Why did I do this? I was forced to do drug tests for cannabis more or less against my will(under duress). And I was a stupid kid who wanted to get high, and these horrible drugs were easily available, advertised as not showing up on tests, etc.
I have the chief responsibility for my own actions of course, but it's hard to ignore the fact that none of it would've happened if not for an extremely draconian and outmoded approach to drugs.
Seriously though that's awful, sorry to hear that and glad you came out the other side (relatively) unharmed.
But that's about where the overlap ends. There are many reasons for this. The main one is that synthetic cannabinoids tend to be full agonists at both the CB1 and CB2 receptors, whereas THC is a partial agonist. This means that there are effects that synthetics can do that THC simply can't. In addition, they're much, much more potent; some such compounds have active doses in the 100mcg range. Cannabis also contains other compounds that counteract some downstream effects of THC most notably CBD, but also CBG.
Weed is not going to box your kidneys. CB2 is heavily expressed in kidney tissues, and extremely potent full agonist activity at CB2 is probably why they're so nephrotoxic. THC simply just isn't potent enough in doses that can be reasonably consumed.
Synth noids are also extremely vasoconstrictive and this is how they can cause strokes. They have vasoconstriction comparable to meth, moreishness comparable to crack, and immobilising effcts comparable to heroin. So what ends up happening is you binge. Hard. Maybe for weeks, all while remaining mostly immobile between doses. All while pumping your system full of vasoconstrictors. Weed on the other hand can be vasoconstrictive or vasodilating, depending on the relative content of the various plant cannabinoids. And it's nowhere near as vasoconstrictive as synth noids.
It is probably the case that extremely heavy cannabis use can cause enough immobility over time to increase risk of stroke. But it would take years and years, not days.
Cannabis concentrates, e.g. dabs, rosin, BHO are stronger versions of cannabis.
Drugs are illegal for a good reason. What did you expect?
Your friend lost his mind, you narrowly escaped death and you blame the government for making this substance illegal? Correct?
These drugs were legal at the time. I blame myself for my own actions(but it was almost a decade ago and I have moved on, which is why I'm comfortable being open about it), but blame is not always singular. The state is also partially to blame because they banned all the good drugs, leading to grey markets with dangerous, untested, experimental drugs.
As for my friend, I had nothing to do with what happened to him, I only met him after the fact.
I am not joking. In the Netherlands a druglord has ordered the assassination of one of its most famous journalists, and has blackmailed one of the most renowned lawyers to break the law. The netherlands exports $20bn (!!!) worth of MDMA and XTC per year. Where do you think these criminal instutions come from?
I doubt cannabis legalization would have much impact on this - the big organized crime control things like the cocaine & opioid trade.
Looking up the assassination you mentioned, it looks like it was perpetuated by cocaine-dealing organized crime.
Also, what is XTC?
Source https://www.drugsinfo.nl/xtc/wat-je-moet-weten-over-xtc
Am very happy to hear this kind of thing is more rare. Not that street users have too much more assurance either way the MDMA they are getting is in fact MDMA, but hopefully thar whatever analogues there are now are a little better than meth or heroin.
Almost all Ecstasy/MDMA outside a pharmaceutical setting is adulterated, usually with other amphetamines. The degree of adulteration varies, and in some cases it may not be very noticeable by the user, but it's incredibly rare to find pure MDMA outside of a pharmaceutical setting.
Methamphetamine is one of the most common adulterants. (This is a bit of a misnomer, because MDMA is itself actually a methamphetamine, but it's not the one most people are referring to when they say "meth").
Ecstasy is almost never pure. While the degree of contamination varies and may not be subjectively noticeable by the user, the vast majority of ecstasy has some degree of adulterants in it, often other amphetamines, and sometimes other substances altogether.
My understanding had always been the two were synonymous.
This is a common misconception. MDMA is often presented as "pure" (often by the people selling it), but in reality, almost all MDMA outside of a pharmaceutical setting is impure. Most MDMA contains some amount of methamphetamine[0], but not necessarily enough to be subjectively identifiable by a user as "meth".
Also, the half-life of MDMA is longer than cocaine, but shorter than methamphetamine.
[0] MDMA is actually a methamphetamine, but it's not the one that people are referring to when they say "meth" colloquially.
Lol, like it weren't the case pretty much everywhere else... Anywhere there is a significant amount of humans, there is "intense organized crime" too; any difference in outcomes is largely due to how authorities decide to address it.
By contrast, there are parts of Italy where 75%+ of businesses are reported paying protection payments to organized crime.
The Netherlands is an interesting case. Despite amphetamine, MDMA, etc. being illegal, The Hague has turned a blind eye to massive industrial production farms in the south. At one point, the Netherlands almost held a monopoly on the world's MDMA production. Rumors of conspiracy suggest it's intentional, but the end result is the same. Many of these drugs are de facto legal, if not de jure. Of course, this was the landscape some decades ago. It's been changing. Mexican cartels are starting to elbow in, and it's been causing "problems". Watching how the government reacts to the evolving ecosystem is going to be intriguing.
As far as being synonyms, people generally differentiate between "ecstasy"/"E" as MDMA in pill form and "molly" as MDMA in powder form.
But maybe that's because I grew up in a time where you can send stuff to a lab to confirm what it is.
XTC aka ecstacy is MDMA + additives like speed or caffeine/whatever.
"oh - this is CBD weed, but I did just get back from America where I was smoking a ton"
Thats to say - police are generally fine with it. At least in big cities, expect some some random redneck chest thumping far out in the woods/alps.
And if you cause problems, expect no end of stuff cops can pull out on ya, just like anywhere else.
Laws that are overbroad and allow abuse any time the police are mad at you are bad anywhere.
Also other parts of SE Asia will demand an on the spot piss test.
Previous PM Theresa May’s husband Philip’s Capital Group is the largest investor in GW Pharmaceuticals, which mass produces it here for a foreign market. Previous GW chairman Geoffrey Guy is a major Tory donor. Our previous drug minister Victoria Atkins is married to Paul Kenward for fucks sake; boss of British Sugar, another medical cannabis supplier (now part of Associated British Foods). Funny enough, current CEO George Weston of ABF, member of one of Britain’s richest families, was found guilty of breaching charity law over donations of almost £1 million to the Conservative Party. I could keep going but it always makes me a little ill when I go too deep down these rabbit holes.
A government of ministers who insist the drug has “no medical value”, but still allows their chums to produce it under a special license. Doesn't sound suspicious at all, right?
'spice' is a synthesized drug meant to be an analogue for weed. i don't think it is though, a lot of people have had ODs or very erratic behavior on spice.
Drug policies are a perfect example of good intentions paving road to hell and then some more, if you look at ie Mexico. Not that Nixon had any good intentions there whatsoever, but he certainly sold it to the public as such.
So yeah, bad drug (probably also bad person)
1) The police are still supposed to arrest people who are caught with cannabis (It's a class B drug - in the same group as codeine, ketamine, and ‘spice’ - whatever the hell that is).
In reality they typically let people off with a warning but it's still a drain on our already hamstrung police force
2) Drug dealers who sell weed tend not to declare and pay tax on their earnings. Depriving UK Gov of some seriously needed income per this article's headline.
3) Drug dealers tend to sell other drugs, usually harder drugs. Thus exposing people who want to get stoned to a plethora of other drugs that they might otherwise not have come in to contact with.
4) Those people who are hooked on weed (or any other non-prescribed drug) are criminals...and cannot seek help from anybody including their doctor. This keeps them trapped, and over a long enough period of time will do mental and potentially physical damage to them that our NHS will incur costs to fix. And when I say NHS, I mean the tax payers, and when I say tax payers - I mean me.
All of that is to say - fuck UK drug policy. I remain hopeful that it will change though...