• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Dozens hospitalized in NYC for apparent K2 overdoses

PriestTheyCalledHim

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
14,724
Research chemicals are garbage; but some people want to become lab rats.

CBS News said:
Dozens hospitalized in NYC for apparent K2 overdoses

NEW YORK -- Police said at least 33 people were hospitalized Tuesday after showing signs of overdosing on synthetic marijuana in Brooklyn, CBS New York reported.

The incident happened in the neighborhood of Bedford-Stuyvesant, in the same area where the station reported on the problem last month.

CBS New York reported that police rushed Tuesday from one street corner to another, finding people strung out on K2 synthetic marijuana, also known as "spice."

Victims were slumped over on the sidewalk with blank stares, some barely standing, others strapped on to stretchers.

The scene was so bad that Bed-Stuy resident Brian Arthur started live streaming it on his Facebook page.

"As I was walking up a block, I see anybody laying out on the floor, and everybody's just stumbling all over the place," Arthur said. "It looked like a scene out of a zombie movie."

Walter Quinones was standing on the street when he saw people start dropping. Right next to him was a wooden sign that someone has painted reading, "No smoking K2."

"They were pouring out in the street. It was like something out of a movie man, horror movie," Quinones told WCBS Radio. "It reminded me of the crack epidemic when it first came out, you know, but this was like more worse. They were just dropping."

The dramatic scene unfolded on Stockton Street and Lewis Avenue near a community garden and then spilled onto busy Broadway, across the street from a deli police say they raided for selling K2 after CBS New York did a story a few weeks ago.

A man at the deli denied the store was raided, before kicking a CBS New York crew out of the store.

Neighbors say the K2 problem is getting worse in the neighborhood.

"In previous years, you might see the same five or 10 guys around, and now it's five new guys every half-hour walking around smoking it," said Bed-Stuy resident Jason Reis. "So I think a lot more people are flocking to this area. There's a store in this neighborhood that's one of the only stores, from what I understand, in New York City that's selling K2."

"Sometimes I think that these people around here are going to do something that they don't want to do, and it kind of freaks me out," said 10-year-old Julio Montesdeoca.

The NYPD says because K2 recipes change constantly, some ingredients aren't illegal, so it's difficult to crack down on the dangerous drug. The Police Department added that synthetic pot is still not included in penal law. It can be illegal under federal law if it is made using a controlled substance.

"What K2 does is puts you in a world, a delusional world, have your mind spinning," said Andrew, who said he's used synthetic marijuana. "It's mind altering."

"It's very sad," resident David Marcao said of the situation. "These people are sick."

Police say they will continue the raids in the neighborhood until they can control the problem.

Article link:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/do...r-apparent-k2-overdoses/ar-BBuhkqU?li=BBnb7Kz
 
K2 is fucked, goddam prohibition and the court system for putting me in that position.

When NY legalizes cannabis they'll see less of it. I don't hear any stories coming out of Skid Row about K2... cause they're on meth but still.
 
You don't hear about this shit happening where we have legal weed! Damn government needs to get their act together.
 
Define Research Chemicals

Some RC's are awesome, but as the man watches these boards I decided to stop taking about them. I would stay away from all synth noids though as they are all garbage.
 
I read about this yesterday, apparently it was akin to some kind of zombie apocalypse. I wonder which nasty cannibinoid was responsible? Some of them can be real hardcore, I ended up fitting on the kitchen floor after a bong once. Wasn't pleasant in the slightest, I was mashed beyond belief and all I could do was lie there convulsing wondering what the fuck had happened. Luckily noone found me there and after 45 minutes it wore off as suddenly as it hit. The chem was AK-2201 IIRC.. It only took a pinch of the stuff to end up that way, too.

Stick with the real deal!
 
Define Research Chemicals

Can't tell if trolling or serious?...

The term "research chemicals" generally refers to psychoactive substances which have not yet been legally classified. They are often some kind of analog of a controlled substance. They have little to no safety testing, in animals or humans. Many of the psychedelic ones were first created by Alexander Shulgin.

If you'd gone on URBAN DICTIONARY and searched, their entries are mostly Shulgin-centered. Today's internet RC culture also encompasses cathinones (bath salts), benzos, and opioids.
 
Can't tell if trolling or serious?...

The term "research chemicals" generally refers to psychoactive substances which have not yet been legally classified. They are often some kind of analog of a controlled substance. They have little to no safety testing, in animals or humans. Many of the psychedelic ones were first created by Alexander Shulgin.

If you'd gone on URBAN DICTIONARY and searched, their entries are mostly Shulgin-centered. Today's internet RC culture also encompasses cathinones (bath salts), benzos, and opioids.


You say
Research chemicals are garbage; but some people want to become lab rats

That's tarring thousands upon thousands of compounds with the same sweeping brush, ridiculous and totally wrong.

What would you classify 2-cb, 2-ce, Mephedrone as?
 
There are some good research chemicals. Shulgin made sure a virtual bible was written to guide our way on a journey that could very well cure quite a few mental disorders.

As the war on drugs grinds on, and grinds many under its oppressive wheels, there will be people trying to capitalize on the misery it causes. The oldest synthetic noids were actually not dangerous...however we have lost our way from the original compounds and profits has trumped safety. Can you think of any other industries this has happened in?
 
Ah, PIHKAL and THIKAL, fantastic reads. I guess all chemicals were RCs at one point. The chemicals we're seeing today are the sorry byproduct of man's greed combined with the idiotic 'war on drugs'. The sooner people realise that's a war that cannot be won, the better.
 
You say


That's tarring thousands upon thousands of compounds with the same sweeping brush, ridiculous and totally wrong.

What would you classify 2-cb, 2-ce, Mephedrone as?

2-CB, 2-CD, Mephedrone, etc. are all research chemicals.

My opinion about RCs and people who take them is not ridiculous or totally wrong. But you're just trolling.

This quote sums up Research chems and people into them nicely:
LOL yeah. "This drug was literally just invented a couple years ago, but don't worry, it's completely safe!"
 
2-CB, 2-CD, Mephedrone, etc. are all research chemicals.

My opinion about RCs and people who take them is not ridiculous or totally wrong. But you're just trolling.

This quote sums up Research chems and people into them nicely:

Erm, no, just because I called you out on baseless claims does not make me a troll. I just research the subjects I comment on and you're completely wrong.

All of the chemicals you just listed as research chemicals have been around for years so that blows your uninformed opinion out of the water.

2C-B or 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine is a psychedelic drug of the 2C family. It was first synthesized by Alexander Shulgin in 1974

Mephedrone was first synthesised in 1929

2-CD was first synthesized in 1970 by a team from the Texas Research Institute

So yeah, you're wrong
 
In general I tend to agree that people who use RC's are essentially human guinea pigs. Don't get me wrong, I have used RC's, and I have abused more traditional drugs to the point they have caused me damage. I am not judging anybody.

It is fairly arbitrary to cite the date that mephedrone or any other RC was first synthesised. I realise you are directly responding to the claim that these drugs were only synthesised a few years ago, but the point I am trying to make is the date they were first synthesised is largely immaterial.

Unless there have been a good number of studies conducted on the long-term impact they have on human health then their potential impact on users is still an open question. I don't know for a fact that these studies haven't been conducted, but I am not aware of them. If you want to show that people who take certain RC's aren't taking an unnecessary gamble with their health you need to cite some studies that show their safety profile is similar to that of traditional drugs with comparable effects.
 
Last edited:
In general I tend to agree that people who use RC's are essentially human guinea pigs. Don't get me wrong, I have used RC's, and I have abused more traditional drugs to the point they have caused me damage. I am not judging anybody.

It is fairly arbitrary to cite the date that mephedrone or any other RC was first synthesised. I realise you are directly responding to the claim that these drugs were only synthesised a few years ago, but the point I am trying to make is the date they were first synthesised is largely immaterial.

Unless there have been a good number of studies conducted on the long-term impact they have on human health then their potential impact on users is still an open question. I don't know for a fact that these studies haven't been conducted, but I am not aware of them. If you want to show that people who take certain RC's aren't taking an unnecessary gamble with their health you need to cite some studies that show their safety profile is similar to that of traditional drugs with comparable effects.

My responses are directly at this claim.....

Research chemicals are garbage; but some people want to become lab rats.

Which is a completely sweeping statement that goes directly against a massive amount of people who have enjoyed them.

Then this.....

LOL yeah. "This drug was literally just invented a couple years ago, but don't worry, it's completely safe!"

Which is blatantly wrong as I proved with my links to when chemicals he/she classed as RC's were invented.

Now please point out where I said all of them were safe?.

Drugs are literally inanimate objects that some people choose to not research first and can pay the penalty, this applies to ALL drugs. There is plenty of research available that's been conducted over the years on Mephedrone, 2-cb, 2-ci, 2-ce etc...these are not new compounds.

The problem is people would rather paint every "Research Chemical" with the same brush like a scare mongering Daily Mail front page.

I thought you mods were a little more objective than that? and im not the one trolling

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
 
It doesn't matter when they were synthesized, or discovered. Most of these chemicals did not see use, or study for many years. It is only when a chemical starts being researched and used (popularly or in study) that you can say it has truly become a research chemical. I strongly believe with what drug_mentor says here, and burnt_offerings. Most of these chemicals were synthesized on the road to other chemicals that are widely used...the ones we are seeing today were largely forgotten by time, until people capitalizing on the drug war and human condition (wanting to expand consciousness) found them once again and made their use known, and widespread.

Lets put that all aside for one instance and stop having the conversation about who's fart smells worse. The real topic at hand is the fact that people are having overdoses on widely unregulated chemicals. Is there something we can do about it as a HR based forum?
 
My responses are directly at this claim.....

I acknowledged in my post that you were responding to one of those claims, so it isn't clear to me why you feel a need to point this out.

The point of my post is that whether those specific claims are correct or not is fairly arbitrary. It seemed quite clear to me that the larger point which Priest and FeloniousMonk were making is that taking Research Chemicals is more of a gamble with your health than sticking to more traditional drugs.

Rather than address this point you chose to nitpick arbitrary details, since this is a harm reduction forum I thought it was relevant to point out that the essence of Priest and FeloniousMonk's claim was largely correct, even if a fairly inconsequential part of a particular claim Priest quoted was wrong.

Now please point out where I said all of them were safe?.

Please point out where I said you said this.

Drugs are literally inanimate objects that some people choose to not research first and can pay the penalty, this applies to ALL drugs. There is plenty of research available that's been conducted over the years on Mephedrone, 2-cb, 2-ci, 2-ce etc...these are not new compounds.

As far as I am aware nobody denied the claim you make in your first sentence, but there is considerably less available information on the potential health risks of Research Chemicals. This means making an informed decision about the safety of using them is more difficult than with traditional drugs, and in many cases it is impossible. This is the point I think Priest was trying to make, and it is certainly the point FeloniousMonk was making.

As to the claim in your second sentence, I never explicitly denied this information existed. I don't think you could reasonably claim the health risks of taking these drugs are particularly well understood, but I am open to the possibility I could be proven wrong. I am fairly certain if you could prove me wrong on this second point it would be in relation to a handful of Research Chemicals out of hundreds.

I thought you mods were a little more objective than that? and im not the one trolling

More objective than what? Pointing out that the health impact of Research Chemicals on humans are not generally well understood seems fairly objective to me.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter when they were synthesized, or discovered. Most of these chemicals did not see use, or study for many years. It is only when a chemical starts being researched and used (popularly or in study) that you can say it has truly become a research chemical. I strongly believe with what drug_mentor says here, and burnt_offerings. Most of these chemicals were synthesized on the road to other chemicals that are widely used...the ones we are seeing today were largely forgotten by time, until people capitalizing on the drug war and human condition (wanting to expand consciousness) found them once again and made their use known, and widespread.

Lets put that all aside for one instance and stop having the conversation about who's fart smells worse. The real topic at hand is the fact that people are having overdoses on widely unregulated chemicals. Is there something we can do about it as a HR based forum?

Yes! I think by starting without blatantly none HR blanket statements that tar every chemical with the same brush would be a good start. This offers nothing in the way of HR.

The less potent and possibly safer JW series were banned leading to the manufacture of much more potent alternatives, I think this is where the problem lays.

Would it be wise for people to invest in a pure chemical, doing their research on said compound and dosing their own smoking matter? The incident in the OPs post seems to indicate either the maker used an unknown new cannabinoid that is very potent, or dosing the smoking matter too high with a known cannabinoid.

When left in the hands of shop keepers with basic equipment that mix the compound with whatever vegetable matter chosen, accidents are bound to happen.

Obviously, start off small as you can always do more. Personally, Id prefer to purchase a pure compound from a reputable vendor and mix it myself. If shops are selling these smoking blend's it leads me to believe that the compound used is legal?

Nice to see the Mods come out in force 8o


It doesn't matter when they were synthesized, or discovered. Most of these chemicals did not see use

The chemicals I mentioned have had LOADS of studies done, have been around for years AND used extensively. When I have time, I will post them. Again, my response was in regards to this......

Research chemicals are garbage; but some people want to become lab rats.

and.......

LOL yeah. "This drug was literally just invented a couple years ago, but don't worry, it's completely safe!"

Which are both completely false, nothing to do with harm reduction and spreading fear based lies that do nothing to educate people about their choices.

Sorry, I expect more from a mod on a HR forum
 
Last edited:
That is exactly what I was thinking, however more eloquently stated by drug mentor.

What can be done to make this safer? People are going to use them, as evidenced by this article, but it seems there isn't that much objective study out there in order to allow people to make fact based assessments to the risks involved.

Mods are mods because we are often online. Not to punish users of this website. There is no conspiracy.
 
Nice to see the Mods come out in force 8o

I really don't know what has got you so defensive.

If you think there is anything factually incorrect or inappropriate in the post I just made why don't you address it instead of being sarcastic?

The fact I happen to agree with PriestTheyCalledHim and FeloniousMonk has nothing to do with the fact they are moderators. In my view the facts are clearly on their side, excepting a largely irrelevant remark about how new some of these chemicals are. Whether these chemicals are "garbage" is subjective, you can't just say it is false. Besides, whether Priest meant they are garbage because they are not fun to take or garbage because taking them is an unnecessary gamble is open to interpretation. My interpretation was the latter.

You can nitpick minor details and make sarcastic comments in an attempt to obfuscate the logic behind what myself and other posters have said all you like, but you aren't being objective or sensible.
 
Last edited:
Top