What ever happened to PCP?

[JackARoe]

I believe Philadelphia still has it. It did when I lived in a suburb of Philly and a vice article about PCP in Philly.

Like in the documentary Angel Death in the 70's. I mean that even scared me, a drug user. But yeah when I was in high school the stuff was everywhere in the NYC burbs. Especially NJ.

 

[Delmonte421]

I believe Philadelphia still has it. It did when I lived in a suburb of Philly and a vice article about PCP in Philly. Warning: You might end up naked and fighting a dozen cops.

If your in Philly and you not wet then your in kensington getting tranq'd up

TURN DOWN FOR WHAT

 

[phoenixk9]

James Brown high on PCP on CNN 1988:

What in the actual fck did I just watch lol.
Its so weird to see something like this on national tv as this guy would be super cancelled today lol.

 

[MedicinalUser247]

If your going to try any form of PCP, PCPy is the way to go. It's much more like Ketamine. You think your in a dream when your on it. Just try to remember that it's reality and don't do any stupid shit.

 

[paranoid android]

My friend in Australia gets loads of pcp so it's still around for sure. I think the reason for its bad rep is because of mostly fake stories from the 80's and 90's of people on pcp fighting off like 10 cops and shit. Most of those stories where due to psychosis or where entirely made up.

From what ive heard about pcp your not realy going to take on one person and win never mind 10 fucking people. No drug is gonna turn you into bruce lee anyway thats just horse shit

 

[brokedownpalace10]

My friend in Australia gets loads of pcp so it's still around for sure. I think the reason for its bad rep is because of mostly fake stories from the 80's and 90's of people on pcp fighting off like 10 cops and shit. Most of those stories where due to psychosis or where entirely made up.

From what ive heard about pcp your not realy going to take on one person and win never mind 10 fucking people. No drug is gonna turn you into bruce lee anyway thats just horse shit

You'll get wasted, and since it's an anesthetic, feeling no pain, literally. So if you do fight the cops, 10 or not, you'll keep fighting since it doesn't hurt... until later.
They used it as an anesthetic, like they could operate on you, until they found it didn't keep people down well enough. They'd be up after the surgery wandering around, agitated.
So, that kind of explains that. Do enough and you're out, but mobile and not feeling pain.

 

[unodelacosa]

Warning: You might end up naked and fighting a dozen cops.

Fake news. The media loves sensationalizing drug stories, and the "superhuman" trope has become a cliche used over and over on different drugs depending on the time and context. Cocaine, Meth, Crack, K2, MDPV, α-PVP and even Cannabis have all been accused of the same shit: made the user impervious to pain, capable of "superhuman" strength and feats whilst taking on a dozen or more police and not even stopping after being shot, etc. Don't believe that misleading horseshit that masquerades as journalism. Sure there are real instances of people losing their minds while under the influence of mind-altering drugs. Never did anyone suddenly have "superhuman strength". Adrenaline is a powerful thing, but it's very human still.

Bottom line is: for the vast majority of people, you're only gonna be fighting cops if that's your modus operandi. This isn't just playing semantics. This is about dispelling myths and seeking truth. Res ipsa loquitur.

You'll get wasted, and since it's an anesthetic, feeling no pain, literally. So if you do fight the cops, 10 or not, you'll keep fighting since it doesn't hurt... until later.

This is reductionist at best. "You'll keep fighting since it doesn't hurt" ← then the same would hold true of all anesthesia; let's not be ridiculous.

They used it as an anesthetic, like they could operate on you,

Yes, it is still classified as a schedule II drug, in fact, though they no longer manufacture it. And yes, it is an anesthesia. If you take too much, you'll pass out, because Sernyl will fully anesthetize any mammal.

until they found it didn't keep people down well enough.

Yes it does, the issue is when the drug is wearing off and still leaving your system but consciousness comes back. For a small percent of people, they become very agitated. And for a smaller percent of those folks, they respond violently at times, unpredictably, and because the drug is not also a sedative, like ketamine, but only an anesthetic dissociative, the user's limbs remain quite mobile. This could sometimes go poorly, but again, to emphasize, this happens to some people, but they are in a small percentage minority to the point of it being quite uncommon to have this kind of response.

So, that kind of explains that.

Kind of, but not really. It's important that people realize that most people will never respond to PCP this way. It's only a small subset who have that response and an even smaller subset who actually cause any harm or commit other crimes while under the influence. But that's the myth, the stereotype, the FUD that gets spread regarding PCP. It's really lame that people are so easily mislead by sensationalist journalism.

Do enough and you're out, but mobile and not feeling pain.

Oversimplify everything and you'll miss out on some of life's rare, profound, and misunderstood gems.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

You'll get wasted, and since it's an anesthetic, feeling no pain, literally. So if you do fight the cops, 10 or not, you'll keep fighting since it doesn't hurt... until later.

This is reductionist at best. "You'll keep fighting since it doesn't hurt" ← then the same would hold true of all anesthesia; let's not be ridiculous.

What's the matter with being reductionist? (simplifying)
Yes. that would be true of any anesthesia. But, as said, you're more mobile on PCP. Thus the "superhuman strength fighting 10 cops" myth.
It is a myth. I was trying to say that, unclearly I suppose.
I do agree with most of what you said. PCP being what it is, cops are gonna have people predisposed to violence being violent on it. Same is true of alcohol, but they're used to that.

I do know lot's of people who liked PCP a lot. It was not a favorite, myself. Still done it a bunch of times, though.

 

[unodelacosa]

What's the matter with being reductionist? (simplifying)

The term is a pejorative/derogatory as the implication is that the argument is being overly simplistic and leads to misunderstanding and stereotyping while reducing otherwise important nuance and complexity. I didn't make this sense up. If you look up the definition, well:

"reductionist | rəˈdəkSHənəst | often derogatory, noun: a person who analyzes and describes a complex phenomenon in terms of its simple or fundamental constituents: a crude reductionist. adjective: analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of its simple or fundamental constituents: a reductionist approach that leads to stereotyping."​

It is unwise and dismissive to treat complex issues as though they're simplistic. And there is a difference between things being "simple" – which is good – and things being "simplistic" – which can be insultingly bad.

Yes. that would be true of any anesthesia. But, as said, you're more mobile on PCP. Thus the "superhuman strength fighting 10 cops" myth.
It is a myth. I was trying to say that, unclearly I suppose.

Yes, it's definitely a myth. Also, by definition, humans are not capable of "superhuman" feats. Hence the term: superhuman. It implies supernatural abilities. Look, my point is: not everyone realizes the hyperbole. People read this kinda shit and even though it's been explained that these sort of occurrences are very rare and not likely to happen, there are ppl out there who think that these are the de facto effects of the drug, that if they or anyone happens to take PCP, there's no avoiding it – that person will definitely go crazy and fight cops, every single time, no question. This is obviously false, but it isn't obvious to everyone, especially when it gets mentioned EVERY TIME the drug is talked about, particularly by ppl who lack experience with the drug. Most ppl cannot even tell you what the effects of PCP are. They just have it tied into fighting the cops in their heads, and I'm here to say this is fucking stupid, willfully ignorant and irksome. Nothing against anyone personally, and I've heard smart ppl espouse this belief, mind you, I just mean that the argument itself is bereft of intelligence and lacks insight.

I do agree with most of what you said. PCP being what it is, cops are gonna have people predisposed to violence being violent on it.

Sometimes, though not necessarily. Please don't think this is an unavoidable consequence… Also: this whole line of thinking stems from racism. It's why cocaine was made illegal. There is an old myth/legend about the "drug-crazed negro with a lust for white women who cannot be stopped with bullets." The fear started with cocaine and jazz musicians in Harlem circa the 1930s, and in time this fear spread to other drugs popular in Black communities. It's fear-mongering racism meant to control, oppress, and subdue minorities in the U.S. Don't fall for the propaganda.

Same is true of alcohol, but they're used to that.

They're used to PCP in certain neighborhoods, too. And the alcohol comment is true and only further proves my point that 95% of the fear tied to PCP is unwarranted.

I do know lot's of people who liked PCP a lot. It was not a favorite, myself. Still done it a bunch of times, though.

Different strokes for different folks.

Regarding "reductionist" – do be aware that this term is not a compliment and it is considered to be a negative, derogatory term. I mean, I know what you're saying – I feel this way about the word "opportunist". They tell you when you're a teenager "you have to seize opportunities when they present themselves in life." So it's like, well then isn't being an "opportunist" a good thing? No, it's meant to convey someone who exploits and takes advantage of others for their own personal gain. It implies opportunities at others' expense. Reductionist means the argument is overly reductive and stereotyping.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

The term is a pejorative/derogatory as the implication is that the argument is being overly simplistic and leads to misunderstanding and stereotyping while reducing otherwise important nuance and complexity. I didn't make this sense up. If you look up the definition, well:

"reductionist | rəˈdəkSHənəst | often derogatory, noun: a person who analyzes and describes a complex phenomenon in terms of its simple or fundamental constituents: a crude reductionist. adjective: analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of its simple or fundamental constituents: a reductionist approach that leads to stereotyping."​

It is unwise and dismissive to treat complex issues as though they're simplistic. And there is a difference between things being "simple" – which is good – and things being "simplistic" – which can be insultingly bad.


Yes, it's definitely a myth. Also, by definition, humans are not capable of "superhuman" feats. Hence the term: superhuman. It implies supernatural abilities. Look, my point is: not everyone realizes the hyperbole. People read this kinda shit and even though it's been explained that these sort of occurrences are very rare and not likely to happen, there are ppl out there who think that these are the de facto effects of the drug, that if they or anyone happens to take PCP, there's no avoiding it – that person will definitely go crazy and fight cops, every single time, no question. This is obviously false, but it isn't obvious to everyone, especially when it gets mentioned EVERY TIME the drug is talked about, particularly by ppl who lack experience with the drug. Most ppl cannot even tell you what the effects of PCP are. They just have it tied into fighting the cops in their heads, and I'm here to say this is fucking stupid, willfully ignorant and irksome. Nothing against anyone personally, and I've heard smart ppl espouse this belief, mind you, I just mean that the argument itself is bereft of intelligence and lacks insight.


Sometimes, though not necessarily. Please don't think this is an unavoidable consequence… Also: this whole line of thinking stems from racism. It's why cocaine was made illegal. There is an old myth/legend about the "drug-crazed negro with a lust for white women who cannot be stopped with bullets." The fear started with cocaine and jazz musicians in Harlem circa the 1930s, and in time this fear spread to other drugs popular in Black communities. It's fear-mongering racism meant to control, oppress, and subdue minorities in the U.S. Don't fall for the propaganda.


They're used to PCP in certain neighborhoods, too. And the alcohol comment is true and only further proves my point that 95% of the fear tied to PCP is unwarranted.


Different strokes for different folks.

Regarding "reductionist" – do be aware that this term is not a compliment and it is considered to be a negative, derogatory term. I mean, I know what you're saying – I feel this way about the word "opportunist". They tell you when you're a teenager "you have to seize opportunities when they present themselves in life." So it's like, well then isn't being an "opportunist" a good thing? No, it's meant to convey someone who exploits and takes advantage of others for their own personal gain. It implies opportunities at others' expense. Reductionist means the argument is overly reductive and stereotyping.

I'm aware of the definition and implication of reductionist.
I'm also aware of how many drugs have been associated with violence due not only to racism but also the financial advantages to the powers that be of creating a drug scare People trying to get out of bad behavior in court by blaming it on a drug is also a factor.

However, is is definitely a fact that someone on an anesthetic and feeling no pain might possibly be a little harder to arrest and subdue when that becomes necessary. Particularly when that anesthetic results in someone being more ambulatory than other anesthetics.

So, I totally agree with the "superhuman strength" thing being a myth. I was just trying to explain one reason it came into being. You have also cited other factors which have contributed to the myth. I agree with you on them.
However, to say those are the only factors might be reductionist.

 

[unodelacosa]

People trying to get out of bad behavior in court by blaming it on a drug is also a factor.

Definitely a factor.

However, is is definitely a fact that someone on an anesthetic and feeling no pain might possibly be a little harder to arrest and subdue when that becomes necessary.

"When"? ☜ Again, you make it sound like it's an inevitability. I've done PCP dozens of times; never once was arrested on it. Never even did anything stupid on it, though it is obliterating. In fact, for me at least, PCP would not help me fight off anyone. I like to listen to music, sit and reflect. Or I can get absorbed into a really good film.

Also, unless I'm completely anesthetized, I still feel pain when I'm on PCP. Yes, being on a sub-(full-)anesthetic dose while being shot is likely preferable—in terms of pain-management anyway—but that's an extremely unlikely scenario for the majority of us. I also have never felt rage or agitation on it. I'm usually really calm and I have a sense of acceptance. YMMV, but I'm just saying, that's my experiences with it.

Regardless, yes, someone out of their mind on any drug causing agitated delirium is probably going to be fundamentally problematic, particularly—as you pointed out—if said drug is ambulatory (nice word, btw!). It's just that most people do not go into drug-induced psychosis immediately upon using PCP. If that were the case, no one would use it. A good example of a terrible drug like that would be EA-3167. Now that is a drug I have zero interest in encountering. It sounds like a two-week-long non-stop nightmare of sheer confusion and terror that some people don't seem to fully recover from afterward due to the PTSD and lingering, persistent effects. Better than getting shot by the cops though, which absolutely 100% happens every time I use PCP, lol. It just makes me a bullet magnet. Wouldn't that be a fucked up side-effect?

But it makes for such fun, 1980s folklore, doesn't it?

"Huh, word to mother, I'm dangerous /​

Crazier than a bag of fucking angel dust /​

When I bust my gat, motherfuckers take dirt naps /​

I'm all that and a dime sack, where the paper at?"​

So, I totally agree with the "superhuman strength" thing being a myth. I was just trying to explain one reason it came into being. You have also cited other factors which have contributed to the myth. I agree with you on them.

Cool, bc yes, there are multiple factors behind the myth's existence. I agree. But—as a myth—it's still fiction and worth being pointed out as such.

However, to say those are the only factors might be reductionist.

That's my point, essentially. When you cherry pick the reasons for the myth like this, it implies an undue focus and out-of-proportion emphasis on the small percentage of people with dormant mental illness who should stay away from recreational drugs altogether, particularly psychedelics and dissociatives. But just bc not everything is for everybody doesn't mean we should therefore criminalize those things.

Let's re-legalize drugs, end prohibition, and defund the law enforcement agencies centered around these drug laws (like DEA and similar). We'll use that money to open addiction treatment clinics and start a massive, honest PSA campaign to better educate the public.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

someone on an anesthetic and feeling no pain might possibly be a little harder to arrest and subdue

Again, you make it sound like it's an inevitability.

But, did I?

 

[Mjäll]

Of course not, you wrote "might" and even added "possibly".

 

[unodelacosa]

But, did I?

Yes, I think so, though we're playing semantics now it seems. This is the statement I was referring to… you said (emphasis mine):

"someone on an anesthetic and feeling no pain might possibly be a little harder to arrest and subdue when that becomes necessary."

Now consider the revision:

"someone on an anesthetic and feeling no pain might possibly be a little harder to arrest and subdue if that were to become necessary."

Does that make sense? And I know you know what's up, I'm just trying to prevent people from stereotyping PCP so hard.

Res ipsa loquitur.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Yes, I think so, though we're playing semantics now it seems. This is the statement I was referring to… you said (emphasis mine):


Now consider the revision:

Does that make sense? And I know you know what's up, I'm just trying to prevent people from stereotyping PCP so hard.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Wow. Did you stretch before that reach? By your logic, I am saying that arresting and subduing is necessary every single time someone takes PCP. It's pretty obvious I was not saying that, don't you think? Context does matter. It's obvious I meant "when it does" become necessary.

 

[unodelacosa]

Wow. Did you stretch before that reach?

That's a good line. I'm gonna have to start using that IRL. Cheers for that.

By your logic, I am saying that arresting and subduing is necessary every single time someone takes PCP.

Of course I know you don't really think that. It's super obviously not the case. But my point isn't just to be pedantic (which I admit I can be at times), but it's the uninformed Bluelighter who might read this comment and take it that way. Most drug-taking folks I know have this intense fear of PCP and it's a real shame bc the drug has some powerfully insightful properties, in my opinion and experiences, and as a tool for self-exploration, I wish more people could experience these positive benefits. Instead PCP just always gets shit on by people who have never even done it and don't even know what the effects are in the first place.

It's pretty obvious I was not saying that, don't you think?

No to everyone, no, which is why I took the time to comment on it. Believe me, it is not my intention to insult you, and I have nothing but respect for your intellect and knowledge. Please don't read this as a reflection of you or your thoughts. I just wanted to clarify that bit about PCP's potential to be beneficial, even if it's not medically appropriate as an anesthetic due to some of its rare but severely adverse side-effects.

Context does matter. It's obvious I meant "when it does" become necessary.

Lol, I think you mean "if it does" become necessary. "When" denotes inevitability while "if" denotes that this outcome is only a possibility; other outcomes can occur, or in the case of PCP, usually other outcomes besides arrest occur, obviously. Right, so I guess now I'm being pedantic a bit. You'll have to excuse me for being such a sperglord with spectrum-y obsessions. Again, I'm saying this with friendly intentions; I hope that's coming through, and I'm not just appearing to be a real prick over semantics or whatever…

 

[brokedownpalace10]

That's a good line. I'm gonna have to start using that IRL. Cheers for that.


Of course I know you don't really think that. It's super obviously not the case. But my point isn't just to be pedantic (which I admit I can be at times), but it's the uninformed Bluelighter who might read this comment and take it that way. Most drug-taking folks I know have this intense fear of PCP and it's a real shame bc the drug has some powerfully insightful properties, in my opinion and experiences, and as a tool for self-exploration, I wish more people could experience these positive benefits. Instead PCP just always gets shit on by people who have never even done it and don't even know what the effects are in the first place.


No to everyone, no, which is why I took the time to comment on it. Believe me, it is not my intention to insult you, and I have nothing but respect for your intellect and knowledge. Please don't read this as a reflection of you or your thoughts. I just wanted to clarify that bit about PCP's potential to be beneficial, even if it's not medically appropriate as an anesthetic due to some of its rare but severely adverse side-effects.


Lol, I think you mean "if it does" become necessary. "When" denotes inevitability while "if" denotes that this outcome is only a possibility; other outcomes can occur, or in the case of PCP, usually other outcomes besides arrest occur, obviously. Right, so I guess now I'm being pedantic a bit. You'll have to excuse me for being such a sperglord with spectrum-y obsessions. Again, I'm saying this with friendly intentions; I hope that's coming through, and I'm not just appearing to be a real prick over semantics or whatever…

Wow.

"The phrase 'when it is needed' is correct and usable in written English. You can use it to refer to an action that should only be done in certain situations. For example, "We can provide extra assistance when it is needed.""

https://ludwig.guru/s/when+it+is+needed

Before you get going again.

https://www.thesaurus.com › browse › needed

"needed · desired · essential · necessary · required · vital. "


You obviously just like to argue. Myself? Just when it is necessary.

 

[unodelacosa]

Wow.

"The phrase 'when it is needed' is correct and usable in written English. You can use it to refer to an action that should only be done in certain situations. For example, "We can provide extra assistance when it is needed.""

Nope, you missed my point entirely. This wasn't the argument.

https://ludwig.guru/s/when+it+is+needed

Before you get going again.

https://www.thesaurus.com › browse › needed

"needed · desired · essential · necessary · required · vital. "

Uh huh. What is this supposed to be evidence of something?

You obviously just like to argue. Myself? Just when it is necessary.

Oh ok. You've never heard someone say: "it's not a matter of if but when."? You know like, "not if, but when you realize I'm right, pls let me know."

Again, I'm just aiming for clarity. If you don't think "when" implies an inevitable outcome eventually, then Idk what to tell ya. I'll be over here rewriting all my "if" loops into "when" loops in javascript…

But since we're quoting things now, I searched Google for: "what is the difference between when and if". Here's what I found (emphasis mine):

"We use if to introduce a possible or unreal situation or condition. We use when to refer to the time of a future situation or condition that we are certain of."​

Cambridge Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/if-or-when​

​

"When needed" and "if needed" are two different concepts. Though similar, they have different logical implications. But whatever, I'm cool with just disagreeing, it's not a big deal. And no – I don't like arguing, but if you insist on playing semantics, well, you may be a master debater but I'm a cunning linguist

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Nope, you missed my point entirely. This wasn't the argument.


Uh huh. What is this supposed to be evidence of something?


Oh ok. You've never heard someone say: "it's not a matter of if but when."? You know like, "not if, but when you realize I'm right, pls let me know."

Again, I'm just aiming for clarity. If you don't think "when" implies an inevitable outcome eventually, then Idk what to tell ya. I'll be over here rewriting all my "if" loops into "when" loops in javascript…

But since we're quoting things now, I searched Google for: "what is the difference between when and if". Here's what I found (emphasis mine):

"We use if to introduce a possible or unreal situation or condition. We use when to refer to the time of a future situation or condition that we are certain of."​

Cambridge Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/if-or-when​

​

"When needed" and "if needed" are two different concepts. Though similar, they have different logical implications. But whatever, I'm cool with just disagreeing, it's not a big deal. And no – I don't like arguing, but if you insist on playing semantics, well, you may be a master debater but I'm a cunning linguist

Mmm hm. I'm supposed to take an enema when needed. Guess I better take one every day now. No chance of me never needing one again, darn.

Really, man. Argue with someone else. I've seen you do it... when you want to.

 

[Oldman Liver]

I always thought crack and now tranq and fentanyl supplanted PCP. And also, I'm sure someone has mentioned it, but I noticed
there is some research chemical ACO or MEO PCP or something you can get these days. From a trip report, it sounded similar to regular PCP, iirc.

I grew up in kind of hoodsy scene, but my friends and I were into pot and acid, we did not want to get dusted, no way, as they referred
to being high on PCP, no way. I like Xorkon's comment near the beginning of this thread that people were probably smoking way too much
and maybe it might be interesting to revisit at a much lower dosage. I can see that, but no thanks not for me. That shit was like the bane of the pot smoking scene where I was. This poor nerdy Japanese-American friend of mine was killed after she got too many hits off a dust dipped
joint or however they put it in there. She took her clothes off, a typical too high on dust kind of a thing to do, and ran out of the party into fast moving and heavy traffic and was run over and killed just like some animal. I probably already told that story on here somewhere.

I'm pretty sure I got dusted inadvertantly twice in high school, maybe a third time while at school, smoked what I thought was hash oil and blasted off out of my body and lay for awhile paralized on the lawn at school where everyone used to smoke and eat lunch and what not.
Another time was with some middle class white kids that i didn't know at all and I caught a lift to a Yes concert with, they seemed really together, very hip and hooked up so it makes no sense that there was dust in the joint we smoked in the car going back home after the concert. But after three or four good hits I experienced the light in the interior of the car begin strobing and out of the periphery of my vision, it seemed, I could see my arms being raised up and down as though I were a kid lying in the snow making angel wings in the snow, but at the same time I knew that wasn't the case, my arms were motionless at my side and my hands in my lap but that persisted for like 10-15 minutes or so. very disconcerting and unpleasant, freaked my ass out big time for a few days. A lot of people I told that to said that sounded like there was dust in that joint for sure, and I have to say i have never had that kin dof experience just from smoking weed. It was not pleasant, the strobing was quite intense.