First Cases of Flesh-Eating Drug Emerge In the United States 618
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Having spent the last decade wreaking havoc in Russia, a flesh-eating drug called Krokodil has arrived in Arizona, reports Eliza Gray at Time Magazine. The Banner Poison Control Center has reported the first two users of the drug which makes user's skin scaly and green before it rots away [Warning: Graphic Images]. Made of codeine, a painkiller often used in cough syrup, and a mix of other materials including gasoline, paint thinner, and alcohol, Krokodil become popular in Russia because it costs 20 times less than heroin and can be made easily at home. Also known as Desomorphine, Krokodil has sedative and analgesic effects, and is around 8-10 times more potent than morphine. When the drug is injected, it rots the skin by rupturing blood vessels, causing the tissue to die. As a result, the skin hardens and rots, sometimes even falling off to expose the bone. 'These people are the ultimate in self-destructive drug addiction,' says Dr. Ellen Marmur. 'Once you are an addict at this level, any rational thinking doesn't apply.' The average life span of a Krokodil user is two to three years, according to a 2011 TIME investigation of the drug's prevalence in Russia."
Gross, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to be a somewhat self-limiting problem. Users will die off fairly rapidly.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
If heroine were legal, nobody would die.
Like nobody dies from alchohol abuse?
Maybe fewer people would die. But it's obviously not "nobody."
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Like nobody dies from alchohol abuse?
Actually, you mostly die of heroin through accidental or deliberate overdose, or through associated problems like contracting HIV through a dirty IV injection needle, that are not actually related to heroin per se. Because what comes to physiological effects, opioids, such as heroin, are actually less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, even in prolonged use. There is an increased chance of infections due to the suppressing effect opioids have on the body's immune system, but that's about it.
Of course, this if you ignore the horrible consequence of extreme dependence and very difficult withdrawal from heroin (the withdrawal can actually be itself fatal), which means it's very hard to stop taking it once you get hooked on heroin. But you will not die of it, if you keep to your body's tolerance levels. Alcohol dependence could be considered much worse, because daily heavy drinking is so extremely detrimental for your health, and if you are unable to stop drinking, it will inevitably lead to a fatal failure of some vital organ, such as the liver.
Smoking, too, is very bad for your health, and safely injecting high-purity heroin a few times per day is probably less harmful in the long run than smoking a pack of cancer sticks per day. It has to be noted though, that if you decide to become a heroin addict, your life will be absolutely dominated by the graving for this substance, probably for the rest of your life. This can have devastating effects on thing many people find very important in life, such as career and family relations. Smoking addiction, on the other hand, while physically probably more unhealthy, still lets you lead a relatively normal life.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Poor, crazy Amy Winehouse being the perfect example of what you mean there. Her death is what clued me into the fact that alcohol withdrawal can be life threatening. Say what you will about her antics, but I would still take her music over what has come out of the pop scene this year. No question.
But newly hearing about Krokodil today has my cynic badge revoked. I haven't been shocked by something in the news for a very long time. Appalled, yeah, of course. Truly shocked? Krokodil accomplished that today.
Using Meth or Crack as a shorthand for drug addled will soon be overtaken by the word "Krok".
I'm a military guy, but after seeing the pictures of this and that Vice documentary listed below, just...
Oh my God
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah - libertarian though I am, sometimes government intervention in someone's life really is the lesser evil. Sheesh.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The libertarian in me says that nothing of this would happen if heroin was easier to get by those that need it. I highly doubt people really want to take that crap over heroin...
Re: (Score:3)
The rational human in me agrees. I've long argued for the legalization of most recreational drugs. Caveat is combined with good education and better recovery/rehab/training/counseling. Main rule would be "do not operate under the influence" be it vehicle or in the workplace of power machinery.
Intervention gets interesting. Do we intervene when someone seems bent on self-destruction to the point of death or decides while "drug addled" to commit suicide? So we sober them up. What if they still decide to
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, you think? It appears that American society has collectively learned nothing from the Prohibition days.
Rather than trying to understand why people use drugs or doing something to help people, society at large just likes to judge and label them "losers". For a supposedly "Christian" nation this is pretty f'ing pathetic.
I live in Chicago and have seen what happens to people when they can't get access to treatment or when they decide to take a trip to the 'hood for their fix. Most of the addicts I have known have wanted to quit, but the help's not there for them in many cases. One of my ex-girlfriends died from an overdose a few years ago. Thankfully some of the other people I knew were able to get clean after many years of trying.
We should be pursuing harm reduction strategies, but again, these are just "losers", so it's good if they die. Right?
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Before anyone goes on about who's seen worse shit as a member of the military, it is always going to be the case where someone has seen something more fucked up. Always going to be the case and always was, so it's a pointless debate to get into.
My point there is that seeing the effects on that woman who's poisoned 65% of the meat from her bones, crying naked and living dead on the table? I would choose to unsee that. I would go to the clinic in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and pay to unsee that.
Not something I say lightly. Don't even mind much for any opinions on that decision. I want to unsee the guy's dead white flesh plopping into a bucket after a nurse cuts open the plastic wrap the addict's used to have some semblance he still had a leg. (Spoiler Alert: He didn't)
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gross, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Funny)
I did put a fair number of rats through opioid withdrawal
were any of them able to stay clean?
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Informative)
However, if you abruptly discontinue these drugs when they are being regularly consumed at high doses, the resulting hyperactivity of the brain and nervous system can prove fatal - if you'd like a nice, detailed view, look up delirium tremens.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Informative)
I am by no means suggesting that we should make alcohol illegal. The point is, anyone who argues that keeping the other drugs illegal makes sense is either brainwashed, a complete moron, someone lying directly on the money trail, or some combination of some or all of those things.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So I don't find your distinction compelling.
Re: (Score:3)
Cider's not distilled, just fermented. After you've done that, distilling is optional (or freeze-concentration - you leave it out in the cold and keep skimming the non-alcoholic ice off the top until what's left has concentrated into applejack, though I haven't actually tried that.) Basically you just take some good juice, add an appropriate yeast, stick a fermentation lock on top and wait a week. Yum!
I've only made one batch of beer, and it was from a kit that did basically all the work for you (it has
Re:Gross, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Now joy on the other hand...
Selling joy's only legal in Nevada.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
A German court actually once finally settled the question why alcohol is legal and other drugs ain't. Their explanatory statement: Alcohol is not primarily consumed for its intoxicating qualities.
Well, I pondered this at length in the presence of a few beer and the next day it hit me like lightning: No, I don't get drunk for the buzz, it's for that great head I have the next day...
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Funny)
There has never been a direct death from Marijuana.
False. I remember reading about how someone got a bale of the stuff accidentally dropped on him, and got crushed.
If heroine were legal, nobody would die. (Score:3)
Sure they would. People die every day from alcohol and its legal.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Heroin overdose among experienced users with steady supplies are unheard of. Heroin is quite safe, actually. The overdose problem is usually among black-tar heroin users who inject or snort (rather than smoke or eat) who then buy white powder heroin. Black-tar heroin is very impure (20-30%), being manufactured directly from unpurified opium or poppy straw extract, while white powder heroin is very pure(80%+, unless heavily cut), being manufactured from purified morphine. Even when cut, white powder heroin tends to be at least twice a potent as black-tar. Furthermore, black-tar and white powder are misnomers; both are yellow to yellowish brown, which is how those overdoses happen.
Until recently, white powder heroin was only available in large cities such as NYC, but now it's moving West, leading to a string of overdose deaths along the east coast and as far west as Michigan.
If it were regulated and legal, this entire class of overdose deaths would be eliminated. Considering that this type of overdose death is the majority of overdose deaths in the US, we are killing people by keeping it illegal. Considering the rate of overdose deaths among long-time users, legalization would result in fewer overall deaths, even if everyone picked up the habit. Now that you know all this, you and all other prohibitionists, especially those in Congress, are engaged in willful murder.
Have fun sleeping tonight, murderer.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Have fun sleeping tonight, murderer.
I was with you right up until that sentence and your reasoning leading up to it. TBH, claiming that making a drug illegal is equivalent to murder is, in short, bullshit. There are numerous valid ideological reasons why drugs should not be banned by governmental edict, but that argument is not one of them.
This is why: In all honestly, it is not murder when someone willfully engages in the practice, knowing full well there are potentially fatal hazards involved (given the plethora of education on the subject, it's not like you can credibly claim a general ignorance here.) Long story short, while addiction is a tragedy, the participants are not exactly unwilling victims, either. Statistically, they all voluntarily jammed that needle into their arms (or smoked it, ate it, snorted it, whatever).
It's like claiming that making base jumping off of a building illegal is tantamount to murder, when the base jumpers are the ones willfully doing it themselves.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, logical reason doesn't drive political discourse. We are so jaded to politics that you need to elicit strong emotion to have any hope of affecting the average voter. Thus, we devolve into mindless rhetoric in a vain attempt to manipulate people into caring, instead of thinking.
(Caring makes political accomplishment worthwhile; thinking makes it possible. We're currently way overbalanced in the "caring" direction... and graft, but that's a different topic.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have fun sleeping tonight, murderer.
it is not murder when someone willfully engages in the practice, knowing full well there are potentially fatal hazards involved (given the plethora of education on the subject, it's not like you can credibly claim a general ignorance here.) Long story short, while addiction is a tragedy, the participants are not exactly unwilling victims, either.
So if you go to a street corner where drug dealers hang out, somebody shoots you and takes your money, that wasn't murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.
So if you go to a bar looking for sex, a girl invites you home, kills you, and takes your wallet, she's not engaging in murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.
Re: (Score:3)
In Vancouver there is a safe injection site, just celebrated their 10th anniversary. Supplies clean needles, a safe spot to shoot up with nurses available. While there has been quite a few overdoses (484 out of 276178 visits) there hasn't been any deaths due to the availability of medical attention and it has also cut way down on communicable disease due to clean needles. The addicts love it as it removes most of the fatal risks involved in addiction.
The Conservative federal government tried their hardest t
Re: (Score:3)
Not everyone who gets addicted to opiates start out with the needle or choosing they want to take the drug for fun. There are people who get prescribed opiate based painkillers, get hooked while in treatment, then continue using after the prescription runs out. They then have to source their opiates from a street dealer who might at one point offer heroin as an alternative to oxy-whatever.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are usually taking it to deal with having to live on the same planet with people like you, actually.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Heroin overdose among experienced users with steady supplies are unheard of. Heroin is quite safe, actually.
The letal dose of heroin is 5x an "effective dose". I suppose some people who know what they're doing can avoid an overdose, but the gap between an effective dose and a lethal dose is a lot closer for heroin than for - well - every other illegal drug on this list: http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/200645104835_307.pdf [americanscientist.org]
That sounds indeed highly dangerous. But here is the kicker: The lethal dose for Paracetamol is only about 3x of that "effective dose". One of the reasons you can accidentally kill yourself with it if you do not follow the instructions carefully. Yet most people never have a problem.
(No, I am not for legalizing the stuff. I am just pointing out your argument does not hold water.)
Re: (Score:3)
There was a famous study on rats which were given access to all the morphine (the researchers couldn't get heroin) they wanted. Two groups, one in a really nice cage with lots of toys and no overcrowding and one in a horrible overcrowded cage with nothing to do. The rats in the first cage hardly ever took the morphine and usually took it in a party attitude whereas in the overcrowded horrible cage the majority of rats quickly became addicted.
The Russian city is probably a really horrible place to live.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ironically from your perspective at least, that is exactly the way to diminish the occurrence of said events. People die from overdose almost exclusively due to the fact that the doses are unpredictable. Legalizing it would also mean it was available in standardized potency. That is the difference that you have missed. You also haven't considered that prostitution and deaths involving gangs and other black market activity are also a major factor that play into the death toll, and those too would no longer be an issue. Finally, by legalizing it we can tax it and use the tax income to offer assistance for those who want to enter into rehab and stop using it, further diminishing the death toll.
In other words, you couldn't possible be much less informed, or have gotten it more wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
I really do not understand that needle problem. All over Europe, you can get needles without problems in any pharmacy and very cheaply, or you can just mail-order a box full. I use them for some lab and technical purposes and a box of 100 runs you something like 5-10USD, with syringes about twice that. Yet people still share needles and syringes even here. Are you saying it is illegal to sell/buy syringes and needles in the US?
Re: (Score:3)
That's 5-10 dollars you could spend on ... more heroin. Or, periodically, food.
Drug addicts, pretty much by definition, don't make good decisions.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Jeeze, did you even read the article you linked when pointing out heroin as the big bad or did you just look for the first article that had a bar graph with heroin seemingly on the top? It basically contradicts your entire attitude about heroin, and reaffirms the thought process of the person you're quoting, even if it was an exaggeration.
Here, let me quote something from your own link:
Firstly, the harms of a given drug will depend upon its legal status. The best way to demonstrate this point is with heroin, which is placed at the top of the Lancet-scale as the most harmful of all drugs. For street heroin this may well be the appropriate placing, but, if we are being scientific here, it is imperative to separate out the harms that follow from use of the drug per se, and the health and social harms exacerbated or created specifically by the drug's use within an illegal market. These, lets call them 'prohibition harms', include:
* Contaminated/cut product (poisoning, infection risks)
* Dirty/shared needles (Hep C / HIV risk)
* Vast quantities of low level acquisitive property crime to support a habit: illegal markets inflate the cost of an essentially worthless agricultural product to one that is worth more than its weight in gold. People on prescriptions don't have to nick stuff.
* Street prostitution (see above)
* Street dealing, drug-gang violence and turf wars
* Drug litter (needles in the gutter etc)
More useful would have been to rank both illegal street heroin, associated with the above harms which aren't going to help its ranking much, and prescribed pharmaceutical heroin, associated with none of the above harms. The latter would certainly be considerably further down the scale. Luckily, we can theoretically do this with heroin as both legal and illegal markets exist simultaneously in the UK, although the number of prescribed users (approx 400) is rather eclipsed by the number of illicit users (approx 250,000+). It’s a great shame the authors of this study failed to make that comparison (we do, confusingly, get 'street methadone' in the ranking, but not the prescription variety).
The harms from heroin don't generally come from heroin itself, but from the unsafe creation and use pervasive of today's users as a result of being illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
" I believe the collective harm the illegal drugs on this list cause to both the users and society in general is vastly compounded as a result of their illegality. "
The list is "tainted" for use in a post-legalization society, as many (most?) of the harms are because of its illegality.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Various reasons. First and foremost, of course, financial ones. Manufacturers of legal drugs are of course not interested in sharing their market. And here you have three very powerful lobbies against you: Alcohol, Tobacco and (no, not Firearms) Pharma. The first two obviously have no interest in you having access to cheap and easy replacements for their drugs, especially ones you can produce far more easily than you could produce your own tobacco or alcohol. Pharma's spiel here is even more insidious.
Their big problem is that, especially during the 50s and 60s, a lot of very potent and very useful psychotropics have been discovered. Actually, the "best" drugs have been designed and manufactured then. The stuff that could literally save lots of people today from their psychological problems, from anxiety to depression. And while we might think that it's awesome that these drugs are "perfect", they have a fatal flaw from the point of view of a pharma corp: Their patent expired.
Now, how can you compete with a "perfect" drug? How could you market something that is inferior but patentable against something that is better but could be made by anyone. Hell, could be made with trivially available equipment to the average amateur chemist? Answer: You cannot. Without the aid of the law, that is.
There are quite a few very potent and very useful SSRAs, SNRAs and other releasing agents out there that are, from a health point of view, at least as safe as many of the contemporary SSRIs and SNRIs while also having the advantage of actually doing something for the patient... but they're invariable Schedule I/Class A.
You can actually check for yourself, simply follow the timing of drug law changes and patent expiration. It's quite ... interesting.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Or who funded the anti-hemp movement (lots of cotton farmers).
Actually one particular media mogul by the name of Hearst who had heavily invested in pulp paper combined with parts of government who had gained much power during prohibition and wanted to keep it after prohibition was repealed.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Can't think of a single film where the heroine was illegal.
I'm pretty sure Natalie Portman was illegal in Leon.
Re:Gross, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Insightful" is just some guy with mod points who happens to agree.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess "nobody" is a bit too much of an absolute, just like with any drug out there, there is a potential for abuse and a potential to cause self harm and even harm to others, but if you consider the various crime and health issues associated with the illegality of drugs, I dare say with some faith that fewer people would die as a result of drugs. Just subtract crime (murder, manslaughter, bodily harm) associated with acquisition, turf wars amongst warring dealer groups and health issues associated with in
Re:Gross, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Needles are illegal?
What kind of fucked up country makes sterile needles illegal?
Someone call walter white (Score:3)
the drug apparently needs some work....
Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Legalize heroin.
Re:Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a solution like legalizing stabbing is a solution to gun violence.
By all means, legalize non-addictive drugs (e.g. marijuana, MDMA, LSD), but heroin is something else entirely. People shouldn't have their lives destroyed just because some skilled salesman convinced them to try it. It's not good for the user, and it's not good for society. It's only good for the dealer. The last thing this country needs is the marketing arm of Philip Morris or InBev pushing an even worse drug.
Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
So why do we screw up their lives after a skilled salesman convinces them to try it by throwing them in jail? Isn't that bad for all the reasons you mentioned?
I don't think we want active sales and marketing for heroine, but jailing addicts and driving them to dangerously impure and inconsistent street drugs seems like a bad idea. Especially if it eventually drives them to krokodil.
Perhaps the clean stuff should be legally sold at the pharmacy but with no advertising at all and the pharmacist must giv you a pamphlet on drug treatment and tell you heroine is a bad idea when he hands it over.
Re:Solution (Score:5, Informative)
Nah, legalize everything.
Let God sort it out.
Re:Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Solution (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Colorado is working on it for marijuana. They appear to be taking a careful, considered approach and I'm going to bet this is the framework for all sorts of 'bad for you but good for the economy' things to wander down the pike.
This country is looking like something out of a Robert Heinlein novel. Where's The Prophet?
Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
doesn't have a good control framework like Cigarettes/alcohol which are legal and profitable for the government, especially here (Canada) with the "SIN TAXES".
In the places where it has been decriminalized, the problems associated with the use of drugs like heroin were not just significantly but drastically reduced.
That doesn't prove cause and effect but it has been consistent enough to suggest that inductive logic is appropriate here.
So what makes this bad? (Score:5, Informative)
So where do the side effects (of rotting skin, etc.) come from? The active ingredient itself?
If not, this is in fact a strong argument against blanket-banning of drugs (a long-term favorite of US and US-backed international policy makers), since criminalising encourages home making, impure drugs, uncontrollable use, and so on, and so forth.
The alternative is to decriminalise use, then regulate, and make sure people who lose themselves in drugs get the help they need to get back on their feet. Like Portugal did, and does. But the US won't like that because then it can't go on waging war on drugs. And that would cut into the DEA's playtime. Can't have that, now can we?
Re:So what makes this bad? (Score:4, Informative)
The linked io9 article suggests that the rotting skin effects are due to the horribly impure byproducts. Krokodil gets you addicted from the potency of the Desomorphine. Krokodil rots off your flesh because of the gasoline and paint thinner used in its production and then not purified out before injection. Apparently gasoline circulating in your veins causes blood vessels to burst leading to necrosis.
Another failure of the drug war (Score:5, Insightful)
If we treated addiction like the disease it is instead of moralizing it as a crime, we could help these people become productive members of society again instead of driving them to slow suicide. If safe drugs were available in free clinics and addicts received treatment, nobody would choose krokodil, nobody would be robbed for drug money, gangs would have one less source of funding, and these victims would be able to overcome their disease.
Slow news day? (Score:3, Insightful)
The countries where this is actually problem, codeine is available OTC. This isn't the case here in the US. It's probably easier for people here to get their hands on heroin.
Seriously? (Score:3)
Someone please tell me this is an Onion story.
-
desomorphine does not rot flesh (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
We need another warning label on gasoline.
"Do not inject directly into veins."
That should solve the problem.
Re:desomorphine does not rot flesh (Score:4, Informative)
The lady tried to settle with them for her current and expected future medical costs before even retaining a lawyer (i.e. $20K, of which $10K had already been accrued). They offered her $800 in return, despite the fact that she had been hospitalized for 8 days, undergone a series of skin grafts to replace the skin that had suffered third-degree burns, and faced another two years of treatment following the hospitalization.
Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?
Re: (Score:3)
No, but I do not pour it down my crotch either. Coffee is meant to be made with boiled water, which if poured down the pants, burns. Coffee made with unboiled water does taste different (bad, in my opinion).
I am waiting for someone to burn their beard with a cigarette lighter and then sue Zippo for not putting a label saying "Contents inflammable, do not light anything with it".
media inaccuracy (Score:5, Informative)
It is not the drug (desomorphine) that kills, it is the impurities, mostly silica put into the codeine pills to poison people who try to make illicit drugs out of them. It is the government that is killing people by requiring these adulterants.
Re: (Score:3)
Having been exposed to a couple of episodes, I suspect #4 is just good advice in general.
Hooray for prohibition... (Score:4, Insightful)
A Disease of the Mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who uses something so destructive to his own body has a sick and twisted soul. But the good response to a twisted soul is not to say they deserve what is done to their body, anymore than the good response to a sick body is to say that it deserves to be separated from its soul. The good response is to seek the healing of both.
I do not believe in the drug war, but neither do I agree with those who would scoff, shrug, and say that it doesn't matter. Some of the comments in this vein are lacking in compassion and in humanity. I cannot see a great distinction in kind, though perhaps their is some difference in degree, between the mind of the inhumane person who would be rid of those who would harm themselves and the mind of the diseased man who would take drugs to rid him of himself. Both are antithetical to life.
I do not believe in the drug war because the fighting metaphor is taken too literally. A drug war ought to be fought as we fight diseases, with treatment and medicine meant to heal, rather than as we fight foreign enemies, with guns and internment.
I do not believe in the drug war because there are people willing to take a drug like this, a drug whose very name indicates its self-destructive potential, and therefore I cannot believe that the nightmare of the prison system or the fear thereof would end such self-abuse. Whether people do such drugs out of desperation or vice, punishment can have little positive effect on those whose recreation looks nightmarish to a person of ordinary psychology. They need help and help directed at the root of the problem. And since this becomes a political question, I would add that I would sooner taxes be spent helping people awaken from old nightmares than wake up to new ones. I do not believe in the drug war, but I do believe that we should do what we can to heal diseases of the mind which accept the destruction of the body.
Insite - a Success Story (Score:5, Interesting)
The premise of Insite is simple: provide a clean, safe place for addicts to shoot up, under medical supervision. Insite doesn't provide drugs, but at least it offers some kind of controlled environment for injection.
The upshot is ten years of servicing addicts, and not one death. It Just Works.
Of course our law 'n' order neo-con Harper government is determined to shut it down, crying "Think of The Children" while pocketing donations from the big US private prison companies...
Darwin (Score:3, Insightful)
Is hard at work.
don't look at the images MENTAL HEALTH WARNING (Score:3)
there's no words to say the shock i was just dealt. freaking destroy the links to the images .NOONE NEEDS TO SEE THIS .
Re: (Score:3)
There were enough clear warnings. If you cannot read, you are bound to run into nasty things now and then....
Doesn't seem likely to catch on (Score:3)
In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Funny)
...drug consumes addict.
Re:Natural selection (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh, the soft empathic voice of Slashdot.....
TLDR; this is an incredible dumbass drug. They take codeine, which apparently is easier to get than heroin Russia, run it through some Mad Men style kitchen chemistry, don't really bother filtering it, don't have a clue about what they made then... wait for it... inject it. Bypassing every single organismal defense mechanism save for the few remaining T-cells that the user's bone marrow has scrounged up.
Violence will ensue....
Re:Natural selection (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, sure, but if someone tries to climb Mt. Everest and ends up losing their fingers, toes and half their face to frostbite, it was an exhilarating human adventure, eh?
Mt. Everest kills a higher percentage of its users than methamphetamine.
Though, okay, I suppose injecting gasoline into your veins is a pretty bad idea.
That guy should join a debate club because he would win after his opponents all fell over laughing.
Re:Natural selection (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw an independent Australian documentary on Krokodil in one of the southern Russian cities, like Novobirisk. The addicts (in theit teens or twenties) figured they had about a week to live, and cared about nothing, living in a garbage pile in an abandoned building. The film crew tried to observe a drug buy, but ended up being chased by someone who spotted them. It was a incredibly sad, terrifying film.
For their part, Russian officials are claiming that the Taliban is shipping cheap drugs north across the steppes in an attempt to corrupt and destabilize their cities.
I'm all for legalization of a lot of substances and ending the Violence Due To Illegalization, but this one is so over-the-top in terms of both addiction and toxicity that I don't know what a rational response could be.
Re:Natural selection (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for legalization of a lot of substances and ending the Violence Due To Illegalization, but this one is so over-the-top in terms of both addiction and toxicity that I don't know what a rational response could be
Even if drugs were legalized, this one would still be illegal, much like adding melamine to children's food is illegal. Legalizing drugs doesn't mean we have to legalize everything.
Re:Natural selection (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Because there are standards for injected Gasoline?
As usual, problem seems to be the adulterants... (Score:5, Insightful)
Desomorphine itself, while highly addictive, doesn't seem to be the cause of the horrific symptoms of "krocodil" use. Like many other street drugs, the worst of the negative effects are caused by the lack of regulation and dodgy manufacturing conditions.
If pharmaceutical grade opiates were available to addicts, nobody would willingly inject this gasoline-laden crap into their body.
Re:Natural selection (Score:5, Informative)
I saw an independent Australian documentary on Krokodil in one of the southern Russian cities, like Novobirisk.
Was it this: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/vice-news/siberia-krokodil-tears-full-length [vice.com] ? (Narrator is British, btw).
What a crock of *bleep!* (Score:3)
Why on earth would the Taliban give one flying *bleep!* about what happens in freakin' Siberia? This crap isn't even made from illegal drugs; it's made from Codeine, which is avail. OTC in Russia (and many other countries, for that matter.)
In any case, if drugs were legal, this witch's brew simply would not exist. There would be no need for it to be specifically made illegal because nobody in their right mind would use this over actual Morphine, Heroin, Hydrocodone, whatever... or even if they did use it,
Re:Natural selection (Score:5, Informative)
I actually read through that discussion, and believe it or not, he has a decent point, though it wasn't immediately evident. He eventually explained what the purpose of the exercise was, as well as his own stances on the issues. And contrary to his initial, inflammatory remarks, he seems like he's actually a rather rational and coherent individual who simply wanted to illustrate a problem in the most direct way possible.
For instance, he never suggested that the drug should be legalized or that climbing Everest should be outlawed (quite the opposite, in fact), though people assumed that was what he intended. Rather, his point was that we, as a society, have lost much of our capacity for evaluating risk, since the rhetoric we choose to apply to certain topics is blowing the risks involved out of proportion and blinding us to how dangerous they actually are. To demonstrate that, he made some blanket statements about climbing Everest using the sort of rhetoric that is typically reserved for describing dangerous behavior that is frowned upon, such as drug abuse. To say the least, the reaction he got was predictable: outrage, dismissal, the construction of straw men, and ad hominem attacks, rather than rational rebuttals to the facts and logic he was providing.
His point wasn't that climbing Everest should be outlawed because it is too dangerous, nor that the drugs should be legalized because there are other things we allow that are more dangerous. He was simply asking people to think critically about how the way that we present risks and have been trained to think about certain topics has colored our perceptions. I actually thought he had a rather good point, and that he did a great job of demonstrating the problem by placing himself in a position where the other commenters would construct straw men to tear down while vilifying him as a horrible person.
In truth, I actually thought it was something a lot of people here on Slashdot would appreciate, rather than something they'd laugh at, since we're supposed to value facts and truth over rhetoric and soundbites, though, at least taken out of context, I can see why it'd be seen as ridiculous. I actually started reading the discussion just because I wanted to see how ridiculous the raving lunatic would get, but then I found out that he was anything but what I had initially thought of him.
Re: (Score:3)
First he is posting a comment that sounds supportive of using certain drugs where the average user (in Russia) dies within three years. That's not a good place to pick a fight. This drug is clearly bad news (not in the least because it is made out of gasol
Re: (Score:3)
I think the availability of this substance should be encouraged. If anyone is supremely dumb enough to inject this into themselves, our overall gene pool can only benefit as a result.
There is a world of difference between not caring if you're alive 3 years down the road because you perceive your life not worth living and doing it just 'for fun'.
Besides, it is not a 'flesh eating drug'. The problems are caused by the impurities because these amateur chemists have no idea what theyre doing.
Furthermore, none of those people would be making it themselves if more safer alternatives were available.
Re:Natural selection (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing something ...
Krokodil is NOT for those wanting to get high/stoned/whatever for cheaps.
It is a drug for when everything else is just not cutting it anymore.
It is a drug for when nothing in life really matter, besides the next fix.
It is a drug for when you've accepted that you're going to die from drugs.
Krokodil is the thing users turn to when everything else has been tried, when all there is left is the pain and the high and when you're beyond the regular kind of drug-addict-gone-fucked-up.
"Dumb" has nothing, what-so-ever, to do with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Natural selection (Score:5, Insightful)
Treat addiction like the disease it is, and it goes away. Encouraging addicts to off themselves only puts money into the pockets of the crooked assholes who peddle these drugs, exacerbating the problem. This drains the resources of the host society, reduces the available talent pool for the arts and sciences, and guess who can't afford birth control: addicts.
Self-righteous assholes like you are what got us to this place to begin with. May your ignorant worldview fuck off and die.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure the supremely stupid will ever be productive members of society. Stupid people don't just develop out of great kids, now do they?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Natural selection (Score:5, Interesting)
Based on what's happened to people I know, especially to one close friend who was very gifted, I can tell you that anyone can lose their way or be forced off the path.
In my opinion, those who possess rare mental or creative gifts seem to be much more susceptible.
Horrifying as the images of Krokodil images are, it's really a testament to the destructive power of addiction.
It's easy to theorize that this is just winnowing out the useless but that ignores so much history where talented and wealthy individuals have destroyed their lives through addiction.
Regardless of how superior you believe yourself to be, these people need help and compassion; not to be marginalized as convenient practitioners of auto-eugenics.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry but any teens shooting codeine and gas into their veins? not gonna be worth anything to anybody but the prison industrial complex.
As far as I can tell, this seems to be favoured by people who are *already* deep into heroin/opiate addiction and don't care about anything but a cheap hit.
So even the brain-dead teenager probably wouldn't start out on this stuff- the depressing thing is that they'll quite possibly end on this drug.
Re: (Score:3)
Biologically, that's a load of crap. Unless by "adult" you mean "completed physical development" in which case everyone younger than mid twenties is a child. Teenagers certainly are.
"Teenager" covers reasonably well the biological period known as adolescence. People in that stage aren't anything like adults, biologically, including their brain development. In terms of experience they're even more child like.
Re: (Score:3)
But suppose he becomes a brilliant scientist and invents a time machine, travels back to the early 20th century, grows a little mustache and kills six million Jews? My god, what kind of monster are you?
Re:This is the result of the counterrevolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Pure c1ommunism has no more answers that pure capitalism.
The ideal is somewhere between. Where capitalism reigns for all luxury goods and services, but the basic necessities are made available by the state, either directly as the case for utilities and healthcare should be, or indirectly with a non means tested basic income system that provides enough income to every household for a meager subsistence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For some reason, it's not considered an epidemic when a doctor being paid by insurance companies prescribes methamphetamine manufactured by a pharmaceutical corporation under the brand name "Desoxyn"
Yes it is.
NIH: "The original amphetamine epidemic was generated by the pharmaceutical industry and medical profession as a byproduct of routine commercial drug development and competition" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377281/ [nih.gov]
White House: "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has classi
Re: (Score:3)
Heroin was actually a very effective medical painkiller with a low level of lethality, after it was outlawed it was replaced by things like morphine that were far more dangerous.