Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

By brother's been keeping better track of street news than me and has talked about Krokodil a few times. He describes it as "leprosy as a drug".

Sounds like Papa Nurgle has been sitting in on some of these cookouts.

Also, according to a cop acquaintance of mine, the drug's been in the country already for almost a year.

I didn't believe this. At first I thought it was as much an urban legend as rainbow parties. Apparently, it's real.

Drugs, Nature ways of thinning out the gene pool of the stupid. Actually drugs/concoction of this nature.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The problem is, no matter how much education you offer, or how much rehabilitation you offer, there are still a significant number of people willing to destroy their lives (and, indirectly, the lives of those close to them) with their addictions (whatever that addiction may be).

Sure, alcohol is legal, there are mountains of rehab and education programs available, but you still have jackasses that get drunk, drive on the wrong side of the interstate, get into a head-on collision with a fuel truck, and guess which one of the two drivers survives?

Or you have the meth addict that is so tweaked and high that she puts her baby in the washing machine with the rest of the laundry.

Or the mother that smokes so much crack cocaine right in her baby's face.

People will do ANYTHING to make themselves feel good, and to maintain that feeling.

So surely if people are going to do it, and we know prohibition doesn't work even with ludicrously extreme penalties, why do people still insist that proper harm reduction strategies are somehow worse than doing nothing at all?

If prohibition and "tough" sentencing will mean 10,000 addicts stealing and requiring extortionate medical treatment, but legalisation coupled with education and state-funded rehab will result in 2000 addicts stealing and requiring extortionate medical treatmen, surely the latter is superior to the former? It's cheaper to get at people as quickly as possible and put them through a compassionate and effective rehab programme than to pull this whole moral-crusader routine where we brand them as failures as people and criminalise them for life, which leaves them clogging up prisons, pushing up crime, and being a greater burden on the healthcare system long-term because of the expensive medical conditions that inevitably arise as the result of using hard drugs.

 Jihadin wrote:
Drugs, Nature ways of thinning out the gene pool of the stupid. Actually drugs/concoction of this nature.

I wish people didn't act like this, because it always makes me feel bad when I genuinely wish that people would experience the things they dismiss and mischaracterise, especially when it's something as monstrous and life-affecting as serious addiction.

 Yodhrin wrote:

If prohibition and "tough" sentencing will mean 10,000 addicts stealing and requiring extortionate medical treatment, but legalisation coupled with education and state-funded rehab will result in 2000 addicts stealing and requiring extortionate medical treatmen, surely the latter is superior to the former? It's cheaper to get at people as quickly as possible and put them through a compassionate and effective rehab programme than to pull this whole moral-crusader routine where we brand them as failures as people and criminalise them for life, which leaves them clogging up prisons, pushing up crime, and being a greater burden on the healthcare system long-term because of the expensive medical conditions that inevitably arise as the result of using hard drugs.

We already have education and state-funded rehab. We still have addicts. And I'd like to see what empirical proof you have that would show an 80% drop in addicts because of legalization.

Those with a serious addiction didn't know the effects of acquiring an addiction in the first place? For those that goes down this road are not dumb, uninformed, or forced at gun point to take this caliber of drugs. Sorry if I don't have sympathies for them. Its their choice to do it.

oh holy gak, why did I click on the spoiler tab even after being warned

Tannhauser42 wrote:The problem is, no matter how much education you offer, or how much rehabilitation you offer, there are still a significant number of people willing to destroy their lives (and, indirectly, the lives of those close to them) with their addictions (whatever that addiction may be).

djones520 wrote:already have education and state-funded rehab. We still have addicts. And I'd like to see what empirical proof you have that would show an 80% drop in addicts because of legalization.

I tend to agree with djones520 on this point; but in response to Tannhauser42: you're missing the point. Addiction will always be a factor, because the drug is addictive. But that's not what the legalization strategy is about: it is about treating the issue as a public safety concern, rather than a drug war. The addiction numbers are not likely to go down IMO; but if the drugs are readily available, then the prices will go down. A drop in prices means that the addicts can more easily afford to kill themselves, and thus are less likely to resort to secondary criminal acts in order to feed their addiction. I'm not concerned with being the morality police and forcing people to stop doing drugs; I'm concerned with ensuring that they don't have to rob a house to pay for those drugs.

As a secondary element of seeing it as a public safety concern, the legalization means that the product can be regulated, and thus will be safer because it won't get stepped on as much in the illicit market, nor be cut with insane filler products. Additionally, there may be a drop in transmitted diseases due to an also more readily available supply of syringes, etc.

The war on drugs was lost and the beast couldn't be destroyed; best to just domesticate it instead.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I tend to agree with djones520 on this point;

Bestill my beating heart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Tannhauser42 wrote:The problem is, no matter how much education you offer, or how much rehabilitation you offer, there are still a significant number of people willing to destroy their lives (and, indirectly, the lives of those close to them) with their addictions (whatever that addiction may be).

djones520 wrote:already have education and state-funded rehab. We still have addicts. And I'd like to see what empirical proof you have that would show an 80% drop in addicts because of legalization.

I tend to agree with djones520 on this point; but in response to Tannhauser42: you're missing the point. Addiction will always be a factor, because the drug is addictive. But that's not what the legalization strategy is about: it is about treating the issue as a public safety concern, rather than a drug war. The addiction numbers are not likely to go down IMO; but if the drugs are readily available, then the prices will go down. A drop in prices means that the addicts can more easily afford to kill themselves, and thus are less likely to resort to secondary criminal acts in order to feed their addiction. I'm not concerned with being the morality police and forcing people to stop doing drugs; I'm concerned with ensuring that they don't have to rob a house to pay for those drugs.

As a secondary element of seeing it as a public safety concern, the legalization means that the product can be regulated, and thus will be safer because it won't get stepped on as much in the illicit market, nor be cut with insane filler products. Additionally, there may be a drop in transmitted diseases due to an also more readily available supply of syringes, etc.

The war on drugs was lost and the beast couldn't be destroyed; best to just domesticate it instead.

I do think your idea's might be a bit off. Regulation, while potentially making it safer, won't necessarily lead to cheaper. A black market will still exist for the drug. And if the drug were to become safer, added to the removed stigma of it being illegal, you will most likely see an increase in usage/addiction/ruined lives.

Actually a lot of what Azazel is saying seems to be similar to the results of Portugal's drug policy since the early 2000's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

grimdark83 wrote:
oh holy gak, why did I click on the spoiler tab even after being warned

Curiosity?

grimdark83 wrote:
oh holy gak, why did I click on the spoiler tab even after being warned

Pretty much my reaction too. I thought that one image of a child with smallpox was the worst thing I'd ever see. As always, nature finds a way to one-up itself...

djones520 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I tend to agree with djones520 on this point;

Bestill my beating heart.

Collectively we've got over 9000 (heh heh) posts; there had to be a similarity in there somewhere.

djones520 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Tannhauser42 wrote:The problem is, no matter how much education you offer, or how much rehabilitation you offer, there are still a significant number of people willing to destroy their lives (and, indirectly, the lives of those close to them) with their addictions (whatever that addiction may be).

djones520 wrote:already have education and state-funded rehab. We still have addicts. And I'd like to see what empirical proof you have that would show an 80% drop in addicts because of legalization.

I tend to agree with djones520 on this point; but in response to Tannhauser42: you're missing the point. Addiction will always be a factor, because the drug is addictive. But that's not what the legalization strategy is about: it is about treating the issue as a public safety concern, rather than a drug war. The addiction numbers are not likely to go down IMO; but if the drugs are readily available, then the prices will go down. A drop in prices means that the addicts can more easily afford to kill themselves, and thus are less likely to resort to secondary criminal acts in order to feed their addiction. I'm not concerned with being the morality police and forcing people to stop doing drugs; I'm concerned with ensuring that they don't have to rob a house to pay for those drugs.

As a secondary element of seeing it as a public safety concern, the legalization means that the product can be regulated, and thus will be safer because it won't get stepped on as much in the illicit market, nor be cut with insane filler products. Additionally, there may be a drop in transmitted diseases due to an also more readily available supply of syringes, etc.

The war on drugs was lost and the beast couldn't be destroyed; best to just domesticate it instead.

I do think your idea's might be a bit off. Regulation, while potentially making it safer, won't necessarily lead to cheaper. A black market will still exist for the drug. And if the drug were to become safer, added to the removed stigma of it being illegal, you will most likely see an increase in usage/addiction/ruined lives.

It absolutely would make it cheaper, because the increased costs emanate from the risk of production, which is a byproduct of the narcotic being illicit. I'm pretty sure that once it became legalized, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson would be in total control of the supply side of the market, distributing through Wal-Mart. And there is absolutely no way that the guy wearing his colours and selling down on the corner is going to be able to compete with Wal-Mart's rock-bottom low prices. I mean, when was the last time you heard about a black market for Aspirin? There's plenty of willow trees around, but it just doesn't happen. Granted, I know ACA isn't addictive, but I think the idea is clear: the black market only exists when the regular market is not open to the customer (whether than be due to legality or cost, it matters not).

And you're right; there is a very good likelihood of seeing an increase in addiction and ruined lives as a result; however I care not about those lives, because they are thrown away by their owner. However, I would expect a significant decrease in the number of lives ruined as a tertiary effect of the narcotics game: a significant decrease in violent crime related to the drug wars due to the increased availability of the product, and no more turf wars (I mean, have you ever heard of the employees of McDonald's and Burger King getting into a gunfight because they set up shop across the street from each other?)

If a dozen junkies, having made their own beds, have to OD in exchange for even just a single kid not catching a stray bullet through a window, then I consider it a good trade that I would make a hundred times over.

The problem with your assumption on it being cheaper is that it will be highly regulated if it does get legalized.

Walmart isn't going to be selling Heroin or Weed over the counter and its not going to be cheap.

Az. If you ever run for public office let me know. You ever down my way the first ten beers are on me

Azeal, your philosophy is most agreeable. Have an Exalt on me

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
We should hire these people into haunted houses


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Why dont drug PSAs in school touch on this. Im sure just showing that would be enugh to deter people

Dude think about it, most people on this drug probably saw at LEAST one user IN PERSON before they started injecting.


and +1 to Az, well said.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, Why dont drug PSAs in school touch on this. Im sure just showing that would be enugh to deter people

I've been thinking about this since you posted it, and honestly Drug prevention programs rarely delve into the horrible outcome, and Krokodil is such a fethed up drug to begin with that there is no coming back from it. I mean even the effects of meth can be fixed by the body and returned to normal after a decade or so, but Krokodil users don't last more than 3 years. You're injecting gasoline, hydrochloric acid, and a few other ingredients directly into your body. These are not things that should come into contact under the best of circumstances.
To put this into perspective, according to the latest regulations, Desomorphine itself isn't hazardous from what I can tell, and is actually used by some countries as an alternative morphine. Compare this to Hydrochloric Acid, and gasoline, which are almost as hazardous as one can get. Drug PSAs would have to tell people that Desomorphine is safe, and technically it is, but that the homemade version of Desomorphine is dangerous not because the drug is dangerous but because the idiot 'chemists' making this product are unable to completely remove the chemicals that they use to synthesize the drug from cause the issues.

but Krokodil users don't last more than 3 years

I wonder how many of them know this before they start. Would really show something if they did.

 xole wrote:

but Krokodil users don't last more than 3 years

I wonder how many of them know this before they start. Would really show something if they did.

I'm fairly certain that this is something that some of them know, but like it was pointed out earlier in the thread is that Heroin addicts are the ones switching to Krokodil because the high is similar, but the price per injection is so much cheaper. The one of the articles I posted in the OP had mentioned that there was a user that was rotting away and wouldn't get to a hospital, and then these two guys proceeded to cook and inject Krokodil. So they know what they're getting involved with. There is a deadly combination to Krokodil that makes it a death wish from the moment of first injection.

1) It's cheap to make, meaning that even the most desperate addict can get his or her hands on some
2) Its withdrawal symptoms are excruciating phyiscal pains for a month
3) The corrosive effects of the ingredients mean that from the first hit you're likely going to start seeing the effects of rotting flesh which opens your body up to a host of other things.

Cocaine might be a hell of a drug according to Rick James, but Krokodil is fethed up beyond belief.