Talk-Polywell.org

Krokodil, the Drug That Eats Your Flesh:



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVDyNvlCIAAVi6y.jpg[/img]

This is the moderator - Simon. We have a policy against ugly pictures around here. The only guy who ever got thrown off the board was admonished several times for doing that. Please avoid that in the future. If you object to my moderation take it up with Joe.

The most disconcerting effect of the drug is its ability to rot flesh from the inside of a person's body. Krokodil, which is also known as desomorphine, is made by mixing codeine with all sorts of chemicals like gasoline, oil, alcohol, or paint thinner. The combination of these chemicals often causes gangrene, making it necessary to amputate the affected regions. The acidic chemicals can also rot and eat at the flesh from the veins out, as seen in the picture above.

http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/09/krokodil-crocodile-russia-flesh-eating-drug/



D@mn those pesky prohibitionists! People have a RIGHT to do this to themselves! They have a RIGHT to hook other people on this drug! If those D@mn moralists would just get out of the way, we could let Freedom ring!


And the world would be a better place.

Diogenes wrote:D@mn those pesky prohibitionists! People have a RIGHT to do this to themselves! They have a RIGHT to hook other people on this drug! If those D@mn moralists would just get out of the way, we could let Freedom ring!


And the world would be a better place.

If people stupid enough to do that to themselves were allowed to take it to it's conclusion, the world WOULD be a better place. "Think of it as evolution in action".

KitemanSA wrote:

Diogenes wrote:D@mn those pesky prohibitionists! People have a RIGHT to do this to themselves! They have a RIGHT to hook other people on this drug! If those D@mn moralists would just get out of the way, we could let Freedom ring!


And the world would be a better place.

If people stupid enough to do that to themselves were allowed to take it to it's conclusion, the world WOULD be a better place. "Think of it as evolution in action".

Although there are not many addicts, their life expectancies are said to be as low as two years due to injecting drug users' high susceptibility to infections and gangrene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desomorphine

And why do they take it?

Because they are in search of a better cheaper high...

"Why" doesn't matter to an addict. There's no reasoning with them. Addicts act primarily on desires. That's one of the most insidious things about drugs, is they degenerate a human into a sub-human animal.

Because they are in search of a better cheaper high...

Maybe I should have worded this to be;

Because they are driven for a better cheaper high...

I agree that the addiction reduces or removes rational thinking and judgemental abilities as it digs in.

ladajo wrote:And why do they take it?

Because they are in search of a better cheaper high...

If we ended prohibition the highs would be cheap enough and safer. That is why Oxy is so popular and commands such a high price and is in fact currently 4X as popular as heroin.

We got "bath salts" because pot is illegal. etc.

If we ended prohibition the highs would be cheap enough and safer.

There is no such thing as a safe high.

It really should be a clue to you that folks are willing to destroy themselves to get high. You claim alcohol is worse. I say that the percentage of life failure with drugs users is much worse than alcohol users. And it has got nothing to do with prohibition. It has everything to do with what drugs does to a person's being.

They use Oxy because fo the high it gives. They could care less about the risk. They do not even think about it.

And if "addicts" are just people with unrecognized pain?

So far all we have for "addiction" is a description of behavior. The underlying cause is never mentioned.

So I will tell you what my researches have turned up.

People in chronic pain chronically take pain relievers.

Now what is this pain? PTSD. For which there is currently no test although Raphael Mechoulam (the discoverer of THC) had hoped for one several years ago. So far nothing except behavior and interviews can be used to diagnose it in the cases of child abuse. Which are the majority if not the vast majority of cases. For those in the military diagnosis is easier. The point of trauma is recorded.

This is anecdotal - a former heroin addict thought I was on to something. In fact a number of current and former heroin addicts and an addiction counselor thought I was on to something. Funny - but to my knowledge no research has been done along those lines. My theory is that making war on the traumatized would be unpopular. So why look into it?

We do know that for alcoholics there is some research.

US Dept of Veteran Affairs:
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/pts ... ol-use.asp

From the VA link:

If you have both PTSD and drinking problems, you are likely to have other mental or physical health problems. Up to half of adults with both PTSD and drinking problems also have one or more of the following serious problems:

Panic attacks, extreme fears or worries, or compulsions (being driven to do things like checking the door locks over and over)
Mood problems such as depression
Attention problems or behaving in ways that harm others
Addiction to or abuse of street or prescription drugs
Long-term physical illness such as diabetes, heart disease, or liver disease
Ongoing physical pain

So there is some evidence besides anecdotal.

There is no such thing as a safe high.

Ah. So you think we should re-instate alcohol prohibition? Because BAC levels of .04 are known to cause detectable impairment. That could be as little as one beer depending on body weight.

This hate on users of some drugs is just proof that it is not difficult to teach hate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

In this experiment (below) children were taught to hate based on eye color. The teacher started out by giving a lecture on brotherhood. I can't decide whether to laugh or cry.
http://www.upworthy.com/watch-a-teacher ... aginable-2

It is one of the best tools of the PTB. We see it being used all the time. Especially so by our current administration. But they are all guilty. Preaching love is much more difficult. And has its own dangers.

It is amusing that the political parties are defined in part by the people they hate.

The Republicans have a whole list of those who are acceptable to hate.

The Democrats have narrowed it down some. The rich and white people. Mostly. That keeps it simple.

MSimon wrote:This is the moderator - Simon. We have a policy against ugly pictures around here. The only guy who ever got thrown off the board was admonished several times for doing that. Please avoid that in the future. If you object to my moderation take it up with Joe.

I'm not going to take it up with Joe, but i'm also not buying your answer.


That photograph illustrates in an all too real manner that your argument of "Malum Prohibitum" is utter bullshit. I perceive that you object to the picture more because it instantly destroys your position, than that it is particularly ugly.


Likewise, all the Liberal Democrats who run the media industries absolutely censor pictures of an actual aborted child because they realize instantly that support for their position falls apart when confronted with the visual truth of what they believe.

The media also will not show pictures of Homosexuality being practiced in the usual manner in those places where it holds sway. They will also not show the diseased consequences of it either, and indeed, they carefully manage the presentation of it to the masses.

They will, of course show ugly scenes (dead iraqi children) when it suits THEIR purpose.


When the truth is not your friend, you are on the wrong side of an issue.

MSimon wrote:

There is no such thing as a safe high.

Ah. So you think we should re-instate alcohol prohibition? Because BAC levels of .04 are known to cause detectable impairment. That could be as little as one beer depending on body weight.

Apples and Oranges and you know it. You are merely trying to misrepresent and redirect. Just like with D's photo of what Oxy use does to you.

You know exactly what I meant. Getting high makes you want to get more high. Most folks I know that get too drunk, don't want to do it again.







And if you want to compare between Alcohol and Drug use before and after, just google both. No comparison.

"drug use before and after photos"

and

"alcohol use before and after photos"

You tell me which is worse for you.

ladajo wrote:And if you want to compare between Alcohol and Drug use before and after, just google both. No comparison.
"drug use before and after photos"
and
"alcohol use before and after photos"

You tell me which is worse for you.

What about pictures showing the results of emphysema or advanced stage lung cancer from smoking legal tobacco cigarettes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zWB4dLYChM

Or Cirrhosis of the liver from years of drinking hard liquor?

Sure you could find images just as ugly, it just generally takes longer. An again those pictures show good reasons not to do meth or crack etc., not really endorsements of our current system of prohibition which allows very high concentration narcotics (often mixed with noxious impurities) in the hands of anyone who wants them and is willing to pay for them, producing your posted results.

Diogenes wrote:That photograph illustrates in an all too real manner that your argument of "Malum Prohibitum" is utter bullshit. I perceive that you object to the picture more because it instantly destroys your position, than that it is particularly ugly.

Doubt if krokodil in any form would ever be legalized...in any case this unfortunates situation is under our existing prohibition, don't see how it’s an argument for continuing it, or how ending the drug war would affect this one way or another.

Diogenes wrote:Likewise, all the Liberal Democrats who run the media industries absolutely censor pictures of an actual aborted child because they realize instantly that support for their position falls apart when confronted with the visual truth of what they believe.

The media also will not show pictures of Homosexuality being practiced in the usual manner in those places where it holds sway. They will also not show the diseased consequences of it either, and indeed, they carefully manage the presentation of it to the masses.

Under the auspices of banning "offensive speech/imagery". Interesting point hiding the ugly reality from the gullible masses. I remember Clinton saying when they wanted to ban late term abortions (which are legal infanticide IMHO) that well its rare so there is no need to ban it. I recall things like the fetus's head being left inside the womb when they jam I think the tube or whatever inside its skull killing it. They have to leave the head inside because if they pulled it out it would be homicide.

Diogenes wrote:They will, of course show ugly scenes (dead iraqi children) when it suits THEIR purpose.
When the truth is not your friend, you are on the wrong side of an issue.

But not let us see the results of thousands of abortions being performed which are just as graphic..again interesting point, don't really have a rebuttal to that obviously our esteemed media are serving an agenda.