.

[Spiralout]

Ok, so back in the 60's LSD was essentially an "RC". No one knew what it was really so. So yes we don't no long term effects of these substances but that hasn't stopped people in the past.

Like I said, the main problem with these synthetic cannibinoids is that most of them are full agonists an have a high affinity for your cannabinoid receptors. This can be dangerous or deadly if to much is taken. The other thing is, unless getting a known chemical with tests you have no idea what your taking.

Smoking this fake spice stuff is stupid at best, deadly at worst. :!:

 

[frobot]

In a two week period two of my friends went to the hospital after smoking synthetic cannabinoids.
They are disguised as innocent herbs, but the "herb" is just some inactive thing that gets sprayed with a cocktail of chemicals.
So if you are ever tempted to smoke these things, just imagine someone in a lab wearing a gas mask holding some kind of spraying device and covering fake herbs in chemicals.

 

[GOD]

Which sample was ever found with cyanide?

The one in my " for example " - " theoretical " example . Its there to make the point more clear . The worst i have seen was a report of lead dust in a sample .


" No test in the world tests for everything "

That aplys to both sorts of test . When we test we want the best , most reliable FULL results so we go for the best we have ........ like courts and drug testing labs do . Colour tests have massive holes in them ...... and when we use those tests we dont know if .... and if what is in the hole = It isnt worth doing except for what they are specificly sold for = for example concerned people ........ police and parents can test substances to see if they have " illegal " content . Other than that i see no use .


" I think it's easier to talk specific examples instead of non-existent or unlikely hypothetical examples.

OK . In western europe there has been very much outdoor grass that is said to come from serbia . There have been newspaper reports and TV documentrys about it . Its fact . Some of the grass was tested and was show to have pesticide on it . Sometimes i have had outdoor grass thatmade me sneeze a lot . Was it the pesticide ?

We also see grass that has been poluted with commercial products to make it weigh more . One name was Brix or bricks ? Sometimes there is so much on it that the grass snaps , crackles and pops when its heated .

Next ...... since the secret of washing grass got out about 15 years ago its been used to cut hash . That means that the best quality powders are washed in cold water and the fat is then mixed with the third quality powder . In that fat there is a little of the good powder = Joe public gets something that has much more fat in it ......... and thinks " Hey WOW !!!!! ...... top quality resin " and pays MUCH more for it . The hit he is getting is to a large part from the fat that is plastering his lungs = poison , poison gasses and lack of oxygen . Their lungs get " glued " up = again lack of oxygen = They think that they are high .

Now thats gone a step further and " they ' are putting other fats in = fat that doesnt come from the cannabis plant . What is it ? I have no idea . I have seen / extracted at least two sorts and they were tasteless .

That " hash " with the extra fat in it is the equivalent of smokeing candles . One of the main causes of death in the middle ages was breathing in the fumes fom candles and oil lamps .


Would colour tests help ? To detect pesticides ? To identify added weight fillers ? What about othe things that have been found in commercial " hash " from shredded plastic to old LPs ?

Or would it have to go to a profi lab ?


You say pregnancy test . EXACTLY . Thats a yes or no question . The same as colour tests . It doesnt show what sex the baby is or its weigh or its blood group . Colour tests just show if a chemical or chemical group is present . That shows nothing about the " safety " or aceptability of the other contents = It does nothing to help drug harm prevention .

" what is the alternative you are offering "

I am not offering an altenative . I am trying to make clear that those tests are VERY limited and that people can get a false sense of security by useing them . Thats why drug test organisations , governments and courts dont use them ...... and why profi labs offer the tests .

The original poster asked a question and was told to test things . Colour tests are only usefull in rare situations

I'm also trying to give a new member a bit of suport . He came and asked a question and was answered . I am trying to put those answers in perspective .

 

[GOD]

AND ...... how would colour tests have helped the original poster ? Would they tell him what the product was ? What other active chemical/s are in it ?

Could a normal user do those colour tests ? Without training and help ? What do they cost ? How many tests and samples would one need to provide just the results that the posible tests could show ?

How many of us have used colour tests ? Lab tests ? How often ?

= We should be carefull what we take . Do some research on it and think about and plan for posible consequencys . But not go over the top and not get a guilt complex and comit ritual suicide .



@ Acid

Acid didnt do us any harm so that means that " research chemicals " are safe ?

 

[endlessness]

GOD. I gave you a very specific example of when reagent tests can certainly do much for harm reduction: LSD vs nbomes/dox/bromodragonfly. You say we should be ' careful with what we take' . I'd say it's way more careful for someone taking LSD to reagent test using ehrlich than to not test at all, and this has nothing to do with 'guilt complex'.

You are still entitled to your opinion of course. Personally I feel reagents are definitely lacking, which is why I've been working on TLC. But I don't think reagents are completely useless, I think you probably say that from a place of having very little experience with reagents, and I think if you look at it carefully you see there are definitely clear exmaples where it can be useful. They are most definitely use by different international harm reduction organizations, while being conscious of their limits. Some organizations have access to other techniques and instruments but others don't and still make good use of just the reagents .

As for the synthetic cannabinoids, to be honest I have not researched much in this area. I know certain synthetic cannabinoids can be differentiated with different reagents, but I'm not sure if any of those cannabinoids is specifically less or more risky than others so I'm not sure how much the reagents would help appart from simply curiosity's sake. Personally I think harm reduction in this case would most likely be switching to cannabis instead of synthetic cannabinoids, but there are other contextual factors and preferences that need to be taken into account.

As for cannabis, GOD, do you have any source regarding your claims of "cold water wash" (what does that even do, cannabinoids are not soluble in water, makes no sense to me) and of 'oil' added to cannabinoids? I have looked plenty and didn't find much. In terms of oil the only publication I found mentions a couple of samples with some pine resin in Charras samples in italy. Certainly not as widespread as some people claim.

Also when you talk about 'western europe' , that is an innacurate generalization. Many of the main consuming countries in western europe like Spain and Netherlands do not smoke serbian weed, there is a local growing culture. In any case, what test from Serbian weed showed what pesticide in what amounts? Source please. Same for 'commercial hash made of broken LPs', got any source for that claim?

And as for your last question regarding safety of LSD vs research chemicals, I think obviously LSD being safe doesn't make other RCs safe. Several research chemicals are way more toxic than acid (including the ones present to substitute acid). But it may also be that other RCs are even safer than acid (not the nbomes/DOx/bromodragonfly, though).... It's a case by case thing.