Flubromazolam is dangerously crap due to its ridiculous potency and total lack of consistency in its effects.
Flubromazepam is probably my favourite RC benzo - but again at the risk of repeating myself, It it easy to see why Roche never developed it into a medicine as it is far too impractical to use - its excellent hypnotic properties are of no practical benefit to anyone who cant afford to stay in bed for 24 hours and its anxiolytic properties, while superb are again of no practical use to anyone who has a life to lead due to its overwhelming hypnotic effect. For those like me who actually find the effect of benzos often desirable, if not quite recreational, flubromazepam is as good as any pharmaceutical benzodiazepine as a drug of abuse. No benzodiazepine, whether its the active ingredient in a medicine or sold as an NPS, is a long term solution for anything. I have been taking benzodiazpeines since 2000 on a PRN basis and while I have found them the easiest and best way to control my anxiety I have always understood there general profile of action over a medium to long term basis and I have never been under the impression that they are a solution to my neurosis, they just cover it up so well that it feels extremely nice to given a break from your brain and worries).
When it comes to the PSA however tho all I have written above is irrelevant. Most drugs are inherently harmful and even dangerous if overused and I know that Im not the one scraping up the mess that alot of these drugs have created. But while I admit there have been some close calls from my wreckless uveruse of some drugs, the majority of the damage that drugs have caused me is down to their legal status. If I had developed an alcohol problem while nursing I may have been offered support, but as my addiction concerned the most reviled controlled drug on the streets (The one that is so 'dangerous' that doctors use it every day safely due to its general lack of toxicity), the police naturally took exception to the fact that I was i possession of 20 pounds (sterling) worth of the drug, and the standard treatment for people with similar health problems as me is to label them as criminals, instantly removing the sort of future opportunities that may motivate me to address my drug use as a long term priority. Of course, I cannot deny that by this point my position as a nurse was completely untenable and I was unfit to practice until my dependence issues were addressed, but unlike alcohol addiction to heroin is seen as proof of habitual criminal activity first and foremost, and formal treatment involves having the word junkie tattooed on your forehead just in case you try and ever try and put the fact that you were a junkie behind you. If I had been dependent on the extremely toxic ethanol, I may have attracted at least a small amount of empathy (as 'everyone' likes a drink from time to time) and offered some treatment. But it was a different poison so aside from a referral to the the polices 'advisor' on drug offenders, I was suspended from the nursing register until they had the time to issue an official striking off order. Unlike Docters, who have to kill quite alot of people through professional or criminal negligence before the GMC will take action by restricting their ability to practice for 3 months, when nurses are struck off from the NMC's professional register it is for life- you can turn your life around completely but they dont care if you save the world from utter destruction or devote 10 years to doing voluntary humanitarian work in an African warzone - you will never be allowed to practice as a registered nurse ever again. (the only Doctor who I am aware of who was struck off the GMC's professional register for life was Harold Shipman).
While all drugs have at least some detrimental effect , most are downright dangerous when overused or used in an extremely dangerous manner. But at the same time, most of these drugs can be used in moderation causing little to no harm as long as the user employs whatever harm reduction they can. But when the lawmakers are more interested in preventing people from getting high than they are in the health or life potential or their citizens, I cannot subscribe to prohibition in any form. I personally have a major problem with synthetic cannabinoids as they many of them are extremely dangerous and they have a big part to play in the negative media attention NPS have attained. But it is still no ones right to enforce what folk can or cannot put into their bodies, even when you know the potential harm that may come of it. Anybody aware of the risks of these particular chemicals have a moral obligation to point out the risks involved in the use of such items, but it is still the individuals choice.
If people had the choice to put whatever drug they wanted to in their body, then most folk would make the same sensible health choices as the constantly increasing proportion of non smokers do. But for those that do want to use drugs, many of the harms and deaths would be preventable - how is anyone expected to completely avoid harm from an NPS when the 'law' still just about allows us to sell them, just as long as we dont provide any users with information on their safe use instead of covering the packaging with bio and chemhazard symbols and skull and crossbones. If all drugs were available with full quality control and information on their safest use, then gradually folk would drift away from most of these dodgy designer drugs and would stick to the classics, which have remained available on the black market since prohibition because they are and always will be the the best drugs for recreational use. How many problems would have been avoided if cannabis was legal, as there would be no demand whatsoever for synth noids whatsoever?
Although many folk self medicate with recreational or unprescribed psychoactive drugs, most folk initially turn to them for kicks, and aside from creating a desirable altered state, they are not a solution to health or social problems. They are a (poor) lifestyle choice if used long term, but when the population has never been protected form such things, who has the authority to pick and choose what should be available and what shouldnt be. As long as all these chemicals are manufactured to pharmaceutical standards with clear information on their effects and the short and long term risks of their use, then human nature would over time select the best and safest drugs available while crap like flubromazolam would fade away (even folk with a seroius taste for benzos have at least 40 better choices than that rubbish).
The maximum amount of acetaminophen that folk can take within 24 hours is 4 grams. You only have to double this amount to overdose - 8 grams will leave most folk with irreparable damage to their livers at the least and in some cases it be enough to cause a fatality. Over the 20 years during which I have been either working in healthcare or abusing drugs, not once have I come across a drug whos therapeutic dose is only 8 pills below an overdose, and you can buy them in a newsagent. People use them to harm themselves every day, but as long as they cant get high, thats good enough for the government.
I dont care what the drug is - it is legal to drink a poison that will definitely kill you but illegal to ingest what are in comparison minor toxins in case you enjoy yourself. Long term drug use will almost inevitably cause problems of some kind, but that is a choice that people make and should be entitled to make. Just because its not advisable due to the detriment drug use can cause to peoples physical and mental health it is frankly unbelievable that it is seen as a criminal act, which is why I will always defend anyones choice to put any drug in their body.
The law left me with nothing to aspire to aside from sourcing stronger drugs once I was 'expelled' from general society. I take full responsibility for the mess I have got myself into, but I could (and would) have addressed my health problems much sooner if I wasn't so preoccupied with the professional implications due to my addiction being proof of my criminality (drug possession).
Again, apologies for such a long post but I HATE the law whenever it comes to drugs, it has completely failed to protect me from anything and has compounded every related physical or mental health problem I have ever had.
