eze451 said:
also, with the method of consumption used for heroin, there are problems...... kids going to the beach stepping on needles etc.... no one is ever gonna step on an empty baggie and contract a disease
im really not educated to argue this topic with alot of u guys, just thought i would pitch that in there
No, that's a perfectly valid point to make, especially if the question is not confined to reflecting the acute health of the user.
As Biscuit said, if the question is to extend to encompass the global effects of each drug, then this really does make it complex.
Should Afghan farmers be allowed to grow opium? Exploited by the traffickers they maybe, but when it comes down to it, it's how these risk taking or forced farmers manage to feed their families. Nothing else of value grows on the dry desert ground. Anyway, since when is the exploitation of third world countries outside the normal workings of global democracy?
So then it must be asked how MDMA and designer drugs may also put money into the hands of "poor people". Most money goes to the "men on top" just like any company, legit or otherwise. But some money goes to those who would probably not otherwise see any.
In many ways, creating drugs from nothing generates money from nothing, and balances the social inequality that filters down from the "profit making at others expense process" that is competitive trading. Capitalistic democracy. Crime is the acknowledged means of redistributing wealth in western society. There isn't a realistic politician who would deny it - even if such an admission was kept to behind closed doors. Without street level crime the system would have probably burst long ago. Look at the Depression where the mafia gave work to thousands of unemployed citizens, who previous to the wall street crash had no involvement in crime whatsoever. During the 70's, the Netherlands government openly acknowledged the need to have some filtering of money to the lower classes through low impact crime. This was the lead up to the expansion of going soft on locally produced marijuana. Sure an industry developed, but initially it was the risk takers who made the money; the lower classes who already had the connections.
In this regard designer drugs are very different. Or are they?
The greed element of illegally producing MDMA or Meth to sell at a large profit is one thing, but what about the desperate father of 3 who was made redundant...etc..etc. and is about o lose it all. Or he could be a farmer, fucked over by the banks...He has the knowledge and the ability to get himself out of debt, and providing his morals are sound, he'd do that and be out.
Designer drugs are a bit different. It may be a way around chemical restrictions, it may be because an ingredient is on hand making it more convenient to make this chemical over that. But more often than not when the substance is new or unusual, the producer is not making it for large profit. That's because, apart from those who'll take anything, there's no specific market for the drug, unless it's passed off as something else producing similar effects.
The marketing strategies of the recent 2C-I popularity were no-doubt in part responsible for the surge in use among jaded MDMA users, and dealers who were making little or no profit from MDMA. But there are not too many examples of a flash acceptance in the designer world. I'm not talking of psychonauts and those taking psychedelics for reasons other than as a social lubricant. These people often use for a variety of reasons, often involving personal development and awareness-insight etc.
But these are not typical ravers or clubbers. Psychedelic compounds with less "flavourable" outcomes are usually avoided by many people who prefer the security of drugs like MDMA and others chems they feel comfortable with.
Designer compounds with a very high potency also become a dosage critical problem, perhaps more so than with Heroin where 1-2 milligrams over a normal dose would hardly be likely to kill a user.
It is also important to demonstrate the broad association with the term "designer" drug. Biscuit and others have outlined a typical strategy of the chemist; Produce something similar in structure and effect and get around the law (not considering the analogues bill). However, many compounds are not discovered in the lab. Designer drugs, by the definition Biscuit has given, may be - and in fact are more likely to be - discovered by checking drug discovery and other scientific papers. Close analogues to many drugs are often employed in neurological research as they are frequently very potent and specific in their targets. Some of these have never been tested in humans, or if so, have never been entered into clinical trials.
PCP analogues, MDMA analogues and many unique compounds, previously not considered "Research Chemicals" are now being sought out by psychonauts wishing to even further expand the boundaries of what the human brain is capable of. There are hundreds of these compounds, some only known by a number until the patents and other formalities are completed. These compounds are frequently employed by brain researchers - a field becoming extensively adopted by medicinal institutions worldwide. It is my bet we'll see these chems become more widely used, as well as turning up as substitutes or additives in MDMA tablets.
If this does occur, the danger in the unknown would become far greater than that of heroin or possibly any other currently used drug.
