I don't know how people "figure" these concoctions out...I guess they mix and use until they think they have something that they should inject?
Crazy.
Crazy.
check out these videos on this site
http://www.ericdunbar.com/drugs/videos/krokidile_the_drug_that_eats_junkies.htm
http://www.ericdunbar.com/drugs/videos/krokidile_the_drug_that_eats_junkies.htm
This is true. I believe they should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not infringing on another person's right to live.
I've spammed this YouTube channel before, but Vice did a documentary over Krokodil last year:
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the world's deadliest drug, but here is the world's scariest drug:
It's called Scopolamine, also known as "The Devil's Breath." It leaves the user (victim) incapable of exercising free will. An example how it's used is a criminal grinds it up into a power. They sprinkle the power onto a road map. They ask a unsuspecting person for help with directions. When the victim is face first into the criminal's map, trying to be a good samaritan, the criminal flicks the back of the map which launches the power into the person's face, which is involuntarily inhaled. The drug itself doesn't trip you out like a typical drug, all it does is literally puts the victim in the criminal's control. The criminal will say, "take me to an ATM and give me every dollar out of your bank account" and the victim will happily oblige, having no clue they're being robbed, having no clue they're under the influence of anything. The victim truly believes that they're doing the right thing.
It's called Scopolamine, also known as "The Devil's Breath." It leaves the user (victim) incapable of exercising free will. An example how it's used is a criminal grinds it up into a power. They sprinkle the power onto a road map. They ask a unsuspecting person for help with directions. When the victim is face first into the criminal's map, trying to be a good samaritan, the criminal flicks the back of the map which launches the power into the person's face, which is involuntarily inhaled. The drug itself doesn't trip you out like a typical drug, all it does is literally puts the victim in the criminal's control. The criminal will say, "take me to an ATM and give me every dollar out of your bank account" and the victim will happily oblige, having no clue they're being robbed, having no clue they're under the influence of anything. The victim truly believes that they're doing the right thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Now that's what I'm talking about. Junkie justice.
But seriously, that's horrible what people do to themselves and others to get high.
I had not heard of this before but it is disturbing.
Those who are saying libertarians support this are just taking things to an extreme. Libertarians may not care what one puts in thier own body but when it affects others it does matter. Many things about these users affect others.
Those who are saying libertarians support this are just taking things to an extreme. Libertarians may not care what one puts in thier own body but when it affects others it does matter. Many things about these users affect others.
No one here ever had to personally deal with addiction in their lives? Sure hear a lot of bravado from people about it who have dealt with it on the periphery of their lives in a relative, spouse, or friend. Treating addicts like criminals just leads to them becoming better criminals. And we all know how great it is to restrict responsible law abiding citizens access to something just because criminals would use it. That's my libertarian stand point.
I understand allowing people to control their own bodies, even abuse and destroy their own bodies. However... it becomes a very slippery slope. In both directions.
Do you force society to pay for the needed medical care to patch them up when they inflict horrendous injuries and damage upon themselves so they can go out and do it again? If so, where do you draw the line? Smokers and their emphysema? Fast-foot junkies and their heart disease and diabetes?
If not... do you turn them away when they need medical treatment? Is medical treatment and care a right or a privilege? What about emergency care?
Is it an infringement on my rights as a citizen to make me pay to support and/or patch up people who abuse their bodies knowingly? Whether through legal or illegal methods? And does that matter? You said as long as it doesn't infringe on your right to live... what about to live without having to support them, or pay for them, or those types of things?
I don't believe it IS taking it to an extreme... there are some self-described libertarians even on this board who would say it does not matter what they do to themselves... it is their body, let them do what they want to it.
My question is, what about the consequences?
I'm not taking a position one way or the other here, I'm asking pointed, direct questions to stimulate a larger, meaningful and civil debate on the issue. Hopefully helping to spark people's interest and help us all examine situations not only from our own point of view and past experiences, but from a wider and different perspective as well.
Just some thoughts...
I obviously do not know how best to live others lives but I know what my weakness' are. We keep talking about how to deal with these problems if we take the libertarian view of decriminalizing drugs. Decriminalization leads to a huge amount of funding we are spending on the drug wars and on warehousing addicts that could instead be redirected to public healthcare and rehab programs that do cost less per person than incarceration of addicts. Getting people who need help the help they need when they hit bottom rather than making them institutionalized career criminals who are unemployable for the remainder of their lives seems a far better use of my tax dollars than wasting it trying to stop something that can't be stopped. Once Pandora's box has been opened it can not be closed. Slipping your blinders on and returning to 1954 won't work.
Yessir
Similar threads
