Printable View
I've been hearing a lot recently on the news about a drug called "krokodil" from Russia.
Apparently it's one of the most dangerous drugs ever.
People die after about 3 years of using it - they rot from inside and their limbs fall off!
Apparently this is a poor man's heroin, can be made from non-prescription drugs.
The name is from the fact that the victims soon start looking like they were bitten by a crocodile.
Does anyone know anything more? Sounds so creepy!
Desomorphine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
People come up with crazy ways to kill themselves all the time, instead of just aiming a magnum at their heads and pulling the trigger.
Just another cheaper, more destructive drug. :(
You can start hunting me, but I think the best way to fight the drugs would be to hand them out for free.
The society is fighting the drugs putting enormous amount of public resources to detect the dealers. That only pushes the prices of the drugs up. The way the drugs are distributed is probably the most aggressive form of the marketing - the network marketing (=the distribution pyramid). The dealers try to distribute the drugs among their friends targeting mostly young people. The dealers find ways to lure the young by 'fun', by 'oh, one dose is nothing', 'don't tell until you try', 'you should try everything in your life', etc. Also, by looking for the people with the psychological distress and offer them the temporary comfort with the drugs: the light at first and then the heavier ones. The dealers are creative with finding personal approach to their prey. The dealers let to try the first couple of doses for free and then, once the users are hooked, the dealers start charging money. Once hooked, the chances to die from the drugs are VERY high and the probability of rehabilitation is VERY low.
The cost of producing the drugs is actually very low, it's the prosecution of the drug dealers which makes it risky and therefore high. The more the society is putting efforts to 'fight the drugs' that is to fight the distribution chain, the more risky business it becomes, and that pushes the cost of the drugs higher. That means, the drug users run out of money sooner and switch to criminal activity earlier. And, the first activity they would switch is to DISTRIBUTE DRUGS! The dealers are mostly the drug users which try to cover the cost of their drugs by marketing the drugs to others, making the other young people dependable. That is how the pyramid is built. So far, any government was unsuccessful in fighting that pyramid and/or drug traffic by force. More 'cracking down on drugs' just cause the prices to go up and probably the drug users switching to the cheaper, more dangerous equivalents. If the governments really want to fight drugs with force, why not to drop a few napalm bombs on the drug fields of South America and Afghanistan? The governments know where those fields are. They can see from their spy satellites much more than that, can't they?
So, let's consider the alternative. What we need first is to destroy the drug pyramid, to stop more young people into joining it.
So, I think the government should stop putting billions into 'fighting drugs' and offer the drugs for free in the clinics. Then, a drug user will not have to commit crimes or lure more people to the pyramid, because the pyramid is useless now - you can go into any clinic and get the shot for free. But that would not be 'fun' anymore - you would have to sign a paper waiving the government responsibility of you using the drug, and then you would be obliged to watch a 30-minutes movie where the consequences of the drug usage are being shown in detail as much realistic as possible. And then sign another paper that you watched the movie and you still wants to get the shot. Then you would be allowed to a bed and given the shot. All that would not stop the current drug users, they would not give a ####### about anything in the world, they would kill anybody for drugs if they could. So, let them get their shot and at least not lure more people into that self-destruction.
I THINK, THAT WAY VERY FEW NEW PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO BECOME DRUG USERS!
I think the amount of the drug users will fall drastically at the fraction of cost to the public. There's no point to join the business which doesn't give back any money! And that way we will be able to save our children from the drugs much more effectively than we do today. These days, a young restless teenager is virtually open to drugs. Light drugs or heavy drugs, that doesn't matter. All drugs cost money, meaning business. And using drugs is also like a rebellion against the society a bit - so cool. :( But, not after going to the clinic and getting a dose. The teenagers are restless, but not stupid.
Anyways, you got the message. What do you think of it?
My grandpa liked to say: "To the stove!". Death punishment to dealers and compulsory treatment for users are the solution.
Croc, you're reading my thoughts! =) Seriously, I've been saying that for years, making this stuff legal will almost right away ruin any chances to make any serious profits from selling it at basements. The point is, those who make this decision are well aware of that, and yet they back off. It makes me think they might be receiving a significant share from those profits...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
And another point I'd like to add here. I personally don't follow any wars on drugs simply because I don't care. I believe, as long as drug addicts don't commit crimes affecting me, it's not my problem. If they want to kill themselves, fine, let it be. When those officials one more time say, "we have the drugs problem", I think, "you maybe, but not me".
Right, but it's not only making the drugs legal, since that way they would only get cheaper, but would still be around. It's about making them publicly founded - free for the drug users. The entire distribution chain should fall down and many of the production facilities would become unprofitable and close. For example, the cost of growing ten tons of opium poppy is comparable to growing ten tons of wheat, or corn, or any food. Today, some of the 3rd world countries prefer to grow opium poppy because it's more profitable and all the production-distribution is therefore criminalized. If the consumption goes down (and it should because the present drug users will die and not so many new ones will join), so the production of opium would shorten as well vacating more land to help the food shortage in those 3rd world countries. That's much more economic for the developed-state governments than keeping the expensive army of 'fighters with drugs' with all their equipment, expensive rehabilitation centres with little to no success, and at the same time sending the food and monetary relief to the 3rd world countries. (Another strange 'fight'. The developed countries send food and money knowing how criminalized the 3rd world countries are, and that the food and money would mostly be taken by the warlords to support their armies and purchase weapon. Also, if the food is sent by the developed countries, why to bother growing food of their own? Let's grow the poppies, right?)
I agree with you about this Crocodile!Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
I wrote a paper about this at university and got told off and humiliated in front of the whole class because I had the "wrong" opinion. The conclusion in my paper was that this approach should be adapted to local conditions and tried here. This opinion was not acceptable.
This approach is called "harm reduction" and it has been tried in a few English cities and in the Netherlands. For actual local addicts it was really successful - they were able to sort out their lives, get jobs etc.
The problem in the Netherlands is that although the system works well for Dutch addicts, it attracts people from other countries who are not eligible to participate in the programs and who have a lot of problems including criminality and diseases.
WIKIPEDIA
Quote:
Harm reduction (or less commonly known as harm minimisation) refers to a range of public health policies designed to reduce the harmful consequences associated with recreational drug use and other high risk activities. Harm reduction is put forward as a useful perspective alongside the more conventional approaches of demand and supply reduction.[1]
Many advocates argue that prohibitionist laws criminalize people for suffering from a disease and cause harm, for example by obliging drug addicts to obtain drugs of unknown purity from unreliable criminal sources at high prices, increasing the risk of overdose and death.[2] Its critics are concerned that tolerating risky or illegal behaviour sends a message to the community that these behaviours are acceptable.[3][4]
I am a black & white type of person, so either I am with Dmitry Khomitchuk and Singaporeans, or with harm reductionists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmitry Khomitchuk
WIKIPEDIA
Wow, is that even possible!? Not hard to understand how people get drawn in.Quote:
It is 8-10 times more potent than morphine
That is the sort of drug one should never even think of trying.
Hmm, why do you think that the number of drug addicts will go down if drugs are legalized???
Current addicts were drawn into it not because it's criminalized, but despite of it. And they are using despite it been risky for their freedom and health and despite it costing a fortune. Addicts are using because it gives them a rush or a temporal "way out" of their problems
So what will happen when more safer (cleaner) and cheaper drugs will be available LEGALLY? I think more people will be willing to try them (those who were scared off by legal repercussions and other risks before).
What will bring the number of addicts down is drugs like "crocodile". :evil: Current users will die fast, and those with an ounce of common sense will shy away from it eventually. The fact that it's very cheap and affordable is good too. Less theft and robbery all around.
The problem is not that drug dealers don't pay taxes. The problem is that drugs KILL people. This is why drug dealers are hunted. Making drugs legal is legalizing and promoting of suicide.
And now we have one more global problem - suicide (and euthanasia).Quote:
Originally Posted by CoffeeCup
Crocodile sounds a bit like Crack... I don't know what came of that but there were lots of stories about crack in the the 1990s. I think it was quite common in the US. Super dangerous and extremely addictive too.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRomoZeka
The idea with "harm reduction" is that if addicts get substitute drugs that remove the abstinence, for free, then they can actually live relatively normal lives. They could have a job and they do not have to be criminals.
The idea is that this is cheaper for society.
So in Holland and some other places, those that are "verified" heroinists can get methadon for free.
They don't get high from that, but they don't get any abstince while they take it.
I think they even gave heroin to some people with the understanding that it was cheaper for the state to provide that person with heroin than take care of all the damage the person was creating in society while living a criminal life and ruining the their health.
The fact that you can live a "normal" life while being on drugs is proved in the City of London (financial quarters). Many of the people in the really stressful financial jobs are cocaine addicts. On their incomes, they can afford it so they do not need to turn to criminality to pay for the drugs. They go for years without anyone noticing. There are stories about such people in the papers occassionally.
Heroin is really very cheap - the reason why it is expensive is because of the risks involved for all the people handling it in the logistic chain and the production chain".
If it's legal, then the price would go down to a fraction of what it is now.
Then the addicts don't have to turn to crime to pay for their addiction.
Crack called crack because it cracks when one smokes it. Crack is basically cocaine -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_cocaineQuote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
Крокодил called this way because of symptoms of the addicted user. Wiki's quote
"Своё сленговое название наркотик получил оттого, что при его употреблении человек как будто гниёт заживо — на его теле появляются незаживающие раны и начинает шелушиться и зеленеть кожа, становясь похожей на крокодилью. Продолжительность жизни дезоморфиновых наркоманов не превышает полутора лет"
you can find pictures in the Net if you want but they are really disturbing
LOL LEGALIZE! Forget it. Personally, I don't think governments FIGHT drugs, they support it, manage it, run the whole business and extort huge profits out of the process. Seriously, if a legalization law is proposed, how high the bribes would be for voting against it? Drug barons will lose billions after that. Do you still think they will give it up willingly? The profits from drugs even maintain the whole economies. Those poor Afghan peasants will starve to death if you won't buy heroine any more. ;) What I think is that the whole drug market is run by secret services like CIA or FSB (yes, the very people who's supposed to fight it) and that's why it's a war one cannot win. No one of those who could win this war actually wants to.
The drug cartels and criminals are the ones benefiting the MOST from America's so-called "war on drugs." They profit greatly from prohibition and our government shares in the profits, then continues to lie to people about the drugs. Yes, many drugs are dangerous, addictive and bad for people. But people are going to take the drugs regardless, so it seems to me that it would make better sense to legalize them - as Portugal has done, for example - and spend the money on treatment and education rather than this "war" - killing, arrests, mass incarceration that is flooding our prisons with people who might still be able to live a good life if they had a chance! In Portugal, after ten years of ALL drugs being legal - drug use and crime are both going down. There are studies done about this. America should take note, and many of us (individuals) have - but not our leaders. They stand behind their rhetoric and continue on with the insane idea that policies which have never worked in the past, might somehow work in the future.
I am optimistic that we may at least see marijuana legalized within the next 5 or 10 years. But even this small step has taken an unimaginable amount of work from thousands of volunteers who have put their lives, reputations and everything on the line to stand up for the truth. And marijuana is really not even a "drug" - it is just an herb. A healing herb which modern studies reveal, is very helpful for illness, pain, even treatment of terminal illnesses such as cancer. But our ancestors already knew this thousands of years ago!
