
Substance abusers gotta abuse. If they can't get pharmaceutical grade drugs they'll get street drugs, and if they can't get street drugs they'll huff gasoline glue or paint. Banning opiods will not stop any abusers from abusing.
Make the hard drugs cheap, legal, and available like liquor and cigarettes.
reliable dosages reliable manufacturing.
Addicts can live like functional alcoholics, and they can be jailed if they do things to endanger the community like DUI.
It will mean kids will also most likely buy pharmaceutical grade drugs rather then variable purity street mixes when they go black market, not good at all but also not junkie lab stuff.
If the drugs are cheap and legal it means less crime required to buy and no crime syndicate pipeline.
If people wnat to self medicate let 'em, but move the money from police and prison to mental health care, alleviation of housing and food stress, and of course drug treatment.
This course of action has been shown in nearly all cases to pay for itself with a profit from public services savings in addition to the many saved lives form both the drugs and the supply chain violence.
Remember back in the 80's when the FBI sold cocaine to black people in order to make Reagan look bad?
No, no, actually I don't remember that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Like any good little capitalist pig-dog. Any atrocity for love of money!
It's becoming clear that we can't protect people from using deadly drugs stupidly.
Is this going to be the way that humanity self-selects to live or to die from the gene pool? Being so lousy at self control that we kill ourselves with deadly drugs of uncertain origin and potency?
--PM
the FBI sold cocaine to black people in order to make Reagan look bad?
More like:
the FBI sold cocaine to black people in order to justify Reagan's war on drugs?
If anything, that helped him push his conservative/anti-drug agenda.
Lowering the bar.... what is this? Scare story? Think of the children? OMGZZZ THE DARK WEB?
Reminds me of the new Experian Credit Report Monitoring commercials. They say "We monitor the dark web". I know how carding works. You don't get the info unless you buy. So Experian is either buying all that info up, or they are flat-out lying.
Also, drugs have been moving by mail since... forever.
I read a fascinating history of opium use in the United States and one of the most surprising thing was that opium smoking remained the primary means of recreational opiate use into the 1920s, which is strange because heroin and morphine were trivially available and outright legal up until 1914.
What I find interesting about this is that it seems like there was kind of a deference to the least possibly risky means of opiate use -- opium smoking. Heroin didn't become the predominant illicit form until the 1920s when raw opium bans and tariffs made it difficult to come by, and the more potent and easily trafficked heroin took its place.
In many ways, the current (over say 10 years) "crisis" in opiate use seems to be fairly similar.
First you had relatively easy to obtain opiate tablets -- oxycodone and hydrocodone, most of which were probably low dosage variants (5-10 mg). Then you had the scare stories, and states began keeping lists to limit doctor shopping, the Feds reviewed prescribing to crack down on pill mills, etc.
Almost like it was predictable, when the pill supply slowed down demand shifted to heroin, and the suppliers responded with more heroin, lowering its price to cheaper than now hard to obtain pills. I'd wager a whole class of recreational pill users who normally wouldn't have moved to heroin based on price and availability.
Then between the Feds cracking down on heroin and market demand, you get a shift to synthetics like Fentanyl. IIRC, Fentanyl is a pure synthetic, not a byproduct of opium, so its made in any old lab and doesn't have the geographic types of supply chain from poppy fields to sellers. The same potency of heroin that would require a truck can now be carried in an envelope in a suit pocket, making it much easier to traffic.
In both the move from smoking opium to heroin and pills to Fentanyl, you have a population that was mostly satisfied with what they had, and what they had was weaker and less dangerous than what replaced it. While still addictive, I'd wager that building a serious addiction is more difficult with a weaker variant that would require frequent dosing. It's also less likely to kill people, especially novices. I don't think anybody who experiments with opium smoking is at risk of overdosing, nor is someone who takes a couple of 5 mg oxy tablets.
Each time the legal pressure is tightened, the supply side seems to have a newer, harder to eradicate, more dangerous and stronger alternative. We'd have been better off leaving it fairly easy to buy a few 5 mg oxy tablets. It still can create a mess, but much less mess than a blast of Fentanyl in the local opiate market.
It's a good thing that Nancy Reagan told us to just say no to drugs in the 1980s, otherwise we'd still have a drug problem.
It was last summer I think when a local state prison guard got sent to federal prison for selling illegal drugs to inmates. At the same time they caught another guard for bringing in cell phones and cigarettes, I'm not sure this guy went to prison but he certainly had to find a new job. Point is that if we cannot keep drugs out of prison then we are doing a very bad job on this war on some drugs.
We've seen drug dealers builtd semi-submersible watercraft that can sail from Colombia to California non-stop. They have a diesel-battery-electric drive like World War II era submarines so that they can run quiet when close to the Coast Guard. They have a non-metallic hull so they cannot be picked up by sonar or radar unless they are right on top of each other. These things can cost over $2,000,000 to build but they can carry 100 times that value in drugs. They usually take a year to build but I'm not sure they even bother to try to re-use them, it's just cheaper/easier to scuttle it and build another than risk getting caught trying to sail it back.
Now law enforcement is finding evidence that the drug smugglers have been building true submersibles. These have steel hulls, which might be picked up by sonar if someone knew where to look but can go deep enough that surface radar won't find them. They cannot be seen from the air either like the semi-submersibles. We don't know for sure that they've been used since no one caught one in the water yet, they've only been found during construction. This could mean that none have sailed successfully, or that they've been so successful none have been caught.
We've tried addressing the demand through propaganda and education. We've tried limiting supply with catching these submarines. We have nothing to show for it.
Another thing about education... I remember getting this slide show in grade school about the dangers of using illegal drugs and they made a point between legal drugs, which are made in clean laboratories, and illegal drugs, which are made in a dirty shed. What came to my mind then, as a stupid little kid, was why would the drug dealers poison their customers? Would that not mean the users would die or find someone with "clean" drugs to sell them? Also, if the drugs from the "clean" place are the same as the drugs from the "dirty" shed are the same drugs then would not the users try to get the "clean" drugs?
I figured this out in minutes as a stupid little kid and it seems that the drug dealers figured this out too. As it is right now we've got some of the most potent, purest, and CHEAPEST drugs on the illegal market right now. If anyone is dying from drug use today then it's likely from getting an inconsistent dose, the illegal dealers don't want to kill their customers but if they screw up on keeping the dosage consistent there's no government or private oversight committee to double check their work.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Basically, with regards to overdoses these are less dangerous than Paracetamol, if medical-grade. But since the anti-fun fascists have decided that people have no right to medical-grade clean and affordable drugs, the illegal market did arise. And that one does kill people by impurities, varying substance contents, new replacement drugs that are much more dangerous than necessary, etc.
By now, anybody rational can see that this is just another utterly failed prohibition and just another attempt to tell people by application of force how they have to live. The whole thing originally comes from religious extremism, where nothing except prayer is allowed to be fun. The damage to society from this continued stupidity is extreme and far worse than drugs could ever be.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The problem of dark web sales appeared to have been stamped out in 2013, when the authorities took down the most famous online marketplace for drugs, known as Silk Road.
There were half a dozen replacements for the Silk Road within weeks, for fuck's sake.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
He found a pharmacy in India that would sell him a six-month supply for the same price. When he got his first package, it was the same drugs that he got at the local pharmacy.
Maybe he got lucky and got indeed a real pharmacy in India, that simply sells the same drugs, only produced locally (usually also in India) for the Asian market and thus have their sell prices adapted to what that market will bear.
Maybe he could instead have got what was actually a small scam ran out of china, selling drugs in counterfeit packages, and produced by much less well controlled means. Meaning that not only the concentration of the active component might be off, but there might be other unwanted active components or the desired component might be entirely missing.
The problem with product sold over internet is that it's harder to correctly guess in which of the above situations you are.
Unless you go for a very well know and well tested reputable source. At which point it will end up not being so cheap (or outright banned).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Do you see anyone injecting purified ethanol into their veins?
People get the reward from smoking opium, sure. They'll avoid the high-test stuff because it's more-dangerous and too much. As you pointed out, when you tighten down on it, you get people who go away and people who seek a replacement. Some people are going for the hard shit regardless; others dilute the population if they can get the light stuff.
That doesn't mean opiates aren't a dangerous tool. Some people take Tylenol 2-3 days per week; and we have many addicted to diphenhydramine from using OTC sleeping pills all the time. Likewise, people take Dextromethorphan in high doses to hallucinate; people pound over a gram of caffeine a day; and some folks chain smoke while using several nicotine patches because why the hell not?
That people are a touch better at self-regulating than most people think doesn't mean we aren't playing with dangerous tools here. Even if you ignore the mindshare issue (how many people really considered they even could get a harder version of opium back then, without having to inject heroin? Who injects shit into their body?), some people will overuse a good, workable drug without intent of getting super-high or harming themselves; they just don't realize a certain behavioral pattern will take them into a dangerous behavior. This is why we banned food products containing a combination of alcohol and stimulants. You at least need to counsel people before they can have access to such things.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I'm in no way advocating this. The article I read explaining it all ended with his life becoming a nightmare that took much effort to escape.
So reference only.
Dried poppy heads with seeds can be purchased for floral arrangements. Made into a tea and total bliss till it bites you.
Google: dried poppy head for floral arrangements - Floral changed to flower for another batch of results
I think the critical thing is the way potency and time-to-trouble interact.
An addictive drug that's low potency still has long-term addiction risks, but it takes a much longer time for it to develop into a serious problem. In this time window, people may quit, lose interest or have some other thing happen that causes them to not use the substance anymore.
It may be low enough potency that even though they are habitual users, they don't really develop any structural deficiencies in their life. Functional addicts, but isn't the functional part what's important?
In the book I read, the description of most opium and morphine addicts of the late 19th/early 20th century seemed to be functional addicts. Some had started taking medicinal opiates for legitimate reasons and became addicted, but most didn't seem to spiral out of control. Opium users tended to be fringe members of society with a whole host of other life risks (exposure to violence, maybe heavy drinking, lack of any medical care, etc) so that opium smoking wasn't really their downfall, it was running with a rough crowd.
That's true, and it makes a lot of sense regarding today's medical addicts who weren't properly evaluated, identified, and tapered after medical treatment with opiates.
My problem is with drugs which are sufficiently dangerous with overuse. As I said: caffeine overuse is common today. Look as well at people who go to parties and pound loads of alcohol (or alcohol with red bull). Those are your uninformed victims of circumstance--people who weren't properly looked-after and told they can have a thing, but first we must explain to you the things about that thing so anything you do to yourself is your own fault.
With opiates, amphetamines, and the like, such casual usage patterns are much more deleterious to health. In short: opium is a worse chronic poison than caffeine, and a weekend binge on amphetamines is going to hurt you more than a weekend binge on vodka (usually). As you said: most didn't spiral out of control.
As well, some people just want to abuse the drug. Again, their fault; however, at least if you gate it, you can counsel them, detect them, and maybe provide some additional medical services to protect people against those secondary risks. For some people, it's not that their life is driving them to drink so much as they just want to party (genetic addicts typically dislike their own behavior and become seriously-averse to addictive stimuli as a defense), and you can't do anything about them really.
Culture changes. Caffeine+Alcohol is a recent cultural phenomena, as is butt-chugging. As well, today we recognize addiction as a health problem, whereas long ago we didn't. The risks move around, and sometimes people go unappraised; we should at least make sure people are sufficiently warned in some clear way. "Drugs r bad, man" doesn't cut it; drugs aren't all the same thing, and have vastly-different risks. People are all about informed consent when we get into date-rape drugs, but then seem to believe we should just regulate all the drugs so they're safe and unadulterated and let people go wild--forgetting that you can reliably assume most people aren't informed just because there's a prescription packet or OTC drug facts label on the bottle.
The first several comments included a bunch of stuff about how this will just let the stupid people sort themselves out of our society, or how we should just end the war on drugs because it tramples on some essential liberties. I get that most people don't care to abuse drugs, and that an iron fist does more harm than good; and I still maintain that people are at-risk so long as we don't ensure they've got a reasonable understanding of what they're handling before we hand it over to them. Put a little more trust in people and control into their own hands? Sure. Just don't pretend they're all well-appraised of the dangers, or that they won't naturally dig themselves a nice, deep hole. We've all now and then learned the hard way that we knew less about a thing than we thought; when that's a dangerous thing, we have a duty to ensure others don't walk into the same situation.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The problem is the masses will never be "well appraised" of the dangers, and the people who want to decide what "dangers" they should be appraised of will always show bias (too much or not enough danger).
I'm inclined to believe that if people had access to weaker drug formulations, they would generally sort themselves out. Given how objectively dangerous, addictive and widespread alcohol is, it's almost surprising that fewer than 8% of Americans are alcoholics.
I think a world where nobody has problems with substance use is a world that doesn't and won't ever exist. Some people will be harmed, the best you can do is figure out how to reduce harm.
you dont have a liberal canadian govt, that shows fentanyl stories then posts a pain med that is 10000 times less strong called percacet that ive been taking wihtout any legal issues for 16 years
I KNOW i can tell you rambling the sham bullshit they are
you either let us have the meds via perscription and thus get some control or let us have legal heroin and make sure i can kill and dealer that tries to cut it with fentanyl and kill me instead
YA thats your solution let me fucking die
well maybe iu should come smash your fucking head in instead make you disabled and in pain 24/7 so you can have my life you fucking jerk
Remember when they fought a war for the right to sell opium to the Chinese?
Now it's back on the other foot.
I've been on percacet for 16 years....ya my teeth kinda bit it ....but other hten that i manage by taking for 3 weeks hten drying out as you might say
every month....they are now however in canada and the usa pushing to push me off this medicine that has given me mobility and a quality of life id not otherwise have.
NO in canad athey will legalize pot and push all us pain med users to dealers whom are btw cutting crap with a deadly pain killer fentanyl
this sounds almost like pre meditated murder they knwo what is happening yet they do nothing real to prevent it like
and i actually had a doctor stand in front a me and say the following
"due to the political climate would you mind taking ten less percacet this month and ten less next month."
WTF not about what good for me , its about this fucker and his pussy sjw liberal cock knocker govt
ya know this is how terrorists are born RIGHT THERE......
and ill say it if i have to end up going to a dealer to get pain relief and he gives me tained percacet with fentanyl and i live that liberal party better arrest me cause im gonna start killign them for real.
THIS IS ON THERE WATCH
when you have nothing valid to say, why not complain about nomenclature
Except for those meth labs in the hills.
Everytime I hear about the dark web, right behind it is someone promoting turning the internet into a safe place, like AOL was, kinda.
How is that done? By only allowing 'niceness' on the internet, which is best achieved by only allowing pre-approved and vetted entities put anything up on the internet.
Maybe not AOL. Maybe Legoland.
Well, yeah, it's not a perfect system. Reduction requires some sort of attempt; the choice is restriction or education. We currently lean more toward restriction, limiting education to "drugs r bad, man". This is actually sad, because we expend an enormous amount of classroom time discussing drugs, and drugs are fascinating.
Amphetamine.
Amphetamine is an NDRI. Amphetamine is a type of substituted phenethylamine, which is built from a phenyl ring, an ethyl group, and an amonia ion (NH3). PHENyl-ETHYL-AMINE. Phenethylamine. Attach a methyl group to the alpha bond point and you get Alpha-Methyl-PHenyl-EThyl-AMINE, Amphetamine. Yes, the name physically describes the chemical.
Amphetamine is shaped similarly to a catecholamine--a type of substituted phenethylamine. It can enter a neuron that releases and re-uptakes Dopamine, enter the vacuole that stores dopamine, and displace it into the cell. This blocks dopamine reuptake at the transporter, and forces excess dopamine into the cell such that it begins to spill out of the transporter and into the brain. It also blocks norepinephrine reuptake.
Methamphetamine does this in the nucleus accumbens. It's also a 5HT transport inhibitor, and so floods the brain with serotonin, which essentially causes serious cardiovascular issues, makes you kind of crazy, and does all this while you feel awesome thanks to tons of dopamine.
Besides the blunt toxicity risks, amphetamine abuse causes down-regulation of the dopaminergic rewards system. The practical consequences of this is you eventually reach a point where you're never going to feel good again--many people take several years to begin feeling any form of pleasure after adderall abuse, and some people simply never recover.
Drugs r bad, mmkay?
In school, we got entire weeks with 2 hours each day devoted to explaining that there's heroin, it will give you HIV, and it's addictive, and bad; there's speed, and speed is a drug, and drugs r bad; there's cocaine, and cocaine is snorted, and anything snorted is bad for you, and cocaine is bad. They didn't bestow knowledge; they tried to drill in an ideal through repetition.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The golden parachute isn't a reward for failure. It's a reward for going away. If it costs a similar premium to end the war on drugs, so be it.
I should feel sorry for those two 13-year-old retards .. why?