metascrawl wrote:

Solpodol is 30/500 so you were getting 60mg per dose rather than the 16mg you get in cocodemol. That I can believe would provide significant pain relief.

Solpadine is what I generally have taken for severe toothache. A quick check seems to indicate that this has 12.8mg per tablet, so 25.8mg per dose.

tigerswiftly wrote:

I regret the volume of drugs I did as a young lad, if not the experience. I let them get in the way of study and other things though, which was quite a big problem and has undoubtedly affected my path in life. Magic Mushrooms were a very weird one; one time was simply hilarious, and one time almost everything that could go wrong went wrong. Had an amazing time recently with my first smoke in 3 years. Great company, a little bit to toke, and some cold beers. And cheese. I won't say who with 'cos it's not my place to, but it was great. And I'm fairly sure it made me amazing at Street Fighter, even if only for a very short while, haha!

I could hazard a guess.

mistercrayon wrote:

I don't like the term 'legal high'. Its a swizzy marketing technique by drug peddlers to push untested and unverified bullshit.

No it isn't, it's a media term for uncontrolled and effective drugs. Any 'drug peddler' that marketed any psychoactive drug using the term 'legal high' would be arrested. It's illegal to sell any drug, even ones that aren't controlled under law in terms of sales, for the purpose of human consumption. Vendors use the euphemism 'research chemicals' and explicitly state that they are not to be used for human consumption - and therefore could not constitute any kind of 'high' - at every stage in the process, from the t&c's you sign up to when making an order online to warnings on the packaging. That's the major loophole that allows all this to go on. The user agrees not to take the drug when they buy it, because it isn't a drug at all you see? It's a research chemical. By taking the drug they break the agreement, so it's their lookout, not the vendor's if anything bad should happen.

Anything marketed as a 'legal high' has been thoroughly tested - to make sure it's completely inactive and therefore legal to sell for human consumption. There used to be a lot of that stuff around in the late nineties and early 2000's, but I haven't seen any recently - presumably because 'research chemicals' are a much more profitable line of business as they actually work.

So that's the situation - anything that says 'this will get you fucked!' on the packaging won't have any effect, and anything that says 'strictly not for human consumption' will probably get you fucked.

Anyone that actually uses effective legal drugs usually stick to the euphemism 'research chemicals', or 'RCs.' I only ever really see the term 'legal high' used in the media or by people online who who don't use drugs.

Ironically the only drug that affected me really badly was a lousy anti-malaria drug. Made a mess of me, perhaps permanently. Malaria would have been infinitely better.

You druggie cunts, grow up.

Pffft, I was the PA-BAH-LOW ES-KA-BAH of Windsor. I had a team of bare chemists knocking out all variety of proxies. You can snort coke with the Nigerian diplomat at his embassy until the cows come home. But when you extricate yourself from that circle you realise how fucking sad it all is. Keep drinking the cough mixture Mr Venezuela.

CRANKSTER101.

Lord_Griff wrote:

Keep drinking the cough mixture Mr Venezuela.

The correct technical term is 'sizzurp.' 'That drank' will also suffice.

A friend just told me that a classmate of hers at uni was talking about doing 'mushrooms and mirrors' which turns out to be a combination of magic mushrooms and cocaine. Why anybody would want to combine those two drugs is completely beyond me. Although I never really could understand the appeal of cocaine in any case.

I smoked crack once a very long time ago, which did feel very nice indeed for about twenty five seconds and then I wanted to die. Bill Clegg's short, brutal memoir Portrait of the Young Man as an Addict is about his freebase habit which in its final stages caused him to burn through $70,000 on a two week long crack, vodka and male prostitute binge by the end of which he was very nearly dead. It makes Junkie seem like a P.G. Wodehouse novel in comparison. Unflinchingly painful stuff.

Did him a world of good.

I thought he was fairly well know to be a big weed smoker. First album is called Five Leaves Left, after all.

Mmmm cheese @tiger

This has crossed into brass eye territory now.

Yeah, I'm not unaware of the irony what I did with this thread. However I do see this as a place where people can say what they've got to say about drugs, good and bad, in an honest way. I haven't intentionally written in the spirit of 'glorification' but I can see how I might come across that way as I've made no secret of the fact that I enjoy drugs. Maybe I should dial my enthusiasm down somewhat. But there are plenty of people who have posted cautionary things about drugs here, and I have admitted in my own posts that they have their dark side as well as their enjoyable side. I don't think its wrong for people to write about positive experiences they've had of drugs though - I don't see that as glorification, just honesty. I don't see the stuff that was written about Nick Drake as glorification or recommendation for example. He killed himself and it was made pretty clear that his drug use may well have contributed to that.

As far as I'm concerned, drugs have added a fascinating and enjoyable aspect to my life, in terms of my own experiences and in terms of aesthetic objects I have encountered, particularly prose writing, that have been informed by drugs and have inspired me. But drugs have also caused me trouble and pain to quite an extreme degree that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy and which I could have spared myself by leaving drugs alone. I would never recommend drugs to anyone. But I don't see anything wrong with having a frank discussion about both the pain and pleasure of drug experiences.

I wasn't criticising, meta, I still find it fascinating because even if I had an interest, I wouldn't be able to partake because of my job.  I'm perfectly happy that my lifestyle choices mean I have to be pretty strict and law-abiding, but I do find it interesting.

Sex with Jesus? Ok then Griff, sign me up.