my opinion on benzodiazepines and barbiturates

[Mad Dash]

Well I live in Florida, which use to be the land of plenty... I mean I use to get a RX for 180 oxycodone 30 mg / 30 8 mg hydromorphone / 90 2 mg xanax / 60 soma PER MONTH. Filling the oxy and the hydro was so expensive I rarely filled the xanax because I just had SO much just SITTING around. Now ever since the pill mill mania you can't get a doctor to write a benzo if you actually needed it to stay alive sometimes. Like I said I am a veteran and I go to the VA and they are instituting a pretty much ZERO tolerance program when it comes to RXing benzos and opioids at the same time even if they are low dose and completely necessary. If it were not for me voluntarily telling the VA that I do not want to go on a easy to abuse painkiller like OXY and instead something I can take long term even if it does not do as much for the pain (subutex) I would not have got my 10 mg valium / day. I miss the days of plenty around here.

 

[modocmodoc]

Well I live in Florida, which use to be the land of plenty... I mean I use to get a RX for 180 oxycodone 30 mg / 30 8 mg hydromorphone / 90 2 mg xanax / 60 soma PER MONTH. Filling the oxy and the hydro was so expensive I rarely filled the xanax because I just had SO much just SITTING around. Now ever since the pill mill mania you can't get a doctor to write a benzo if you actually needed it to stay alive sometimes. Like I said I am a veteran and I go to the VA and they are instituting a pretty much ZERO tolerance program when it comes to RXing benzos and opioids at the same time even if they are low dose and completely necessary. If it were not for me voluntarily telling the VA that I do not want to go on a easy to abuse painkiller like OXY and instead something I can take long term even if it does not do as much for the pain (subutex) I would not have got my 10 mg valium / day. I miss the days of plenty around here.

Shitloads of rich aging retirees make for a land o' plenty.. you have your own special state regulations now and interlinked pharmacy records, which sucks if you're into getting lots of scripts.. but the supply's not going to go away.

I live in WI, and it's easier to get a CII on paper filled (they don't even check dates, as long as insurance covers) than a CIV from Walgreens.. it's like fucking pulliing teeth with them. They are 'cracking down' on CIVs, requiring ID, not letting other people pick them up, etc. They suck, they really really suck. This is just because I have been on clonazepam for a ridiculous amount of time (14 years) and I literally will die without those god damned pills (seizures). I should be up to my neck in double scripts for it but no, they won't fill earlier than two business days and shit.. you can take a CII in like 14 days early and they don't give a fuck.

Time to sqitch to CVS or something.. they probably suck just as much.

/rant

 

[Nom de Plume]

As I've said before, barbiturates are what benzodiazepines try and fail to be. In terms of anxiolysis, sedation, somnolence, euphoria, and essentially everything else benzodiazepines are to barbiturates as NSAIDS are to opioids in terms of analgesia, so to say.

Intravenous barbiturates are by far the most euphoric drugs I have ever tried. It is terribly unfortunate that barbiturates are so taboo nowadays, seeing as they're no more pernicious than any other so-called 'hard' drug and yet are exceptionally more rewarding as a stimulus.

Moreover, barbiturates are not difficult to obtain. It matters little if one wants secobarbital, amobarbital, methohexital, propallylonal, vinylbital, brophebarbital, or whatever—they're all easier to procure sans a prescription than, say, triazolam or nitrazepam or flunitrazepam or nimetazepam or any other worthwhile benzodiazepine.

Benzodiazepines are ineffective and difficult to make. On the other hand, barbiturates (and even quinazolinones, such as methaqualone or nitromethaqualone) are vastly more effective and incredibly easier to make. Barbiturates are only slightly more difficult for an untrained clandestine chemist to synthesise than is, say, methamphetamine; indeed, the level of difficulty involved is roughly the same as with MDMA.

Therefore, the drugs are as easy to obtain as one's motivation to obtain them is high.

 

[JackARoe]

I wish I could slap the moron who advocated benzodiazepines be promoted over barbs.

Funny you should say that. Growing up across the street from a friend of mine who's grandfather was a pharmacist we had plenty of access to all kinds of things. His mother would get prescribed meds for sleep. Reds, secobarital, yellows, amybarbital, and Tuinal which was a mix of the two if i remember correctly. We would munch these for fun. Then one day, early 1980's, his mother got switched to valium and we found it harder to have fun with them. I have not seen the barbs since. I did try phenobarbital from a friend who was an epileptic but that really didn't have any recreational value (1982). (this friend was moved to drugs like Dilantin after the medical profession realized maybe phenobarbarbital was not a good drug to take for epilepsy, and to date, 2015, he takes nothing and has no sign of epilepsy)

I think benzo's are good for people who need them but are in no way recreational. I will occasionally use one to come down from a trip. Not needing them for anxiety they do nothing if I take them other than a slight calm down. I do read all the reports of benzo withdrawal and feel for the people that got hooked on these unless they really needed them and had severe anxiety.

One last story. Back in the early 80's my family owned a few Texaco gas stations in Houston Texas. One time a car with a flat came in and two men didn't have any money. When I fixed their flat I asked if they had anything. So one of the guys opens the trunk to a suitcase. He opens that and a whole cascade of pill bottles were in there. Mostly barbs, quaaludes (Mandrax at that point, no more Lemons or Rorers 714's) and some dexedrine. So i stocked up and he got two free tires. The last time I ever saw a "barb". Apparently these two guys emptied a pharmacy and hit the road. I wish I had a picture of my face when he opened the suticase. :D

 

[Mycophile]

wow, I admire your will... I would have taken at the very least half of the bottle if not the whole thing. I mean if those things had been sitting around that long... they may have forgot they were even there. lol.

At least the old me would have. I have changed a lot since getting clean.

It wasn't will, it was fear that they would hurt me, especially since I was on daily Klonopin so at the time they probably would have.

I did take some Codeine pills from the very same box haha.

If I DO ever find them (if they still exist) I will probably take a few at least to have access to and then research them fully before deciding whether or not it is safe to take them.

 

[Mycophile]

As I've said before, barbiturates are what benzodiazepines try and fail to be. In terms of anxiolysis, sedation, somnolence, euphoria, and essentially everything else benzodiazepines are to barbiturates as NSAIDS are to opioids in terms of analgesia, so to say.

Intravenous barbiturates are by far the most euphoric drugs I have ever tried. It is terribly unfortunate that barbiturates are so taboo nowadays, seeing as they're no more pernicious than any other so-called 'hard' drug and yet are exceptionally more rewarding as a stimulus.

Moreover, barbiturates are not difficult to obtain. It matters little if one wants secobarbital, amobarbital, methohexital, propallylonal, vinylbital, brophebarbital, or whatever—they're all easier to procure sans a prescription than, say, triazolam or nitrazepam or flunitrazepam or nimetazepam or any other worthwhile benzodiazepine.

Benzodiazepines are ineffective and difficult to make. On the other hand, barbiturates (and even quinazolinones, such as methaqualone or nitromethaqualone) are vastly more effective and incredibly easier to make. Barbiturates are only slightly more difficult for an untrained clandestine chemist to synthesise than is, say, methamphetamine; indeed, the level of difficulty involved is roughly the same as with MDMA.

Therefore, the drugs are as easy to obtain as one's motivation to obtain them is high.

How are benzos ineffective?

Klonopin works WONDERS for me.

And despite your feeling that RECREATIONALLY barbs are more fun than benzos isn't it almost agreed upon across the board that Benzos are safer, at least in being less likely to result in death from respiratory depression??

Sounds to me like THERAPEUTICALLY benzos are far superior to barbs and that barbs are only better for recreation.

 

[Nom de Plume]

How are benzos ineffective?

Klonopin works WONDERS for me.

And despite your feeling that RECREATIONALLY barbs are more fun than benzos isn't it almost agreed upon across the board that Benzos are safer, at least in being less likely to result in death from respiratory depression??

Sounds to me like THERAPEUTICALLY benzos are far superior to barbs and that barbs are only better for recreation.

Erh, no.

The only advantage of benzodiazepines is their relatively wide therapeutic window. But in terms of practically everything else, barbiturates are superior. You've obviously never tried a barbiturate, and are therefore talking out of turn.

 

[Mycophile]

Erh, no.

The only advantage of benzodiazepines is their relatively wide therapeutic window. But in terms of practically everything else, barbiturates are superior. You've obviously never tried a barbiturate, and are therefore talking out of turn.

It's true I've never tried a barb, but I've read that they are easier to overdose on and easier to cause death from respiratory depression than benzos.

Is this incorrect?

Also, can a person using a barbiturate for THERAPEUTIC purposes take them daily and still remain lucid and able to drive, participate in sports, work, etc all while being functional and not stumbling around?

Perhaps they can and maybe you can answer that, but that is what I and many others can do on benzos like Klonopin.

I've always heard barbs to cause more CNS inhibition and to cause people to act more "drunk" and have less control over their bodies than benzos which IF true is obviously inferior therapeutically speaking.


But finally...benzos are DEFINITELY effective for some people...like myself.

Whether or not a barb would be MORE effective I cannot say obviously...but the statement that benzos are "ineffective" for everyone cannot help but be false.

I've always heard of benzos referred to as the safer alternative to barbs.

 

[Soulgasm]

It's true I've never tried a barb, but I've read that they are easier to overdose on and easier to cause death from respiratory depression than benzos.

Is this incorrect?

I believe this is what he's referring to by "wide therapeutic window". Barbs are more effective in the total annihilation of all anxiety and qualms but also many many times more dangerous, especially since it's virtually impossible to od on benzos alone. On the other hand, we have lost many beloved souls to barbiturate overdose (Jimi Hendrix, Marilyn Monroe, and Kenneth Williams just to name a few). Benzos are also easier for most to withdraw and taper from. Acute death resulting from barbiturate wd is much more likely than that resulting from benzo wd. I've heard about people still showing signs of barb wd over a decade after their last dose (crazy, I know). If you think habitual benzo use is a life sentence, barbs (and methaqualone for that matter) are many times worse.

 

[Mycophile]

I believe this is what he's referring to by "wide therapeutic window". Barbs are more effective in the total annihilation of all anxiety and qualms but also many many times more dangerous, especially since it's virtually impossible to od on benzos alone. On the other hand, we have lost many beloved souls to barbiturate overdose (Jimi Hendrix, Marilyn Monroe, and Kenneth Williams just to name a few). Benzos are also easier for most to withdraw and taper from. Acute death resulting from barbiturate wd is much more likely than that resulting from benzo wd. I've heard about people still showing signs of barb wd over a decade after their last dose (crazy, I know). If you think habitual benzo use is a life sentence, barbs (and methaqualone for that matter) are many times worse.

Ok, so he's basically wrong about barbiturates being so superior to Benzos in any area other than recreational effect.

 

[Nom de Plume]

It's true I've never tried a barb[...]

You openly confess to being ignorant and experientially ill-equipped to eructate from your mind some misinformed, nescient notion, as can be seen. And then you persist and insist upon its validity and veracity in direct opposition to the argument of more experienced and informed dissenters.

Is that not just an unreasonably daft sophism, but also a terribly temerarious and offensively cavalier sophism, at that?

To quote the inimitable Wittgenstein,

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

(English: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.)

And thus, you should be silent.

but I've read that they are easier to overdose on and easier to cause death from respiratory depression than benzos.

Is this incorrect?

No, it's not incorrect. Indeed, it is correct. But the validity or invalidity of the assumption is only as considerable as the assumption is topically relevant or irrelevant. In this case, the assumption is patently irrelevant,and hence the truth value of its premises are inconsiderable.

You have not hitherto demonstrated a logical connection between efficacy and toxicity. In fact, you could never demonstrate this; it's utterly indemonstrable

In point of fact, the size of a drug's therapeutic window is not to be conflated, confused, conceived, considered, connected, conjoined, or correlated with the puissance of its therapeutic effect.

Overdose potential is not a necessary and sufficient variable to equate therapeutic potential.

To put it succinctly, your adjunct assumption is undeniably correct, but incorrigibly extraneous as to the topic at hand.

That is to say, the truth of a premise does not necessarily guarantee the truth of its conclusion.

Also, can a person using a barbiturate for THERAPEUTIC purposes take them daily and still remain lucid and able to drive, participate in sports, work, etc all while being functional and not stumbling around?

The number and severity and likelihood of adverse effects for drug δ, relative to drug λ, has nothing to do with the degree that drug δ is a more (in) effective pharmacotherapy relative to λ.

For example, heroin has a greater likelihood, higher quantity, and greater severity of adverse effects than codeine. But one cannot logically conclude therefrom that codeine is thus a more effective analgesic than heroin. In this example, the absurdity of your contorted reasoning is more salient and pronounced.

Perhaps they can and maybe you can answer that, but that is what
I and many others can do on benzos like Klonopin.

Wonderful. You find clonazepam and other benzodiazepines effective for problems α, β, γ, and δ.

However, how can you argue that what you know is better than that about which you know all but absolutely nothing? You've never before tried a barbiturate, yet you feel it reasonable to accept the inane and untested notion that benzodiazepines are superior to them.

You're either egregiously misinformed, profoundly confused, unusually unintelligent, or all three.

I've always heard barbs to cause more CNS inhibition and to cause people to act more "drunk" and have less control over their bodies than benzos which IF true is obviously inferior therapeutically speaking.

Oy vey iz mir! That's not even wrong—it is so incalculably more extreme than being wrong, I lack the vocabulary to describe it. It is without a soupçon of sensibility and composed with less than a nanoscopic dearth of cogency.

It's as if you totally lack the cognitive coordination or perceptive proprioception to suitably construct and follow a train of thought.

Your trains of thoughts are tantamount to a meandering, malfunctioning locomotive driven without tracks by a dangerously drunken driver or comatose conductor.

For the love of Jesus fucking Christ, mate! The difference between a poison and a medicine is the dosage.

Benzodiazepines only exist as prescription drugs for treating anxiety, insomnia, etc. for the same reason as NSAIDS are prescribed in lieu of opioids for pain or antihistamines are prescribed in lieu of hypnotics for insomnia—they work just well enough to address the issue, but don't work nearly enough to most efficiently treat it.

Tylenol can't assuage the agony of a broken femur or bullet wound, but can relieve the minor pain accompanying tension headaches or paper cuts. Likewise, benzodiazepines are effective only inasmuch as the issue is mild or moderate; severe insomnia, debilitating anxiety, etc. do not respond remotely as well to benzodiazepines as to barbiturates.

Therapeutic potential for pharmacotherapies is a spectrum for each particular ailment, and it ranges from the mildly applicable to the nonpareil medicament.

The drug's ED50,LD50, dose-response curve, certain safety factor, IC50, or therapeutic index are thoroughly inconsequential for calculating the drug's therapeutic efficacy. That is to say, how well a drug works to treat condition X is not contingent on the toxicity or safety of the drug relative to the toxicity or safety of another drug.

But finally...benzos are DEFINITELY effective for some people...like myself.
Whether or not a barb would be MORE effective I cannot say obviously...but the statement that benzos are "ineffective" for everyone cannot help but be false.

Relative to barbiturates, benzodiazepines are ineffective. Also, enjoy the effectiveness of benzodiazepines while you're still sensitive enough to do so—their effectiveness happens to be an abnormally evanescent phenomenon.

And so, not only do benzodiazepines work less effectively than barbiturates, they are also such that, unlike the latter, they eventually lose essentially all effectiveness over a long enough time interval. Therefore, they're doubly ineffective (again, relatively speaking)

I've always heard of benzos referred to as the safer alternative to barbs.

I care not what one hears nor where they hear it if what is heard has all but absolutely nothing to do with anything broached in this conversion.

Case dismissed.

 

[Nom de Plume]

Ok, so he's basically wrong about barbiturates being so superior to Benzos in any area other than recreational effect.

As a pharmacotherapy, yes. If one's intent is death or hospitalisation, no. But I'm talking about pharmacotherapy and therapeutic potential. Your retort is riddled with fallacy: non sequitur, straw man argument, Chewbacca defense, moving the goal posts, ignoratio elenchi, and more red herring than an Isle of Man fish farm.

 

[spacejunk]

As this board is about harm reduction, I see no faults in Mycophile's argument.

 

[Mycophile]

You openly confess to being ignorant and experientially ill-equipped to eructate from your mind some misinformed, nescient notion, as can be seen. And then you persist and insist upon its validity and veracity in direct opposition to the argument of more experienced and informed dissenters.

Is that not just an unreasonably daft sophism, but also a terribly temerarious and offensively cavalier sophism, at that?

To quote the inimitable Wittgenstein,

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

(English: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.)

And thus, you should be silent.



No, it's not incorrect. Indeed, it is correct. But the validity or invalidity of the assumption is only as considerable as the assumption is topically relevant or irrelevant. In this case, the assumption is patently irrelevant,and hence the truth value of its premises are inconsiderable.

You have not hitherto demonstrated a logical connection between efficacy and toxicity. In fact, you could never demonstrate this; it's utterly indemonstrable

In point of fact, the size of a drug's therapeutic window is not to be conflated, confused, conceived, considered, connected, conjoined, or correlated with the puissance of its therapeutic effect.

Overdose potential is not a necessary and sufficient variable to equate therapeutic potential.

To put it succinctly, your adjunct assumption is undeniably correct, but incorrigibly extraneous as to the topic at hand.

That is to say, the truth of a premise does not necessarily guarantee the truth of its conclusion.



The number and severity and likelihood of adverse effects for drug δ, relative to drug λ, has nothing to do with the degree that drug δ is a more (in) effective pharmacotherapy relative to λ.

For example, heroin has a greater likelihood, higher quantity, and greater severity of adverse effects than codeine. But one cannot logically conclude therefrom that codeine is thus a more effective analgesic than heroin. In this example, the absurdity of your contorted reasoning is more salient and pronounced.




Wonderful. You find clonazepam and other benzodiazepines effective for problems α, β, γ, and δ.

However, how can you argue that what you know is better than that about which you know all but absolutely nothing? You've never before tried a barbiturate, yet you feel it reasonable to accept the inane and untested notion that benzodiazepines are superior to them.

You're either egregiously misinformed, profoundly confused, unusually unintelligent, or all three.




Oy vey iz mir! That's not even wrong—it is so incalculably more extreme than being wrong, I lack the vocabulary to describe it. It is without a soupçon of sensibility and composed with less than a nanoscopic dearth of cogency.

It's as if you totally lack the cognitive coordination or perceptive proprioception to suitably construct and follow a train of thought.

Your trains of thoughts are tantamount to a meandering, malfunctioning locomotive driven without tracks by a dangerously drunken driver or comatose conductor.

For the love of Jesus fucking Christ, mate! The difference between a poison and a medicine is the dosage.

Benzodiazepines only exist as prescription drugs for treating anxiety, insomnia, etc. for the same reason as NSAIDS are prescribed in lieu of opioids for pain or antihistamines are prescribed in lieu of hypnotics for insomnia—they work just well enough to address the issue, but don't work nearly enough to most efficiently treat it.

Tylenol can't assuage the agony of a broken femur or bullet wound, but can relieve the minor pain accompanying tension headaches or paper cuts. Likewise, benzodiazepines are effective only inasmuch as the issue is mild or moderate; severe insomnia, debilitating anxiety, etc. do not respond remotely as well to benzodiazepines as to barbiturates.

Therapeutic potential for pharmacotherapies is a spectrum for each particular ailment, and it ranges from the mildly applicable to the nonpareil medicament.

The drug's ED50,LD50, dose-response curve, certain safety factor, IC50, or therapeutic index are thoroughly inconsequential for calculating the drug's therapeutic efficacy. That is to say, how well a drug works to treat condition X is not contingent on the toxicity or safety of the drug relative to the toxicity or safety of another drug.




Relative to barbiturates, benzodiazepines are ineffective. Also, enjoy the effectiveness of benzodiazepines while you're still sensitive enough to do so—their effectiveness happens to be an abnormally evanescent phenomenon.

And so, not only do benzodiazepines work less effectively than barbiturates, they are also such that, unlike the latter, they eventually lose essentially all effectiveness over a long enough time interval. Therefore, they're doubly ineffective (again, relatively speaking)



I care not what one hears nor where they hear it if what is heard has all but absolutely nothing to do with anything broached in this conversion.

Case dismissed.

Ok, I'm not reading all that.

I've noticed you like to be overly wordy.

Why is it you feel the need to do that?

I also have a BA in Philosophy from an esteemed liberal arts school and an M.A. in English but there are times it's not called for to go that into depth.


You also seem overly argumentative and keep in mind that good writing skills do not necessarily equate to consciously trying to make yourself as difficult to understand as possible. To the contrary, many times the best writers are the most concise.

(Also, after taking benzos daily for 11 years they have no less efficacy for me so I don't feel their therapeutic potential is as fleeting as you say)


It still seems to me from what others have verified, that THERAPEUTICALLY speaking, benzos are better and easier to avoid overdose with, which was my entire point to begin with.

 

[Mycophile]

As this board is about harm reduction, I see no faults in Mycophile's argument.

Thanks.........

 

[I B Profane]

See here's how I see it. When barbiturates were first discovered, they were considered a miracle drug and prescribed like candy. Seriously, any ailment you had, barbs could fix it - anxiety, insomnia, acute and chronic pain, RLS, migraines, seizures, etc. They worked really well for a lot of various medicinal purposes.

Then they started killing people left and right. Or, what I should say is, people would abuse them, overdose and die (celebrity deaths like Jimi Hendrix and Marilyn Monroe are two that I can think of off the top of my head.) This isn't the drug's fault, it's definitely not wise for people to take unnecessarily large doses of barbs and/or combine them with CNS depressants. Also, barbiturate withdrawal is definitely shittier than benzo w/d, if you can believe it. Benzos are often prescribed to people attempting to taper from barbiturates - it is a terrible withdrawal that can sometimes be fatal. Benzos were essentially introduced as a safer alternative to barbiturates, a drug that helps with a lot of the same stuff that barbs do but has a lower toxicity.

All that being said, the only experience I have with barbiturates is having access to a full bottle of Phenobarbital last summer. Oh man, those were some great times. Phenobarbital feels like a longer lasting, much stronger version of Diazepam. Just total muscle relaxation and anxiety relief and they also provided some euphoria, which most benzos do not. Unfortunately, some of these barbs ended up in the wrong hands, one of my old dumbass friends (who I no longer associate with) ended up overdosing on too many barbs + CNS depressants at his fucking parent's house. There was a huge scene, cops, paramedics, everything. He did end up alive, but I guess if there's a lesson to be learned from this, it's that if you're going to take barbiturates you better fucking well know what you're doing.

Benzos work very well for their intended purpose, but there is no doubt in my mind that some people need barbiturates instead. I kind of wish barbs were easier to get a hold of, I'd be interested in trying some of the shorter acting ones. Seconal sounds really nice. But yeah, basically impossible to get a script for lol.

 

[Mycophile]

See here's how I see it. When barbiturates were first discovered, they were considered a miracle drug and prescribed like candy. Seriously, any ailment you had, barbs could fix it - anxiety, insomnia, acute and chronic pain, RLS, migraines, seizures, etc. They worked really well for a lot of various medicinal purposes.

Then they started killing people left and right. Or, what I should say is, people would abuse them, overdose and die (celebrity deaths like Jimi Hendrix and Marilyn Monroe are two that I can think of off the top of my head.) This isn't the drug's fault, it's definitely not wise for people to take unnecessarily large doses of barbs and/or combine them with CNS depressants. Also, barbiturate withdrawal is definitely shittier than benzo w/d, if you can believe it. Benzos are often prescribed to people attempting to taper from barbiturates - it is a terrible withdrawal that can sometimes be fatal. Benzos were essentially introduced as a safer alternative to barbiturates, a drug that helps with a lot of the same stuff that barbs do but has a lower toxicity.

All that being said, the only experience I have with barbiturates is having access to a full bottle of Phenobarbital last summer. Oh man, those were some great times. Phenobarbital feels like a longer lasting, much stronger version of Diazepam. Just total muscle relaxation and anxiety relief and they also provided some euphoria, which most benzos do not. Unfortunately, some of these barbs ended up in the wrong hands, one of my old dumbass friends (who I no longer associate with) ended up overdosing on too many barbs + CNS depressants at his fucking parent's house. There was a huge scene, cops, paramedics, everything. He did end up alive, but I guess if there's a lesson to be learned from this, it's that if you're going to take barbiturates you better fucking well know what you're doing.

Benzos work very well for their intended purpose, but there is no doubt in my mind that some people need barbiturates instead. I kind of wish barbs were easier to get a hold of, I'd be interested in trying some of the shorter acting ones. Seconal sounds really nice. But yeah, basically impossible to get a script for lol.

And it's because I have been reading the bold over and over from knowledgable people for years that I came to the conclusion I did even despite my admitted ignorance of what it is like to use barbiturates.

They sure as hell do sound fun though lol.

If I ever do find that bottle I'd discovered years ago I'm going to hold onto it for safe keeping...

 

[I B Profane]

And it's because I have been reading the bold over and over from knowledgable people for years that I came to the conclusion I did even despite my admitted ignorance of what it is like to use barbiturates.

They sure as hell do sound fun though lol.

If I ever do find that bottle I'd discovered years ago I'm going to hold onto it for safe keeping...

They certainly do feel nice if you use them cautiously then yeah man go for it. I was able to come across a Phenobarbital bottle (from the 80's or 90's) that was prescribed to my friend's dog, haha. The dog had been dead for like a decade, so I didn't feel bad about taking the dog's meds lol. If you ever come across barbs, basically expect just like...superbenzos :D similar to benzos, just way more potent and more all around good feels.

 

[Nom de Plume]

Nobody has taken a barbiturate, yet everybody is a soi-disant maven on everything anent barbiturates.

None of you know-it-all oafs know jack shit about anything of import. What the fuck your fusillade of flummery and piffle has got to do with the price of Tuinal in Thailand (to coin a phrase) is the only thing all you ostensible mavens of medicine (not to mention feux philosophy majors) and self-assured know-it-all troglodytes don't seem to know (or, as per usual, pretend to know) all about.

The majority of you wouldn't know a barbiturate if one sat on your face.

So, can we do some culling of the herd here, please? Any self-proclaimed expert on barbiturates that hasn't so much as been within a 5-mile radius of one, please dismiss yourself quietly and hope your pageantry of risible, vicariously-embarrassing, grody pretension will bury itself under the bodies of an influx of other threads, as a kind of shame-induced cyberspatial seppuku.

Let this die with some dignity, at least. As with every thread about barbiturates, the discussion invariably grows precariously unbalanced under the cumbrous weight of throgs of mush-headed pseudo-experts traipsing in to defecate their two-cents worth of noxious twaddle on the deck of the podium, and indefatigably stupid neophytes with no idea they aren't right about anything or everything they happen to shit out opinions about.

 

[jammin83]

Nobody has taken a barbiturate, yet everybody is a soi-disant maven on everything anent barbiturates.

None of you know-it-all oafs know jack shit about anything of import. What the fuck your fusillade of flummery and piffle has got to do with the price of Tuinal in Thailand (to coin a phrase) is the only thing all you ostensible mavens of medicine (not to mention feux philosophy majors) and self-assured know-it-all troglodytes don't seem to know (or, as per usual, pretend to know) all about.

The majority of you wouldn't know a barbiturate if one sat on your face.

So, can we do some culling of the herd here, please? Any self-proclaimed expert on barbiturates that hasn't so much as been within a 5-mile radius of one, please dismiss yourself quietly and hope your pageantry of risible, vicariously-embarrassing, grody pretension will bury itself under the bodies of an influx of other threads, as a kind of shame-induced cyberspatial seppuku.

Let this die with some dignity, at least. As with every thread about barbiturates, the discussion invariably grows precariously unbalanced under the cumbrous weight of throgs of mush-headed pseudo-experts traipsing in to defecate their two-cents worth of noxious twaddle on the deck of the podium, and indefatigably stupid neophytes with no idea they aren't right about anything or everything they happen to shit out opinions about.

Quit using big words! This is a drug board dammit!