121–125 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alleviates symptoms of chemo, yes, but curing cancer? Is this a recent finding?
Yep. Not sure how good this particular source is but it was in the mainstream news recently. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cannabis-helps-shrink-aggressive-...
And these shenanigans, too, would be entirely unnecessary if known drugs were legal and regulated, and people could take controlled risks instead of playing Russian roulette with newly synthesized drugs.
Its hard for me to wrap my mind around this. Are you a person is willing to risk losing their intellect, health, usefulness to society and even their life but is afraid of the legal repercussions of that decision? That doesn't make sense to me.
Also, as MarkPNeyer said, a lot of drug users are rather depressed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I commented about using any drug entails some finite risk of bad effects. The apparently common belief that "designer drugs" shouldn't be "illegal" is certainly not supported by the article. I can see your line of thinking: X has risks, X should not be done, thus make X illegal and X will not be done and the risk will no longer exist. But that's not the way the world works. Making X illegal does not prevent X being d…
While I agree that is the appropriate question to be asking, it's worth considering the length and complexity of the drug pipeline for creating new legal drugs, as a way of estimating the risk of new illegal drugs, which go through nothing like the same degree of testing: http://www.pacificbiolabs.com/drug_stages.asp A new legal drug in its first iteration frequently through animal models frequently has a breakdown o…
For example, plenty of people involved with developing Vioxx bought tons of it before it was removed from the market, because it was such a good nsaid. These people decided that their mode of use wasn't problematic, or that the benefits of using the drug far outweighed the possibility of adverse reaction. While the Market and the FDA decided the drug should be pulled, the people who stockpiled it are certainly more informed than most medical doctors.
If LSD were trialled for psychotherapy today, it would probably be rejected on the grounds that it could make crazy people experience severe adverse effects.
With most novel recreational drugs, there's plenty of "phase 4" anecdata which suggests safety, at least in the short term and at cautious doses. Really nasty adrs usually show up fairly quickly, albeit at the expense of a few lives. If "legal" (nonrecreational) drugs could be put directly into phase 4 testing, drug development would be so much easier-- Animal models are a really crappy substitute for humans, especially with CNS stuff.
I suppose it's a balance of Bad Big Pharma poisons us vs. Bad Big Pharma doesn't make cheap/new drugs...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Phenmetrazine is itself a "designer drug"; as sort of explained in the article, it differs from amphetamine by an oxygen and a couple of carbons forming a morpholine ring including the amine moiety, and its designers hoped it would have some of amphetamine's effects (like weight loss) with less side effects. As with most designer phenethylamines, this turned out badly, though not as badly as e.g. Fen/Phen. (There hav…
Yes, actually, there are no phenmetrazine derivatives in PiHKAL, and yes one has just recently started to appear on the grey market in the last few months. 3-FPM. There is one other derivative, phendimetrazine, which is prescribed for some of the purposes phenmetrazine originally was. It is considered a prodrug for phenmetrazine though, so not really a unique thing in its own right. Phenmetrazine was originally banne…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe people just shouldn't take drugs.
How extraordinarily bland. Even animals are known to take drugs, and not just primates. Eating fermented fruits, licking psychedelic caterpillars, all of that has been documented. Many drugs are harmless compared to alcohol.