Death due to misadventure after ingesting a synthetic drug!

[Scarecrow]

I don't think the media are reporting specific chemical names in order to stop unwanted attention and trying to stop users searching it out specifically.

that's a pretty big assumption. they've never had any issue with singling out a substance (with the express purpose to demonize it) in the past

[Mycot]

The media and law enforcement being totally clueless when it comes recreational drugs is more often the case than not.

What matters to them is to create hysteria using bad arguements and creating fear.

Banning all research compounds is against the human spirit of exploration and of Science and Medicine and supports the drug war.

The action here is akin to outlawing cannabis and many other substances because of comparing and classifying them in the same catergory as heroin.

Guilty without evidence!

Edited June 16, 2013 by Mycot

[Darklight]

Fiona Patten of the Australian Sex Party and the Eros Association is generating some excellent articles to counteract what is otherwise misleading and poor quality reporting on the issue:

For example:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/synthetic-lsd-didnt-kill-henry-eros-20130617-2oct8.html

I'm so over seeing poor quality tabloid-grade science journalism ( yes, I'm pointing at you SMH too ) in almost every media outlet these days, including the ABC.

Fark, even Nature and other reputable journals are getting onboard about the idea that some compounds can have real health benefits, or aren't as damaging as publicised when used appropriately and safely. And that therefore the difference between saying "ecstacy used to fix depression" and "MDMA has been shown in clinical trials to reduce the severity of PTSD in some sufferers" is a distinction of great social responsibility. Our tablogs aren't getting this

My mum warned me about bad science journalism 15 years ago, geez it's time the rest of the world stepped away from Kim Kardashian's baby and reality TV and just got a grip

Edited June 17, 2013 by Darklight

[tarenna]

Yes indeed. Step away from Kim Kardashian's spawn and put your hands in the air

[rahli]

http://theaustralian.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/iphone/homepage.aspx#_article572c4a39-b7a3-4a2f-a980-e79ab2b7951e/waarticle572c4a39-b7a3-4a2f-a980-e79ab2b7951e/572c4a39-b7a3-4a2f-a980-e79ab2b7951e//true

[qualia]

THEY call themselves "psychonauts" and synthetic drugs are their newest fixation.

lol, comedy gold.

[poisonshroom]

I love it how in these articles they put death statistics up as if its some kind of epidemic, but really I think more people die from panadol each year than from 'synthetic drugs'. I mean 8 deaths in Australia from drugs which have been available for half a decade and openly sold in all tobacconists, sex shops and some alternative lifestyle type stores isnt that alarming to me - hundreds die from alcohol poisoning and heroin overdoses each year, but thats not front page news, and theres no push to ban alcohol.

Scaremongering propaganda at its finest

[qualia]

and theres no push to ban alcohol.

of course there's no push to ban it outright, but there is a push to limit it's availability through higher taxes, and restrictions on opening hours for licensed premises, even inquiries into plain packaging for booze. if alcohol were a new substance just discovered in the last 10 years or so i'd say it would face the same legal hurdles as newer psychoactive substances.

[Anodyne]

Iain McGregor, a professor of psychopharmacology at the University of Sydney, says it is only a matter of time before something ‘‘really nasty’’ comes along.

Already scientists are detecting synthetic cannabinoids that have had their chemical structures altered using fluorine — which has been linked with severe kidney damage, liver failure and birth defects.

‘‘So what if there is one like Thalidomide? How long will it take us to realise that?’’ Professor McGregor warns.

This is a damned good point though. Mcgregor does good research and is generally good at giving media-friendly harm-minimisation interviews, so I respect his opinion. And it's a good question - how would we know? Most of the info about most new "synthetics" is coming in from self-reports scattered over dozens of internet drug forums... Who's collating all that stuff and looking for patterns? That's kind of Erowid's corner, but they can't keep up with all this.

It's something that annoys me about Shulgin and some of the other research chemists - they don't do real toxicity tests, instead relying on their gut feelings about whether a substance "feels toxic". Frankly I'm amazed that Shulgins' discoveries have turned out to be as safe as they have. And hell, maybe he is a genius and really can assess safety this way, but what about all the other new compounds? I just wish that self-experimentation hadn't become so trendy in this field, I wish someone somewhere was killing rats to provide some real data.

[whitewind]

Seems a bit unfair to the rats. If peeps are happy to experiment outside the field of knowledge so be it, the sensible ones will make informed choices. Is it really any more dangerous than trying new foods?

I err on the side of caution after a few bad experiences when I thought I knew what I was doing, and I refuse GM foods but if others make different decisions... I'm no control freak.

I just feel sorry for the rats. They aren't being offered any choices at all!

[Anodyne]

Anthropocentric of me I know, but I would really prefer to kill rats than humans. Humans have the choice to take a compound or not, but with the lack of info available about many of the newer RCs, it's not what you could call an well-informed choice. You basically have to either say "nah, RCs are too risky", or "yeah it'll be fine, they've mostly been ok so far", there is no real way to assess the risk properly.

[rahli]

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/program/980385