ARTICLE: 'Ending the war on all drugs'

[kongoman]

I wanted to say that licenses are another fucking thing to take money from people. I think driver license would have to be easier. I have a smart friend that failed 14 times the driving theorical exam. Beleive he is very intelligent, more than the average. Why do you have to pay for a fishing license?

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

The fees from fishing licenses are used to maintain the area, e.g. the access roads to parks and natural areas, which includes restocking the fish so the the areas don't get depleted.

 

[smokeymcpot42088]

Sounds like new age BS.

Are they pro plant medicine until you pull out some opium, morphine or cocaine?



Diacetylmorphine / diamorphine (Heroin) wasn't rediscovered by Bayer as a cure for morphine addiction.
That is a myth. It was a Christian charity I'm the US, who's name I have forgotten, that would post it to those suffering from morphinism to get them off of it.
You can still find their old late 19th Century and early 20th Century adverts online.

Regarding regulation of opioids it could be easily done like it was in the British, Dutch and French colonies, possibly the Spanish Philippines too.

Opium, morphine and I think Heroin later were sold from government licensed places where only users/addicts who were licensed to use could purchase a certain amount within their tolerance range.
This was to stop stockpiling and potential smuggling.
It was illegal to sell/give to non-licensed users/addicts potentially resulting in a fine or prison time.

The license system worked so well that in French Vietnam opium users were still on average a woman in her 40's like it was in the West before recreational use and buying over the counter were banned.
Also the habit was dying out because user's were dying of old age and not enough new people were taking up the habit as it was illegal for them to do so and so well regulated.
Unfortunately when the French pulled out of Indochina and Vietnam cause of US pressure the South Vietnamese made opium use illegal and got rid of the license system.
This made pushed all the industry underground and use increased.
As we now know the CIA were shipping opium from the Hmong hill tribes to the Pepsi factory in Ho Chi Minh City (Then Saigon.) and were making Heroin with it and selling it, including in the US, to fund black op's.

British Colonies - Bangladesh*, Burma/Myanmar*, Hong Kong, India*, Malaysia, Pakistan* and Singapore.

*All were part of British India.

Dutch Colonies - Dutch East Indies now Indonesia

French Colonies - Indochina/Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.




I agree they should all be regulated but not like alcohol or nicotine/tobacco.

I think they should be more regulated, like I already mentioned, opioid user's could be licensed and then be able to purchase within their tolerance range.

I assume there'd be experimenting with the regulation at the beginning to get it right for each drug or drug type.

With opioids for example I think opium, morphine and codeine should all be relegalised along with diacetylmorphine/Heroin and possibly other di and other esters of morphine. One's that are ridiculously potent I don't think would or should be relegalised.
I think a possibly upper strength limit of 10x to 20x more potent than morphine would probably be good enough for long-term / also recreational users.
You could also have hydrocodone, oxycodone, dihydrocodeine, hydromorphone, oxymorphone and possibly some other similar opioids regulated similarly too.

Any tax could go to harm reduction, rehab and other health and anti-addiction services.

Oh you are correct; of course. My apologies for the misinformation, even I fall prey to myth occasionally and ya caught me slipping.

 

[Shant]

Your reply, like the original article, fails to point out that a large reason for stigma against "hard" drugs is because those drugs have greater addiction potential (i.e. physical dependence). Drug reform definitely ought to include decriminalization of the use of all substances (and possession of small quantities), but most people realize the distinction of harder drugs in terms of their effects on the user. You're far less likely to hear about someone who just casually tried heroin at a party on the weekend and went back to their normal life on Monday. Even the mildest opioids can become habit forming relatively easily.

Sure ignorance can precipitate stigma as well, the fact that PCP is often grouped in with the likes of crack and meth, for example. And yes, some of the stigma surrounding all drugs is harmful to some degree or other (such as that faced by users seeking rehabilitation). But some "stigma" comes from knowledge rather than ignorance. THC, caffeine, codeine, LSD, etc, yes, they are all chemicals, but some of them do come with higher risk potential than others (risks that don't necessarily correlate with the way they're classified under the law). Many people, including lawmakers, especially in the past, wrongfully lump all drugs together and just tell the public, including (worst of all) children, that all drugs are "bad", without explaining how/why and to what degree.

Sure there are potential dangers to marijuana use, but those dangers are generally less acute than the dangers of meth (for example). So when kids and young people see someone use something like marijuana with little consequence, there is the danger of them assuming that the blanket label of "bad" is likely as exaggerated for other drugs as much as it is for marijuana... if they're not informed about the particular dangers of each. I have seen and heard the harm that coke, meth, and heroin can do, and that harm is far more pronounced than the harm from marijuana, psychedelics, or dissociatives. One can likely use one of the latter drugs responsibly and go on with their life, with the former group... it's far more of a dice roll.

Seems strange that you need to make the case for applying different standards and attitudes for some drugs vs other drugs. But it seems that’s where the culture is among addicts (current or former).

When people say “we should legalize drugs”, they seldom if ever say “most drugs”, or “some drugs”. They don’t tend to qualify their suggestions in any way.

Is it seriously argued that drugs like, say, fentanyl are handled the same way as any other drug…legally speaking?

 

[Shant]

All drug possession should be decriminalized as a first step. A simple possession charge should never have been made a felony. That's fucking bananas; I can't believe society let this happen, but here we are.

In most states in the US, 1st offenses for possession are either treated as infractions (pay a fine, nothing on your record) or are given a diversion program option. If completed, case dismissed.

Subsequent arrests can eventually become felonies, depending on the state & circumstances. In CA, I’ve never seen a DA charge someone with a felony for simple possession where sales or some other factor was not at issue.

Attitudes have drastically changed though in recent years. Since George Floyd, really. Prior to that, to give you an idea, I was charged with a misdemeanor for Vehicular Homicide (was not impaired). My 2 convictions for selling a handful of Norco? Both felonies.

 

[unodelacosa]

In most states in the US, 1st offenses for possession are either treated as infractions (pay a fine, nothing on your record) or are given a diversion program option. If completed, case dismissed.
Subsequent arrests can eventually become felonies, depending on the state & circumstances.

They say it doesn't go on your record, but it very much does. There will be an entry for your arrest on your permanent record, and it will say "dismissed" and mention possibly "early disposition court". Very often people in Human Resources are familiar with what this is, and when applying for certain jobs, you're gonna have some 'splaining to do to borrow a catch phrase… But this is contingent on the defendant completing a diversion program and passing a half dozen drug tests spread out across the better part of a year. This program is run by a privately owned, third-party company via an exclusive contract with the municipality in which the so-called "crime" occurred. The defendant has to pay for classes twice a week and in the end shells out a couple thousand dollars to this company (in addition to court fees & costs, and the ~$5k you pay for an attorney or risk the public defender who gets paid with the same checks the prosecutor gets) unless they have insurance that specifically covers this. Either way, there's a lobby incentive created for the company that provides the diversion program service. They're incentivized to keep as many people in the program as long as they can to milk that person for additional classes. It's treacherous and unrealistically ambitious to the point of smacking of a scam.

It's a serious problem, and I don't think it's wise to be so dismissive of the problem we face regarding drug prohibition, drug criminality, the justice system, and addressing the larger problem of mental illness. And I'm not blaming you, but I do want to make you aware.

Pitfalls and Power Dynamics of Court Programs​

In CA, I’ve never seen a DA charge someone with a felony for simple possession where sales or some other factor was not at issue.

Oh every last person is charged with felony possession; they're just not convicted of it if they pay for, and pass, a privatized diversion program not run by the state. The DA's Office will agree to drop the felony charges contingent on the program. And also in order to join the program, one has to give up their right to plead innocent and have to admit guilt. Should the counselor fail them, they won't be able to fight their case. And so they're at the mercy of this private agency rendering the diversion program. Imagine if your freedom were in the hands of a 28-year-old named Bree or Dillon with a Master's Degree in Counseling who speaks condescendingly to you, and all bc you forgot you had some cocaine—less than a gram—in your carry-on luggage. Now you're in this class where at least half the people need serious help, not this ridiculous joke of a program. These people need recovery; you just need to be more diligent when packing for domestic flights. The drugs go in your checked bag – it's separated from you and gives you plausible deniability, unlike carry-on. Remember: possession is 9/10s of the law. Batteries and electronics go in carry-on, drugs go in your toiletries bag kept in your checked luggage. Don't be cheap – check a bag goddammit or risk arrest at the airport.

Attitudes have drastically changed though in recent years. Since George Floyd, really. Prior to that, to give you an idea, I was charged with a misdemeanor for Vehicular Homicide (was not impaired). My 2 convictions for selling a handful of Norco? Both felonies.

I'm sorry all those things happened to you, but George Floyd had nothing to do with felony possession charges. Those have been felonies for nearly a century now. Also, I was arrested by the feds in my early 20s for manufacturing MDMA, and despite being a first-time, non-violent, drug offender, because I refused to "cooperate" in turning evidence, I was given nearly six years to serve, and served just shy of 5.5 years. Of course, trafficking crimes are different from simple possession, and I'm not arguing they shouldn't be felonies, but at no point should simple possession be a felony. If there are multiple arrests, if anything, it indicates the person might have a problem and everyone would be served better if the money spent on incarceration were instead spent on rehabilitation. It's a medical issue and we should decriminalize it at once.

Is it seriously argued that drugs like, say, fentanyl are handled the same way as any other drug…legally speaking?

Yes, it is seriously argued that there is a responsible way to use virtually any drug, even the ones people think are such bad ones. Fentanyl is Schedule II for a reason. It's also on the WHO's List of Essential Medicines, because it's so potent that it's super cost efficient. This means that poorer, less-developed, and/or war-ravaged nations can stock their hospitals with a crucial pain-killer to ease human suffering. Opioids are important medicines, not just joyrides for reckless drug abusers. The majority of ppl don't have a problem with opioids used as directed or under medical supervision. But we do need public education campaigns, addiction recovery clinics, therapists, better pharmaceuticals for handling dependency, and a better public attitude toward recreational drug use. It's not the criminal sinful thing old folks are stuck thinking that it is… Let's stop indoctrinating children with this nonsense, too. Prohibition on these things for minors needs to be constant and should be reinforced by societal norms, but the public needs to be educated on drugs with honesty, not wishful thinking and scare tactics that backfire. When ppl are adults it's their choice to use drugs or not.

Check out Drug Use For Grown-Ups by Dr. Carl L. Hart

The ppl opposed to any drug are those who have never used the drug, and those who really sucked at using the drug and/or abused it. Everyone else had a good time.

 

[TheUltimateFixx]

Seems strange that you need to make the case for applying different standards and attitudes for some drugs vs other drugs. But it seems that’s where the culture is among addicts (current or former).

When people say “we should legalize drugs”, they seldom if ever say “most drugs”, or “some drugs”. They don’t tend to qualify their suggestions in any way.

Is it seriously argued that drugs like, say, fentanyl are handled the same way as any other drug…legally speaking?

I personally would exempt any of the super-potent synthetic opioids from legalisation, as the margin of error is just too small. Plus the only reason people take them is basically because they can't get hold of decent heroin.

Some of the new 'designer drugs' also seem very dubious in terms of safety. The more you tweak a molecule around to avoid the ban hammer again... and again.... the more unpredictable the effects on the body.

But yeah I'd legalise pretty much everything else, including crack and heroin.

 

[nznity]

I personally would exempt any of the super-potent synthetic opioids from legalisation, as the margin of error is just too small. Plus the only reason people take them is basically because they can't get hold of decent heroin.

Some of the new 'designer drugs' also seem very dubious in terms of safety. The more you tweak a molecule around to avoid the ban hammer again... and again.... the more unpredictable the effects on the body.

But yeah I'd legalise pretty much everything else, including crack and heroin.

Just gimme a lifetime supply of either oxy, heroin, oxymorphone and diazepam/clonazepam.
Shrooms, lsd, DMT, MDMA, cocaine. Fuck the rest

 

[stephenw7]

What I want to know is if the united state government is gonna tell doctors you can't supply pain killers to people who obviously need them..and they the' usg' ain't gonna do anything about this fetti problem why don't we have a safe supply.... not everyone wants to be on methadone or subz...all the people don't need to die....junkies know how much junk to do...it's when they don't know what's it is in the bag that they od...##wheresmysafesupply

 

[unodelacosa]

The more you tweak a molecule around to avoid the ban hammer again... and again.... the more unpredictable the effects on the body.

I don't think that statement rings true. Tweeking molecules around is exactly what the pharmaceutical industry engages in constantly. That's how they develop things like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors – the molecule is made selective through advanced tweeks like enantiomeric shielding that took quite a bit of careful trial & error to figure out. The same can be said of dissociative drugs such as ketamine. PCP didn't work out—for somewhat obvious reasons, though it's still Schedule II—and so Parke-Davis went back to the drawing board and developed Ketamine after much tweeking, and the world rejoiced.

LSD was the 25th tweeking session with lysergamides made by Dr. Albert Hofmann circa 1938 at Sandoz, Switzerland. Revolutionary discovery thanks to molecular tweeking on the part of our story's Swiss hero.

Or how about David Nichols work on discovering Parkinson's treatments with his team while at Purdue University?

The only drugs worthy of being banned by legislation are those meant to be weaponized like EA-3167, and even then… maybe just weaponizing a drug should be illegal, and not mere possession.

 

[4DQSAR]

Say - if drugs joined NATO, would other member states have to support drugs under Article 5 of the treaty?

Would the other 32 states involved be obligated to 'provide mutual aid' to drugs so they can defend themselves from A (The Cartels) to Z (The DEA)?

After all, after decades of needless death and destruction, we need to end this war.

Start with a ceasefire, then fly in a NATO peacekeeping force & finally, invite drugs to join the UN (where drugs are unofficial atendees anyway).

 

[fairnymph]

In most states in the US, 1st offenses for possession are either treated as infractions (pay a fine, nothing on your record) or are given a diversion program option. If completed, case dismissed.

Subsequent arrests can eventually become felonies, depending on the state & circumstances. In CA, I’ve never seen a DA charge someone with a felony for simple possession where sales or some other factor was not at issue.

Attitudes have drastically changed though in recent years. Since George Floyd, really. Prior to that, to give you an idea, I was charged with a misdemeanor for Vehicular Homicide (was not impaired). My 2 convictions for selling a handful of Norco? Both felonies.

I know at least a dozen people who received a felony for first time possession, borderline amounts, like 10 ecstasy pills. Absolutely insane.

 

[fairnymph]

They say it doesn't go on your record, but it very much does. There will be an entry for your arrest on your permanent record, and it will say "dismissed" and mention possibly "early disposition court". Very often people in Human Resources are familiar with what this is, and when applying for certain jobs, you're gonna have some 'splaining to do to borrow a catch phrase… But this is contingent on the defendant completing a diversion program and passing a half dozen drug tests spread out across the better part of a year. This program is run by a privately owned, third-party company via an exclusive contract with the municipality in which the so-called "crime" occurred. The defendant has to pay for classes twice a week and in the end shells out a couple thousand dollars to this company (in addition to court fees & costs, and the ~$5k you pay for an attorney or risk the public defender who gets paid with the same checks the prosecutor gets) unless they have insurance that specifically covers this. Either way, there's a lobby incentive created for the company that provides the diversion program service. They're incentivized to keep as many people in the program as long as they can to milk that person for additional classes. It's treacherous and unrealistically ambitious to the point of smacking of a scam.

It's a serious problem, and I don't think it's wise to be so dismissive of the problem we face regarding drug prohibition, drug criminality, the justice system, and addressing the larger problem of mental illness. And I'm not blaming you, but I do want to make you aware.

Pitfalls and Power Dynamics of Court Programs​

Oh every last person is charged with felony possession; they're just not convicted of it if they pay for, and pass, a privatized diversion program not run by the state. The DA's Office will agree to drop the felony charges contingent on the program. And also in order to join the program, one has to give up their right to plead innocent and have to admit guilt. Should the counselor fail them, they won't be able to fight their case. And so they're at the mercy of this private agency rendering the diversion program. Imagine if your freedom were in the hands of a 28-year-old named Bree or Dillon with a Master's Degree in Counseling who speaks condescendingly to you, and all bc you forgot you had some cocaine—less than a gram—in your carry-on luggage. Now you're in this class where at least half the people need serious help, not this ridiculous joke of a program. These people need recovery; you just need to be more diligent when packing for domestic flights. The drugs go in your checked bag – it's separated from you and gives you plausible deniability, unlike carry-on. Remember: possession is 9/10s of the law. Batteries and electronics go in carry-on, drugs go in your toiletries bag kept in your checked luggage. Don't be cheap – check a bag goddammit or risk arrest at the airport.


I'm sorry all those things happened to you, but George Floyd had nothing to do with felony possession charges. Those have been felonies for nearly a century now. Also, I was arrested by the feds in my early 20s for manufacturing MDMA, and despite being a first-time, non-violent, drug offender, because I refused to "cooperate" in turning evidence, I was given nearly six years to serve, and served just shy of 5.5 years. Of course, trafficking crimes are different from simple possession, and I'm not arguing they shouldn't be felonies, but at no point should simple possession be a felony. If there are multiple arrests, if anything, it indicates the person might have a problem and everyone would be served better if the money spent on incarceration were instead spent on rehabilitation. It's a medical issue and we should decriminalize it at once.


Yes, it is seriously argued that there is a responsible way to use virtually any drug, even the ones people think are such bad ones. Fentanyl is Schedule II for a reason. It's also on the WHO's List of Essential Medicines, because it's so potent that it's super cost efficient. This means that poorer, less-developed, and/or war-ravaged nations can stock their hospitals with a crucial pain-killer to ease human suffering. Opioids are important medicines, not just joyrides for reckless drug abusers. The majority of ppl don't have a problem with opioids used as directed or under medical supervision. But we do need public education campaigns, addiction recovery clinics, therapists, better pharmaceuticals for handling dependency, and a better public attitude toward recreational drug use. It's not the criminal sinful thing old folks are stuck thinking that it is… Let's stop indoctrinating children with this nonsense, too. Prohibition on these things for minors needs to be constant and should be reinforced by societal norms, but the public needs to be educated on drugs with honesty, not wishful thinking and scare tactics that backfire. When ppl are adults it's their choice to use drugs or not.

Check out Drug Use For Grown-Ups by Dr. Carl L. Hart

The ppl opposed to any drug are those who have never used the drug, and those who really sucked at using the drug and/or abused it. Everyone else had a good time.

That really sucks that you had to serve just for being a smart entrepreneur. Great post, couldn’t agree more.

I doubt that most dangerous drugs (like the super potent synthetic opioids) would get used much if everything were legal. There’s really only so many drugs that are wildly popular. Others are generally used because as someone else mentioned, they can’t get the drug they’d prefer - or they just try it out of simple curiosity. But everyone has unique brain chemistry and I think everyone should be allowed to explore all the drugs and figure out what works for them.

The only drug that I think should be banned outright is hormonal birth control - it’s far too damaging in too many ways. Women would just switch to copper IUDs which are cheaper, more effective and far less damaging, & make women likely be less promiscuous overall. And I think antibiotics should only be available to those who have passed a training course, to prevent antibiotic resistance.

 

[jasperkent]

But if drugs are legalized, people might start taking drugs.

 

[unodelacosa]

Say - if drugs joined NATO, would other member states have to support drugs under Article 5 of the treaty?

I dig the notion, but… although drugs can put you in a certain state, they're not a sovereign state… lol

That really sucks that you had to serve just for being a smart entrepreneur.

Ha, I appreciate you letting me off the hook like that, and I'm glad you also see the hypocrisy in those events, but I wasn't arrested for "being a smart entrepreneur". I was arrested for manufacturing MDMA, MDA, and methamphetamine. I plead to the MDMA to avoid the extra time the MDA and meth would've brought. I knew the consequences and knew that it was illegal, but I still did it anyway. I have to respect the law, even if I don't obey it, and that means that if I'm breaking the law, the implicit and understood caveat there is that you can't get caught or if you do, be prepared to do the time it can bring. So if I'm being honest, I had that coming to me. And I didn't let the time I had to do ruin my life. I have no regrets and I really think I'm a better person for the time I served and how it gave me the time and focus to better myself in so many ways, from working out to learning Spanish, from reading classics to teaching GED classes. It was more time than I needed, and I was quite young, but perhaps it kept me out of more trouble and it allowed me to mature before returning to society. Like I said: no regrets. I also sharpened my entrepreneurial skills and I put them to good, legal use working in legit industry so I don't have to worry about risking my freedom any longer. That shit is too stressful, and there's way more money to be made legally anyway, so there's really no point in taking that risk, ya know?

 

[4DQSAR]

I dig the notion, but… although drugs can put you in a certain state, they're not a sovereign state… lol


Ha, I appreciate you letting me off the hook like that, and I'm glad you also see the hypocrisy in those events, but I wasn't arrested for "being a smart entrepreneur". I was arrested for manufacturing MDMA, MDA, and methamphetamine. I plead to the MDMA to avoid the extra time the MDA and meth would've brought. I knew the consequences and knew that it was illegal, but I still did it anyway. I have to respect the law, even if I don't obey it, and that means that if I'm breaking the law, the implicit and understood caveat there is that you can't get caught or if you do, be prepared to do the time it can bring. So if I'm being honest, I had that coming to me. And I didn't let the time I had to do ruin my life. I have no regrets and I really think I'm a better person for the time I served and how it gave me the time and focus to better myself in so many ways, from working out to learning Spanish, from reading classics to teaching GED classes. It was more time than I needed, and I was quite young, but perhaps it kept me out of more trouble and it allowed me to mature before returning to society. Like I said: no regrets. I also sharpened my entrepreneurial skills and I put them to good, legal use working in legit industry so I don't have to worry about risking my freedom any longer. That shit is too stressful, and there's way more money to be made legally anyway, so there's really no point in taking that risk, ya know?

Ah, well this is just an example of my not having bothered to read the smallprint.

Sovereign and Uncertain are worth the same number of points in a game of Srabble. The defence rests.

Still, wouldn't it be great if drugs had embassies in every other nation. Since an embassy is subject to the laws of the state it represents, any drugs constitution may wisely choose to include a clause under which people NOT under the influence of drugs... is breaking the law of drugs, may be extradited to the drugs state, tried by a jury of drugs and if found guilty, sent to drug prison.

At least and until someone begins a grass roots movement to protest drugs and to support the prisoners of drugs. Maybe they would boycott drugs? Maybe they would demand fiar-trade drugs? Maybe they would take direct action and set drugs alight?

 

[fairnymph]

I dig the notion, but… although drugs can put you in a certain state, they're not a sovereign state… lol


Ha, I appreciate you letting me off the hook like that, and I'm glad you also see the hypocrisy in those events, but I wasn't arrested for "being a smart entrepreneur". I was arrested for manufacturing MDMA, MDA, and methamphetamine. I plead to the MDMA to avoid the extra time the MDA and meth would've brought. I knew the consequences and knew that it was illegal, but I still did it anyway. I have to respect the law, even if I don't obey it, and that means that if I'm breaking the law, the implicit and understood caveat there is that you can't get caught or if you do, be prepared to do the time it can bring. So if I'm being honest, I had that coming to me. And I didn't let the time I had to do ruin my life. I have no regrets and I really think I'm a better person for the time I served and how it gave me the time and focus to better myself in so many ways, from working out to learning Spanish, from reading classics to teaching GED classes. It was more time than I needed, and I was quite young, but perhaps it kept me out of more trouble and it allowed me to mature before returning to society. Like I said: no regrets. I also sharpened my entrepreneurial skills and I put them to good, legal use working in legit industry so I don't have to worry about risking my freedom any longer. That shit is too stressful, and there's way more money to be made legally anyway, so there's really no point in taking that risk, ya know?

I’m glad that you have no regrets, but I do not believe you did anything wrong or that you should’ve been punished for it. High quality drugs have to come from somewhere, and I prefer to support domestic producers. Most laws these days are immoral. Good on you for making the best of the situation! So many people I know who got in trouble for drug possession or dealing let the marks on their record destroy their lives.

 

[4DQSAR]

Various UNODC reports noted that while most H producers do so of their own free will, there are a lot of people involved in the production of cocaine because they were offered a choice. La hoja o el ataúd (the leaf or the coffin).

There was even a joke in one of the 'Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers' cartoons in which Phinias declares he doesn't use cocaine since he heard how much misery it's production caused. He goes on to say that now he will only take Swiss-made pharmacutical amphetamine.

Has anyone tried smoking freebase ethylphenidate? I'm told it's effects are much the same as coceine if somewhat longer lived.

 

[fairnymph]

Various UNODC reports noted that while most H producers do so of their own free will, there are a lot of people involved in the production of cocaine because they were offered a choice. La hoja o el ataúd (the leaf or the coffin).

There was even a joke in one of the 'Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers' cartoons in which Phinias declares he doesn't use cocaine since he heard how much misery it's production caused. He goes on to say that now he will only take Swiss-made pharmacutical amphetamine.

Has anyone tried smoking freebase ethylphenidate? I'm told it's effects are much the same as coceine if somewhat longer lived.

Much like crack/freebase cocaine, or nasal? I never much cared for methylphenidate - and cocaine isn’t that great unless IVed, but it’s too short acting to be worth trying a few times, especially given the toxicity. But ime, cocaine feels more different depending on the ROA than any other drug.

 

[4DQSAR]

Ethylphenidate appears to be more like cocaine if smoked. If snorted it's onset is slower than cocaine so doesn't fully substitue.

But I think it's generally the case that freebase cocaine is the form most associated with problem use.

There are several other compounds that mimic freebase cocaine. Along with ethylphenidate, amfonelic acid works (but complex synthesis), The para-chloro homologue of dimethocaine and even cofenciclan (which if you use ChemOffice you will see overlays that dimethocaine homologue PERFECTLY.

But as previously mentioned - anyone offering a cheap synthetic alternative to cocaine would not have a gread life-expectancy. Now if the South American cartels produced them... they could mix with cocaine (active cut) and thus bring doen production costs. I'm BETTING it will happen.