BLOG VIEW  |  HEADLINE VIEW
SUBMIT NEWS  |  RSS FEED  |  SEARCH

More Dumberer Than Potheads

TUESDAY MARCH 25 2008 6:00 AM

Submitted by FearTheReaper. Edited By FearTheReaper.

TAGS: Medical marijuana, Barney Frank

Our pot laws in the US are so backwards and idiotic, it is astounding. It is unbelievable that arrests for marijuana violations are actually going up. But it seems everywhere you look, the US has its priorities completely backwards. We are some seriously stupid motherfuckers. But that all may change because of a fat, gay guy from Massachusetts named Barney Frank.

I’m for the legalization of all drugs. People are going to get them anyway, so there is no point in keeping them illegal. When I was growing up, I had no problem getting my hands on pot, magic mushrooms, LSD, cocaine, speed, or anything else I wanted. It is my understanding that heroin and meth have now been added to the list of easy access drugs. For me they were all one phone call away, or they would come to me at a party, or football game – hell, one time I got my drugs in a high school Spanish class. Muy bueno! The point is, if you want drugs, you can get drugs - especially pot.

Pot is the least dangerous drug out there, but the government keeps cracking down.


Police arrested a record 829,625 persons for marijuana violations in 2006, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report, released today. This is the largest total number of annual arrests for pot ever recorded by the FBI. Marijuana arrests now comprise nearly 44 percent of all drug arrests in the United States.


The government is seriously stupider than stoners. In the past 15 years, pot arrests have gone up 188%. You’d think the government would have something better to do, like sit around and diddle their balls. Or maybe they could punch themselves in the face. I would rather my tax dollars pay for that. The last thing I want happening is people, like Mary Ann from “Gilligan’s Island,” getting arrested.


Dawn Wells, who played Mary Ann on "Gilligan's Island," is serving six months' unsupervised probation after allegedly being caught with marijuana in her car.


WTF? That poor woman was stuck on an island with a bunch of retards for years. Dawn should always be high. She should wear a glass helmet with a tube attached that constantly feeds pot into her poor brain. By the way, awesome mug shot, burnout.

Six months probation doesn’t sound bad, but for many people it’s not just about the sentence. Their lives can be turned upside down.


Sanctions triggered by a marijuana conviction can include loss of access to food stamps, public housing, and student financial aid, as well as driver's license suspensions, loss of or ineligibility for professional licenses, other barriers to employment or promotion, and bars to adoption, voting, and jury service.


My wife is a therapist. If she smoked pot and was caught, she would lose her license to practice. The punishment for smoking a natural plant does not fit the crime – it more fits the crime of murder. If I were a student who lost his financial aide and was looking at a life working at Home Depot, I would go on a shooting spree. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that employees could be fired for smoking pot, even if it has nothing to do with the job.


The California Supreme Court weakened the effect of the state's beleaguered medical marijuana law, ruling Thursday that employers may fire workers for using physician-recommended marijuana while off duty, even if it did not hurt their job performance.


The pot laws vary from state to state. 12 states have passed medical marijuana laws. California passed a medical marijuana law in 1996. Now we have pot stores and even pot vending machines. But that does not stop the Federal Government from raiding our pot stores, because George Bush has a serious hard on for pot.


The gap between state and federal drug laws became apparent again Wednesday when federal agents raided 10 local medical marijuana facilities only minutes after the Los Angeles City Council placed a moratorium on new facilities so rules could be drafted to better regulate them.


And it doesn’t help that in 2005 the douchebags on the Supreme Court ruled that the Feds could overrule state pot laws.


The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled doctors can be blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused by cancer or other serious illnesses.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.


Sweet. I know one of the “broader implications” is that people will be more relaxed. And more video games will be played. And quite a few more lemons may be stared at for over 10 minutes. Oh, and shows like Two and A Half Men may actually be somewhat tolerable. Actually, strike that. The creators of Two and A Half Men should be murdered.

As far as the “financial implications,” as a country we spend $7.5 billion annually enforcing pot laws. And that doesn’t include taking care of the poor fuckers who are in jail. Maybe we should act like adults, legalize pot and rake in the taxes from all the herb that would be legally sold. Hell, we could probably fund universal health care with the tax profits.

Thankfully, Barney Frank is on the case.


Rep. Barney Frank said he plans to file a bill to legalize "small amounts" of marijuana.

Frank announced his plans late Friday on the HBO show "Real Time," hosted by Bill Maher.

"I'm going to file a bill as soon as we go back to remove all federal penalties for the possession or use of small amounts of marijuana," Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, told Maher.





That would be awesome. It will never happen, but it sounds awesome. For whatever reason, America likes to cater to the most retarded amongst us – which turns out to be most of us. Although, we have been moving slowly towards legalization over the years.

Of course, the vast majority of people arrested for smoking pot are minorities – even though the rates of marijuana use are the same for whites and people who are not whites. Plus, we do like to keep our black people in jail and pot makes that easy.


Since it started in 1970, American law enforcement has arrested 38 million people for nonviolent drug offenses, nearly 2 million last year alone. The number of people jailed for violent crimes has risen 300 percent, but the prison population of nonviolent drug offenders has soared 2,558 percent.


Thank God. All those people were getting high and not doing anything wrong. Motherfuckers. Nothing is more infuriating than a guy going to a park and getting high. You may as well shit on the baby Jesus. An influential physician group recently called for pot to be declassified as a “Schedule I” drug.


The American College of Physicians, the nation's largest organization of doctors of internal medicine, with 124,000 members, contends that the long and rancorous debate over marijuana legalization has obscured good science that has demonstrated the benefits and medicinal promise of cannabis.

The group calls on the government to drop marijuana from Schedule I, a classification it shares with illegal drugs such as heroin and LSD that are considered to have no medicinal value and a high likelihood of abuse.


Holy shit. Pot is classified the same as heroin? Why not classify murder the same as trespassing? How about classifying rape the same as jaywalking? The people who first made pot illegal should be beaten about the head with a large wooden object. If they are dead, they should be dug up and set on fire. But they won’t be, because they have made billions of dollars keeping pot illegal. Plus, it would be weird to dig up a body and set it on fire. And I doubt anyone would understand the political statement. By the way, “They” are people like Du Pont and Hearst.

Corporations like Du Pont and industrialists like William Randolph Hearst were concerned that hemp would cut into their pulpwood paper and synthetic products profits. So, they launched a campaign.

In the '30s, Du Pont had just patented a new process for making pulpwood paper and was working on something called “nylon.” Du Pont financial backer and US Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon made sure his nephew was in charge of the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. They combined with the Hearst newspaper business to create the new monster: Pot. Then came the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,” which was the end. Yay big business.

It’s amazing Barney Frank is actually going to introduce legislation to legalize small amounts of pot. It has no chance, especially in an election year, because the majority our politicians are spineless creatures, with no ability to take a strong stand. We are basically represented by sea cucumbers.

Even everyone’s great hope, Barack Obama, won’t come out for medical marijuana. He did a few months ago, but then recently backed off.


When a voter asked Obama if he was for the legalization of medical marijuana, Obama said that he wasn't in favor of legalization without scientific evidence and tight controls. Citing his mother who died from cancer young, Obama compared marijuana to morphine saying there was little difference between the two.


Really? Because I’ve experienced both and I’m going to go ahead and say there’s a huge fucking difference. Morphine is the great “pain go bye-bye.” Pot is, “hey, shit is weird.” And Obama’s statement that he can’t favor “legalization without scientific evidence” is pure bullshit. There is loads of scientific evidence that pot aids in the treatment of health ailments. And even if there wasn't, who gives a shit? Hemp and pot were a big part of the early days of America.

Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew marijuana, and smoked it. Today, they’d be locked up in jail.


"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson


Whatever, hippy.

Let’s hope Barney Frank gets somewhere with his legislation. But I seriously doubt anything is going to happen. Because we are morons.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 9

Next

TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

Cambridge, MA
November 2003

MAR 25, 2008 05:15 PM

Uncognitive said:

TheRedBaron said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


Uncognitive said:

TheRedBaron said:
There's another factor here that all the "pro legalization" posts thus far have missed. Namely, the fate of drugs after legalization. Maybe drug laws are a failure as a deterrent, and maybe they're not as effective as we'd like at keeping drugs from being synthesized, but they are completely, 100% effective at keeping drugs out of the hands of corporations. I'm all for the legalization of pot (although I don't much care for it myslef) but I get a stone in my stomach when I think the private sector being allowed to produce, sell, and market something as profoundly addictive and destructive as heroin or meth. The drugs laws are worth keeping and cherishing this purpose alone.



OxyContin? Vicodin?

Corporations are currently allowed to produce, sell and market drugs that are profoundly addictive and destructive.



Those are medicinal and regulated. I thought we were having a conversation about legalization of drugs for recreational purposes.



I'd consider that changing the legal classification of "hard" drugs like heroin and meth from illegal under (almost) any circumstances to prescription only under strict government regulation would bring about most if not all of the benefits of ending prohibition without the negative impact of, say, allowing Coca Cola to bring back their original, original formula.



What on earth would heroin and meth be prescribed for?

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

MAR 25, 2008 05:16 PM

SergeantPsycho said:

livertarian said:

SergeantPsycho said:
You know what would make me laugh my ass off? A political candidate who says something like "Vote for me, and I'll work toward legalizing marijuana!" And then that guy wins by a landslide. I've never smoked it btw, but I still think it should be legal.



I will be that candidate, if I must. In the gubernatorial race for VA in 2014. I look forward to your vote.



Fuck yeah! You've got my vote!



Trivia of the Day: As of 2007, Virginia the only state in which the governer cannot serve consecutive terms.

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

MAR 25, 2008 05:21 PM

TheRedBaron said:

Uncognitive said:

TheRedBaron said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


Uncognitive said:

TheRedBaron said:
There's another factor here that all the "pro legalization" posts thus far have missed. Namely, the fate of drugs after legalization. Maybe drug laws are a failure as a deterrent, and maybe they're not as effective as we'd like at keeping drugs from being synthesized, but they are completely, 100% effective at keeping drugs out of the hands of corporations. I'm all for the legalization of pot (although I don't much care for it myslef) but I get a stone in my stomach when I think the private sector being allowed to produce, sell, and market something as profoundly addictive and destructive as heroin or meth. The drugs laws are worth keeping and cherishing this purpose alone.



OxyContin? Vicodin?

Corporations are currently allowed to produce, sell and market drugs that are profoundly addictive and destructive.



Those are medicinal and regulated. I thought we were having a conversation about legalization of drugs for recreational purposes.



I'd consider that changing the legal classification of "hard" drugs like heroin and meth from illegal under (almost) any circumstances to prescription only under strict government regulation would bring about most if not all of the benefits of ending prohibition without the negative impact of, say, allowing Coca Cola to bring back their original, original formula.



What on earth would heroin and meth be prescribed for?



Addiction to heroin and meth.

TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

Cambridge, MA
November 2003

MAR 25, 2008 05:21 PM

PointBlank said:

TheRedBaron said:

I get a stone in my stomach when I think the private sector being allowed to produce, sell, and market something as profoundly addictive and destructive as heroin or meth. The drugs laws are worth keeping and cherishing this purpose alone.


I don't know why people who are against legalization always act like it's either going to be totally against the law or every street corner is going to have a heroin store. I would be fine with not allowing the private sector to market heroin. I'm also for legalization. It's not contradictory at all.



I didn't say it was contradictory, I just thought we were having a different discussion.

That said, I'm confused by your proposal. Are you proposing that we make personal use legal and keep production illegal? Or is it strictly the marketing which you opposed to? Please clarify.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

MAR 25, 2008 05:58 PM

TheRedBaron said:

PointBlank said:

TheRedBaron said:

I get a stone in my stomach when I think the private sector being allowed to produce, sell, and market something as profoundly addictive and destructive as heroin or meth. The drugs laws are worth keeping and cherishing this purpose alone.


I don't know why people who are against legalization always act like it's either going to be totally against the law or every street corner is going to have a heroin store. I would be fine with not allowing the private sector to market heroin. I'm also for legalization. It's not contradictory at all.



I didn't say it was contradictory, I just thought we were having a different discussion.

That said, I'm confused by your proposal. Are you proposing that we make personal use legal and keep production illegal? Or is it strictly the marketing which you opposed to? Please clarify.

Confused by a proposal I didn't make?

First, unless I read your original post wrong, you're the one who is opposed to the marketing of "hard" drugs by corporations. I was just responding to that point, which I think is one that is typically used by anti-legalizers.

I would be fine if heroin were de-criminalized. No one possessing heroin would be arrested for possessing heroin. I am not in favor of Coca-Cola or Wal-Mart selling heroin in stores, which seems to be your fear. It is very possible to control the distribution and quality of heroin (or other hard drugs), but only if it is decriminalized. There is a VAST difference between some capitalist nightmare situation where companies are vying for a share of the addict market and sensible legalization.

As for production, that was in response the fear that someone else held: that legal meth would increase dangerous personal meth-labs. I would certainly maintain the laws against "Homebrewing" heroin, meth, etc.

Lastly (and this is general, not aimed at you), my problem with the whole "Pot should be legal, but those other drugs are baaaad, man!" theory of legalization is that the crime and violence that go along with the illegal marijuana trade are negligible. Making weed legal isn't going to do a lot to help those non-drug-users who suffer due to the illegal drug trade.

m_n_m

m_n_m

I'm lost
March 2008

MAR 25, 2008 06:06 PM

im gonna go smoke a bowl right now...in defiance of these moronic laws...anyone else? biggrin

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAR 25, 2008 06:07 PM

TheRedBaron said:

Uncognitive said:

TheRedBaron said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


Uncognitive said:

TheRedBaron said:
There's another factor here that all the "pro legalization" posts thus far have missed. Namely, the fate of drugs after legalization. Maybe drug laws are a failure as a deterrent, and maybe they're not as effective as we'd like at keeping drugs from being synthesized, but they are completely, 100% effective at keeping drugs out of the hands of corporations. I'm all for the legalization of pot (although I don't much care for it myslef) but I get a stone in my stomach when I think the private sector being allowed to produce, sell, and market something as profoundly addictive and destructive as heroin or meth. The drugs laws are worth keeping and cherishing this purpose alone.



OxyContin? Vicodin?

Corporations are currently allowed to produce, sell and market drugs that are profoundly addictive and destructive.



Those are medicinal and regulated. I thought we were having a conversation about legalization of drugs for recreational purposes.



I'd consider that changing the legal classification of "hard" drugs like heroin and meth from illegal under (almost) any circumstances to prescription only under strict government regulation would bring about most if not all of the benefits of ending prohibition without the negative impact of, say, allowing Coca Cola to bring back their original, original formula.



What on earth would heroin and meth be prescribed for?



Heroin? Pain relief. It is now, certainly in the UK. They don't call it heroin, though; they call it by its chemical name, diamorphine.

Meth? No idea. Apart from meth addiction, as livertarian said.

SmellsLikeSciFi

SmellsLikeSciFi

Houston, TX
April 2004

MAR 25, 2008 06:09 PM

Gringo said:
So back to this meth stuff. As you may or may not know MDMA/ecstasy is rarely pure. It's usually cut with other shit...

As it turns out, many of the batches have 1/4 or up to 1/2 parts of meth. Meth is very, very cheap.



uh...Dude. Hate to break it to you, but the "MA" in your MDMA

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

stands for Meth Amphetimine



So, in conclusion, your close friend Ecstasy isn't CUT with Meth. It IS meth. ALL THE TIME.

Cash

Cash

I'm lost
OLD SKOOL

MAR 25, 2008 06:14 PM

PointBlank said:
Why do you think that legalization wouldn't reduce the number of basement meth labs? You realize that those basement meth labs could stay illegal if meth was legal, right? Maybe instead of spending $$ on busting people for possession we could use the money to stop people from making it in their homes. I'm not sure that any of what you said is an argument for keeping it legal. Even if I buy the premise that legalization wouldn't make residential meth labs more rare (and I find it very hard to believe), then the illegality of meth certainly hasn't stopped them either, so maybe it's time to do something new.



I don't think you got what I meant. I don't care if people do meth..I don't care what Joe Schmoe puts into his body. I just don't want meth labs to be legal. Meth labs are dangerous...and SHOULD be illegal.

I don't see how legalization would make meth labs more rare....unless medical facilities made it (which I doubt would happen)...but if legalization of meth would lead to a reduction in meth labs....I say bring it on.

As an emegecy service worker...meth labs are a real and legitimate concern to me and my co-workers. I don't know how I can make this clearer...I don't give a shit if you do meth....as long as you can get rid of meth labs.

SergeantPsycho

SergeantPsycho

Hampton, VA
January 2007

MAR 25, 2008 06:16 PM

Also, as far as I know marijuana also has the following side effects:
- makes you forget to clean your room
- makes you skip class
- makes you not show up for court
- makes you run from the cops
- makes you NOT make love to a woman
- can mess up your life

Crap, I'm so not taking this thread with the serious it was intended.

SmellsLikeSciFi

SmellsLikeSciFi

Houston, TX
April 2004

MAR 25, 2008 06:20 PM

SergeantPsycho said:
Also, as far as I know marijuana also has the following side effects:
- makes you forget to clean your room
- makes you skip class
- makes you not show up for court
- makes you run from the cops
- makes you NOT make love to a woman
- can mess up your life

Crap, I'm so not taking this thread with the serious it was intended.



You sincerely saved me about 5 minutes of typing with that last sentence, sir.

biggrin

livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

MAR 25, 2008 06:33 PM

Cash said:

I don't think you got what I meant. I don't care if people do meth..I don't care what Joe Schmoe puts into his body. I just don't want meth labs to be legal. Meth labs are dangerous...and SHOULD be illegal.

I don't see how legalization would make meth labs more rare....unless medical facilities made it (which I doubt would happen)...but if legalization of meth would lead to a reduction in meth labs....I say bring it on.

As an emegecy service worker...meth labs are a real and legitimate concern to me and my co-workers. I don't know how I can make this clearer...I don't give a shit if you do meth....as long as you can get rid of meth labs.



I think the market would see to your concern, to a certain degree.

The production of drugs that aren't easily produced at home is a very interesting discussion.

Let's take unregulated drugs as an example:

How do people choose which herbal remedies to buy? How do they decide which manufacturers are using good standards? They do it through privately run consumer groups. Competition in the herbal remedy market ensures, to the best degree i think possible, that people will have safe, affordable options with their herbal remedies. Legalize meth, and I think you would then see the consumer having some say in the matter. I think competition and good business sense will promote safe facilities for meth production. As it is right now, in a black market economy, the supplier has all the cards.

TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

Cambridge, MA
November 2003

MAR 25, 2008 06:35 PM

SockPuppet said:

TheRedBaron said:

Uncognitive said:

TheRedBaron said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


Uncognitive said:

TheRedBaron said:
There's another factor here that all the "pro legalization" posts thus far have missed. Namely, the fate of drugs after legalization. Maybe drug laws are a failure as a deterrent, and maybe they're not as effective as we'd like at keeping drugs from being synthesized, but they are completely, 100% effective at keeping drugs out of the hands of corporations. I'm all for the legalization of pot (although I don't much care for it myslef) but I get a stone in my stomach when I think the private sector being allowed to produce, sell, and market something as profoundly addictive and destructive as heroin or meth. The drugs laws are worth keeping and cherishing this purpose alone.



OxyContin? Vicodin?

Corporations are currently allowed to produce, sell and market drugs that are profoundly addictive and destructive.



Those are medicinal and regulated. I thought we were having a conversation about legalization of drugs for recreational purposes.



I'd consider that changing the legal classification of "hard" drugs like heroin and meth from illegal under (almost) any circumstances to prescription only under strict government regulation would bring about most if not all of the benefits of ending prohibition without the negative impact of, say, allowing Coca Cola to bring back their original, original formula.



What on earth would heroin and meth be prescribed for?



Heroin? Pain relief. It is now, certainly in the UK. They don't call it heroin, though; they call it by its chemical name, diamorphine.

Meth? No idea. Apart from meth addiction, as livertarian said.



Really? I knew, of course, that it was developed as a fast-acting morphine derivative, but I thought it had fallen completely out of use with the advent of equally fast-acting pain killers which carry less risk of dependence. Interesting to know that it's still used medically some places.

TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

Cambridge, MA
November 2003

MAR 25, 2008 06:45 PM

PointBlank said:

TheRedBaron said:

PointBlank said:

TheRedBaron said:

I get a stone in my stomach when I think the private sector being allowed to produce, sell, and market something as profoundly addictive and destructive as heroin or meth. The drugs laws are worth keeping and cherishing this purpose alone.


I don't know why people who are against legalization always act like it's either going to be totally against the law or every street corner is going to have a heroin store. I would be fine with not allowing the private sector to market heroin. I'm also for legalization. It's not contradictory at all.



I didn't say it was contradictory, I just thought we were having a different discussion.

That said, I'm confused by your proposal. Are you proposing that we make personal use legal and keep production illegal? Or is it strictly the marketing which you opposed to? Please clarify.

Confused by a proposal I didn't make?

First, unless I read your original post wrong, you're the one who is opposed to the marketing of "hard" drugs by corporations. I was just responding to that point, which I think is one that is typically used by anti-legalizers.

I would be fine if heroin were de-criminalized. No one possessing heroin would be arrested for possessing heroin. I am not in favor of Coca-Cola or Wal-Mart selling heroin in stores, which seems to be your fear. It is very possible to control the distribution and quality of heroin (or other hard drugs), but only if it is decriminalized. There is a VAST difference between some capitalist nightmare situation where companies are vying for a share of the addict market and sensible legalization.

As for production, that was in response the fear that someone else held: that legal meth would increase dangerous personal meth-labs. I would certainly maintain the laws against "Homebrewing" heroin, meth, etc.



I think it's fair to say you made a proposal even if it's one you don't personally advocate.

And I'm still a bit confused about how this world would work. It it legal for individuals to own, as you've stated; and would be illegal to sell (you specified a bar on selling by big names, but I assume this extends down to any sale). It could also not be home-made. I'm really not trying to aggressively pick this apart, I am just trying to understand:

If it could not be sold legally, how does that help control quality?
If it could be made by pharmaceuticals, how can they distribute it without realizing my fear of an addiction dependent market?

I actually have a number more questions, but I am going to hold them until I have a clearer picture of what we're talking about here.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAR 25, 2008 06:50 PM

TheRedBaron said:

SockPuppet said:

TheRedBaron said:

Uncognitive said:

TheRedBaron said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


Uncognitive said:
TheRedBaron said:
There's another factor here that all the "pro legalization" posts thus far have missed. Namely, the fate of drugs after legalization. Maybe drug laws are a failure as a deterrent, and maybe they're not as effective as we'd like at keeping drugs from being synthesized, but they are completely, 100% effective at keeping drugs out of the hands of corporations. I'm all for the legalization of pot (although I don't much care for it myslef) but I get a stone in my stomach when I think the private sector being allowed to produce, sell, and market something as profoundly addictive and destructive as heroin or meth. The drugs laws are worth keeping and cherishing this purpose alone.



OxyContin? Vicodin?

Corporations are currently allowed to produce, sell and market drugs that are profoundly addictive and destructive.



Those are medicinal and regulated. I thought we were having a conversation about legalization of drugs for recreational purposes.



I'd consider that changing the legal classification of "hard" drugs like heroin and meth from illegal under (almost) any circumstances to prescription only under strict government regulation would bring about most if not all of the benefits of ending prohibition without the negative impact of, say, allowing Coca Cola to bring back their original, original formula.



What on earth would heroin and meth be prescribed for?



Heroin? Pain relief. It is now, certainly in the UK. They don't call it heroin, though; they call it by its chemical name, diamorphine.

Meth? No idea. Apart from meth addiction, as livertarian said.



Really? I knew, of course, that it was developed as a fast-acting morphine derivative, but I thought it had fallen completely out of use with the advent of equally fast-acting pain killers which carry less risk of dependence. Interesting to know that it's still used medically some places.


_______________________________________________________
Yup. IIUC it's legally prescribable in Canada as well, under certain circumstances.

Strictly anecdotal:
Someone I know had a heart attack a couple of months back. He told me that a paramedic showed up, injected him with morphine, then diamorphine, which he'd never heard of. He said whatever it was, it had some interesting side effects. He was very very surprised when I told him that was heroin...

Also, which new fast-acting painkillers are you thinking of?

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 9

Next

Now Hear This

Last Comment 4 HR by orbro

Now Hear This

Last Comment 4 HR

There's like a half-hour of video here. You should do a vlog. More ...

Asshole Fuckface Roundup #74

Last Comment 5 HR

Parents who are accustomed to carrying guns around may not think anything of going into child-related... More ...

An Encounter With Jonathan Shaw's Narcisa

Last Comment 6 HR

thanx gurlz... u rrrrrule!! xx jonathan shaw and narcisa More ...

SuicideGirl: Bob

Bob

Terrible Woman's MySpace Alias Leads to Teen's Suicide.

Last Comment 21 HR

But, it's delivered poorly...really poorly. Unless, it's not a joke, in which case, it's a good place... More ...

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08 by Shalome

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08

Oh my fucking god. More ...

Filtering the Truth: Religion - Friend or Foe?

Last Comment 11/30/08

I'm just going to skip over the mass orgy that's going on and say my piece: I don't think religion is... More ...

SuicideGirls Interview: Marty Krofft
SuicideGirls Interview: Travis Barker
SuicideGirls Interview: On the Vineyard with Maynard James Keenan