One thing that may be hurting bluelight is the fact that we aren't turning up in Google search results. More people should know about duckduckgo.com
Why is that, actually?
Is it because Google sucks? And is evil? Thank God for duckduckgo, and as far as I can tell, Bing is even worse and next to useless for even browsing the news not to mention any pharmacological and/or historical research. That Mr Trump is still President of the United States and there are people that do not like him is not news. People have read that before and the rest of the world doesn't give a rat's fat arse. Yelling about all this is usually the Bing front page. For any drugs questions, Bing is worse than useless and it sounds like Google is headed that way too.
By the way, I was answering a thread on Tuesday about the amount of excipients in oxycodone tablets and I cannot find it even with the Bluelight search function. That function is not based on Google, is it?
I have noticed that Google also have been censoring the old DejaNews Usenet archive they purchased some time ago. That is really not their place. Newsgroups are not Google Groups, whatever the megalomania of management may lead them to think. Sure there is nastiness on there, but Cold Water Extraction is not nastiness. People put that information out so that people do not die. That archive used to be such an impressive thing. It used to be everything ever written on there going back to 1978 I think it was, going back to day one when there were not even @ signs in everyone's email address and there were fewer than 100 people on Usenet.
I remember a time, 15 years ago now, where I searched on Google for codeine information, the molecular weight of an uncommon salt* Of course I had to make sure their ridiculous "Safe Search" was off as it was certainly comprehensive to the point of parody even back then, like keeping a journalist from researching an article she was doing on leather skirts -- that's freaking
sacrelige. But, back then in 2004, I got my information, more than I expected, and on the side of the page, not one but four actual advertisements for buying codeine online, and it wasn't just that -- there was at least generic equivalents practically every codeine, dihydrocodeine, dionine, tramadol, difenoxin, diphenoxylate and dextropropoxyphene product of which I had ever heard and all sorts of other things like Sexy Trihexy, two or three benzos, more than 20 antihistamines, about a dozen other anticholinergics, tianeptine, gabapentin, clonidine, stuff with paregoric and powdered opium in it, something charmingly called "Tylenol With Codeine Nº 12"† with 200 mg of paracetamol and 120 mg of codeine hydrochloride in it and 15 mg dihydroisocodeine tablets. Those were the days.
---
* Codeine methylbromide (394.30), a bromide as in sleep aid and actually a separate drug like the codeine-based barbiturates like Codeonal
† The Narcotic Content Number system for codeine, dihydrocodeine, dionine, opium, morphine, benzylmorphine (Peronine) and heroin content on oral medicine labels originated by manufacturers and formalised in the US Pure Food & Drug Act 1906 inter alia actually goes:
1. 7½ or 8 mg (⅛ grain)
2. 15 or 16 mg (¼ grain)
3. 30 or 32 mg (½ grain)
4. 60 or 64 mg (1 grain)
5. 75 or 82 mg (1¼ grains)
6. 90 or 96 mg (1½ grains)
7. 105 or 112 mg (1¾ grains), or 120 or 128 mg (2 grains)
8. 120 or 128 mg (2 grains)
I have never seen the 45 or 48 mg (¾ grain) doses of codeine or dihydrocodeine called Nº 3½ though they could be as it was originally the manufacturers who originated the system
Although originally Dilaudid came in doses from 0.5 (¹ ⁄₁₂₈ grain) all the way up to 64 mg (1 grain) and including 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 16, 32, and possibly 12, 24, 36 and 48 with some brands years ago, I have never seen any label or literature with a Narcotic Content Number on it. This, of course, is why in
Drugstore Cowboy the protagonist and others refer to the 4 mg tablets as "sixteenths"
