- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
- Messages
- 7,548
@Burnt Offerings yea for sure. In Boston it was known that you could find Methamphetamine in the gay subculture. I remember I worked with a guy at a restaurant while I was in High School/College who was gay and said he had used it, though I only knew the guy for a span of a few weeks before he disappeared from the job, could Meth have been involved???
I used a lot of Amphetamine tablets when I was in High School and College as well. I remember as a prescription drug, they were relatively cheap actually. I can't list prices obviously, though I'd say going by averages, they were 1/10th the price I commonly see them go for now (the same is also true for Benzodiazepines, once extremely cheap, now fairly rare and expensive). The issue was more availability than price. When someone was out, they were out and there wasn't necessarily a place to just get more. I've been involved with Bluelight and learning about drugs since my early years and I knew about Methamphetamine from an "academic" standpoint, though had never seen or used it.
As someone who was using stimulants "for school" (this was a dubious suggestion, but it's what I had in my head) I didn't want to smoke Crack or use Cocaine. I was looking for something with a sustained duration and a more functional character. I thought if I could buy a gram of Methamphetamine, twice as potent as Amphetamine for a pittance, I would never have to buy Adderall again. It's funny how we tell ourselves how certain drugs or quantities of drugs will erase our problems. A gram of Methamphetamine was just a mistake waiting to happen to whomever made this assumption.
I remember 10-12 years ago, I had to take a Greyhoud from Chicago to Boston. I met some kids in New York who I was hanging out with and they had gotten Meth in the city. I remember I was actually pretty stunned. Now it's everywhere.
I always assumed that Methamphetamine wasn't prevalent in my area due to the previously established markets and relationships along the supply chain meant various people had reasons not to bring Methamphetamine in. I am not an economist or anything, though I have some basic assumptions about what has happened with Meth recently. I think it's extremely cheap, but I also think it is too potent and that it's easy for supply of a synthetic drug like that to outstretch demand. Again, if $20 of Meth can get a naive user high for 48 hours, a $20 rock of Crack Cocaine will get that same naive user high for at most an hour or two depending on how they use it. Also, we know Crack users can spend a seemingly unlimited amount of money on the drug.
I've heard of Meth addicts injecting grams of Meth at a time. This has to be near some kind of upper limit and for a user with connections and buying in bulk, they're probably not going to be spending more than $50-$70 or so i would imagine.
Interesting reading that I found recently was talking about the Australian "Heroin Drought" of the early 00's. Australia claims this was due to interdiction efforts of course. The findings of this research points to a massive glut of Heroin from Southeast Asia in the preceding decade in which Australia was struggling greatly with Heroin addiction. It's now believed that this was just the result of a massive glut of Heroin that brought the price to unprofitable levels, requiring the cartels to adjust their business model somehow.
We are used to globalized business and I think we forget that industries like drug trafficking are inherently going to be behind the times in terms of how easily the business can be conducted. This leads to a process of years in between these gluts and droughts that make the trends and causes difficult to understand for the end markets involved.
Second fun fact from the same article, this one blew my fucking mind, as I thought I knew everything.
So, leading up to our North American "Heroin Epidemic" which was taking shape in the 00's and really crashing around 06' the majority of Heroin was coming from Colombia, the figures varied, but as much as 60% of the supply of US Heroin was coming from Colombia, with another ~25% coming from Mexico. We were receiving practically nil in terms of Heroin from Afghanistan, the often-touted largest producer of the time. So, not from the Golden Triangle or the Golden Crescent... Colombia and Mexico. Not only that, Colombian Heroin was found to be the purest Heroin available for purchase most of the time.
I had ALWAYS been under the impression that we were getting our Heroin from Afghanistan. It was always discussed how the War on Terror and such contributed to our problem, when in reality it seems like the same people were doing both Cocaine and Heroin. My mind was really blown. Sorry for the tangent. I just had to share this.
I used a lot of Amphetamine tablets when I was in High School and College as well. I remember as a prescription drug, they were relatively cheap actually. I can't list prices obviously, though I'd say going by averages, they were 1/10th the price I commonly see them go for now (the same is also true for Benzodiazepines, once extremely cheap, now fairly rare and expensive). The issue was more availability than price. When someone was out, they were out and there wasn't necessarily a place to just get more. I've been involved with Bluelight and learning about drugs since my early years and I knew about Methamphetamine from an "academic" standpoint, though had never seen or used it.
As someone who was using stimulants "for school" (this was a dubious suggestion, but it's what I had in my head) I didn't want to smoke Crack or use Cocaine. I was looking for something with a sustained duration and a more functional character. I thought if I could buy a gram of Methamphetamine, twice as potent as Amphetamine for a pittance, I would never have to buy Adderall again. It's funny how we tell ourselves how certain drugs or quantities of drugs will erase our problems. A gram of Methamphetamine was just a mistake waiting to happen to whomever made this assumption.
I remember 10-12 years ago, I had to take a Greyhoud from Chicago to Boston. I met some kids in New York who I was hanging out with and they had gotten Meth in the city. I remember I was actually pretty stunned. Now it's everywhere.
I always assumed that Methamphetamine wasn't prevalent in my area due to the previously established markets and relationships along the supply chain meant various people had reasons not to bring Methamphetamine in. I am not an economist or anything, though I have some basic assumptions about what has happened with Meth recently. I think it's extremely cheap, but I also think it is too potent and that it's easy for supply of a synthetic drug like that to outstretch demand. Again, if $20 of Meth can get a naive user high for 48 hours, a $20 rock of Crack Cocaine will get that same naive user high for at most an hour or two depending on how they use it. Also, we know Crack users can spend a seemingly unlimited amount of money on the drug.
I've heard of Meth addicts injecting grams of Meth at a time. This has to be near some kind of upper limit and for a user with connections and buying in bulk, they're probably not going to be spending more than $50-$70 or so i would imagine.
Interesting reading that I found recently was talking about the Australian "Heroin Drought" of the early 00's. Australia claims this was due to interdiction efforts of course. The findings of this research points to a massive glut of Heroin from Southeast Asia in the preceding decade in which Australia was struggling greatly with Heroin addiction. It's now believed that this was just the result of a massive glut of Heroin that brought the price to unprofitable levels, requiring the cartels to adjust their business model somehow.
We are used to globalized business and I think we forget that industries like drug trafficking are inherently going to be behind the times in terms of how easily the business can be conducted. This leads to a process of years in between these gluts and droughts that make the trends and causes difficult to understand for the end markets involved.
Second fun fact from the same article, this one blew my fucking mind, as I thought I knew everything.
So, leading up to our North American "Heroin Epidemic" which was taking shape in the 00's and really crashing around 06' the majority of Heroin was coming from Colombia, the figures varied, but as much as 60% of the supply of US Heroin was coming from Colombia, with another ~25% coming from Mexico. We were receiving practically nil in terms of Heroin from Afghanistan, the often-touted largest producer of the time. So, not from the Golden Triangle or the Golden Crescent... Colombia and Mexico. Not only that, Colombian Heroin was found to be the purest Heroin available for purchase most of the time.
I had ALWAYS been under the impression that we were getting our Heroin from Afghanistan. It was always discussed how the War on Terror and such contributed to our problem, when in reality it seems like the same people were doing both Cocaine and Heroin. My mind was really blown. Sorry for the tangent. I just had to share this.