Hyperbole.
And yes, you said that...and I responded that I believe that is a ridiculous idea, IMO.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Legal highs
- Thread starter Downunderwonder
- Start date
Hyperbole.
And yes, you said that...and I responded that I believe that is a ridiculous idea, IMO.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
A) Congrats for having cooler friends than the social lepers forced to buy the fake stuff.
B) The fake stuff often is used because it is a step ahead of drug testing. You smoke weed once and you're potentially losing your military career if/when they random test you in the next couple months, you smoke the fake stuff and your CO doesn't have to know what you did over the weekend.
Nobody is "forced" to buy anything. I consider anyone who trades a synth for a weed as tomato-tomato on the social leper scale.
In Maine, "bath salts" have been a huge issue for a few years and illegal for I believe two...probably more people using them now than a few summers ago. IMO, the people who use them largely would not say, "well...I couldn't get weed". They would say, "well...I got bored with weed". Although that is my experiential opinion, I believe it would be valid in most circumstances of people who moved to using synthetics.
Someone trying to avoid test results by transferring from one to the other would imply dependence. Supposedly, marijuana has very little dependence. This would go counter; I would presume people would quit if they had issues with their employer. I don't know of anyone who would transfer to harder substances. Again, only my experience. I highly doubt the frequency of these being used has much at all to do with employers.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Where did I say that? I never said anything about sniffing paint cans or cocaine. I said that a guy wouldn't have had to put his friend (who was having problems related to the consumption of synthetic alternatives to cannabis) into an ambulance as a result of said synthetics.
OP here.
Apparently the last variant of synthetic was rather more addictive and caused nasty withdrawl for many users.
I'm not interested in the great weed debate per se. Please contribute what you know about synthetic.
The major brand here is K2. They obviously know what they are doing when they have a replacement product all set to go on shelves when the current one gets banned.
It will be interesting to see how quickly the govt can react to the latest concoction. I think it's been about 6 months since the last go around. I'm guessing it's the same deal in the US with the regulators chasing the chemists in circles?
They reckon 3 or 4 months until our "prove it's safe before you can sell it" law gets passed.
Apparently the last variant of synthetic was rather more addictive and caused nasty withdrawl for many users.
I'm not interested in the great weed debate per se. Please contribute what you know about synthetic.
The major brand here is K2. They obviously know what they are doing when they have a replacement product all set to go on shelves when the current one gets banned.
It will be interesting to see how quickly the govt can react to the latest concoction. I think it's been about 6 months since the last go around. I'm guessing it's the same deal in the US with the regulators chasing the chemists in circles?
They reckon 3 or 4 months until our "prove it's safe before you can sell it" law gets passed.
A friend of mine was in the Porirua Mental Hospital for some time from smoking too much 'Kronic', a brand name for that stuff here in NZ. It messed him up big time. Bad sh*t.
Just to clarify, Spice is not weed. Or at least it should not be labeled as marijuana. I've smoked it a few times, its not weed. And its not cool at all. Much more like salvia than weed.
Not if you're Australia, with our completely ludicrous analogue act.
Any substance considered to be analogous (similar in chemical structure) to a scheduled substance is automatically placed under the same schedule, before it is ever invented or first synthesized/isolated.
It could be a psychedelic, it could be the cure for breast cancer, possibly both, but it's already illegal here. Serotonin (The chemical centric to one of the bodies reward systems) is illegal in Australia, as a tryptamine analogue.
Sure, it helps to prevent the distribution of "designer drugs", but they wouldn't exist if they didn't artificially manufacture a demand for them in the first place due to the current legal state of psychoactive substances.
If the substance does turn out to be useful? Good luck getting it unscheduled, people have been trying to do it for years with a lot of different drugs for use in both a direct medical application, as well as therapeutic uses, I can't even begin to imagine the amount of hoops you'd need to jump through to get something like this approved. Clearly they haven't accomplished it yet, even with cannabis itself.
Very little. Most of what you hear is complete media ******** and sensationalist crap, there very little research done into these chemicals by either their creators or the authorities because frankly, nobody cares. They're generally manufactured in labs in China en masse, where they're on sold to whomever wants to make a quick buck. They package it, slap an attractive label on it, make some quick cash by selling a product they know will sell itself, and then disappear for the most part.
I recently listened to a podcast with Hamilton Morris (of VICE) where he visited a chemical plant in China (under the guise of a buyer) where many of these drugs are produced, it was quite interesting, if you're interested I'll see if I can dig up a link. Obviously it's a single journalist with his own slant and agenda, but interesting none the less. There have been a few other articles published doing a similar thing.
The research chemical scene is, I believe, both very exciting and very scary all at the same time. With the right kind of government intervention a lot of good can be done, and with the wrong kind the same problems will only get worse, people think the world has a drug problem? The internet is in it's infancy and there is a whole world full of uninformed buyers with credit cards and a taste for adventure, and no common sense to go with it.
There was a study done on JWH- compounds not so long ago, testing on rats showed very little harmful side effects for the most part, however they developed lung tumors at a very alarming rate. It was noted that the particular species used do naturally have an extreme susceptibility to these same tumors, so the results might not be in any way representative of how humans would react, however it's a little unnerving none the less.
As far as the subjective effects on the individual, many synthetic cannabinoid users have reported the experience to be more negative or distressing than their experience with cannabis itself, however when you're dealing with subjective psychedelic effects you really have to take absolutely everything with a grain of salt, or a mountain.
Demand unfortunately exists, and always will so long as cannabis itself is kept illegal (and maybe still regardless, with some slightly different branding). Even taking extreme and over-the-top draconian measures like the Australian government has, produces little or no results when it comes to reducing the availability of synthetic "designer drugs". If anything, I believe it does more harm than good, as it means whomever is selling these products does so illegally or pseudo-legally and is left with 0 consumer responsibility and no duty of care what so ever.
I don't think this is necessarily a benefit, it makes anything new extremely costly and long-winded. It stifles progress, innovation, creativity.
I think a company has a responsibility to inform the consumer of the risks they are taking, and do their best to ensure safe and responsible use of their product, but how does one "Prove" something is "Safe". Everything has the opportunity for mis-use or abuse, nothing is "safe" or "without risk", not a single thing in this entire world.
Never been tempted, or even know anyone who has been tempted to smoke something in a bag that reads: "Not for human consumption." The going crazy part is also off putting. There are similar problems with ketones of MDMA and various new, synthetic hallucinogens. Again, not my area of expertise, but they're out there. Use self-restraint. Or not. Free to chose for the time being.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,398
- 9,830
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
The military has been testing for spice for over two years. Good luck with not getting popped if your number comes up.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I don't use spice and am not in the military, but have had friends who'd used that rationale.
If it takes a human being to produce it, it isn't natural...
Is a computer "natural" ? No, it takes refinement of materials that may be natural, but it cannot be found in nature. Same as Heroin.
Well Corn would actually be a bit murkier..it has been cultivated for thousands of years & its structure has been modified through natural processes... so is it natural? It can grow in nature without assistance but would not exist without human interaction...
I did not equate the two. I used an analogy for another substance that appeared synthetically and was legal before it was illegal and has seen an increase in users despite being illegal.
Insofar as I know, also, drug use is not transferred horizontal but vertical. Meaning, people don't say, "man...the cost of coke has gone up, I think I'll use something else in the mean time." People who use synthetic THC I would venture to bet still use the substances they were using before.
I already responded to this earlier. As I said before, I hardly believe this is a significant portion of the population that uses the drug.
