PDA

View Full Version : Mexico's Drug Trade Tribulation



Kein Haar
22nd December 09, 01:35 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091222/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_drug_war_mexico

I doubt there's any altruistic reasons for this drug war. That it happens to be friendly toward America's anti-drug policies is probably just a bonus.

I'm guessing enough politicians are simply sick of everything being tainted by cartel money.

Makes me ashamed of our scumfuck addicts who're like pure oxygen being pumped into this fire. It's a disease. Yes, it is. Addiction is a disease. Addiction to one of three particular substances, however, involves at least one moment of volition.

Weed...pff. As that is progressively legalised, there is plenty of room for homegrown product. That's not going to stop this heroin, coke, meth shit.

And those three things, my friends, are NEVER going to be legalized. Ever. See, that's the problem.

I'm not asking what's constitutional, moral, decent, or fair. What level of force would stop this?

I say summary executions at all levels including the invidual user, and this is for a couple reasons.

Sellers are clever. They'll go to extradordinary lengths to be sneaky. The user who just picked up his dime-bag just wants to go home and use it. The shit will be somewhere it can be readily found. They are the most frequently caught. Consider that a newish way of transporting cocaine is in submarines. It costs a couple million to build, but it's carrying 30 million worth of product. They don't care if they lose a couple here and there. That's what we're up against with the sellers.

No, we'd have to kill the tree by snipping off its ability to photosynthesize, leaf-by-leaf.

Every user, kids included, need to see other kids being killed over this and piled like cord wood.

I'm not saying it should be done, I'm saying that's what would actually stop this.

But since that THAT is not going to happen either, I suppose this will just continue.

EvilSteve
22nd December 09, 02:09 PM
The drug trade will end when no one wants to do drugs anymore. There is no level of force you will be able to bring to bear that is stronger than market forces. Communism opposed free market forces; that is why it failed. Law enforcement will fail too.

PS- this doesn't even take into account that there are levels of government and intelligence which actively encourage the drug trade for their own ends.

Kein Haar
22nd December 09, 02:10 PM
Pussy-style communism, maybe.

I'm talking about Saddam-style.

FickleFingerOfFate
22nd December 09, 02:45 PM
I think the answer is in Goon's signature.
Start spiking the drugs with something moderatly horrible, and releasing them on the street.

See if addicts know how to figure the odds.

SFGOON
22nd December 09, 02:47 PM
Silly cop.

Back when oxy was popular, how much of that nasty, vinegary heroin did you see? In my two months on the hardened streets of scenic Edmonds, I was told it was less common by my FTO. Therefore, there was less black tar heroin when smoking beans was the thang.

What do heroin, cocaine, and dextromethamphetamine have in common? They're all FDA schedule II, meaning a doctor can prescribe them if he wants - albeit for a narrow set of diseases.

I'd propose that the above substances have their clinical indications revised to include addiction to the same under a new schedule. This new Schedule, (let's call it FDA schedule IIa) would have to be administered in a clinical setting. It would be vastly more effective at combatting the cartels than the current, military centric strategy.

I say this for the following reasons:

1.) It will break the cartel's monopoly on illicit narcotics. The ease in producing even pharmaceutically pure versions of these drugs would allow the government to sell them at a tidy proffit while severely disrupting the cartel's cash flow. All of a sudden that $30 million dollar haul wouldn't be

2.) It would enhance public health. While recreational users may not want to go to a clinic to get their high, those who become addicted (the cartel's repeat customers) would have to have their drugs administered by a PA, and would essentially enter a "harm reduction" program in order to get inexpensive, unadulterated, high quality drugs. Any deaths resulting from such use would be physician-attended and therefore not the cop's fucking problem.

3.) This would reduce your trompings through vile drug dens. You would also have to put your hands on fewer junkies - which I personally know to be a revolting, stinking, vulgar necessity of police work.

4.) It would reduce the larger harm to society of codependency - family and friends of addicts would have less difficult decisions to make in terms of supporting their loved one's addiction vs. placing them in danger.

5.) It would effectively contain drug use away from the greater public. Consumption of narcotics would be confined to a clinic for patients with a prescription to treat a (self induced) medical condition.

The US could also place multi-million dollar bounties on high level traffickers, dead or alive, as long as the remains can be ID'd.

In terms of force? We'd just have to commit to conventional war and deploy maybe six Mechanized Brigade Combat Teams to our Southern Border, with light naval assets in the Gulf of Mexico and Baja California. Shoot to kill anyone crossing the border illicitly. This would parenthetically deprive the US of cheap labor, though.

But, force without economic balancing on the US side would only drive the price of drugs higher on our end, increase the incentive to smuggle and/or manufacture narcotics domestically, and raise the crime rate as more assholery would be required to maintain a dope habit.

And of course, of course, one can always put ricin in the cocaine, and high-concentration fentanyl in the heroin.

Wounded Ronin
22nd December 09, 03:46 PM
In my experience drug deals are usually trashy people. And the people they associate with are like overgrown kindergarteners.

bob
22nd December 09, 04:24 PM
Heroin is schedule one.

Kein Haar
22nd December 09, 04:31 PM
I think the answer is in Goon's signature.
Start spiking the drugs with something moderatly horrible, and releasing them on the street.

See if addicts know how to figure the odds.

That is a much better idea, actually.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/45391.php

Of course, life may not be so easy on the seller once some of his customers survive a narrow miss.

Kein Haar
22nd December 09, 04:39 PM
This new Schedule, (let's call it FDA schedule IIa) would have to be administered in a clinical setting. It would be vastly more effective at combatting the cartels than the current, military centric strategy.

Any deaths resulting from such use would be physician-attended and therefore not the cop's fucking problem.

That sort of fucks with the hippocratic oath.

Never gonna happen. People neccesarily want drugs administered to an intoxicating dosage.

Question: Why are DUI drug detection clues based entirely on anecdotal evidence?

And if the government expects to profit off this, they'll have to accept blood money. If heroin costs half as much, and the junkie just ran out of his last 5 dollars (instead of 10), he's still going to have to steal that shit.

SFGOON
22nd December 09, 05:16 PM
There's a lot of philosophical jackassery with the hippocratic oath - some medical students get in navel-contemplating debates over whether or not injections are "harm" because you have to stick the patient with a needle. "Do no harm" is widely interpreted as "choose the least of all evils."

Many western, first world countries already do this with heroin. (I didn't know it was Schedule I in the US, no matter - oxycontin is just as powerful.)

The way SFSTs were presented to me, the clues were the result of research with HGN being the most reliable indicator.

Though junkie assholes would persist in being junkie assholes, the degree of assholery required to get high would be reduced. Besides, if Johnny shithead mugs someone for petty change, it's a good fucking bet LE will know right where he's headed afterward.

I've always been an advocate of pure capsiacin in smoked drugs. Horrible traumatic experience, if not a horrible death.

Wounded Ronin
22nd December 09, 05:27 PM
There's a lot of philosophical jackassery with the hippocratic oath - some medical students get in navel-contemplating debates over whether or not injections are "harm" because you have to stick the patient with a needle. "Do no harm" is widely interpreted as "choose the least of all evils."


Med school tries to indoctrinate the students and make them like modern-day medieval priests. That's why lots of doctors think whatever the patient says is automatically wrong.

We should make a rebel med school with no Hippocratic Oath, but also no indoctrination.

Kein Haar
22nd December 09, 05:43 PM
The way SFSTs were presented to me, the clues were the result of research with HGN being the most reliable indicator.


Regarding where the SFSTs came from....

With alcohol there WERE controlled studies with people who were truly intoxicated on alcohol....to varying degrees.

There are only anecdotal eye and body clues regarding drug use. Apparently, no medical professionals are getting people high...even for the sake of standardizing DUI tests for drugs. That shows you how much they do not want to do this.

Cullion
22nd December 09, 05:49 PM
There's no hippocratic oath in the UK any more, is my understanding. Hasn't been since at least the early 90s.

Kein Haar
22nd December 09, 05:53 PM
Time to...party?

Cullion
22nd December 09, 06:02 PM
I haven't decided yet. I'll let you know when I'm bored enough to open this up to the public.

Shawarma
22nd December 09, 06:15 PM
I think the answer is in Goon's signature.
Start spiking the drugs with something moderatly horrible, and releasing them on the street.

See if addicts know how to figure the odds.
Doubt this would have the desired effect. Drugs are, you know, addictive - people would still take them, even with their friends dropping dead like flies around them. I'm not sure that going from a bunch of junkies littering the streets to a whole bunch of dead or mortally ill junkies littering the street would be much of an improvement.

jubei33
22nd December 09, 06:23 PM
destroy crops maybe? by introducing a more competitive, less potent species of both plants? might weave an interesting tale if I can think of a way to work it.

on the other hand the cartels have people and such a large project would take a long time to implement. Scratch the above for the time being

Shawarma
22nd December 09, 06:27 PM
There's no hippocratic oath in the UK any more, is my understanding. Hasn't been since at least the early 90s.
Believe you to be mistaken here - could you please refer to the decision in question or is it just something you heard off-hand?

socratic
22nd December 09, 07:15 PM
The only problem is that if you started cracking down on the Cartels in a successful manner- ie you remove their monopoly, they'll start killing US politicians and judiciaries. They haven't really done it much because they don't have to at the moment, but when a dude with 15 billion dollars invested in cocaine thinks you're going to fuck with his profit margins you can expect some mercenaries at your doorstep.

FickleFingerOfFate
22nd December 09, 07:26 PM
Of course, life may not be so easy on the seller once some of his customers survive a narrow miss.

You'll forgive me if I don't lose much sleep over this prospect.

FickleFingerOfFate
22nd December 09, 07:27 PM
Doubt this would have the desired effect. Drugs are, you know, addictive - people would still take them, even with their friends dropping dead like flies around them. I'm not sure that going from a bunch of junkies littering the streets to a whole bunch of dead or mortally ill junkies littering the street would be much of an improvement.

Dead and mortally ill junkies don't rob and kill people, they just smell bad.

And, lets be honest, they did to begin with.

Harpy
22nd December 09, 07:31 PM
Kein and Goon, you guys need to get into politics to implement these ideas.

SFGOON
22nd December 09, 08:19 PM
Regarding where the SFSTs came from....

With alcohol there WERE controlled studies with people who were truly intoxicated on alcohol....to varying degrees.

There are only anecdotal eye and body clues regarding drug use. Apparently, no medical professionals are getting people high...even for the sake of standardizing DUI tests for drugs. That shows you how much they do not want to do this.

Ahhh...

I was taught to get my PC on "based off my training and scant experience as an officer, this guy was fucking stoned." statements. (If I couldn't get a DRE for backup.)

Problem is, in Washington State it's not illegal to be stoned, not considered possession.

LE is such a perpetual clusterfuck...

Vieux Normand
22nd December 09, 08:45 PM
Start spiking the drugs with something moderatly horrible...

How compassionate of you.

Not being much into compassion myself, I'd just advocate spiking the drugs with cyanide.

There is no logical reason to allow users to continue living, and plenty of reasons--such as the Mexican drug trade, among others--to simply eliminate them.

SFGOON
22nd December 09, 08:53 PM
Nicotine would be WAY cheaper.

FickleFingerOfFate
22nd December 09, 09:14 PM
How compassionate of you.

Not being much into compassion myself, I'd just advocate spiking the drugs with cyanide.

There is no logical reason to allow users to continue living, and plenty of reasons--such as the Mexican drug trade, among others--to simply eliminate them.

I'm not advocating letting them live, I am merely suggesting that the process of their dying be moderately horrible.
I want their last dying act to be a warning to the rest.

:soapbox:

SFGOON
22nd December 09, 10:12 PM
Blood agents (like cyanide) and nerve agents (like nicotine) are a gruesome, frightening fucking death. I don't know of any poison that just causes someone to pass out dead.

kracker
22nd December 09, 10:21 PM
Weed...pff. As that is progressively legalised, there is plenty of room for homegrown product. That's not going to stop this heroin, coke, meth shit.

And those three things, my friends, are NEVER going to be legalized. Ever. See, that's the problem.

.

Um, may I ask why the hell not? If you're stupid enough to do heroin, coke, meth, etc you deserve the consequences. If it was legal, the cartels would go out of business and hence the only problem is the addicts themselves, who we could either ignore (which is still way better than killing or even arresting them) or help with the billions we would save by not enforcing these retarded laws.

SFGOON
22nd December 09, 10:46 PM
To protect public health.

True fact - it's dangerous to let morans choose which drugs they get to take, especially the fun ones.

The ubiquity that comes with de-scheduling is more hazardous and costly to society than the costs incurred by enforcement.

kracker
22nd December 09, 11:18 PM
To protect public health.

True fact - it's dangerous to let morans choose which drugs they get to take, especially the fun ones.

The ubiquity that comes with de-scheduling is more hazardous and costly to society than the costs incurred by enforcement.

I don't think everyone would start doing crystal meth or whatever if it became legal. Anyone who has an IQ higher than that of a rock knows it's dangerous and will probably lead to death or looking like this:

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/celebrity-pictures-courtney-love-skeletor-evening.jpg

There's no way to be certain without actually legalizing them in practice but I think it's likely that anyone stupid enough to do hard drugs is already doing them.

SFGOON
22nd December 09, 11:39 PM
With the cartels out of the drug-manufacturing business, who do you think will take it over? Merk, GlaxoSmithKline, or Pfizer?

How about Pepsico? General Mills? Nestle'? (remember, these are "fun drugs.")

Naturally, those who produce them will want to increase sales. This would be achieved through marketing, marketing essentially being sales at an aggregate level. A campaign to increase demand.

Dexatrim (dextromethamphetamine) - Coca Cola (originally contained cocaine) - even the word "Heroin" began life as a trademark of the Bayer company and was sold as a cough syrup.

They've been legal in the past. Two of the above three are still available in prescription form.

There's a history to all this.

Kein Haar
22nd December 09, 11:41 PM
They've been legal in the past.

Oh yeah? How'd that go?

SFGOON
22nd December 09, 11:50 PM
Very poorly. People died and shit.

(Mine was a response to kracker, you know.)

kracker
23rd December 09, 12:25 AM
With the cartels out of the drug-manufacturing business, who do you think will take it over? Merk, GlaxoSmithKline, or Pfizer?

How about Pepsico? General Mills? Nestle'? (remember, these are "fun drugs.")

Naturally, those who produce them will want to increase sales. This would be achieved through marketing, marketing essentially being sales at an aggregate level. A campaign to increase demand.

Dexatrim (dextromethamphetamine) - Coca Cola (originally contained cocaine) - even the word "Heroin" began life as a trademark of the Bayer company and was sold as a cough syrup.

They've been legal in the past. Two of the above three are still available in prescription form.

There's a history to all this.

If I had to guess who would manufacture it, I'd say Phillip Morris/Altria. I'm not suggesting for a second that they put them in consumer products like Coca Cola or cough syrop. The problems with that are obvious because people wouldn't know what they were putting into their bodies. But if they were clearly labeled with warnings plastered all over the place like they do with cigarettes, that said things like "WARNING: You'd have to be a complete and utter moron to use this product under any circumstances. It will fuck up your life something fierce and probably kill you in the end" only a select group of dumbasses would use it. And that's the exact kind of person who's already using it, so no additional problems are created.

Kein Haar
23rd December 09, 12:29 AM
I wish someone were alive to explain the social costs of the days when it was legal, and why legislatures went through the trouble of making it illegal.

It's kind of hard to imagine without actually being there. Were there a LOT more users? Or was it more or less the same, but they just more visible? Cuz hey, it's legal.

SFGOON
23rd December 09, 12:48 AM
If I had to guess who would manufacture it, I'd say Phillip Morris/Altria. I'm not suggesting for a second that they put them in consumer products like Coca Cola or cough syrop. The problems with that are obvious because people wouldn't know what they were putting into their bodies. But if they were clearly labeled with warnings plastered all over the place like they do with cigarettes, that said things like "WARNING: You'd have to be a complete and utter moron to use this product under any circumstances. It will fuck up your life something fierce and probably kill you in the end" only a select group of dumbasses would use it. And that's the exact kind of person who's already using it, so no additional problems are created.


Sooo they'd go through the whole product development cycle, line up channels of distribution, bring it to market all the while saying "don't buy this or you're a big dummy!"

Naw. They'd roll it out sexy, make it seem glamorous, tell everyone it's "natural," try to find a way to hook every fucker they could, just like the early 1900's.

It's a shit-ton easier to resist some black tar herion reeking of acetic anhydride than it is a slickly packaged, quality controlled and aseptic dose of joy.

kracker
23rd December 09, 01:13 AM
Sooo they'd go through the whole product development cycle, line up channels of distribution, bring it to market all the while saying "don't buy this or you're a big dummy!"
.

That's what happens with cigarettes. Have you ever seen the graphic warnings on a box of cigs with the blacked out lung and shit? If that doesn't say you're an idiot if you buy this product I don't know what does.

Keith
23rd December 09, 01:23 AM
Didn't China fight a fucking war with the British for the right to make opium dens illegal? (Hint: they did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War))

Just because there's no laws that will completely wipe out certain activities, doesn't mean we should legalize and regulate those activities. No matter what sort of laws you pass, you'll never be able to stop murder. Should we legalize and regulate murder? How about torture and rape?

Kein Haar
23rd December 09, 01:30 AM
Those things aren't really a tangible commodity.

kracker
23rd December 09, 02:12 AM
Didn't China fight a fucking war with the British for the right to make opium dens illegal? (Hint: they did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War))

Just because there's no laws that will completely wipe out certain activities, doesn't mean we should legalize and regulate those activities. No matter what sort of laws you pass, you'll never be able to stop murder. Should we legalize and regulate murder? How about torture and rape?

What part of murder, torture and rape VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS and hence are comparable to drugs in NO WAY is so difficult to understand?

SFGOON
23rd December 09, 02:43 AM
That's what happens with cigarettes. Have you ever seen the graphic warnings on a box of cigs with the blacked out lung and shit? If that doesn't say you're an idiot if you buy this product I don't know what does.

Are you old enough to have heard of "Joe Camel" or "The Marlboro Man?"

Do you think those "Parental Warning, Explicit Lyrics" labels actually dissuade seventh graders from buying them?

Moreover, are you familliar with the theory of "supply side economics?"

Shawarma
23rd December 09, 07:10 AM
http://www.layoutlocator.com/graphics/dldimg/ebcd193658c9d778b04186643fcb78ef_Cocaine-toothache-drops.jpg

elipson
24th December 09, 01:03 AM
http://www.naomistudy.ca/index.html

Basically Goon is the only one seriously answering the question.

Poisoning the drug supply is a silly idea. Why? Because it's been done before. It leads to a political backlash, removes certain parties from power and puts less strict parties in power. To actually poison enough of this stuff to have an impact on demand, you would have to infiltrate a wide swath of the manufacturing process. Once you've done that, why not just sieze the shit instead of poisoning it? Poisoning one batch wont be enough, because once distributers find out its tainted they will stop buying from a particular Cartel. The Cartel will get pissed off and find who did it, or just get rid of all those who MIGHT have done it, and start over again. If you actually had the resources and infiltration to pull this off over an extended period of time, you would also be in a position to crack down on the Cartel and thus shut it down more directly.

Crop destruction has been proven to be a shitty way of fighting the drug war, and has serious political backlashes associated with it.

Fighting the Cartels is similiar to fighting a rebel insurgency. You deal with many of the same problems, such as infilitration of governments agencies, local loyalties to Cartels, organizations based on social ties and are therefore harder to infiltrate, and an enemy that can blend into the people. Add to this the fact that Cartels are well funded due to the resources rents they get from having such a lucrative product and you get a well armed criminal group.

They can be broken, but it must be fought in much the same way a counter-insurgency war is fought, which means a long time frame.

Columbia had moderate success in the 90's breaking their Cartels (which consequentially led to the rise of the Mexican Cartels).

Cullion
24th December 09, 04:31 AM
I wish someone were alive to explain the social costs of the days when it was legal, and why legislatures went through the trouble of making it illegal.

It's kind of hard to imagine without actually being there. Were there a LOT more users? Or was it more or less the same, but they just more visible? Cuz hey, it's legal.

I don't think we have fewer instances of addiction today than when these substances were legal.

Prohibition didn't cure alcoholism, but it certainly gave violent criminals something new to fight over.

Vieux Normand
24th December 09, 04:48 AM
Poisoning the drug supply is a silly idea.

It is less efficient than the classic Chinese solution: user get nine grams of lead in the back of the head; family gets the bill for the bullet.

jubei33
24th December 09, 06:36 PM
Crop destruction has been proven to be a shitty way of fighting the drug war, and has serious political backlashes associated with it.

by slash and burn, yes. The problem with what I suggested earlier is the strong selection pressure for the plants to produce the chemicals. The human influence as a factor would be difficult to get around even if you had a successful weak producing strain leading to mixed results at best.

But perhaps...the poppies they use are well cultivated, like bananas in a way. Given a specific crop disease here or there and the right opportunity might present for a takeover for a more competitive strain.


user get nine grams of lead in the back of the head; family gets the bill for the bullet.
Its good they have lead factories.

littleoldme
25th December 09, 06:57 AM
Addicts die from heroin contaminated by anthrax

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20091223/tuk-anthrax-may-have-killed-three-drug-u-45dbed5.html

ICY
25th December 09, 05:02 PM
The heroin dealers I know all say that the methadone treatment program has devastated their business.

The junkies I know say "Why the fuck would I pay for heroin when methadone is free?"

Thankfully, though, there's still huge money to be made in coke and meth. Thank ignorance for that.

kracker
25th December 09, 07:59 PM
Are you old enough to have heard of "Joe Camel" or "The Marlboro Man?"

Do you think those "Parental Warning, Explicit Lyrics" labels actually dissuade seventh graders from buying them?

Moreover, are you familliar with the theory of "supply side economics?"

Yeah, but just like Coked up Coke they don't have anything like that anymore. Where I come from there's an actual law that requires cigarettes to be stored in opaque cupbords in the stores so kids are shielded from seeing the packaging.

elipson
26th December 09, 08:33 PM
by slash and burn, yes. The problem with what I suggested earlier is the strong selection pressure for the plants to produce the chemicals. The human influence as a factor would be difficult to get around even if you had a successful weak producing strain leading to mixed results at best.

But perhaps...the poppies they use are well cultivated, like bananas in a way. Given a specific crop disease here or there and the right opportunity might present for a takeover for a more competitive strain.

If you are smart enough to genetically engineer a strain of poppie that will out compete current breeds of poppie and yet not be used for herion production, then you might soon be incredibly rich and will likely be the smartest person on the board. Pipe dreams are nice, but lets stick to reality a little bit.

Crop erradication leads to supply shortages and price increases, creating a vacuum for new investors trying to cash in on high prices.

Governments need to destroy the demand for drugs and then these cartels will starve to death. This can be done through either druggie erradication or widespread treatment programs.

Cullion
26th December 09, 08:35 PM
Can it actually be done that way ?

I don't think mankind is giving up it's urge to get loaded any time soon. But we can stop violent criminals controlling supply.

elipson
26th December 09, 09:26 PM
I would like to see a country with widespread addiction at least TRY the treatment path of fighting drugs. At the moment the most prolific anti-drug campaigns tend to be militant anti-supplier campaigns.

And while I whole-heartedly support going after Cartels and suppliers, it has to be recognized as just one part of the overall problem. At the moment, it's not.

Wounded Ronin
28th December 09, 07:44 PM
What part of murder, torture and rape VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS and hence are comparable to drugs in NO WAY is so difficult to understand?

Because the drug dealers tend to do this. They're overgrown kindergarteners and should be subject to extensive public humiliation/emasculation IMO. :gaysmiley: :mas:

Cullion
28th December 09, 07:45 PM
Bootleggers were often like that too. See what I'm saying ?

Robot Jesus
28th December 09, 08:28 PM
And if the government expects to profit off this, they'll have to accept blood money.


why exactly, opium poppies are grown legitimately, a good friend of mine's family farm grows opium poppies (and cucumbers).

Cullion
28th December 09, 08:42 PM
Opium poppies are grown legally in Oxfordshire for pharmaceutical use.

SFGOON
28th December 09, 09:18 PM
If you are smart enough to genetically engineer a strain of poppie that will out compete current breeds of poppie and yet not be used for herion production, then you might soon be incredibly rich and will likely be the smartest person on the board. Pipe dreams are nice, but lets stick to reality a little bit.


No - it's quite feasible and sound. It can be done in a relatively simple lab.

There are already many many strains of poppy which don't produce heroin. All you'd have to do is make it more robust and surreptitiously taint the fields.

Cullion
28th December 09, 09:23 PM
Opium is medically necessary at present. You'd destroy the source.

SFGOON
29th December 09, 03:28 AM
Naw, just make it more difficult to produce. There's always total synthesis.

Cullion
29th December 09, 03:23 PM
What would you do when total synthesis is cheap enough for 'party'-use?, or when they switch to inhaling organic solvent vapours ?

'Destroy the supply!' cannot work. That's more than a theory. We saw it fail under prohibition.

elipson
30th December 09, 01:27 AM
I think booze under prohibition was easier to manufacture than Herione and other hard drugs.

With pot its a pretty straight comparison.

Zendetta
30th December 09, 02:53 AM
A childhood friend of mine went to high school in Cairo, Egypt.

A friend of his was wanted by the Egyptian Pigs (lol) for selling LSD. He had to flee the country.

Now, in the USA LSD can get you in a heap of trouble. But in Egypt they cut your head off.

Cullion
30th December 09, 10:34 AM
I think booze under prohibition was easier to manufacture than Herione and other hard drugs.

With pot its a pretty straight comparison.

I've brewed my own beer and seen the home-made winemaking process up close, but never distilled spirits. There are way more technological steps involved than in drying out marijuana leaves for smoking.

For beer, you have to make malt from grain, have the right variety of yeast to hand, add certain amounts of the right kind of sugar added at the right steps, transfer it to different vessels based on the measurements of gravity and/or observing the amount of gas being produced. Some types of beer require multiple fermentation steps in different vessels and careful temperature control.

Producing your own stash is a question of very basic indoor gardening followed by 'pick it, dry it under a light'.

I haven't watched heroin being refined from opium poppies, but I don't think you need to go all the way to heroin to get smokable opium. It's probably not much more sophisticated than picking the poppies, pulling out the relevant part and drying it out.

Basic cocaine probably simillar.

LSD and Ecstasy require substantially more work and a lot more chemical knowledge and equipment.

Vieux Normand
30th December 09, 10:37 AM
Now, in the USA LSD can get you in a heap of trouble. But in Egypt they cut your head off.

A trip: getting beheaded while on hallucinogens.

Cullion
30th December 09, 10:40 AM
That happened to me once.

NO SERIOUSLY.

Kein Haar
30th December 09, 01:53 PM
For beer...

Depends how fancy you want.

It can all be done, conceptually, in a prison toilet after all.

Cullion
30th December 09, 01:57 PM
Depends how fancy you want.

It can all be done, conceptually, in a prison toilet after all.

So can growing coca, opium poppies or marijuana, conceptually.

Ecstasy, Meth and LSD are the most highly synthetic drugs I know of.

Kein Haar
30th December 09, 02:22 PM
I thought you were suggesting that making "beer" was tricky. Cuz that was your longest paragraph.

Cullion
30th December 09, 03:51 PM
I see how it is now. I'm going to drink some beer and have a think, and then, you can be sure, I'll be back with something sharp.

ICY
30th December 09, 05:12 PM
There are way more technological steps involved than in drying out marijuana leaves for smoking.

...what kind of bunk have you been smoking?

Cullion
30th December 09, 05:25 PM
When I smoked it was the good old days. When compact disks and electronic music were new, and cool. I won't have any of your sauce young man.

Cullion
30th December 09, 05:26 PM
I thought you were suggesting that making "beer" was tricky. Cuz that was your longest paragraph.

Making alcohol is trickier than drying out pot or opium.

Alright, that's not sharp or witty, but it's true.

socratic
30th December 09, 06:22 PM
Opium poppies are grown legally in Oxfordshire for pharmaceutical use.They're grown in Tasmania. The local wallabies eat a few, get high as a kite and then hop around in circles in the field. I bet it looks really funny.


I've brewed my own beer and seen the home-made winemaking process up close, but never distilled spirits. There are way more technological steps involved than in drying out marijuana leaves for smoking. I've heard that home distillation isn't all that hard if you've got the right tools. I wouldn't attempt it for fear of it exploding in my face, though.

At the bold... That's what you get for trusting Jamaicans.


I haven't watched heroin being refined from opium poppies, but I don't think you need to go all the way to heroin to get smokable opium. It's probably not much more sophisticated than picking the poppies, pulling out the relevant part and drying it out. One of my lecturers told me (in a lecture on colonialism, China, opium etc) that all you have to do is gather the sap of the plant from the stem, dry it out, and you get a big wedge of smokeable Opium. Just cut off a chunk and light it up. Maybe there's more to it than that (maybe for more purified forms) but yeah, that shit is supposedly quite easy.

Cullion
30th December 09, 06:54 PM
At the bold... That's what you get for trusting Jamaicans.

I was talking about homegrown. There's no way you'd catch me supporting terrorism.

socratic
30th December 09, 07:23 PM
I was talking about homegrown. There's no way you'd catch me supporting terrorism.

You fooled yourself into smoking leaf!?

Cullion
30th December 09, 07:35 PM
Well, I had to find out what all the fuss was about. Now I know it's just some dumb fucking hippie thing I don't do it any more.

jubei33
30th December 09, 07:37 PM
things needed for a distillation:
copper tube, two bottles or other acceptable reservoirs, fire.
voila!

Cullion
30th December 09, 07:38 PM
It's more detailed than that.

jubei33
30th December 09, 07:43 PM
will you tell me about it?

Neildo
30th December 09, 07:44 PM
this thread makes me want to get stoned.

Cullion
30th December 09, 07:47 PM
will you tell me about it?

I've never done it. you gotta have the right minimum length of copper and not heat the source mix up too much. and I think you can catalyse it wrong through copper sometimes.

If I was going to home distill I'd freeze-distill beer to make eisbeer. which is completely illegal without a very expensive licence btw

jubei33
30th December 09, 07:50 PM
anything like this?
http://www.canadaconnects.ca/_chemistry/photos/Fractional_distillation_lab_apparatus.png

Cullion
30th December 09, 07:58 PM
No, that's not freeze distillation. Freeze distillation is just about leaving it out in the cold and scraping the ice off each morning. Moonshiners who heat-distill replicate the physical system from highschool chemistry you've just given, out of fucking bedframes and plumbing supplies. It's not trivial if you want to make something nice.

'Fractionating column' and 'water cooled condenser' aren't such simple propositions when it's just you, the piping you ripped out of your cells radiator and the hacksaw grandma hid in the birthday cake, you know?

Look man, I know you're a chemist, I wish you wouldn't rub it in our faces like this.

jubei33
30th December 09, 08:31 PM
If it works, it works. why shed such venom on plumbing and bed springs?

elipson
30th December 09, 08:54 PM
Distilling also doesn't require a lot of room to do, whereas crop cultivation is more space intensive.

Ajamil
30th December 09, 09:08 PM
Cullion are you aware that you aren't supposed to smoke the leaves of marijuana?

Cullion
30th December 09, 09:18 PM
No I wasn't. We used to smoke the buds and the leaves, just not the stems and seeds. That's not cool?

Ajamil
30th December 09, 10:57 PM
It was like filler in the bag then - your dealer was skimping you. You just want the buds.

SFGOON
31st December 09, 02:14 AM
You can extract THC from the leaves of cannabis with liquid butane.

It takes a lot of leaves, though.

Adouglasmhor
31st December 09, 02:18 AM
I was talking about homegrown. There's no way you'd catch me supporting terrorism.


Why didn't you smoke the bud (that's what I think everyone is hinting at - leaf is for hopping a brew or making ice hash or bubble hash if you have loads of binbags full).

socratic
31st December 09, 06:43 AM
Well, I had to find out what all the fuss was about. Now I know it's just some dumb fucking hippie thing I don't do it any more.That's because you were smoking leaf.

From what I hear it doesn't hold up to booze, at least for guys like me.


No I wasn't. We used to smoke the buds and the leaves, just not the stems and seeds. That's not cool?

What Arjuna said. Leaves have very little THC.

socratic
31st December 09, 06:44 AM
Why didn't you smoke the bud (that's what I think everyone is hinting at - leaf is for hopping a brew or making ice hash or bubble hash if you have loads of binbags full).From what I hear leaves are mostly worthless for much of anything. If you wanted to get high or make something that gets you high, you want the buds.

Cullion
31st December 09, 06:59 AM
No I wasn't. We used to smoke the buds and the leaves, just not the stems and seeds.


Why didn't you smoke the bud (that's what I think everyone is hinting at - leaf is for hopping a brew or making ice hash or bubble hash if you have loads of binbags full).

Cullion
31st December 09, 07:00 AM
your dealer was skimping you.

It was homegrown.

socratic
31st December 09, 07:03 AM
Oh right, so you resorted to leaf when you ran out of bud?

Cullion
31st December 09, 09:08 AM
No, we just smoked both because we didn't know that the leaves were so low in useful content.

Ajamil
31st December 09, 10:30 AM
Your first was homegrown? Were you growing or an acquaintance? Keeping the plant genders separated can be tricky. Or so I hear, I've never actually tried growing.

Fearless Ukemi
31st December 09, 10:42 AM
From what I hear leaves are mostly worthless for much of anything. If you wanted to get high or make something that gets you high, you want the buds.

Not entirely true.

They can be ground up and fried in butter or some other type of oil, then strain that oil from the fried leaves and use it to make cookies, brownies, etc. The oil will be full of THC from the leaves you fried in it and eating it will get you a lot more fucked up than smoking the buds will.

I particularly did not like it because I used to smoke to relax and that got me way too fucked up to relax. I didn't sleep that entire night and even went on google to see if anyone ever died from weed.

jubei33
31st December 09, 04:57 PM
I'm told that a higher attenuation would be attained using a lower heat to solute the THC in , because it evaporates easily at higher temperatures. Or so I'm told....according to legend, that is

Cullion
31st December 09, 05:10 PM
Your first was homegrown?

First was homegrown by a friend's parents who were old hippies.

I grew a couple of plants of my own at college.

Ajamil
10th January 10, 12:19 AM
I know we can talk and laugh in here guiz, but, Goon? Jubei? There's a point where you have to differentiate between jokes and reality. (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/01/perry_county_officials_see_sha.html)



Perry County officials see sharp increase in heroin use, overdoses

By Joe Elias, The Patriot-News (http://connect.pennlive.com/user/jelias/index.html)

Perry County officials say they seen a sharp increase in heroin use since Thanksgiving that have seen two fatal overdoses in the last three weeks.




This week, a 32-year-old recovering heroin addict who had been clean for two months overdosed and died. Three weeks ago, a 45-year-old man overdosed and died, county coroner Michael Shalonis said.

There were two other overdose deaths in Perry County in 2009.

This past Monday, emergency crews responded to four heroin overdose calls, Shalonis said. They were rushed to local hospitals and survived, he said.

“It appears as if use is growing up,” Shalonis said. “Who knows why?”

Shalonis said toxicology reports in the deaths indicate the heroin used was pure and was not spiked with anything. He said there is no reason to believe there is a bad batch of heroin in the area.

“It’s more a matter of too many people doing more of the drug than they can handle,” Shalonis said.

Ambulance crews said they are also witnessing a dramatic increase in overdose calls.

Kraig Nace, president of the Duncannon EMS, said crews started seeing the increase about six weeks ago. Since then, they have responded to about three calls per week.

Before Thanksgiving they responded to less than two calls per month related to overdoses, Nace said.

“Crews all over the county have been busy recently,” Nace said. “The holidays got here and the amount of calls we received have gone way up.”

Besides heroin overdoses, Nace said crews are also seeing an increase in prescription pill overdoses, with the users ranging from teenagers to users in their 30s.

“When it comes to prescription pills, you are dealing with a younger crowd,” Nace said. “Unfortunately, we are taking a lot of teenagers to the hospital.”

District Judge Daniel McGuire, whose district includes the Duncannon area and much of eastern Perry County, said he is seeing an increase not only in the amount of drug arrests, specifically heroin — but also an increase the number of thefts, robberies, burglaries and assaults linked to heroin use.

“I don’t know exact numbers, but it’s booming,” McGuire said. “The drug trade and all the activity that goes with it is on the rise.”

One of the 2009 overdose deaths resulted in criminal charges.

Joshua Michael Sheaffer, 25, of Duncannon, was charged as the go-between who allowed his friend to get the drug (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/07/perry_county_man_arrested_and.html), prosecutors said. The heroin was not tainted, authorities said, but Mason Brouse, 29, of Penn Township, died May 29 after taking it.

In December, Sheaffer pleaded guilty to a charge of recklessly endangering another person and received a two year prison sentence.

Sheaffer was arrested four other times in 2009 on charges such as forgery, theft by unlawful taking, filing false reports and drug possession, according to court records. He is in a state prison, sentenced to serve a maximum of nine years on all of the charges.


Shalonis said toxicology reports in the deaths indicate the heroin used was pure and was not spiked with anything.
Look, they even threatened the coroner into covering their tracks. Shame.