Krokodil Crock: How Rumors Of A 'Flesh-Eating Zombie Drug' Swept The Nation

Apologies to the mods if this breaks any T & Cs (I don't think it does?)

Remember this thread, The Living Dead: Why Thousands of Russian Addicts Are Rotting to Death? According to the following article, the Russian drug Krokodil, that eats away at the user from the inside, may not be in the US after all.

Krokodil Crock: How Rumors Of A 'Flesh-Eating Zombie Drug' Swept The Nation

By now you probably have heard that krokodil, a nasty homemade version of the narcotic painkiller desomorphine, is starting to catch on in the United States. Having eaten its way through the flesh of myriad Russian opiate addicts, the caustic concoction—notorious for the ghastly side effects caused by its corrosive contaminants, including abscesses and gangrene—is reportedly burning its way through Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. “The monster has crossed the ocean,” Time declared last month.

“A lot of people want to call it a trend, but we’re not seeing it,” says Joseph Moses, a spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). None of the people who supposedly injected krokodil have tested positive for desomorphine, and neither have any of the putative krokodil samples analyzed by the DEA. In fact, Moses says, “I’m not aware of any forensic laboratory that has come up with a desomorphine sample.” Instead he sees “a lot of hype” and “a lot of gruesome imagery”—the obligatory pictures of Russian addicts displaying gaping wounds and rotting flesh.

The reporters sounding the alarm about this alleged Russian drug invasion are undeterred by the complete lack of toxicological evidence. Nor have they stopped to wonder why there would be a market for krokodil in the United States. Russian junkies turned to krokodil, which they made by mixing codeine with chemicals such as gasoline, red phosphorus, and hydrochloric acid, because heroin was scarce and codeine was available over the counter. Since neither of those conditions applies in the United States, where heroin is readily available and codeine requires a prescription, why would krokodil appeal to American drug users?

I'll concede that it might not be nearly as widespread as anticipated, but I'm not doubting there are people in the US using it. Take, for example, these sisters who are users of it:



And here's a Daily Fail, I mean, Daily Mail article on the sisters. Actually, for once, DM has a good article here. There are graphic pictures, view at your discretion. EXCLUSIVE: The sisters who are the first proof that Russian flesh-eating 'cannibal' drug Krokodil IS in the U.S.

Even if this god-awful drug isn't widespread, and users are an absolute sliver of a minority, how does denial of it's use even make sense? Going "lalalalala, it' not reaaaal!" doesn't poof a drug out of existence. Hell, that trail of thought can backfire, because if you deny it's in the US, doesn't it make sense that addicts and users are going to try to sniff it out to see if the gov is full of it or truthful? Obviously, someone in Illinois has or had access to it at some point in order to sell it, that alone should speak volumes.

What do ATSers think? Do you think the walking dead drug is hyped up? Or do you think it's really being used over here, albeit scarcely?

reply to post by Nyiah


What I heard was it was cocain and crack that was the problem. It was being cut with something that had very similar effects that the krok has. And being cut more on the main supply end. I can't remember what it was, but it was some kind of drug that got banned.

Oh I think I found it. Levamisole

Its not so widespread here because the main ingredient isn't available over the counter like in Russia.

It does rot people though. From the shoddy bathroom chemists, leaving behind bad chemicals like drain cleaner.

Its all about quantity on the streets not quality.

I live in a rough town and have seen a lot of things in my time, including this $#!7.

reply to post by Nyiah

A lot of people want to call it a trend, but we’re not seeing it

I've never heard it referred to as a trend or anything to be worried about, more or less just the stories of Krokodil and how desperately stupid one would have to be to actually use it.

I seriously doubt this will be a real problem in the U.S.. Most of the people who use it for prolonged lengths of time aren't going to live very long. My guess is that this is one of those things that no body will even remember 5 or 6 years from now.

reply to post by shaneslaughta


It's OTC up here. But it don't make sense though, why not just take the codiene orally, and not bother with all the gasoline and crap lol......

TKDRL
reply to post by shaneslaughta

 

It's OTC up here. But it don't make sense though, why not just take the codiene orally, and not bother with all the gasoline and crap lol......

Big difference in the UP. Just like other habitual substance abusers, heroin for instance, all looses its effect on a person, so you either up the dose or change out the substance.

reply to post by Nyiah


I'm not sure the DEA or other government agencies (or media outlets) are denying that it is used in the U.S. I think they're saying there is not a trend or outbreak of its use, which I believe. I thought you had some very well thought insights on why that might be the case. I'm sure that certain people in the U.S. are willing to try any and all of the multitude of drugs or drug concoctions schemed up I'm the world and even some that don't get any media coverage or that we've never heard of before. The point is that desperate junkies will find a way to get their fix one way or another (or try to). I don't think those outliers in the U.S. using krokodil indicate the budding of something like the methamphetamine epidemic in this country, however. That's America's drug problem.

reply to post by shaneslaughta


Oh yeah, forgot about the tolerance thing. You can just tell I am a big time pill popper eh lol. I know a few people that are prescript pain killer addicts, the amount they take is completely absurd.... A prescript for a month is gone in a few days.....

This is like chemistry 101 and the media failed so ridiculously with the issue. The issue is that people trying to synthesize it do not know how, do not have the proper equipment, should not be attempting to, are doing so illegally, and leave deadly reagents in it when they are finished.

What is the "fix" for something like this? Harm reduction programs. Putting addicts on government approved alternatives that do not have them taking things mixed up by know-nothings who are poisoning people.

I'm surprised big pharm has not lobbied for more powers when it comes to providing harm reduction drugs to people. As far as the drug in question, it would be relatively harmless (still highly addictive) if made by Merk, Pfizer or Abott, etc. But the drug itself does not eat people's flesh.

You can figure out all these facts reading the wiki on it, and one or two articles. After that I started turning off the news when it pops up… can't handle the fear porn.

My two cents worth is that while not a drug of widespread use, I could see the possibility of it becoming more prevalent. Prescription narcotics are so widespread and easily obtained, that resorting to krocodil is pointless at the present moment. But, if there was ever a mega crack-down, and people were forced back to heroin, I could see it becoming a problem. From what I've read, it's potency is a least equal to heroin at a fraction of the cost. Those are magic words for fiends.

I know people with a drug problems, and I've seen them do desperate, sad things for a fix. Taking a drug that eats the flesh from the bone is well within their bounds. It's not logical, but addicts don't behave logically when needing a fix. A professor once told us that "withdrawal is a potent motivator."

boncho
This is like chemistry 101 and the media failed so ridiculously with the issue. The issue is that people trying to synthesize it do not know how, do not have the proper equipment, should not be attempting to, are doing so illegally, and leave deadly reagents in it when they are finished.

I'm surprised big pharm has not lobbied for more powers when it comes to providing harm reduction drugs to people. As far as the drug in question, it would be relatively harmless (still highly addictive) if made by Merk, Pfizer or Abott, etc. But the drug itself does not eat people's flesh.

edit on 21-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

I agree with you on the issue of the media, and also what the root of the problem is. I will have to respectfully disagree that big pharma has any sort of answers. I will acknowledge that thier product is purer and relatively safer. But...

Around the year 2000 prescriptions for opiates increased astronomically. Hell the drug reps where trying to say oxycontin wasn't very addictive! A few law suits later and millions strung out, the pharm compaines come out with subutex and methadone- which talking to patients on those medications they swear they are more addtive than their old drug of choice. Big pharma has a nice racket going: push the addictive drugs, take a small loss on being sued, and pushing a treatment that may be worse than the original substance the patient was on.

reply to post by FatherStacks

A few law suits later and millions strung out, the pharm compaines come out with subutex and methadone- which talking to patients on those medications they swear they are more addtive than their old drug of choice. Big pharma has a nice racket going: push the addictive drugs, take a small loss on being sued, and pushing a treatment that may be worse than the original substance the patient was on.

Well, methadone was first synthesized in 1939. Buprenorphine sometime around 1970 but marketed in the 80's. In reality, treatment with anything so long as it's administered properly and regimented is far better than having people go in desperate search for their addictions. *

A small percentage will do better simply with this.

Others need something that has a different half-life or affects the brain differently. While alternatives are addictive, many of them have different tolerance ceilings. Also, the idea in these kinds of therapies is to simply keep people from getting deadly sick, so they can adjust over time.

One can argue the alternatives are just as bad, or that it's all planned out by the drug industry, but at the end of the day… people want to do these things. So the best course of actions is finding ways for them to do them without ruining their lives and others.

IMO.

To note, the social stigma and classifications do not help either. Technically, "alternatives" or "therapeutic" etc, is a little BS. Since something used here for addictions is used in another country for pain management etc. Just because you label something doesn't mean that's the only thing its used for. "See: off label use".

I really think the West needs to reeducate everyone on the subject to be honest.

That being said, some are simply way more addictive in various ways. Some may be good for weaning off and others for pain, and others for euphoria. Each one needs to be considered for a variety effects it has, and that needs to be given in warnings to people taking them for the first time. (As you said about the black eye with doctor marketed painkillers the past 20 years.)

I just cant beleive people put this in there bodies.


Why not just put a shotgun in your mouth and pull the trigger. Far quicker.

reply to post by crazyewok


You can't? Look at how many of us idiots were dumb enough to be duped into smoking as children lol. At least they get a nice high off of it. Us morons don't get a single damn positive thing from cigs. Yeah, what a joke. It's really cool to smoke, it makes you look more grown up when you are a kid. Hahaha.

I've known about this stuff for years and years (due to previous internet browsing habits when a teen :S ) and fell that, yes, this has been sensationalized by the media.

The reason? In the last few years 'The Zombie apocalypse' has been quite a hot topic. Look around, news papers are running stories about the military training for it/events like it, movies, books, even TV shows are based around it and it has only become more and more popular. So, why wouldn't the media cash in on this drug which effects so aptly fit the description of a zombie?

Run the story a few times, get some users in and hey presto you've just sold a ton of papers or gained more viewers.

That's my opinion anyway