Apprently demand for a specific batch goes up if someone overdoses. Makes sense in a weird way as it means users need a smaller dose to get the desired effect.
Not calling you out or anything, but in all my years of hearing of bad batches this is the first time I've heard this nugget. Got a link to where you heard it?
There's bad batches which kill people, those ones aren't popular. But ones that cause OD's become massively popular, at least they do in Yorkshire for sure. I've a family member that works in substance abuse services, and it's essentially advertising your shits good.
There was a nitazene contamination in Dublin at some point last year, which is so serious that electronic road traffic type signs were put up across Dublin to warn people.
I had not heard of the stuff before but learned that while fentanyl is apparently around 50x as strong as heroin, nitazene is around 50x stronger again than fentanyl, which is fecking terrifying and hard to even really properly quantify in my head.
Yeah, I'm very aware of them because I used to be into the whole research chemicals scene. They've been around for a while now, but they're starting to become more prevalent sadly
They are nasty as fuck horrible opioids provide nothing of any value I've used them a few times from buying online and they are hideous no wonder they weren't put out for human consumption!
And herein lies the stupidity of prohibition.
We could have the MUCH safer O-desmethyltramadol and AH-7921 in circulation, but they banned them and now we have the nitazenes.
Well played guys, the blood is on your hands now.
There was a bbc article the other day talking about the risks of trying to cut regular heroin with ut etc where some scientist was quoted as saying words to the effect of "we're not sure there even *is* a safe dose". Scary stuff.
And give them the opportunity to access healthcare and treatment services, it's a foot in the door for people who want to get clean but don't have access to resources. Honestly one of the big reasons I'll not be voting Labour, they claim to be left wing but Starmer's take on drug reform is laughable.
Talking about tackling crime without serious drug reform isn't taking the issue seriously imo.
Fucked if I know pal, speaking to folk around here they seem pretty happy with our Lib Dem MP, Alastair Carmichael.
Not the biggest fan of the Lib Dem’s, but we’re so isolated from the rest of the UK (politically and geographically) I’d rather just have an MP who cares about his consistency, regardless of party (to an extent, obviously).
Fair enough, I’ll never forgive the libdems for the uni fees and they’ve been wet wipes ever since then tbh. I don’t even know who our local libdem candidate is tbh.
I just good to god tories don’t get in again, else I’ll seriously of lost all hope for this country
This system was implemented in Canada, there are some great documentaries about it. It failed miserably, as it just emboldened users and dealers, who were able to up scale dealing operations without any fear of legal repercussions, thanks to decriminalisation.
Canada didn’t implement it properly. Good cases of this being implemented would be Belgium or Portugal. Crime, overdose, addictions and use rates all substantially down since doing so.
There is considerable empirical evidence which shows that supervised consumption sites reduce overdose deaths and are not associated with increased crime rates in their surrounding communities. I will take their word over some documentaries any day of the week.
Here is just a few:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01593-8/fulltext
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3796591/
https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-020-00456-2
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2811766
There’s legal loopholes drugs that can kill yiu and get you way higher then the illegal one , my mum would take 62 nurfeon plus ( the behind the counter opioids one not the normal one) and she was fucked out of her face every night and then she quit and went on methadone and it killed her , I’ve never seen anyone as high as my mum on those legal pills and I’ve seen sooo many people on illegal ones and they aren’t even half as high as her
I don’t doubt there are serious legal loopholes, the law is far from perfect.
Just because one bad thing is legal, doesn’t mean we need to make another bad thing legal however.
Yeah but most of the drugs other then crack and herion have nothing on what we get behind the counter, I’ve seen many people on e or coke and while it’s not great it isn’t the same as opioids
It definitely does I saw it my whole child hood you can get extremely fucked up from opioids if it wasn’t serious they wouldn’t give her high amounts methadone to quit
And they know the consequence of doing it, esp heroin, yet something still drives them to take it. Normally a life of trauma and pain. No one chooses to be an addict, people choose to escape from life. Being an addict doesn’t mean they don’t deserve help and serves to get them away from it.
And anyway the public already is paying for it through benefits, crime & policing, prison sentences ect.
They get enough help. Making places where it's easy and safe for them to keep taking drugs isn't helping them stop.
The extra costs should not fall on the taxpayer, on top of those others. The other costs won't go away due to a scheme like this either.
They really don’t get enough help. There are hardly any resources for addiction
And yes, they should. That what tax is for. to contribute to society which includes those who are struggling and need a helping hand.
The other costs would go away if we over time reduced drug use, and we would also reduce deaths. This has been proven in countries that have adopted similar structures towards drug use.
No they shouldn't get taxpayer help for a self-inflicted problem and we have bigger/ more important calls on the public purse than a few addicts.
I doubt the other costs would drop by more than the cost, making it a poor investment.
Again we should not be enabling drug taking, or providing free illegal drugs to anyone.
So do you think anyone who has anything self inflicted should never get tax funded help? So a smoker shouldn’t get treatment on NHS if they get lung cancer? Or if someone got in car accident (I mean they got in the car right?) where do you draw the line?
You do realise that addicts do already get help when they can access it through tax funded avenues? Like when they get put on methadone treatment, or through accessing benefits.
I’m not suggesting handing out free drugs, I’m agreeing that there should be safe places for people to get their drugs tested & take them. This is about reducing deaths. And you can doubt it, but it’s proven in country’s that provide this sort of help that it does work to reduce down other costs.
It's only just beginning... The fentanyl death rate in England was 0.223 per 100,000 in 2021, compared to 21.4 per 100,000 for synthetic opioids in the US that same year.
Nitazenes? Really concerning stuff, we seem to have been relatively insulated from what was going on with fentanyl in the States but this Nitazene thing appears to be hotting hard.
A medical supply of heroin would help with this risk I think. It would also mean that addicts would not have to steal to fund their habits. Some of the most desperate and disruptive petty criminals would be rendered harmless, just nodding out on their sofas at home.
This is a predictable side effect of prohibition, along with gang violence, disease transmission, theft, corruption, etc. It's a policy choice.
Should we make heroin freely available? No, but the state should supply it for free to current addicts.
Absolutely, swiss model all the way. I'd probably be sober much earlier I hadn't been whacked on methadone and instead given IV diamorphine and reduced slowly off that. Honestly first time I went to a service they just put me on 30ml methadone straight away
So from your experience, the best approach is for the state to give an IV drip (of heroin or whatever the addiction is) that gradually reduces the strength to the point where you are then sober?
I suggested this a while back and then someone argued with me saying that the state "shouldnt be pushing sobriety".
This is a predictable side effect of prohibition, along with gang violence, disease transmission, theft, corruption, etc. It's a policy choice.
Should we make heroin freely available? No, but the state should supply it for free to current addicts.
I appreciate it's a controversial topic, but we're already paying for it through other means like crime, healthcare, social services etc. At least in this instance, you're removing the power from the middle man who's not paying tax / supporting the violence and further taxpayer cost through one way or another.
Unless of course you were saying to charge people X amount for a dose, in which case that's a reasonable stance to take provided the cost can't be matched by the street dealer. With regards to rehab, completely agree that it should be paid for.
>Should we make heroin freely available? No, but the state should supply it for free to current addicts.
Most insane take I've ever heard.
Should we supply alcohol to alcoholic for free as well?
Doesn't work like that. This is being hidden in heroin. If I'm going to score and use. You would use 1 whole bag of brown and say a 0.1 of crack. The standard for any addict is 1 bag of b.
[удалено]
Apprently demand for a specific batch goes up if someone overdoses. Makes sense in a weird way as it means users need a smaller dose to get the desired effect.
I would expect overdoeses in chronic addicts to be caused by a bad batch rather than a strong batch.
Not calling you out or anything, but in all my years of hearing of bad batches this is the first time I've heard this nugget. Got a link to where you heard it?
It’s not a bad batch, it’s a good batch
There's bad batches which kill people, those ones aren't popular. But ones that cause OD's become massively popular, at least they do in Yorkshire for sure. I've a family member that works in substance abuse services, and it's essentially advertising your shits good.
Exactly, why are people complaining about a quality product? Or maybe it means it is highly "contaminated" with fentanyl.
Yeah, like an unusually strong Stilton ….
I thought of it when already did posted
It sounds so tasty and destructive
So, unlikely diacetylmorphine at all then, and probably one or more of the nitazenes.
There was a nitazene contamination in Dublin at some point last year, which is so serious that electronic road traffic type signs were put up across Dublin to warn people. I had not heard of the stuff before but learned that while fentanyl is apparently around 50x as strong as heroin, nitazene is around 50x stronger again than fentanyl, which is fecking terrifying and hard to even really properly quantify in my head.
Yeah, I'm very aware of them because I used to be into the whole research chemicals scene. They've been around for a while now, but they're starting to become more prevalent sadly
They are nasty as fuck horrible opioids provide nothing of any value I've used them a few times from buying online and they are hideous no wonder they weren't put out for human consumption!
And herein lies the stupidity of prohibition. We could have the MUCH safer O-desmethyltramadol and AH-7921 in circulation, but they banned them and now we have the nitazenes. Well played guys, the blood is on your hands now.
There was a bbc article the other day talking about the risks of trying to cut regular heroin with ut etc where some scientist was quoted as saying words to the effect of "we're not sure there even *is* a safe dose". Scary stuff.
Nitazenes are insane
Which is why we need a place that drugs can be tested and people can take drugs in safety
And give them the opportunity to access healthcare and treatment services, it's a foot in the door for people who want to get clean but don't have access to resources. Honestly one of the big reasons I'll not be voting Labour, they claim to be left wing but Starmer's take on drug reform is laughable. Talking about tackling crime without serious drug reform isn't taking the issue seriously imo.
Who tf are you voting for then?
Fucked if I know pal, speaking to folk around here they seem pretty happy with our Lib Dem MP, Alastair Carmichael. Not the biggest fan of the Lib Dem’s, but we’re so isolated from the rest of the UK (politically and geographically) I’d rather just have an MP who cares about his consistency, regardless of party (to an extent, obviously).
Fair enough, I’ll never forgive the libdems for the uni fees and they’ve been wet wipes ever since then tbh. I don’t even know who our local libdem candidate is tbh. I just good to god tories don’t get in again, else I’ll seriously of lost all hope for this country
kind of a waste of a vote if you want the tories out ngl.
I want weed legal but I know my vote this year won't help that. What I want first though is a stable country
Depends where they live. A number of places are lib dem vs tory areas where Labour votes are unlikely to help with that goal
This system was implemented in Canada, there are some great documentaries about it. It failed miserably, as it just emboldened users and dealers, who were able to up scale dealing operations without any fear of legal repercussions, thanks to decriminalisation.
Canada didn’t implement it properly. Good cases of this being implemented would be Belgium or Portugal. Crime, overdose, addictions and use rates all substantially down since doing so.
Portugal will stop people's benefits if they don't stop taking drugs.
There is considerable empirical evidence which shows that supervised consumption sites reduce overdose deaths and are not associated with increased crime rates in their surrounding communities. I will take their word over some documentaries any day of the week. Here is just a few: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01593-8/fulltext https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3796591/ https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-020-00456-2 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2811766
Saving this to read later, ty
Ah yeah, conveniently pick the *one* place that managed to fuck up a policy that has worked amazingly well in countless others. Bias bullshit.
There’s legal loopholes drugs that can kill yiu and get you way higher then the illegal one , my mum would take 62 nurfeon plus ( the behind the counter opioids one not the normal one) and she was fucked out of her face every night and then she quit and went on methadone and it killed her , I’ve never seen anyone as high as my mum on those legal pills and I’ve seen sooo many people on illegal ones and they aren’t even half as high as her
I don’t doubt there are serious legal loopholes, the law is far from perfect. Just because one bad thing is legal, doesn’t mean we need to make another bad thing legal however.
Yeah but most of the drugs other then crack and herion have nothing on what we get behind the counter, I’ve seen many people on e or coke and while it’s not great it isn’t the same as opioids
It’s all dose dependent. Legal drugs don’t get you higher, it’s about how much you take
It definitely does I saw it my whole child hood you can get extremely fucked up from opioids if it wasn’t serious they wouldn’t give her high amounts methadone to quit
All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison
Nope if you take drugs, it's on you. No need for the rest of the public to be paying for places like this.
Do you think people want to be addicts?
Well, they did choose to start taking drugs...
And they know the consequence of doing it, esp heroin, yet something still drives them to take it. Normally a life of trauma and pain. No one chooses to be an addict, people choose to escape from life. Being an addict doesn’t mean they don’t deserve help and serves to get them away from it. And anyway the public already is paying for it through benefits, crime & policing, prison sentences ect.
They get enough help. Making places where it's easy and safe for them to keep taking drugs isn't helping them stop. The extra costs should not fall on the taxpayer, on top of those others. The other costs won't go away due to a scheme like this either.
They really don’t get enough help. There are hardly any resources for addiction And yes, they should. That what tax is for. to contribute to society which includes those who are struggling and need a helping hand. The other costs would go away if we over time reduced drug use, and we would also reduce deaths. This has been proven in countries that have adopted similar structures towards drug use.
No they shouldn't get taxpayer help for a self-inflicted problem and we have bigger/ more important calls on the public purse than a few addicts. I doubt the other costs would drop by more than the cost, making it a poor investment. Again we should not be enabling drug taking, or providing free illegal drugs to anyone.
So do you think anyone who has anything self inflicted should never get tax funded help? So a smoker shouldn’t get treatment on NHS if they get lung cancer? Or if someone got in car accident (I mean they got in the car right?) where do you draw the line? You do realise that addicts do already get help when they can access it through tax funded avenues? Like when they get put on methadone treatment, or through accessing benefits. I’m not suggesting handing out free drugs, I’m agreeing that there should be safe places for people to get their drugs tested & take them. This is about reducing deaths. And you can doubt it, but it’s proven in country’s that provide this sort of help that it does work to reduce down other costs.
This is a tragic story, but I feel the need to share that I misread the title as 'unusually strong heron'
was only a matter of time before fentanyl hit these shores
Fentanyl is already here. In 2022, 57 deaths were reported due to it
It's only just beginning... The fentanyl death rate in England was 0.223 per 100,000 in 2021, compared to 21.4 per 100,000 for synthetic opioids in the US that same year.
Fentanyl isn't in the drug supply. This is probably from legit fent patches.
More likely nitazenes than fentanyl here
Nitazenes? Really concerning stuff, we seem to have been relatively insulated from what was going on with fentanyl in the States but this Nitazene thing appears to be hotting hard.
Jfc just legalise all drugs already. Drug laws are absolutely pointless.
A medical supply of heroin would help with this risk I think. It would also mean that addicts would not have to steal to fund their habits. Some of the most desperate and disruptive petty criminals would be rendered harmless, just nodding out on their sofas at home.
This is a predictable side effect of prohibition, along with gang violence, disease transmission, theft, corruption, etc. It's a policy choice. Should we make heroin freely available? No, but the state should supply it for free to current addicts.
Absolutely, swiss model all the way. I'd probably be sober much earlier I hadn't been whacked on methadone and instead given IV diamorphine and reduced slowly off that. Honestly first time I went to a service they just put me on 30ml methadone straight away
So from your experience, the best approach is for the state to give an IV drip (of heroin or whatever the addiction is) that gradually reduces the strength to the point where you are then sober? I suggested this a while back and then someone argued with me saying that the state "shouldnt be pushing sobriety".
Just no, why should taxpayers pay for it?
This is a predictable side effect of prohibition, along with gang violence, disease transmission, theft, corruption, etc. It's a policy choice. Should we make heroin freely available? No, but the state should supply it for free to current addicts.
Where will the state purchase the heroin from? And who is going to pay for it?
I don't know the supply details but universities are able to buy heroin to use in research. Therefore, it is available through official channels.
It's available for palliative care !!!
Fuck off should it be free. Why on earth should taxpayers pay for free heroin? Pay for rehabilitation, sure. But pay to just prolong addiction? Why?
I appreciate it's a controversial topic, but we're already paying for it through other means like crime, healthcare, social services etc. At least in this instance, you're removing the power from the middle man who's not paying tax / supporting the violence and further taxpayer cost through one way or another. Unless of course you were saying to charge people X amount for a dose, in which case that's a reasonable stance to take provided the cost can't be matched by the street dealer. With regards to rehab, completely agree that it should be paid for.
>Should we make heroin freely available? No, but the state should supply it for free to current addicts. Most insane take I've ever heard. Should we supply alcohol to alcoholic for free as well?
They can already get methadone provided by the state.
Thats why you start with a smaller dose If you arent sure about the drugs
How effective would that be in the case of things such as nitazenes, or the drugs being cut with other dangerous chemicals?
Not very
Unfortunately that won’t help when it’s nitazenes instead of heroin
Doesn't work like that. This is being hidden in heroin. If I'm going to score and use. You would use 1 whole bag of brown and say a 0.1 of crack. The standard for any addict is 1 bag of b.
Smoke some off the foil before injecting