5 ms·

> drugs that hit the same brain receptors as cannabis but are more potent and addictive Okay, why there are using cannabis as an example and not other substanc

> drugs that hit the same brain receptors as cannabis but are more potent and addictive Okay, why there are using cannabis as an example and not other substances that react with those receptors, like chocolate? It is better as they abstained from using the term "synthetic marijuana", but you can still sense an agenda. Things like this put me off from reading news pieces. If I see so much foul language and twisting things to put a certain angle on the topic - on the topic I am fairly knowledgeable, then how much propaganda is being served in the topic I know little about? This is a disgrace to journalism. Apologies for my rant.

gaspoweredcat 8y ago
its actually something of a bit of poor research on behalf of the article combined with a slight naming issue, originally "spice" when sold as a commercial product initially contained 2 synthetic cannabinoids JWH-018 and one other which i cant remember off hand. later on other brands using different mixes came about one of the biggest being called "Black Mamba" this too was generally a mixture of synthetic cannabinoids sprayed onto smokable herbs, but then came the psychoactives bill which banned most of these chemicals meaning that they started to be produced illicitly and also led to the mixture of chemicals used in them being even further twisted. this brings us to now and while fringe analogs of synthetic cannabinoids are no doubt still being used and by no means are they likely to be good for you the problem chemical is actually more likely to be MDPV or a derivative of it (methylenedioxypyrovalerelone if memory serves correctly) otherwise known as Monkey dust or simply "Dust" it wouldnt surprise me to see some form of dissociative analog in there too, something like 3MeO-PCP MDPV is not a cannabinoid but more a stimulant of sorts which gives a very short high with very long acting unpleasant side effects. of course its highly unlikely we will ever know exactly what is in that crap but one thing is for sure you have one and only one thing to blame for the problem and that is the prohibition of other substances proven to be less harmful. were we to make a sensible move the likes of the one Portugal has it would likely alleviate the problem greatly, even simply legalizing the sale and recreational use of cannabis would likely greatly reduce the problem (whilst also creating businesses, jobs, tax revenue and tourism to name but a few economic benefits) how do i know all this stuff? experience i have no shame in admitting i became interested in psychoactive chemicals at one point in my 20s and spent a few years deeply researching and trying a staggering number of chemicals both the classical psychoactives we all know and a large number of "research chemicals" MDPV was in fact one of said chemicals, i only did it once and i did it via insuffluation it gave me a 15min buzz followed by 3 days of no sleep, twitchyness, paranoia and toward the end a similar situation to amphetamine psychosis including hallucinations, from what im told smoking it only serves to intensify all of this. of all the chemicals i tried there were few i could label as fundamentally "bad" but MDPV was definitely one of those few i fully agree with you that at this stage any comparison to cannabis is pretty idiotic, not only do we not actually know what is in the stuff but even if it were synthetic cannabinoids and nothing else theyre likely now so far removed from the original substance that they have totally different effects just look at what happens when you modify something like amphetamine, both MDMA and Meth are amphetamine analogs but you dont see many people homeless, toothless and brainless due to an MDMA addiction. a quick read of PIHKAL or TIKHAL will show you just how much the effects of a chemical can change with only a tiny modification its a shame that people arent more biochemically aware or theyd know that articles like this are packed with poor information but sadly thats not the case so we end up with people demonising other substances based on poor information from supposedly trustworthy sources
- DanBC 8y ago
  It's amazing to me that people insist their personal experience with drugs will apply to the entire population - even to people with genetic disposition to addiction combined with poorly treated mental illness who are living on the streets.
  - gaspoweredcat 8y ago
    by no means am i saying that everyone will have the same experience as me, in fact im a rather rare example as despite having experimented with some of what are classed as the most addictive substances there are i have developed no addiction, nor was i doing it to escape, hide from something or console myself, i did what i did out of pure curiosity. however you are right, drugs affect everyone differently but its a pretty established fact that the chemicals contained in these "products" are far from harmless and all evidence points to them being more dangerous from a mental health standpoint than most classic psychoactives
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- drewmol 8y ago
  One note about synthetic marijuana, I always thought the existence of it's market demand was primarily due not to prohibition/absence but the asinine legal, financial or social consequences that can come along with failing a drug test for THC... (losing a job, professional license, education funding, etc). Of course, in the US at least, those mostly arose after, as a reaction to prohibition. TL;DR. I think very few people smoke(d) Spice (TM)? because they simply couldn't access marijuana.
  - sudosteph 8y ago
    I was a freshman in college right when spice/JWH was first catching on, and from first hand experience I know at least 5 people who used it semi regularly even though they weren't expecting a drug test. The fact that you could get it cheaply from the headshop accross the street and carry it with you risk free was the main selling point then. Also it didn't smell like weed and you could keep it in the dorm without stinking the place up. Eventually we started learning about the crazy health risks and the law started catching up with banning the most common JWH formulations, and it wasn't worth the risk. Fortunately most folks in my friend group were able to move off campus and make safe connections with weed dealers and either do that, or sober up completely. But it definitely had appeals to people who could not easily get marijuana or didn't like the sketchness of getting it in a prohibition state.
sgtcodfish 8y ago
The Economist has been editorially pro-legalization of cannabis for a long time so any propagandizing agenda you think you're "sensing" just isn't there; in fact their agenda is literally the complete opposite of what you "sensed". They pretty obviously used "cannabis" here because these products were designed + marketed as legal cannabis replacements or alternatives. They're called "synthetic cannabinoids" for a reason. I hardly think that using "cannabis" as a comparison to "synthetic cannabinoids" is "twisting things", or using "foul language", either.
tree_of_item 8y ago
> Okay, why there are using cannabis as an example and not other substances that react with those receptors, like chocolate? Because these substances are obviously and explicitly marketed as substitutes for cannabis. Cannabis is the relevant comparison. There's no agenda, just reality. You're being very dramatic calling this a "disgrace" when it's really very mundane.
- jm__87 8y ago
  Based one the effects of the drug described in the article, cannabis hardly sounds like a relevant comparison. Cannabis users don't end up in the hospital with psychosis and run around naked for 3 hours...
  - tree_of_item 8y ago
    Cannabis is a relevant comparison because the only reason people are using this stuff is due to cannabis prohibition. Are you really not getting this part? Cannabis being illegal is a large part of why they are making spice in the first place. You are correct that the effects are much more dangerous than those of cannabis; that's why so many people in this thread are saying cannabis prohibition as had a negative effect in this particular way.
    - jm__87 8y ago
      As someone who has smoked pot in the past and has spent a lot of time around people who have done a ton of different drugs, it would make no sense to me to substitute this drug for pot. The effects are totally different. The reason most people smoke pot is to chill out and relax, not lose their minds. The reason people do other drugs is to feel the effects those drugs give. You don't substitute one thing for another just because the ingredients are similar. You substitute it because it has similar effects.

gaspoweredcat 8y ago

its actually something of a bit of poor research on behalf of the article combined with a slight naming issue, originally "spice" when sold as a commercial product initially contained 2 synthetic cannabinoids JWH-018 and one other which i cant remember off hand. later on other brands using different mixes came about one of the biggest being called "Black Mamba" this too was generally a mixture of synthetic cannabinoids sprayed onto smokable herbs, but then came the psychoactives bill which banned most of these chemicals meaning that they started to be produced illicitly and also led to the mixture of chemicals used in them being even further twisted. this brings us to now and while fringe analogs of synthetic cannabinoids are no doubt still being used and by no means are they likely to be good for you the problem chemical is actually more likely to be MDPV or a derivative of it (methylenedioxypyrovalerelone if memory serves correctly) otherwise known as Monkey dust or simply "Dust" it wouldnt surprise me to see some form of dissociative analog in there too, something like 3MeO-PCP MDPV is not a cannabinoid but more a stimulant of sorts which gives a very short high with very long acting unpleasant side effects. of course its highly unlikely we will ever know exactly what is in that crap but one thing is for sure you have one and only one thing to blame for the problem and that is the prohibition of other substances proven to be less harmful. were we to make a sensible move the likes of the one Portugal has it would likely alleviate the problem greatly, even simply legalizing the sale and recreational use of cannabis would likely greatly reduce the problem (whilst also creating businesses, jobs, tax revenue and tourism to name but a few economic benefits) how do i know all this stuff? experience i have no shame in admitting i became interested in psychoactive chemicals at one point in my 20s and spent a few years deeply researching and trying a staggering number of chemicals both the classical psychoactives we all know and a large number of "research chemicals" MDPV was in fact one of said chemicals, i only did it once and i did it via insuffluation it gave me a 15min buzz followed by 3 days of no sleep, twitchyness, paranoia and toward the end a similar situation to amphetamine psychosis including hallucinations, from what im told smoking it only serves to intensify all of this. of all the chemicals i tried there were few i could label as fundamentally "bad" but MDPV was definitely one of those few i fully agree with you that at this stage any comparison to cannabis is pretty idiotic, not only do we not actually know what is in the stuff but even if it were synthetic cannabinoids and nothing else theyre likely now so far removed from the original substance that they have totally different effects just look at what happens when you modify something like amphetamine, both MDMA and Meth are amphetamine analogs but you dont see many people homeless, toothless and brainless due to an MDMA addiction. a quick read of PIHKAL or TIKHAL will show you just how much the effects of a chemical can change with only a tiny modification its a shame that people arent more biochemically aware or theyd know that articles like this are packed with poor information but sadly thats not the case so we end up with people demonising other substances based on poor information from supposedly trustworthy sources

DanBC 8y ago
It's amazing to me that people insist their personal experience with drugs will apply to the entire population - even to people with genetic disposition to addiction combined with poorly treated mental illness who are living on the streets.
- gaspoweredcat 8y ago
  by no means am i saying that everyone will have the same experience as me, in fact im a rather rare example as despite having experimented with some of what are classed as the most addictive substances there are i have developed no addiction, nor was i doing it to escape, hide from something or console myself, i did what i did out of pure curiosity. however you are right, drugs affect everyone differently but its a pretty established fact that the chemicals contained in these "products" are far from harmless and all evidence points to them being more dangerous from a mental health standpoint than most classic psychoactives
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
drewmol 8y ago
One note about synthetic marijuana, I always thought the existence of it's market demand was primarily due not to prohibition/absence but the asinine legal, financial or social consequences that can come along with failing a drug test for THC... (losing a job, professional license, education funding, etc). Of course, in the US at least, those mostly arose after, as a reaction to prohibition. TL;DR. I think very few people smoke(d) Spice (TM)? because they simply couldn't access marijuana.
- sudosteph 8y ago
  I was a freshman in college right when spice/JWH was first catching on, and from first hand experience I know at least 5 people who used it semi regularly even though they weren't expecting a drug test. The fact that you could get it cheaply from the headshop accross the street and carry it with you risk free was the main selling point then. Also it didn't smell like weed and you could keep it in the dorm without stinking the place up. Eventually we started learning about the crazy health risks and the law started catching up with banning the most common JWH formulations, and it wasn't worth the risk. Fortunately most folks in my friend group were able to move off campus and make safe connections with weed dealers and either do that, or sober up completely. But it definitely had appeals to people who could not easily get marijuana or didn't like the sketchness of getting it in a prohibition state.

sgtcodfish 8y ago

The Economist has been editorially pro-legalization of cannabis for a long time so any propagandizing agenda you think you're "sensing" just isn't there; in fact their agenda is literally the complete opposite of what you "sensed". They pretty obviously used "cannabis" here because these products were designed + marketed as legal cannabis replacements or alternatives. They're called "synthetic cannabinoids" for a reason. I hardly think that using "cannabis" as a comparison to "synthetic cannabinoids" is "twisting things", or using "foul language", either.

tree_of_item 8y ago

> Okay, why there are using cannabis as an example and not other substances that react with those receptors, like chocolate? Because these substances are obviously and explicitly marketed as substitutes for cannabis. Cannabis is the relevant comparison. There's no agenda, just reality. You're being very dramatic calling this a "disgrace" when it's really very mundane.

jm__87 8y ago
Based one the effects of the drug described in the article, cannabis hardly sounds like a relevant comparison. Cannabis users don't end up in the hospital with psychosis and run around naked for 3 hours...
- tree_of_item 8y ago
  Cannabis is a relevant comparison because the only reason people are using this stuff is due to cannabis prohibition. Are you really not getting this part? Cannabis being illegal is a large part of why they are making spice in the first place. You are correct that the effects are much more dangerous than those of cannabis; that's why so many people in this thread are saying cannabis prohibition as had a negative effect in this particular way.
  - jm__87 8y ago
    As someone who has smoked pot in the past and has spent a lot of time around people who have done a ton of different drugs, it would make no sense to me to substitute this drug for pot. The effects are totally different. The reason most people smoke pot is to chill out and relax, not lose their minds. The reason people do other drugs is to feel the effects those drugs give. You don't substitute one thing for another just because the ingredients are similar. You substitute it because it has similar effects.