I'm pretty sure speed limit signs look somewhat like this, all over North America...
Posted on 01/08/2013 12:37:07 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper
Police here are warning of a new hallucinogenic drug authorities say has begun circulating the St. Louis area.
St. Louis County police say the synthetic drug known as "N-Bomb" has been linked to deaths in other parts of the country including California, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Dakota and Virginia.
The drug, sometimes also called "Smiles" is known as N-Bomb for its chemical compositions, 2C-1-NBOMe or 251NBOMe, and can be extremely potent and dangerous, police say.
Police say the liquid drug is often called "legal acid" and is derived from mescaline. Users typically take the drug by ingesting blotter paper soaked with the liquid, similar to LSD.
Officer Randy Vaughn of the St. Louis County police said county's undercover drug officers have reported purchasing the drug recently.
According to media reports, the drug was banned in Virginia last year and later outlawed in Louisiana after a 21-year-old man died at a New Orleans music festival in November. The man apparently took N-Bomb from a stranger, began convulsing and died a short time later.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
That is a different law.
I agreed with what you posted.
I don’t know if they’ve done LSD studies on teens, but they’ve done LOTS of studies with it. Remember LSD came out of the pharmacology industry, that’s why the stuff used out on the streets has the long name of LSD-25, it’s the 25th tested sample formulation.
And of course in this modern world where we deliberately dope up our kids you have to worry about drug interactions. Grapefruit juice is perfectly harmless too, until you’re on lipitor (which I personally find annoying since I love grapefruits). And as you point out, if you’re buying stuff off the street who knows for sure. Robert Anton Wilson always used to call street LSD “sold as”, apparently for a while it was popular to substitute speed.
New drugs ARE coming from that. Or did you not bother to read the article?
That’s a cute little strawman you put up. Meanwhile I ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
Individual: the natural right to do anything that doesn't violate anyone else's rights - such as make, sell, buy, or use drugs.
State: the right to set drug policies within their own borders, which is not explicitly granted to the feds by the Constitution and is therefore reserved to the states.
The point is that the teenage brain is much more susceptible to permanent damage than the more mature brain of an adult, over 18. Unfortunately drug use among teenagers is multiplying at a much higher rate than adult drug use, which is declining. The worst affect of the laissez-faire attitude toward certain drugs, the drugs won’t hurt you attitude is that it sends the wrong message to teen-agers.
I have a friend who has never stopped using drugs, all kinds of drugs and brags that she never became addicted to anything and that is proof that drugs are harmless if used in moderation. Well, the drugs may not have hurt her, but they have hurt a lot of other people in her family and circle of friends, and I blame her.
Her son is a heroin addict, he blames her also. He says that it is her fault because she never stopped him when he was a teenager and bragged about how cool her drug use was to anyone who would listen. He says that she was the worst mother in the world. I agree.
She grows her own marijuana and is known to share it with friends and family members. She likes to bake it into cookies. She shared it with one young man , who left her house and got into an accident, killed a guy and went to jail for 3.5 years. She was scared to death that he would tell where he got the marijuana and she would go to jail too. Maybe she should have.
But then you’re dealing with whether or not the drug does damage. We always knew marijuana had pharmacological side effects, the question was how many and how much did you recover from it, same as with booze. The data we have on 50 odd years of LSD testing is it doesn’t do damage, and not doing damage to the brain means the susceptibility of the age group to permanent damage doesn’t matter. That the important of this phrase: “there is no evidence for long-lasting effects on brain and other parts of the human organism”.
The right attitude is one of truth. Especially in the internet age with all the data out there. The boogieman picture is usually built on false data, and the kids can look it up. If you tell kids “everybody that does this gets hooked and it destroys them” then they look up the internet data and see the addiction rate is under 15% they know they were lied to and now they don’t believe you. Be truthful, let them know it’s a crap shoot, and each drug is different.
Just about any drug will be able to be said to be similar to another in some way in effects, that is the shared purpose of all of them, science will create it’s own new drugs, just like this one in the article, of course the media will always compare it to something in the past.
Drug legalization is about all drugs, current and future, and libertarianism is about unlimited marketing and advertising of them.
In your lifetime, when was that legal?
Does driving 110 mph down a residential street violate anyone's rights?
And here you show you don’t actually know anything about drugs. There’s a reason they call this N-Bomb fake LSD and not fake psilocybin, the effect aren’t the same. And it’s not the media calling it that, it’s the MAKERS.
They don’t need to call new drugs fake anything.
Yeah they do, that’s the marketing. If people want the effect of pot without the legal hassles what to they buy? If people don’t know what Spice is they don’t know if they want it. It’s the basic concept of all advertising: product awareness. The crowd of people out here that will just do something with no hint at all of the effect is small, and short lived. Hence why the manufacturers put out the word of what their product is faking.
“Unfortunately some people in their youth don’t consider their own mortality. Figures, what with the poor education system.;
Nonsense. Most youths don’t consider their own mortality for one reason-—YOUTH !!!!! The schools have nothing to do with it.
.
In your lifetime, when was that legal?
Relevance?
Does driving 110 mph down a residential street violate anyone's rights?
If the owner of that street has disallowed that (and, for public owners, the disallowing is reasonably related to the protection of rights such as the right to not be run over) then such actions violate the owner's rights.
You're the one bitching about it, aren't you?
If the owner of that street
Your disjointed LIEbertarian response is hilarious. Who "owns" the streets in the towns and cities across the United States? When and where can I see signs along town and city streets stating that driving 110 mph is disallowed?
Just pointing out that you accept the drug you use. If other people use a drug other than alcohol, and cause no harm to others, it's none of your business, just as it is your right to drink alcohol in a responsible manner.
At least in the United States I remember.
I'm pretty sure speed limit signs look somewhat like this, all over North America...
I see nowhere on the signs that driving 110 mph is disallowed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.