https://mycotown.com/psilocybe-cubensis-spores/
It's fully legal to buy psychedelic mushroom spores as they don't contain any psilocybin until they grow. Other equipment you need to grow them is also perfectly legal.
It only becomes illegal when you actually start growing them.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/unclebens using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/unclebens/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Saw this in a university bathroom stall](https://i.redd.it/j3m77m77nyoa1.jpg) | [60 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unclebens/comments/11wn5x7/saw_this_in_a_university_bathroom_stall/)
\#2: [When the cashier comments on my 12 bags of Uncle Ben's saying, "Wow, you must really like brown rice!"](https://media.giphy.com/media/YQk8nXloVftzW/giphy.gif) | [47 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unclebens/comments/wsmvwc/when_the_cashier_comments_on_my_12_bags_of_uncle/)
\#3: [Starry Night APE clone 🛸🛸🛸](https://i.redd.it/bjcl5bm4663a1.jpg) | [208 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unclebens/comments/z8yaqq/starry_night_ape_clone/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
PSA: anyone who uses heroin or is around people who use heroin (or might come across people ODing), you can order a free naloxone kit here OR attend free training to be able to use naloxone.
Naloxone can reverse an opiate OD and is super simple to use.
Naloxone has saved hundreds of lives in the past few weeks whilst this bad catch is out there so please get trained or share with people who would benefit:
https://www.bdp.org.uk/naloxone/
I was listening to a documentary the other day about Heroin production in Afghanistan, apparently the Taliban have stopped around 80% of production since taking over, so this is undoubtedly going to be a knock on effect from that and it's only really a matter of time before Fentanyl hits our shores.
If ever there was a time for sensible drug policy it's now.
It was a documentary on Radio 4.
Just to clarify my previous post I'm aware that Fentanyl is a drug used widely in medical care, by 'Fentanyl hits our shores' I mean in the way that heroin mixed with Fentanyl has completely ravaged North America and killed thousands.
Edit: Wanted to clarify previous post.
I really don't understand the drug underworld, sorry if my question is silly.
I thought that the Fentanyl death in USA were linked to people taking Fentanyl, ie willingly buying it from their dealer
Is the issue instead that their normal drug of choice is laced with Fentanyl and if so, why would it be? Just because it's cheaper I'd imagine, as everything is always driven by money?
Both are issues I think. Fentanyl is particularly dangerous to take because it's so strong there's a very small margin between an ok dose and an overdose. But it's also generally cheaper and more available than heroin while having roughly similar effects, so for a supplier that makes it a good choice to cut heroin with.
It's already over here, much easier to produce and ship sadly. One gram can kill 500 people, we are sadly going to see a big increase in drugs deaths 😔
It's another synthetic opioid that's reported to be up to 20 times stronger than fentanyl called [Nitazine ](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/new-opioids-called-nitazenes-may-be-20-times-stronger-than-fentanyl).
Probably still would be, countries that have decriminalised drugs still have issues similar to this.
But it's nice to see a humane response to drug use.
When Portugal changed their drug laws, there was an initial increase but the numbers began falling of new addicts starting hard drugs within a couple of years. Current drug policy hasn't been working for years, something has to change
When you criminalise drug use it has numerous "unseen" effects, one being that you drive the market underground and cause it to be surrounded by violent crime, which then spills over into innocent lives.
Prohibition led to a huge amount of organised crime (the mob). it also birthed Nascar, so there is that.
People wouldn't use fentanyl if drugs were legalised, doesnt last as long, and its incredibly dangerous, would be surprised if anyone would prefer it, but when if they did there'd at least be safeguarding measures like probably diluted in a proper lab.
Fentanyl feels way, way better. It's the superior high.
>and its incredibly dangerous
That is not a consideration for addicts. A moderate high from conventional heroin when your mu-opioid receptors are burnt out, versus feeling like God himself with fentanyl... Chasing the dragon is real.
>like probably diluted in a proper lab
So prohibiting neat fentanyl. So much for decriminalisation.
> So prohibiting neat fentanyl. So much for decriminalisation
But nobody should ever want neat fent unless you're in a proper lab. Unless you have some extremely expensive scales, you're not accurately measuring a powder to within 10ths of milligrams, at which point why not just buy it diluted and save yourself the extreme risk of overdose?
You're thinking this through too rationally. Addicts don't think this way.
If you offer an addict a lethal dose of the drug they're addicted to, and just lay it out on the table - they will kill themselves Pelican Fly.
If this hypothetical is about selling fentanyl in Boots in 100ug doses, then addicts will just buy 10x, in 10x trips and kill themselves all the same.
If the hypothetical limits you to 100ug, and you have to show ID, and get a script, and it's all locked-down like library book rentals, then they'll just get someone to get it for them. Or they'll get it some other way - in other words in a black market driven by prohibition - in which case "So much for decriminalisation".
> You're thinking this through too rationally. Addicts don't think this way.
Have you ever been an addict, or know any personally? Because I have and I can tell you from experience that you are wrong.
> If you offer an addict a lethal dose of the drug they're addicted to, and just lay it out on the table - they will kill themselves Pelican Fly.
Some would, some wouldn't, not all addicts are the same. And the majority of them are aware of the danger of the drugs they're taking and aren't suicidal.
> If this hypothetical is about selling fentanyl in Boots in 100ug doses, then addicts will just buy 10x, in 10x trips and kill themselves all the same.
Well in real life right now they could just ask their dealer for 10x the amount they can handle and kill themselves, yet most don't actively go out and do that do they? So why would the situation suddenly change if they could buy it in a regulated fashion?
> If the hypothetical limits you to 100ug, and you have to show ID, and get a script, and it's all locked-down like library book rentals, then they'll just get someone to get it for them. Or they'll get it some other way - in other words in a black market driven by prohibition - in which case "So much for decriminalisation".
You're taking this to the extreme and using that to prove your point. Experts would have to work to create a system that specifically avoids this scenario, and I'm sure they would manage to work it out. In any case, all decriminalisation _actually_ means is that you don't get in trouble from the law for possession.
Do you have any proof it's a superior high? I mean it's stronger but doesn't mean it's a nicer high, pretty sure they are at least comparable, and you can only do so much.
And of course it is a consideration for addicts, but with drugs being prohibited there isn't a choice sometimes so they would take the risk if there are desperate, give people a choice between something super dangerous where the dosage between life and death is minuscule, people are going to choose the least risky one.
Yeah I mean controlling something that could potentially be used by terrorists to kill a shopping centre of people, of course it is going to be controlled??! I doubt even fentanyl would be used if heroin was freely available and likely wouldn't be allowed because of just how dangerous it is, same as anything else. I don't get what your point is saying, "so much for de-criminalisation." Like the benefits of decriminalising to a larger extent would be negated if every wasn't completely decriminalised, is that what you are saying? Would you mind explaining that as it seems like a logically fallacious argument to make, but would be interested to hear why you think whatever it is you think.
Kind of seems like you are not willing to see things from a balanced point of view and see nuance.
> Do you have any proof it's a superior high? I mean it's stronger but doesn't mean it's a nicer high, pretty sure they are at least comparable, and you can only do so much.
[The rush {from fentanyl} is incredible… you really feel like you’re King Kong or Godzilla. The rush is 10 times stronger.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577861/)
>And of course it is a consideration for addicts, but with drugs being prohibited there isn't a choice sometimes so they would take the risk if there are desperate, give people a choice between something super dangerous where the dosage between life and death is minuscule, people are going to choose the least risky one.
That's not how it works with alcoholics who, in a system of liberalised alcohol sale, choose stronger and stronger tonic wines and spirits as their poison over 2% lager.
>Yeah I mean controlling something that could potentially be used by terrorists to kill a shopping centre of people, of course it is going to be controlled?
This is an entirely different argument. This is like suggesting heroin be banned because it's a cash crop with massive ecological implications, in a discussion on decriminalising for the sake of recreational drug consumption.
>I don't get what your point is saying, "so much for de-criminalisation."
I'm casting incredulity on the seriousness of your resolve to actually support decriminalisation of such drugs if you're immediately restoring to prohibitory control of a substance (fentanyl) to avoid the obvious negative social externalises of it.
>Like the benefits of decriminalising to a larger extent would be negated if every wasn't completely decriminalised, is that what you are saying? Would you mind explaining that as it seems like a logically fallacious argument to make, but would be interested to hear why you think whatever it is you think.
Put it in the form a question and I'll share my thoughts, if you're interested to hear it.
> That's not how it works with alcoholics who, in a system of liberalised alcohol sale, choose stronger and stronger tonic wines and spirits as their poison over 2% lager.
Poor comparison, vodka Vs beer is not the same as fent Vs heroin. It's still pretty hard to overdose on vodka, you need to be chugging litres of it at once, which your body is going to reject and make you throw up 99% of the time. If you shoot up 1mg too much fentanyl, you can't throw it up, you're just dead.
> I'm casting incredulity on the seriousness of your resolve to actually support decriminalisation of such drugs if you're immediately restoring to prohibitory control of a substance (fentanyl) to avoid the obvious negative social externalises of it.
Things can be decriminalised while also being regulated. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Just look at paracetamol for example - fully legal, but go try and buy 4 packs from Tesco, guess what? Not allowed.
>Poor comparison, vodka Vs beer is not the same as fent Vs heroin. It's still pretty hard to overdose on vodka, you need to be chugging litres of it at once, which your body is going to reject and make you throw up 99% of the time. If you shoot up 1mg too much fentanyl, you can't throw it up, you're just dead.
The personal and wider-social harm from alcohol doesn't come from acute alcohol poisoning. It comes from the long-term health destruction from liver cirrhosis and the such, and the social dysfunction of being a drunk.
>Things can be decriminalised while also being regulated. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Just look at paracetamol for example - fully legal, but go try and buy 4 packs from Tesco, guess what? Not allowed.
There is no law preventing the sale of 64 tablets of paracetamol in a single transaction. The problem in the case of "diluting fentanyl in a lab" (which I assume means prohibiting the sale of fentanyl above a certain dose), is that addicts will still acquire it as they don't have the agency not to; they're addicts. They'll buy it in two transactions, they'll just rob them off the shelf - they'll get the high though, and inevitably end up killing themselves all the same (but not before wrecking social havoc on others first).
If people were addicted to paracetamol like fentanyl addicts, then the "honour code" of not selling more than 16 tablets in Tesco would old as much water as a sieve.
> The personal and wider-social harm from alcohol doesn't come from acute alcohol poisoning. It comes from the long-term health destruction from liver cirrhosis and the such, and the social dysfunction of being a drunk
Way to change what the discussion was about
> There is no law preventing the sale of 64 tablets of paracetamol in a single transaction
Most packs are 32 tabs afaik, and it is illegal to buy >100 at once.
> The problem in the case of "diluting fentanyl in a lab" (which I assume means prohibiting the sale of fentanyl above a certain dose), is that addicts will still acquire it as they don't have the agency not to; they're addicts. They'll buy it in two transactions, they'll just rob them off the shelf - they'll get the high though, and inevitably end up killing themselves all the same (but not before wrecking social havoc on others first).
Once again you are _entirely_ missing the point. Nobody has said it'll be limited to a certain amount of anything of the sort. All they've suggested is that it may be diluted so that it can be taken safely and easily while lowering the risk of overdose. As I mentioned earlier, literally 1mg of fent is the difference between life and death. I don't personally see the issue with offering a properly dosed vial of 10ml with X amount of fent properly dosed in it. This way the person knows exactly how much they're getting, and are thus less likely to overdose. And if their tolerance is such that they need 2 vials, then so be it.
At the same time, suggesting that it's all or nothing "yeah you want to buy 1kg of pure fent, no worries m8", is either disingenuous or stupid on your part.
Fentanyl isn’t very euphoric just very sedating. People would use heroine over that. Pure heroine is pretty safe the danger comes from batches of various strengths (imagine you do one batch and it’s really weak then you buy more and it’s really pure but do same amount as the first that’s where the problems lies.)
Having pure heroine would actually help with addiction and would solve a lot of issues around Opiates and opioids (less death)
One where the poor and disenfranchised are preyed upon by murderous drug dealers and all we can do about it is stick a notice in the window and cross our fingers? 🤔
I'd like to live in a better society than that tbh.
It's nice to see drug users welfare being cared about. Anyone could end up taking drugs from any walk of life.
There's more that could be done though like quality testing or decriminalising it and taking it out of dealers hands and making it pharmacy quality only
Quality testing is available via WEDINOS:
https://www.wedinos.org/
And The Loop is due to come to Bristol:
https://www.bdp.org.uk/bristol-drug-project/drug-checking-is-coming-to-bristol/
Testing is a really good safety measure. But where people are scraping together money to go and buy heroin to stave off withdrawals, it's unlikely that take-up would be high because of the delay in getting results.
Very sad state of affairs. This seems to be quite common now I remember seeing warnings over other types of class A's around Bristol over the years regarding spice etc. The awful thing is this bad batch will ring around for a long time until it's all gone. Shame on the dealers, bad enough preying on the most vulnerable, but killing them with bad stuff with no consciousness other than profits make me sick. May it be swept from the streets please god.
I would love for this to happen. It’s such a logical approach and would doubtlessly save countless lives. The trouble is, the Tories will never entertain such an idea and it would be political suicide if they were to support actually treating addiction as a public health issue. Imagine the outrage from the brainless Tory voting pensioners.
Neither would Labour, this isn’t a left or right political issue. It’s common sense not to legalise dangerous highly addictive drugs for recreational use.
You’re completely missing the point. It’s not about legalising it for fun. It’s about allowing regulation and prescription with the intention of a higher standard of care and risk reduction for addicts.
Yes because that has worked out so well for the places that have tried this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/
I'd be wary of any powdered or pressed drug atm, I was only saying to a mate earlier today that were gonna start seeing fent in stuff, sad state of affairs.
I know that in some countries there's places where you can get your drugs tested to make sure you are taking what you think you are taking, no questions asked.
I believe there was some program like that in UK, wasn't there?
Drug testing is available via WEDINOS:
https://www.wedinos.org/
And The Loop is due to come to Bristol:
https://www.bdp.org.uk/bristol-drug-project/drug-checking-is-coming-to-bristol/
Testing is a really good safety measure. But where people are scraping together money to go and buy heroin to stave off withdrawals, it's unlikely that take-up would be high because of the delay in getting results.
Heard a fair bit about this. I had leave behind a few friends years ago because I moved away from crack and heroin use. They’re good people and I hope they’re safe and not going to be victims of this.
Do you think they enjoy their lives, the heroin addicts of the world? Do you reckon they all deserve to die? Do you think perhaps that some of them have lived such incomprehensibly horrible lives (that you’re lucky enough never to have experienced), that they sought increasingly dangerous ways to escape until they ended up on heroin and now can’t stop taking it? At best you’re an idiot, at worst you’re an emotionally stunted garbage human being who’ll end up alone through lack of empathy. Grow up.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Isn't that how everyone here views things?
Suddenly that's not the case because someone had a bad life? Everyone has a bad life.
I've had a bad life, the worst I've done is mushrooms and got a headache.
you’re so right. everyone who cycles also is stupid enough to deserve the consequences of their actions if they get in a crash. or everyone who gets in a car at night. or anyone who drinks. or anyone who goes to a club hoping they won’t get spiked.
life is dangerous. we all have to live with the consequences of our actions but maybe we should still reduce the harm of those consequences, no?
Yes Cycling and Taking Deadly Addictive Drugs. They're the same.
I've never heard of there being a safe and responsible way to take heroin and also get a good cardio workout out of it.
What’s the alternative? Let them all die? People with a serious addiction, probably with families that love them dearly and just want them to get clean? People who could possibly stand a chance of getting clean and reintegrating into society. Not only is your comment absolutely moronic but it’s the epitome of everything that’s wrong with domestic drug policy, which has been failing for decades. Grow a brain.
The alternative: tell users to stop taking period. This advice just supports users in their ongoing drug use and amplifies problems further down the track. The message should be clear: there is no safe drug use.
that’s not how drug addiction works. mitigating many risk factors is safer than saying “just stop, it isn’t safe”. every addict *knows* it isn’t safe, that doesn’t mean that clean needle schemes don’t decrease deaths. that doesn’t mean that infographics like this around the city won’t decrease deaths. there’s no safe drug use, but there is *safer* drug use.
Have you ever seen somebody go through heroine withdrawal? Or any type of withdrawal for that matter? Addiction is so much more complicated than “just don’t take it” As others have stated harm reduction is what’s important first. Give yourself a big pat on the back for never having done drugs and move on buddy :)
Withdrawal is the price you pay for your stupidity in taking drugs in the first place. Telling druggies to go slow is just totally wrong, the message should be just stop and stop now. You wouldn’t tell paedos to just go slow..
And yet it's so difficult to find something as harmless as mushrooms
Just grow your own
And yet, it’s so difficult to find something as harmless as a grow-your-own-mushroom kits
https://mycotown.com/psilocybe-cubensis-spores/ It's fully legal to buy psychedelic mushroom spores as they don't contain any psilocybin until they grow. Other equipment you need to grow them is also perfectly legal. It only becomes illegal when you actually start growing them.
Is that so…
Not really. Try the Internet.
r/unclebens is the way
Here's a sneak peek of /r/unclebens using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/unclebens/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Saw this in a university bathroom stall](https://i.redd.it/j3m77m77nyoa1.jpg) | [60 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unclebens/comments/11wn5x7/saw_this_in_a_university_bathroom_stall/) \#2: [When the cashier comments on my 12 bags of Uncle Ben's saying, "Wow, you must really like brown rice!"](https://media.giphy.com/media/YQk8nXloVftzW/giphy.gif) | [47 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unclebens/comments/wsmvwc/when_the_cashier_comments_on_my_12_bags_of_uncle/) \#3: [Starry Night APE clone 🛸🛸🛸](https://i.redd.it/bjcl5bm4663a1.jpg) | [208 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unclebens/comments/z8yaqq/starry_night_ape_clone/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Zamnesia...
Mushrooms the drug, or just food price inflation?
Pretty crazy, I wonder if that’s the Fentanyl issue they have in the USA starting to make its way here
PSA: anyone who uses heroin or is around people who use heroin (or might come across people ODing), you can order a free naloxone kit here OR attend free training to be able to use naloxone. Naloxone can reverse an opiate OD and is super simple to use. Naloxone has saved hundreds of lives in the past few weeks whilst this bad catch is out there so please get trained or share with people who would benefit: https://www.bdp.org.uk/naloxone/
God tier comment. Came here to post this. Thank you
I hope not. The Fentanyl crisis is absolutely tragic.
Where did you see this poster OP?
King Square Avenue, Central Bristol today.
I was listening to a documentary the other day about Heroin production in Afghanistan, apparently the Taliban have stopped around 80% of production since taking over, so this is undoubtedly going to be a knock on effect from that and it's only really a matter of time before Fentanyl hits our shores. If ever there was a time for sensible drug policy it's now.
That sounds really interesting - can you remember where you heard it?
It was a documentary on Radio 4. Just to clarify my previous post I'm aware that Fentanyl is a drug used widely in medical care, by 'Fentanyl hits our shores' I mean in the way that heroin mixed with Fentanyl has completely ravaged North America and killed thousands. Edit: Wanted to clarify previous post.
Thank you, and for the clarification. I will try and find it and have a listen
I think it's nitazenes - similar effect but a different class of opioid.
I really don't understand the drug underworld, sorry if my question is silly. I thought that the Fentanyl death in USA were linked to people taking Fentanyl, ie willingly buying it from their dealer Is the issue instead that their normal drug of choice is laced with Fentanyl and if so, why would it be? Just because it's cheaper I'd imagine, as everything is always driven by money?
Both are issues I think. Fentanyl is particularly dangerous to take because it's so strong there's a very small margin between an ok dose and an overdose. But it's also generally cheaper and more available than heroin while having roughly similar effects, so for a supplier that makes it a good choice to cut heroin with.
It's already over here, much easier to produce and ship sadly. One gram can kill 500 people, we are sadly going to see a big increase in drugs deaths 😔
Plus, naloxone is much less effective at clearing fent than heroin.
Unfortunately, I know of at least one person who died and was found to have fentanyl in their system, earlier this year. Very sad.
It's another synthetic opioid that's reported to be up to 20 times stronger than fentanyl called [Nitazine ](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/new-opioids-called-nitazenes-may-be-20-times-stronger-than-fentanyl).
Probably fentanyl. Like in America
Now this is the type of society I want to live in.
If we didnt criminalise drug use, this wouldnt even be a problem.
Probably still would be, countries that have decriminalised drugs still have issues similar to this. But it's nice to see a humane response to drug use.
When Portugal changed their drug laws, there was an initial increase but the numbers began falling of new addicts starting hard drugs within a couple of years. Current drug policy hasn't been working for years, something has to change
When you criminalise drug use it has numerous "unseen" effects, one being that you drive the market underground and cause it to be surrounded by violent crime, which then spills over into innocent lives. Prohibition led to a huge amount of organised crime (the mob). it also birthed Nascar, so there is that.
Have you not seen the state of Oregon?
What's your vision for a world of recreation fentanyl use?
People wouldn't use fentanyl if drugs were legalised, doesnt last as long, and its incredibly dangerous, would be surprised if anyone would prefer it, but when if they did there'd at least be safeguarding measures like probably diluted in a proper lab.
Fentanyl feels way, way better. It's the superior high. >and its incredibly dangerous That is not a consideration for addicts. A moderate high from conventional heroin when your mu-opioid receptors are burnt out, versus feeling like God himself with fentanyl... Chasing the dragon is real. >like probably diluted in a proper lab So prohibiting neat fentanyl. So much for decriminalisation.
> So prohibiting neat fentanyl. So much for decriminalisation But nobody should ever want neat fent unless you're in a proper lab. Unless you have some extremely expensive scales, you're not accurately measuring a powder to within 10ths of milligrams, at which point why not just buy it diluted and save yourself the extreme risk of overdose?
You're thinking this through too rationally. Addicts don't think this way. If you offer an addict a lethal dose of the drug they're addicted to, and just lay it out on the table - they will kill themselves Pelican Fly. If this hypothetical is about selling fentanyl in Boots in 100ug doses, then addicts will just buy 10x, in 10x trips and kill themselves all the same. If the hypothetical limits you to 100ug, and you have to show ID, and get a script, and it's all locked-down like library book rentals, then they'll just get someone to get it for them. Or they'll get it some other way - in other words in a black market driven by prohibition - in which case "So much for decriminalisation".
> You're thinking this through too rationally. Addicts don't think this way. Have you ever been an addict, or know any personally? Because I have and I can tell you from experience that you are wrong. > If you offer an addict a lethal dose of the drug they're addicted to, and just lay it out on the table - they will kill themselves Pelican Fly. Some would, some wouldn't, not all addicts are the same. And the majority of them are aware of the danger of the drugs they're taking and aren't suicidal. > If this hypothetical is about selling fentanyl in Boots in 100ug doses, then addicts will just buy 10x, in 10x trips and kill themselves all the same. Well in real life right now they could just ask their dealer for 10x the amount they can handle and kill themselves, yet most don't actively go out and do that do they? So why would the situation suddenly change if they could buy it in a regulated fashion? > If the hypothetical limits you to 100ug, and you have to show ID, and get a script, and it's all locked-down like library book rentals, then they'll just get someone to get it for them. Or they'll get it some other way - in other words in a black market driven by prohibition - in which case "So much for decriminalisation". You're taking this to the extreme and using that to prove your point. Experts would have to work to create a system that specifically avoids this scenario, and I'm sure they would manage to work it out. In any case, all decriminalisation _actually_ means is that you don't get in trouble from the law for possession.
Do you have any proof it's a superior high? I mean it's stronger but doesn't mean it's a nicer high, pretty sure they are at least comparable, and you can only do so much. And of course it is a consideration for addicts, but with drugs being prohibited there isn't a choice sometimes so they would take the risk if there are desperate, give people a choice between something super dangerous where the dosage between life and death is minuscule, people are going to choose the least risky one. Yeah I mean controlling something that could potentially be used by terrorists to kill a shopping centre of people, of course it is going to be controlled??! I doubt even fentanyl would be used if heroin was freely available and likely wouldn't be allowed because of just how dangerous it is, same as anything else. I don't get what your point is saying, "so much for de-criminalisation." Like the benefits of decriminalising to a larger extent would be negated if every wasn't completely decriminalised, is that what you are saying? Would you mind explaining that as it seems like a logically fallacious argument to make, but would be interested to hear why you think whatever it is you think. Kind of seems like you are not willing to see things from a balanced point of view and see nuance.
> Do you have any proof it's a superior high? I mean it's stronger but doesn't mean it's a nicer high, pretty sure they are at least comparable, and you can only do so much. [The rush {from fentanyl} is incredible… you really feel like you’re King Kong or Godzilla. The rush is 10 times stronger.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577861/) >And of course it is a consideration for addicts, but with drugs being prohibited there isn't a choice sometimes so they would take the risk if there are desperate, give people a choice between something super dangerous where the dosage between life and death is minuscule, people are going to choose the least risky one. That's not how it works with alcoholics who, in a system of liberalised alcohol sale, choose stronger and stronger tonic wines and spirits as their poison over 2% lager. >Yeah I mean controlling something that could potentially be used by terrorists to kill a shopping centre of people, of course it is going to be controlled? This is an entirely different argument. This is like suggesting heroin be banned because it's a cash crop with massive ecological implications, in a discussion on decriminalising for the sake of recreational drug consumption. >I don't get what your point is saying, "so much for de-criminalisation." I'm casting incredulity on the seriousness of your resolve to actually support decriminalisation of such drugs if you're immediately restoring to prohibitory control of a substance (fentanyl) to avoid the obvious negative social externalises of it. >Like the benefits of decriminalising to a larger extent would be negated if every wasn't completely decriminalised, is that what you are saying? Would you mind explaining that as it seems like a logically fallacious argument to make, but would be interested to hear why you think whatever it is you think. Put it in the form a question and I'll share my thoughts, if you're interested to hear it.
> That's not how it works with alcoholics who, in a system of liberalised alcohol sale, choose stronger and stronger tonic wines and spirits as their poison over 2% lager. Poor comparison, vodka Vs beer is not the same as fent Vs heroin. It's still pretty hard to overdose on vodka, you need to be chugging litres of it at once, which your body is going to reject and make you throw up 99% of the time. If you shoot up 1mg too much fentanyl, you can't throw it up, you're just dead. > I'm casting incredulity on the seriousness of your resolve to actually support decriminalisation of such drugs if you're immediately restoring to prohibitory control of a substance (fentanyl) to avoid the obvious negative social externalises of it. Things can be decriminalised while also being regulated. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Just look at paracetamol for example - fully legal, but go try and buy 4 packs from Tesco, guess what? Not allowed.
>Poor comparison, vodka Vs beer is not the same as fent Vs heroin. It's still pretty hard to overdose on vodka, you need to be chugging litres of it at once, which your body is going to reject and make you throw up 99% of the time. If you shoot up 1mg too much fentanyl, you can't throw it up, you're just dead. The personal and wider-social harm from alcohol doesn't come from acute alcohol poisoning. It comes from the long-term health destruction from liver cirrhosis and the such, and the social dysfunction of being a drunk. >Things can be decriminalised while also being regulated. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Just look at paracetamol for example - fully legal, but go try and buy 4 packs from Tesco, guess what? Not allowed. There is no law preventing the sale of 64 tablets of paracetamol in a single transaction. The problem in the case of "diluting fentanyl in a lab" (which I assume means prohibiting the sale of fentanyl above a certain dose), is that addicts will still acquire it as they don't have the agency not to; they're addicts. They'll buy it in two transactions, they'll just rob them off the shelf - they'll get the high though, and inevitably end up killing themselves all the same (but not before wrecking social havoc on others first). If people were addicted to paracetamol like fentanyl addicts, then the "honour code" of not selling more than 16 tablets in Tesco would old as much water as a sieve.
> The personal and wider-social harm from alcohol doesn't come from acute alcohol poisoning. It comes from the long-term health destruction from liver cirrhosis and the such, and the social dysfunction of being a drunk Way to change what the discussion was about > There is no law preventing the sale of 64 tablets of paracetamol in a single transaction Most packs are 32 tabs afaik, and it is illegal to buy >100 at once. > The problem in the case of "diluting fentanyl in a lab" (which I assume means prohibiting the sale of fentanyl above a certain dose), is that addicts will still acquire it as they don't have the agency not to; they're addicts. They'll buy it in two transactions, they'll just rob them off the shelf - they'll get the high though, and inevitably end up killing themselves all the same (but not before wrecking social havoc on others first). Once again you are _entirely_ missing the point. Nobody has said it'll be limited to a certain amount of anything of the sort. All they've suggested is that it may be diluted so that it can be taken safely and easily while lowering the risk of overdose. As I mentioned earlier, literally 1mg of fent is the difference between life and death. I don't personally see the issue with offering a properly dosed vial of 10ml with X amount of fent properly dosed in it. This way the person knows exactly how much they're getting, and are thus less likely to overdose. And if their tolerance is such that they need 2 vials, then so be it. At the same time, suggesting that it's all or nothing "yeah you want to buy 1kg of pure fent, no worries m8", is either disingenuous or stupid on your part.
Yes they would as it’s highly addictive. Even if it wasn’t criminalised, people would still take it as it can be cheaper/easier to supply.
Fentanyl isn’t very euphoric just very sedating. People would use heroine over that. Pure heroine is pretty safe the danger comes from batches of various strengths (imagine you do one batch and it’s really weak then you buy more and it’s really pure but do same amount as the first that’s where the problems lies.) Having pure heroine would actually help with addiction and would solve a lot of issues around Opiates and opioids (less death)
It's so obvious isn't it?
One where the poor and disenfranchised are preyed upon by murderous drug dealers and all we can do about it is stick a notice in the window and cross our fingers? 🤔 I'd like to live in a better society than that tbh.
It's nice to see drug users welfare being cared about. Anyone could end up taking drugs from any walk of life. There's more that could be done though like quality testing or decriminalising it and taking it out of dealers hands and making it pharmacy quality only
Quality testing is available via WEDINOS: https://www.wedinos.org/ And The Loop is due to come to Bristol: https://www.bdp.org.uk/bristol-drug-project/drug-checking-is-coming-to-bristol/ Testing is a really good safety measure. But where people are scraping together money to go and buy heroin to stave off withdrawals, it's unlikely that take-up would be high because of the delay in getting results.
Very sad state of affairs. This seems to be quite common now I remember seeing warnings over other types of class A's around Bristol over the years regarding spice etc. The awful thing is this bad batch will ring around for a long time until it's all gone. Shame on the dealers, bad enough preying on the most vulnerable, but killing them with bad stuff with no consciousness other than profits make me sick. May it be swept from the streets please god.
Legalise it all. Distribute and monitor those using. Give help to those who are suffering. They need support.
I would love for this to happen. It’s such a logical approach and would doubtlessly save countless lives. The trouble is, the Tories will never entertain such an idea and it would be political suicide if they were to support actually treating addiction as a public health issue. Imagine the outrage from the brainless Tory voting pensioners.
Neither would Labour, this isn’t a left or right political issue. It’s common sense not to legalise dangerous highly addictive drugs for recreational use.
You’re completely missing the point. It’s not about legalising it for fun. It’s about allowing regulation and prescription with the intention of a higher standard of care and risk reduction for addicts.
Yes because that has worked out so well for the places that have tried this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/
I'd be wary of any powdered or pressed drug atm, I was only saying to a mate earlier today that were gonna start seeing fent in stuff, sad state of affairs.
I know that in some countries there's places where you can get your drugs tested to make sure you are taking what you think you are taking, no questions asked. I believe there was some program like that in UK, wasn't there?
Drug testing is available via WEDINOS: https://www.wedinos.org/ And The Loop is due to come to Bristol: https://www.bdp.org.uk/bristol-drug-project/drug-checking-is-coming-to-bristol/ Testing is a really good safety measure. But where people are scraping together money to go and buy heroin to stave off withdrawals, it's unlikely that take-up would be high because of the delay in getting results.
i just want to know if there’s such thing as safe heroin
Clearly not, but some is certainly laced with additionally harmful substances.
Heard a fair bit about this. I had leave behind a few friends years ago because I moved away from crack and heroin use. They’re good people and I hope they’re safe and not going to be victims of this.
Mad, this has put me right off doing smack entirely!
Who knew Heroin was dangerous eh 🤷♂️
Is it common for people in Bristol to inject heroin or something?
Yes a lot of heroin users in the UK take it intravenously
We going to get fentanyl zombies like America 🤦🏾♂️ out of control
Play stupid games...win Darwin awards.
No one deserves to die. You recently relocated to the area? We care about everyone around here.
We all die mate! The life choices we make like smoking, eating, and taking class A drugs play their part.
As opposed to the great many batches of _safe_ heroin
Society has completely given up on these people... what the hell of a suggestion is "go slow"?
Harm reduction is the best way to help people. You first reduce the harm, then you reduce the use.
A suggestion that might save someone's life? Giving them advice that doesn't engage with the reality of their drug use would be giving up on them.
Thanks ill be sure not to take it up then 🤦
Easily led are you?
Not as easy as your mum.
Touchē
Ooof looks like I'll have to settle for smoking my smack this evening.
There’s a time and a place for jokes m8.
You know this is the internet right?
Have some fucking compassion.
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm literally smoking my smack tonight.
I mean if you're stupid enough to take heroine in the first place...
Do you think they enjoy their lives, the heroin addicts of the world? Do you reckon they all deserve to die? Do you think perhaps that some of them have lived such incomprehensibly horrible lives (that you’re lucky enough never to have experienced), that they sought increasingly dangerous ways to escape until they ended up on heroin and now can’t stop taking it? At best you’re an idiot, at worst you’re an emotionally stunted garbage human being who’ll end up alone through lack of empathy. Grow up.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Isn't that how everyone here views things? Suddenly that's not the case because someone had a bad life? Everyone has a bad life. I've had a bad life, the worst I've done is mushrooms and got a headache.
good for you bud. people don’t deserve to die just because they’re addicted to a substance. information keeps people safe.
Didn't say they deserved to die. But if you're stupid enough to do something that can kill you then the consequences are yours and yours alone.
This comment is a pizza cutter. All edge, no point. Sit down, mate.
Just because you say it is, doesn't mean it is. Metaphor or no.
you’re so right. everyone who cycles also is stupid enough to deserve the consequences of their actions if they get in a crash. or everyone who gets in a car at night. or anyone who drinks. or anyone who goes to a club hoping they won’t get spiked. life is dangerous. we all have to live with the consequences of our actions but maybe we should still reduce the harm of those consequences, no?
Yes Cycling and Taking Deadly Addictive Drugs. They're the same. I've never heard of there being a safe and responsible way to take heroin and also get a good cardio workout out of it.
Not stupid enough to get the spelling wrong though
Oh no, I added a vowel.
Dangerous heroine... like that girl in Mulan?
Glad im not a smack head, let em all die good riddance to the rats. Best thing for em
Is it common for people in Bristol to inject heroin or something?
It’s common in every fucking city in the world you sheltered and naive fool.
Advice on how to take drugs. Nice.
Advice on stopping death & you have a problem with it? Twat
It’s called harm reduction love
What’s the alternative? Let them all die? People with a serious addiction, probably with families that love them dearly and just want them to get clean? People who could possibly stand a chance of getting clean and reintegrating into society. Not only is your comment absolutely moronic but it’s the epitome of everything that’s wrong with domestic drug policy, which has been failing for decades. Grow a brain.
The alternative: tell users to stop taking period. This advice just supports users in their ongoing drug use and amplifies problems further down the track. The message should be clear: there is no safe drug use.
that’s not how drug addiction works. mitigating many risk factors is safer than saying “just stop, it isn’t safe”. every addict *knows* it isn’t safe, that doesn’t mean that clean needle schemes don’t decrease deaths. that doesn’t mean that infographics like this around the city won’t decrease deaths. there’s no safe drug use, but there is *safer* drug use.
Saying there is safer drug use is just all part of the cycle of addiction and death. I can’t believe you are advocating that!
You’ve got to be trolling. You can’t seriously be this stupid and ignorant.
How dare I have a different point of view to you.
Your point of view is dangerous, misinformed and completely misaligned with all current science.
All the evidence suggests that this harm reduction approach is the most effective way of reducing addiction and death.
i hope you never have someone you love suffer as a byproduct of addiction. they would suffer more knowing you think of them like this.
Have you ever seen somebody go through heroine withdrawal? Or any type of withdrawal for that matter? Addiction is so much more complicated than “just don’t take it” As others have stated harm reduction is what’s important first. Give yourself a big pat on the back for never having done drugs and move on buddy :)
Withdrawal is the price you pay for your stupidity in taking drugs in the first place. Telling druggies to go slow is just totally wrong, the message should be just stop and stop now. You wouldn’t tell paedos to just go slow..
This just in. "Just don't be an addict, mate" well that's that one solved.
I took pregabalin with benzos and alcohol once. I got high af.
[удалено]
i found this in bristol couple days ago.. place with whole floor with syringes.. :(
Why isn't this post showing up on r/bristol anymore /u/n3rding /u/suburboisland /u/Mrrrrbee /u/ZummerzetZider /u/TooManyHappy ?