Methadrone control

For all the Brits who've been reading the papers recently, given the power how would you approach Methadrone?
Personally I would use this opportunity to legalize all drugs and watch the demand for this [censored] sink overnight. I've seen this drug evolve and its happened in two stages. The MDMA shortage came, the amount of experienced older drug users experimenting in RC's went up (research chemicals) and Methadrone stood out, a small interest was established but at this stage (roughly a year ago) very few people had heard of it.

Fast forward half a year and the MDMA shortage is still ongoing and Methadrone has established a small market, the media then takes interest and 'bang' the snowball effect takes place, throw into the mix that its dirt cheap and easy to order and you have a growing market.


Somebody pointed out that if you drive it underground the price will go up and thus hopefully act as deterrent. Not a bad point if your only options are a. it stays uncontrolled on the net b. you criminalize it

Both these options are shockingly ineffective, if we criminalize it perhaps use will decline, although in the past its done nothing or had a reverse effect than intended, i.e cannabis use went up in the uk when it was upgraded, and down when it was degraded. Making Ketamine illegal in 2006 simply had zero effect, use stayed the same.

Methadrone is different however in that; unlike cannabis there may not always be a demand, its a new drug. Unlike Ketamine it is not going to be produced legally for medical/veterinary use regardless.


Given that the government will not decriminalize MDMA I believe they should for the mean time set up similar rules to that of alcohol, ie stated dose, purity etc. Price should also be inflated. So far, not much change, but its not possible to achieve a real change as it would involve an open policy of harm reduction (as of now MDMA is safer than Methadrone), which involves the government admitting some young people enjoy drugs and thus admitting that prohibition isn’t working.

So my own thoughts are that the government is [censored] intill they can onpenly follow a policy of harm reduction, any advice they give on drugs at the minute is biased, judgemental and written with the same style than the 1930's Reffermadness campaigns, the majority of young people give neither a [censored] about the law or the advice, and quite frankly why should they take the government seriously when they only have one tool in their toolbox - prohibition.


Alternatively this guy says it 10 times better than I can;


http://audioboo.fm/boos/106487-drugs-expert-danny-kushlick-attacks-media-hysteria-over-mephedrone

Banning things does nothing but remove a level of control from responsible sources. Banning has never, and will never, prevent an individual from exercising a want or need irrespective of its legality.

Is Methodron a harmless substance? Of course not, but neither is alcohol, or tobacco, or chemotherapy for that matter.

Governments of course, pander to moral outrage of vocal minorities and media agendas, because their principle goal is not to protect, it is to be popular, and retain power for the privelidges and personal benefits that entials.

This is why no elected govt in the modern era has made a decision based on what they believe to be right, if it risked their position.

I think the term 'controlled substance' should mean what it says. Do I think I should be able to buy heroin at the corner shop? Probably not (although its not so long since this was reality), but I do think that by criminalising people for making a personal choice, you put them in danger by exposure to criminal culture, and we have to pick up a tax bill for drug treatment with no income from the drug trade to balance the scales.

Here is another thing, if the Afghan's, even the taliban, established official trade in their opium with the west, then suddenly their is a financial incentive for cessation of violence, and we gain a position of leverage through financial sanctions.
Money will always talk louder than religion.

Its not an either/or situation. You can legalise drugs, offer safety and help with less financial burden to individual and state, and STILL point out to people that rotting their nose away with chemical fertiliser is a really stupid thing to do. Which it is.

Good post on a tough subject, Cord!

It depends how big the demand is, if salvia was banned I don't believe there would be a market for it. But that points silly really as if there is little demand then why bother banning something in the first place? they talked about banning salvia for ages but never got round to it as nobody really gave a [censored], they did try and make a moral panic around it bless emm but it just didn't happen



whilst with the mdma scare people for the most part lapped up the fear, judging from the comments on bbc etc it seems that the government are no longer catering to the masses, just look at the support Nutt's getting!



Its only stupid because of what we don't know not what we do know.

However I agree right this second, because of what we don't know, it should be avoided. However asuming that in 20 years time it will fall somewhere between mdma and speed in terms of relative harm, BOTH of which are less harmful than booze according to Nutt then wouldn't that make the people down the Pub the really stupid ones when they could be getting a better ratio of desired effect Vs harm by taking mmmkat?


so how would you regulate it?

That is horsesh1t logic. If harry murders sally, then his battering unconscious of mary does not become better by default.

I dont think of any drug use in terms of personal harm - if you believe in deregulation (or, in actuality, positive regulation), then you are affirming an individuals choice to put their physical and mental wellbeing at risk in the name of immediate pleasure. The amount of risk is moot, as the principle is a simple constant.

Also, by the above logic, you are asserting that alchohol is the 'opiate of the masses' purely based on availability and legality. This is not the case. Like any drug, the 'high' is unique to it as a substance, and mankind has a love affair with the effects of alcohol that goes back millenia.

Its this specificity of effect that has always been my argument against escalatory behaviour through drug class. The idea that a smoker of weed is really wanting horse, but lacking the courage to 'jump right in' is utter toss. Someone who loves a toke loves it for its own sake. I have known hundreds of smokers who would not dream of 'drug tourism', because they have found what they like, and are comfortable with the culture and crowd that go with it. Same as a coke taker would not have a lot of fun hanging out with smokers, or indeed smoking and clouding their own buzz.

Personaly I find ecstacy the most irritating drug ever. I dont like the effect, the users, the culture, or the scene - it was never 'my thang', though i was a voracious experimenter in my time, I quickly decided to move on and chalked it up to experience.

The pro drug lobby are as off base as the authorities in their depiction of drugs as some benign, fun, awesome way of life.

To beatify a substance is as stupid as to demonise a substance. Its just a substance. The rest of the equation is made up of motive, physiology and psychology of the individual user.
Its a gamble, it just happens to be a gamble I feel people should be free to take legally as supposedly intelligent beings in charge of our own destiny.

I've never tried MDMA, but im a little surprised to say the least that you don't like the effects :-S could you elaborate?

I agree with you about every high being unique to the substance, what I wrote was a little revealing as you pointed out, by my own logic why don't I use a vapourizor or even a filter in my spliffs? I like smoking in itself.

However my logic DOES hold up, on paper. The outcome is not always the same, sure everyone dies but the kind of problems and risks you are most likely to encounter vary from drug to drug (like you say). I don't think you can deny that some drugs quite frankly do there job better than others, try getting high of nutmeg! For example I'd have to drink a fair bit of vodka for it to help me sleep anywhere near as much as one spliff. The outcome of booze in a pub enviroment is to be social right? if mkat does indeed become an accepted social drug and is proven to be less neurtoxix than booze, then surely it makes more sense to take that? I realise my own predijuce against booze showed (love the drug itself, just hate the fact if certain people saw me having a spliff before bed they'd judge me for it, whilst the same people would think nothing of it if I were to have a stiff drink)

also I'm sorry but

also displays a hell of a lot of predjice, an attitude you simply don't adopt concerning your own mates rotting their teeth down the pub

it's called skins lol

Certainly. The euphoric phase, often described as being 'loved up' is something my brain fought against, as it is not my nature to believe everyone I am surrounded by is good, likeable and worth my time. This caused a conflict in my brain chemistry and an agitated state. I also found the downer to be quite pronounced. Add to that that we are talking about the early 90's before the rave bubble burst, and there was a real, almost religious cult attitude amongst regular users where the E high was talked about in spiritual terms, something which I found pretentious, self justifying and insufferable.



But as all drugs have some inherent risk, no matter how small, to accept the concept that pleasure is more important than safety, must encompass acceptance of all drugs, or you are guilty of the same hypocrisy as the govt. over alcohol.



and spliff is inferior to jellies for this purpose, but the majority don't use spliff as a sleep aid, they use it as part of a social situation. Much like drinking, sharing a bong with friends at a house party, or while watching lynch movies together is a world away from sitting alone at 1am on a work night skinning up just so you can get some sleep. Use and abuse. Pleasure and dependancy. Its not the substance that changes, but your relationship with it that is the problem.



No. Because effect and neurotoxicity are seperate issues. Being drunk is a completely different experience to being stoned which is different to being wired which is different to being on a trip which is different to being in a K-hole.

If I want to watch a horror movie, I am not going to be satisfied by a comedy, and if I want to get drunk, I am not going to be satisfied by anything other than alcohol.



Hate the players dont hate the game



No it doesnt. Its a simple statement of fact. Booze is legal, yet we as a society accept that it has its risks, and we do not criminalise or marginalise those who lose control of their use of the drug, and real help is available with little stygma, for them.

I merely propose that this should be the same for ALL drugs. Legalisation should not be seen as justification, or condonement of dangerous drugs, it should be about the safety of those who choose to use them regardless of the risks.

Studying sociology ive come to the conclusion that most fear is misplaced and has no real grounding in reality. If I could drop my bs negative attitude towards most people (I don't mean I'm paranoid, or fearful I just mean 99% of people are GOOD people but through social conditioning coupled with no help from evolution we are far more scared than we ever should be of each other) even for a night I'd be grateful for it, unless you were genuinely out in a rough area why would you fight a more positive attitude towards your surroundings, especially when many are on the same wave length as you :-S

Cord btw I do appreciate ive never tried md so my opinion doesn't count for too much.



I wasn't there but you cant deny some drugs can have benefits other than pleasure, a culture obsessed with love, things could be worse?

If you called mkat users stupid because there taking an unresearched substance then fair enough. But the way you worded it sounded like a daily mail quote, and I'm a bit confused as to what you meant, then you tried to clarify by agreeing with me that all drugs should be legal :-S

I agree with you about only booze satisfying someone that wants to get drunk etc etc, but you've missed my point. My point is this, don't you think that given the desire to change our consciousness seems as deep rooted and culturally universal as dancing and music, drugs at the minute are pretty ineffective in terms of damage vs wanted effect. Don;t you hope for a future where people can achieve this at less physical cost? And if so how can this ever come about with our current attitude to RC's?




Everybody believes pleasure is more important than safety, it just depends to what degree. If all you were concerned about was the amount of years you live, then god forbid you'd lead a boring life.

Well, if you had walked a mile in my shoes you would throw away your sociology books.



I am not talking about fear, i am talking about finding trustworthy, reasonably sincere individuals who are truly worth liking/loving for who they are, not what they want the world to think they are.
You know the old saying 'there are no strangers, only friends I havent met yet' ? Its wrong, its not healthy, and its foolish.



You say that like it wasa conscious decision to fight it. It wasnt, I wanted to enjoy it, but my rational mind rebelled against the change in the brain chemistry, causing heightened anxiety and paranoia. Dont believe the hype, plenty of people have a bad time on E.



Yeah, love You should try working security at a rave to see how much 'love' is around when people steal eachothers pills, or try and deal in another persons patch.
It wasnt a love in, it was a bunch of people in stupid hats being taken advantage of whilst maintaining a misguided sense of superiority.



I do not think that making a bad personal choice should make you a criminal. If you smoke weed, become a shut in, and screw up your lungs through heavy habitual use, then good luck to you. If you drink yourself into an early grave, good luck to you. If you stick needles in your arm, lose your job and end up selling your arse on a street corner, good luck to you.
As long as your decision to purchase and use ALL substances results in money going back into society to help deal with the mess you make around yourself, then its all good.
What we have at the moment is bad decisions costing billions in taxes, and none of the BILLIONS spent on narcotics being available to balance the scales.



I want a future where people are self aware enough to create a life for themselves where escape from their reality is not a requirement for social happiness, and where any substance is used from a stable and considered positive decision process, not one of desperation, frustration, and misery.
Making drugs stronger and safer is not the answer to this, making people stronger and safer is.




Not so. If you tell even the most hardened smack user, that you know, for sure, that their next fix will definately kill them, and they believe you, they will do all in their power not to take it.

Preservation of life is the number 1 motivating factor for all living things. It is hardwired far deeper than pleasure. Dont believe me? watch a porno in a house fire and see if you can raise an stiffy

All that 'live fast die young, leave a good looking corpse' stuff is easy to say when you are young, but very few can repeat it with conviction when a tumour is eating through their bowel and all they have left is a long painfull death.

Everything is life has consequences, and drugs are no different. I just dont think one fo the consequences should be jail.

Dude I'd vote for you. I agree with absolutely everything you've said in this thread mate.

I'd vote for Zammo, he was my moral compass!!!

Why do you assume that I've not seen violence and bullying myself? Also why do you assume that your own personal experiences are any more of an accurate reflection of society as a whole than the millions of case studies undertaken over the years? If your working as a bouncer in a rough area, the people coming to you are not typical of the population, they are aggressive [censored], and if your not careful before long you start seeing everyone in the same way which is damaging to a positive outlook, for myself I think if I took md it could help me realise that most people are not as low as some of my personal experiences imply.



Agreed, however most people who I dislike I dislike because I dont understand, not because they are [censored], the worlds not black and white yeah?

Personally I wouldn't use md to meet new people, I'd use it in a home enviroment with close mates. A day without ego would be refreshing, its a [censored] hidious negative off shoot from evolution that I dispise and serves no purpose other than adding survival (in a primitive agressive way, not a fuel my body way, I apprichiate they used to be one and the same, but they no longer are) and wanting to [censored], two things I don't need most of the time.




Well that sucks for you, but more get violent on booze than parnoid on e! I know which drug I'd rather see fuel saturday nights thats for sure.




I don't need to work at a rave to see this, I've been there for the music and seen it with my own eyes. All these problems are caused by prohibition not by the drug itself. Sounds like you just don't like the crowd, which is fine we can't help who we feel at home with!



So so true, well said. Although not only does probition punish the abusers as in your example but also those that use in moderation.




Plenty of very happy people take drugs, why?



The human condition is tragic either way.


Cord I don't think making people stronger and healthier would reduce the need to alter our consousness, I hope your right, but I dont think you are. I wouldn't even know where to start with this one in terms of getting acaedmic about it, as at the minute we can't even measure happiness.

I am not making assumptions. Sociology makes assumptions. I was not talking about responding to actively unpleasant people, I was talking about a chemical inducing a false sense of affection for people you dont know, leaving you prone to be taken advantage of, or make bad choices around. You see the potential for alcohol to change the way you interact with people as negative, but MDMA's effect as positive. I say dont trust either drug over the other. And I a talking from personal experience, not books. Come to think of it, if you smoke weed anyway, and are pro MDMA, seeing it as a harmless, positive substance, I have to ask why I am the only one of the 2 of us who has used it?



That is not where i am coming from AT ALL. I am approaching this based on my personal observations within drug culture, nothing else.
The big problem is that drugs alter your perception of reality, but reality remains a constant that you have to deal with.

An example: A girl I worked with was really into E and clubbing. Always going to manchester or London to the big clubs. Even worked as a cage dancer a few times. One night, having done a lot of pills, she got seperated from her friends, and ended up hooking up with another group of pilled up 'new friends'. In her euphoric state she made some bad choices, became too trusting, and got gang raped in a bedsit by the very same group
It just would not have happened if she had not been high.



again, i have to ask, whats stopping you from this positive, risk and consequence free experience?



During a lifetime, you will be very fortunate, out of the thousands of people you encounter, to meet 5 people that prove over time that they can be trusted completely. The older you get, the less friends you make and the more acquaintances you collect.



Its not the right vibe for MDMA. Its far too 'sociable' a drug for that situation. That environment is perfect for LSD or mushrooms however.



1. Ego is part of every living creatures mental make up. Mating displays, territory disputes. Its all promotion of an individual self. To think that that goes away with drug use is ridiculous!! The whole culture has a hierarchy, from proper 'heads' down to weekend warriors, with a lot of judgement social streaming based on perception of others place in the pecking order.

2. A loss of libido is a medical side effect of long term cannabis use.




Well on this one I will talk from a doorstaff perspective, and say that people off their faces for any reason are a pain the arse, unpredictable, and no fun to deal with.



someone stealing someone elses drugs has nothing to do with where they were bought from!! And its amazing how pi$$ed off someone full of love for their fellow man can get when they are short a baggy of pills



I am not saying only miserable people take drugs. I am saying only happy balanced people should take drugs.



Seriously, you will cringe at sh1t like this when you grow up.




If your reality is good, and you are happy in it, then you have less motivation to alter it. If you drive a battered old escort, you may find you have an urge to get it decals, a new exhaust, uprate the suspension and the sound system. If you drive a Ferrari, you get it it serviced every 20.000 miles and enjoy it as it was created.
People should spend more time making their life a ferrari, and less time mucking about modifiying their old beaters

its not working! :P:P

I've not done md because I cant get it, no other reason. Its rare, check pillreports.com if you dont believe me 95% of pills these days are bs and in the last year md crystals have gone the same way. Prohibition seems to be winning the war on mdma. youn say thats not the correct environment for md but from what ive read neither is a rave, its all preference. I mean for example, people are using ket at raves :-S



the day talktofrank advice reads like that will be a good day, thats one of the best advice concerning drugs I've read.



stop knocking your own validity by posting [censored] like that plz, its a real shame. I dont care that you dont agree with it or that it makes you cringe, [censored] great fantastic, you need to explain why.

<<you need to explain why.>>


oh dear, now you've asked for it!!!

Its the truth. I dont care if you your crockery isnt getting polished. Your drug use. Your reality. Your problem. I fully support your right to ruin your sex life legally.



Good grief. You know once, there was a time before the internet, when you just bought stuff and hoped for the best. If it was cut heavily, you took more. Hilarity or hospital ensued. As it stands, it is still an illegal and unregulated industry, but if your reality at present is that culture, then dont spoil the fun of it by reading consumer reports!!
They dont call it 'experimenting' with drugs for nothing. I remember a particularly strange time when we were sold opiated thai resin without being warned. We just thought it was red seal, but OMG!! we were wrong



Reading again? You are the Will Hunting of the drug world.



Because all that Sylvia Plath 'life is a terminal desease' nihilism sounds great in your teens and even through some of your 20's. Remember, you are talking to a lifelong goth here, but seriously, when you lose people to things - when you have a friend kill himself on LSD, a friend get raped on E, when you blow £600 a weekend on charlie, when people in your family develop life threatening medical problems through life choices catching up with them, then you realise that all that nonchelant sage philosaphising about the inevitability of death doesnt prevent the smell in a cancer ward from ingraining itself in your nostrils. It doesnt alleviate your feelings of fear, helplessness and misery. It doesnt make death cool, or chic, or clever. Death remains death, and no matter how inevitable it may be, only the fool rushes to greet it.

dunno who will hunting is mate, and 95% of pills are bzp ive taken enough to know i dont enjoy

dont even know what to add, just reached the stage where its at risk of getting personal whilst I dont even disagree with much uve said, if ur ever in leicester we can meet up for a chat!

'Good Will Hunting' . Top movie, you should check it out.

You said repeatedly you hadnt done pills, and now you have?

What you have to reconcile is the fact that even most drug users will acknowledge that there are serious issues and dangers involved, and that there is usually some personal cost in long term usage. Like I have said, I am absolutely pro-legalisation, but that is not the same as saying 'drugs are awesome!!'. Its the only move that makes fiscal and moral sense to society.

Iggy Pop once said something that I wholeheartedly agree with, and that is 'There comes a time when you start getting less and less out of the drugs, and they start taking more and more from you'. It happened to me, and I was able to recognise that before life fell apart completely, and had the good fortune to be able to change my habits and lifestyle. Some are not fortunate enough to be able to do this.

I also grant you that for a huge majority of people, drug use is a 'phase' in their youth. An expression of rebellion/freedom, and a way to spice up the weekend.

But you have to ask yourself why there are not more lifelong narcotic users? Is it because we 'sell out' as we get older, that some inner fire, or zest for life dies? Or is it the fact that as we get older, we establish our place in the world, find a career, a partner we care about, and find relative peace and contentment in our lives so that drug use simply gets relegated?

The trick is to keep your options open as a youth. If you get the balance wrong with any drug, they can rob you of career choices, healthy relationships and the chance of a contented reality. If that happens, all you have left is the drug of choice for escape. That is not personal freedom, anymore than government regulations give you freedom now.

You said repeatedly you hadnt done pills, and now you have?

you could take pills every weekend for the past 2 years and ud be unlikely to get mdma, thats what im saying its incredibly difficult to find, times have changed


cord, see what makes me angry about this thread is the fact that your drug advice is spot on and would actually be listened to as not only is it the voice of experience but its not condemning or judgmental, just wish the government would see that but obviously they cant give serious advice that accepts young people can/do take drugs as that admits prohibition is a load of horse [censored]