Oh the irony! (mephedrone)

Well, what a fine example of the knee-jerk attitudes that dominate thinking on drugs. In the run up to this legislation, members of the UK govt's own drugs advisory body resigned in protest at how the situation had not been given sufficient scrutiny before rushing to a decision. Now we find that the toxicology, the crucial scientific evidence, had not even been completed. Now it turns out that if it had been, mephedrone would have been ruled out.
Will they repeal the law? Of course not!

im impressed somebody on ats even knows what mephedrone is.

i heard that a few countries did this same thing with the outlawing of BZP.

inconclusive studies and fake toxicology reports.

who's died from cannabis? for some reason thats illigal witch is a shame cuz id do the gardaning alot more lol they dont want you to do your drugs they want you to do their drugs. i find it funny how poppy production went up an afganistan and here in the uk their was talk of what they called shooting gallerys for addicts to go get their fix daily supplied by the goverment. but then again if you make a drug illeagal you triple the price. their total hypocrits to any one else remeber wen they swabed the toilets in westminister and the found traces of coke all over the shop.

reply to post by danielhanson420


noone ever from its side effects - but some have most likely through being allergic or by freak accidents ... but these same things can litrely happen with anything in existance also.

Mephadrone had totally destroyed the market for coc aine and other illegal stims in western Europe. The rumors go that the dealers who were watching their business collapse had enough leverage on politicians and media people to force a ban. What dirt they got or how they got it is being kept fairly quiet but it seems that it wasn't all "we supplied this guy with coke", the big players have their fingers in other, less palatable, pies.

To be fair, that's probably fifth hand information but, as far as I can see, it's the explanation that makes most sense so I believe it.




EDIT: There were some very nasty side effects with the drug, the restriction of blood flow seemed really, really severe and if you couple that with a rise in blood pressure due to the stimulant effect, I be surprised if it didn't cause fatalities in some cases but who knows.

[edit on 28/5/10 by pieman]

reply to post by LurkerManAs far as I can tell, the approach to all mood-altering substances is dominated by the criminal justice approach, which itself is primarily dominated by out of date religious pseudo-morality. The only reason alcohol isn't banned in the west is because its so entrenched in our society. The profitability is a secondary bonus, as is subduing people in difficult times.

reply to post by danielhanson420Well, I doubt it really matters how many people die from any particular drug, its still way less than are killed on the roads, or by secondary poor health effects produced by air pollution in cities. The "it can kill" argument is an example of 'reductio ad absurdam', because it totally ignores that something illegal cannot be sold responsibly & that, if somebody wants a substance, regardless of legal status (& a history proves they do), then they will go to whoever can supply it, putting themselves at all kinds of risks, even of being killed by something they have had pushed on them by the most unscrupulous.

reply to post by boaby_phet

or by freak accidents

Reminds me of that scene in "The Big Lebowski" when The Dude drops his smoke into his lap & crashes his car. So good to have examples in popular culture so we can avoid talking about personal experience...
That said, I once almost crashed my car because a coke can that was loose in the back had come under my seat & got wedged under the brake pedal!

reply to post by piemanThats a plausible theory about falling markets for established drugs imo, Particularly MDMA. On the danger: if you want to by any strong pharmaceuticals from a chemist, they always ask if you have particular conditions that the drug might exacerbate, dont they? The drug also comes packaged in verified doses that have been determined as safe for most people. Responsible sale cant prevent you from lying, or buying 2 packs of pain killers in 5 different shops & eating them all, but somehow thats different because... well, why exactly?
You dont need drugs to be happy. Then again, you dont need drugs to get rid of a tension headache either.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


I just mention the side effects and the possible danger they pose because I detect a slight undertone of "it's not really dangerous" or "it's not as dangerous as they're making out" in the thread. I'm a big believer in personal responsibility but you can't have that without a realistic appraisal of the dangers.

As it happens, Mephadrone is different to any of the medication you buy in the chemists in that anything a pharmacist sells you has undergone animal trials, human trials and 20 or 30 years as a prescription only drug so that all the effects and counter indications can be assessed. Most of the regular illegals, like MDMA or coc aine, have gone through this process, even BZP I believe, but the precautions for the new novel chemicals are just guess work on the part of experienced users.

reply to post by piemanThats a good point too. In my 1st bout of college, I did a communications studies project on the legality of cannabis. It was in 86 so I forget the bulk of it, but something I do remember is that scientific research was inhibited by the legal situation. Not just because it was difficult to get permission to do the research on an illegal substance, but also because doing it risked the researchers being stigmatised, by colleagues, but worse by those holding the purse strings for research grants in the future.
As a result, its taken decades for any sizable data set to emerge &, because its all piecemeal, there is still no complete medical concensus.
How will we get any meaningful research on these new substances if they're banned as soon as they come to attention? Surely thinking humans who can, occasionally, talk out a compromise between groups bent on war, can discover a way forward that neither bans nor allows unrestrained access to a substance?