Dwhitty76 said:
sheeiit...
me too.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Obama decriminalizing MJ ?!?
- Thread starter Dwhitty76
- Start date
sheeiit...
me too.
Dwhitty76 said:
I'm not. I want to see him go back to his REAL home. connecticut.
as a conscious, free-thinking texan, nothing pisses me off more than other texans (those damn good ol' boys) who claim him as one of their own. Bush is NOT TEXAN.
I read some article the other day, how some people in Midland were quoted saying "he did the job we asked him to do. he kept our values safe."
wtf
the country went to shit, and all these simpletons are in total denial (probably driving their F150s with the W'04 sticker still on it)
I think that you won't have a hope in hell that MJ will be legalized or decriminalized in the US or virtually anywhere else for that matter - well decriminalized maybe but I still don't see it.
The main reason is that it has nothing to do how dangerous or socially acceptable it is but all to do with control. Governments are like religions in that they like to control the people, they like to dictate what we can and cannot do. Mix the two together and you get some fuckwit like Bush who thinks god looks out for him or the recent ban in Holland for fresh shrooms (dried ones were banned a good few years ago) which was perpetrated by some religious fuckwit in the Dutch government.
IF the government (not just in the US) were to do U-turns on such things as drug policies then we the people would start demanding more and more freedoms to the point where the government would have no control. These people know full well that MJ isn't toxic or cause riots and whatnot (just as they know hallucinogens aren't harmful either). If they had their way we would be living squarely in an Orwellian world of control while they themselves get to get high on whatever they want.
Just my thruppence
The main reason is that it has nothing to do how dangerous or socially acceptable it is but all to do with control. Governments are like religions in that they like to control the people, they like to dictate what we can and cannot do. Mix the two together and you get some fuckwit like Bush who thinks god looks out for him or the recent ban in Holland for fresh shrooms (dried ones were banned a good few years ago) which was perpetrated by some religious fuckwit in the Dutch government.
IF the government (not just in the US) were to do U-turns on such things as drug policies then we the people would start demanding more and more freedoms to the point where the government would have no control. These people know full well that MJ isn't toxic or cause riots and whatnot (just as they know hallucinogens aren't harmful either). If they had their way we would be living squarely in an Orwellian world of control while they themselves get to get high on whatever they want.
Just my thruppence
It has to do with control to extent but not as much as many believe. It has mostly to do with the money. The war on drugs is a multi-billion dollar industry. There are a lot of people who make there living off of drug use. There are many ways to control the people, but what it really comes down to is the money. This is true with anything.
In many ways the government would have more control if these things were legal and regulated. They currently have very little control over what goes on regarding illicit drugs. There is no reasons to think people would ask for more freedoms if drugs were legal. There really isn't much else to ask for most other crimes involve victims and these have never ever been allowed by any culture (maybe a couple in the past).
Also there is no organized head "government" as most people picture. There is no group of people who sit in a room and plot sinister plans to control the humans. There are many individual sectors who want to continue what they are doing (keep their jobs) so they use lies, propaganda, lobbying or whatever it takes to convince the public that they are needed and they need more money. They don't work together (that is half the problem: these groups don't co-operate because they want the funding for themselves, they need to prove their own importance).
Prohibition is not only a failure but a complete disaster. It is directly responsible for the majority of the dangers (health, social, and crime) which it claims it wants to stop. The truth is that the drugs themselves, while not perfect, if regulate would be used by most people in a safe and efficient manner just as most people currently use illegal drugs. Regulation is about control.
All drugs will eventually be decriminalized and regulated. This is inevitable, it is the way it was and it is the way it will be. It may take a little while but history shows us it will happen. Many things have been prohibited by many cultures human nature has always one out, this will be no different. Regulation is the only way to effectively deal with the social and health implications of substance.
In many ways the government would have more control if these things were legal and regulated. They currently have very little control over what goes on regarding illicit drugs. There is no reasons to think people would ask for more freedoms if drugs were legal. There really isn't much else to ask for most other crimes involve victims and these have never ever been allowed by any culture (maybe a couple in the past).
Also there is no organized head "government" as most people picture. There is no group of people who sit in a room and plot sinister plans to control the humans. There are many individual sectors who want to continue what they are doing (keep their jobs) so they use lies, propaganda, lobbying or whatever it takes to convince the public that they are needed and they need more money. They don't work together (that is half the problem: these groups don't co-operate because they want the funding for themselves, they need to prove their own importance).
Prohibition is not only a failure but a complete disaster. It is directly responsible for the majority of the dangers (health, social, and crime) which it claims it wants to stop. The truth is that the drugs themselves, while not perfect, if regulate would be used by most people in a safe and efficient manner just as most people currently use illegal drugs. Regulation is about control.
All drugs will eventually be decriminalized and regulated. This is inevitable, it is the way it was and it is the way it will be. It may take a little while but history shows us it will happen. Many things have been prohibited by many cultures human nature has always one out, this will be no different. Regulation is the only way to effectively deal with the social and health implications of substance.
I totally agree to an extent, money is a huge addictionbufoman said:
If drugs were legalized then the governments would still have no control, the illicit trade would still happen, people would still buy from their local dealer or grow their own ( as many do). Also it would surprise you what else there is to ask for to undermine the control of the governments
But then most of these sectors use the government to achieve their aims, the more lies they tell and support they get influences the people in charge. Just look at the state of affairs today with large banks and corporations getting billions of dollars (pounds,yen,rupees etc) of OUR money for what? So that in the next few years we have to give up more and more to pay 'ourselves' back and get nothing in return.
I agree that prohibition is a disaster but it make a few people very rich and very powerful. I disagree that regulation is a control, I find regulation nothing more than a type of prohibition.
Decriminalization and regulation doesn't work and it never will. All decriminalization does is keep the prisons from being even more overcrowded.
Don't get me wrong I believe that there should be legalization etc but then again how would the world function if everyone decided to get fucked out of their tree at the same time? So its swings and roundabouts, regulation IS required to keep the worlds momentum going but self discipline would be more effective.
BUT then what do I know.
There is no reason to believe that if these things were legal everyone would get fucked up. The law is not a deterrent for most people. The % of population that uses drugs is the same today as it was when drugs were legal. Also self medication may actually increase productivity by helping people with depression and other mental problems.
When drugs were legal there was no signs of lower productivity, nor were people stealing to support there habits because the drugs were good quality and affordable. Society was fine and actually safer because the drug related crime didn't exist. Also there was no black market because you could just go to the store and be guaranteed what you're buying is what they say it is and it is pure. I'd trust rite aid more than pablo escobar.
There would not still be drug dealers with regulation. Maybe a few but not many. How easy is it for you to get moonshine? How often do you get it? Why would you buy high priced shitty quality drugs when you could buy cheaper, higher quality drugs that you know exactly what is in them and how much? Drug dealing would almost disappear, maybe people would still sell pot, but they would end up selling it to the stores as the price would go down so much it wouldn't be worth it for them. Plus you could always produce your own. This is allowed with alcohol and tobacco. Most people would still buy from the stores though to save the trouble.
All that regulation means is that the government controls the price, purity, and availability. Drugs are dangerous there have to be some regulations we can't just let people do what ever they want. that would be anarchy. Regulation is the only way to safely and effectively control and deal with the drug issue. Regulation of alcohol is a good thing otherwise it would be sold everywhere, to anyone and you wouldn't know if it was good qaulity or had contaminants in it. As it was during prohibition.
Some people would abuse these things as some people do now. People abuse everything, eating, gambling, sex, this doesn't mean these behaviors should be banned. With taxation we could fund proper research to develop treatment for people who need it. Also new drugs with minimal side effects could be developed.
Damn I need to write a book on this. So many people are misinformed. Even though people don't realize it the drug war propaganda has certainly imprinted on all of us. Even drug friendly people. I use to believe many of these things even while supporting legalization but then I read a lot about it and looked into the details and thought about every little detail it took years but I feel I know really understand the situation.
Why would legalizing drugs cause the gov to lose power aside form the prohibition sector of the gov. The gov as a whole would not lose power. Nor would people decide to ask for other rights necessarily. The biggest concern is the money and the jobs. These people want to maintain their personal power but it is not the gov as a whole. The US gov is a lot more disorganized than people realize. it is a bunch of sectors working independently many times they don't even cooperate (one of the issues with 9-11 and katrina)
When drugs were legal there was no signs of lower productivity, nor were people stealing to support there habits because the drugs were good quality and affordable. Society was fine and actually safer because the drug related crime didn't exist. Also there was no black market because you could just go to the store and be guaranteed what you're buying is what they say it is and it is pure. I'd trust rite aid more than pablo escobar.
There would not still be drug dealers with regulation. Maybe a few but not many. How easy is it for you to get moonshine? How often do you get it? Why would you buy high priced shitty quality drugs when you could buy cheaper, higher quality drugs that you know exactly what is in them and how much? Drug dealing would almost disappear, maybe people would still sell pot, but they would end up selling it to the stores as the price would go down so much it wouldn't be worth it for them. Plus you could always produce your own. This is allowed with alcohol and tobacco. Most people would still buy from the stores though to save the trouble.
All that regulation means is that the government controls the price, purity, and availability. Drugs are dangerous there have to be some regulations we can't just let people do what ever they want. that would be anarchy. Regulation is the only way to safely and effectively control and deal with the drug issue. Regulation of alcohol is a good thing otherwise it would be sold everywhere, to anyone and you wouldn't know if it was good qaulity or had contaminants in it. As it was during prohibition.
Some people would abuse these things as some people do now. People abuse everything, eating, gambling, sex, this doesn't mean these behaviors should be banned. With taxation we could fund proper research to develop treatment for people who need it. Also new drugs with minimal side effects could be developed.
Damn I need to write a book on this. So many people are misinformed. Even though people don't realize it the drug war propaganda has certainly imprinted on all of us. Even drug friendly people. I use to believe many of these things even while supporting legalization but then I read a lot about it and looked into the details and thought about every little detail it took years but I feel I know really understand the situation.
Why would legalizing drugs cause the gov to lose power aside form the prohibition sector of the gov. The gov as a whole would not lose power. Nor would people decide to ask for other rights necessarily. The biggest concern is the money and the jobs. These people want to maintain their personal power but it is not the gov as a whole. The US gov is a lot more disorganized than people realize. it is a bunch of sectors working independently many times they don't even cooperate (one of the issues with 9-11 and katrina)
benzyme said:
Benzyme, it's quite clear that you are not your average,simpleton,good ol' boy. You spend too much time in your basement to be a simpleton. :lol:
Bufoman,i think we are pretty much on the same page.
It's mind boggling to me to think that there are some of us here in DMT NEXUS think that drugs should not be decrininalized and dont see the advantages of it.
I'm originally from N.Y.C and there are needle exchanges to keep dirty needles off the street.
I cant confirm this but i've heard that in Amsterdam,if your a heroin addict that's "runnning on empty" and getting sick there is a place you can go where they will get you "Straight" (not meaning sober) and the idea behind this is that you dont have desperate heroin addicts wondering the streets figuring out an illigal or mabey even violent way's of getting $ for their fix.
The war on drugs is a Big Joke or farce and it all comes down to the greeback. We have major politicians turning a blind eye to shippments of cocaine coming into the country and lining their pockets with the proceeds. At the same time the small time retail dealers get's busted busted selling that same product, which end's up in some DEA lab somewhere and who know's what happens after that.
I'm not saying cocaine should be made legal (i absolutely hate that drug...it's pure evil) but i think people, including washington are starting to wake up to the facts that some sort change needs to happen.We have too many non-violent offenders in jail,it's consuming too much tax dollars and there are more people ABUSING dugs than ever.would you not agree that something must change?
I remain cautiously optimistic or even soemwhat hopeful that we have someone in office that seems to have enough sense to address these issues but he is a politician and he has to "play the game".He also has to get us out of this financial mess first.
What makes no sense to me is that you can buy a gun and bullets in the US but you cannot buy psilocybin. While it would be very easy to accidentally kill someone with your gun, it would be dam hard to intentionally kill someone with psilocybin.
The US laws make no sense whatsoever.
The US laws make no sense whatsoever.
^^Hahahah so true.
Anyway wow it sometimes amazes me how people who use drugs think they should be illegal. No one has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot put into their body. They do have a right to make sure things are done as safely as possible and to educate people on the potential dangers but that's it. That's why alcohol and tobacco are regulated. If people mess up distilling they can poison a customer. Tax's are also a motive but I don't think society in general would just allow the government to tax something unless there was a reason to regulate it. Most people in America don't like high taxes or taxes for no reason or regulation of business.
Anyway as far as marijuana legalization goes don't expect change from Obama. He hasn't stopped DEA raids in states that have legalized medical marijuana, they are still going on. Granted he would need to make some kind of order or something to do it and that takes a few days or weeks, I'll believe it when I see it.
The only thing Obama might do that is positive is allow more research to go on within the United States. There is plenty of research already out there to say that marijuana has medical benefit and can be used safely. Don't expect laws to change from Obama however. That is only going to happen with Court precedents and or Congress making or repealing a law. People in America need to realize the president is not supposed to have so much power over the country and our lives, then we might see some real change.
Anyway wow it sometimes amazes me how people who use drugs think they should be illegal. No one has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot put into their body. They do have a right to make sure things are done as safely as possible and to educate people on the potential dangers but that's it. That's why alcohol and tobacco are regulated. If people mess up distilling they can poison a customer. Tax's are also a motive but I don't think society in general would just allow the government to tax something unless there was a reason to regulate it. Most people in America don't like high taxes or taxes for no reason or regulation of business.
Anyway as far as marijuana legalization goes don't expect change from Obama. He hasn't stopped DEA raids in states that have legalized medical marijuana, they are still going on. Granted he would need to make some kind of order or something to do it and that takes a few days or weeks, I'll believe it when I see it.
The only thing Obama might do that is positive is allow more research to go on within the United States. There is plenty of research already out there to say that marijuana has medical benefit and can be used safely. Don't expect laws to change from Obama however. That is only going to happen with Court precedents and or Congress making or repealing a law. People in America need to realize the president is not supposed to have so much power over the country and our lives, then we might see some real change.
Hey, cocaine cannot be evil! It is amoral (just like many many other things around us, like knives or dmt) so it is difficult for it to be good or evil. Humans on the other hand do have moral and they can be "good" or "evil"Dwhitty76 said:
I personally do not see cocaine or any other drugs as evil. How could that ever be?
yeah sure in an absolute sense its amoral.. but..
just like any consumer product, buying it means supporting the industry.. As it is nowadays, the cocaine industry is filled with blood and injustice, not to mention environmental damage from its mass scale growing and production. Sure if it was legal it would be different, but fact is, right now its not, so (in this specific sense) buying cocaine is sort of like buying a shirt made by slave work or whatever.. My conscience would say no.
now.. taken that away.. there's also the effects of cocaine. Once again, yes it is in general amoral, and can be used for example as local anesthesia in nose operations (lol) or whatever, and it can be 'good' in this sense.. But.. if we talk strictly about its use as a drug, then we have to talk about the effects.. Is it always 'evil'? well.. no.. but... It is addictive, and (very important point here) it reinforces ego functions... It in general makes one think too much of himself.. Now anybody with a reasonably sane look at the world will realise the inverse is needed for human progress: humbleness and less ego. So also in this sense, it is a negative drug (for this context of today imo).
I am not saying it should be illegal like it is. In fact I think all drugs should eventually be legalized. All im saying is that I dont buy into this 'all drugs are same same, just depend on how you use it' type of argument. A gun is also an 'instrument' that can save some people in some cases (or give food through hunting) but I think the world would be better off without it, just like I think the world would be better off without cocaine (I dont mean coca leaf, thats completely different.. and I also dont mean erradication should be attempted, I think more like, it would naturally dissapear or the use would diminish considerably if the world evolved 'inwardly' )
just like any consumer product, buying it means supporting the industry.. As it is nowadays, the cocaine industry is filled with blood and injustice, not to mention environmental damage from its mass scale growing and production. Sure if it was legal it would be different, but fact is, right now its not, so (in this specific sense) buying cocaine is sort of like buying a shirt made by slave work or whatever.. My conscience would say no.
now.. taken that away.. there's also the effects of cocaine. Once again, yes it is in general amoral, and can be used for example as local anesthesia in nose operations (lol) or whatever, and it can be 'good' in this sense.. But.. if we talk strictly about its use as a drug, then we have to talk about the effects.. Is it always 'evil'? well.. no.. but... It is addictive, and (very important point here) it reinforces ego functions... It in general makes one think too much of himself.. Now anybody with a reasonably sane look at the world will realise the inverse is needed for human progress: humbleness and less ego. So also in this sense, it is a negative drug (for this context of today imo).
I am not saying it should be illegal like it is. In fact I think all drugs should eventually be legalized. All im saying is that I dont buy into this 'all drugs are same same, just depend on how you use it' type of argument. A gun is also an 'instrument' that can save some people in some cases (or give food through hunting) but I think the world would be better off without it, just like I think the world would be better off without cocaine (I dont mean coca leaf, thats completely different.. and I also dont mean erradication should be attempted, I think more like, it would naturally dissapear or the use would diminish considerably if the world evolved 'inwardly' )
SWIM's FOAF really got to love cocaine when he was lucky enough to find it in pure form. He was given a fair quantity straight from the source, straight from a country where it is locally produced. That is, no adulterants, no other shit in it. Only the pure thing as it comes extracted out of the plant.
The experience was much much more different that the "other cocaines" he had been offered around. As a matter of fact, it was not extremely anaesthetic to the nostrils and the onset was slower. The effects were also very MDMA-like and were lasting for at least 3 hours. Or rub some in your gums and they go numb for a couple of hours. It could sober you up no matter how drunk or stoned you were. He liked it a lot and it was not as addictive as people love to claim. It was a really nice thing. And not at all pronouncing the ego, at least in the way people are familiar with. Alcohol (when abused) is still the number 1 ego-inflator out there.
An old hippie friend of him also told him that this cocaine is actually the real thing, very similar to what was going around 30 years ago.
So this guy was led to believe that most of the stuff sold as "cocaine" in the streets has little to do with cocaine any more. Maybe a mixture of topic anaesthetic (like lidocaine) and then whatever else. Amphetamines? dunno really know.
SWIM's FOAF does not swear by cocaine, not at all. But real cocaine is a totally fine thing in his opinion. And it is no less moral than the weed produced in UK by Taiwanese illegal immigrants that are totally working like slaves in some warehouse-turned-growhouse and have to deal with all sorts of shit, including deportation when police busts them.
The experience was much much more different that the "other cocaines" he had been offered around. As a matter of fact, it was not extremely anaesthetic to the nostrils and the onset was slower. The effects were also very MDMA-like and were lasting for at least 3 hours. Or rub some in your gums and they go numb for a couple of hours. It could sober you up no matter how drunk or stoned you were. He liked it a lot and it was not as addictive as people love to claim. It was a really nice thing. And not at all pronouncing the ego, at least in the way people are familiar with. Alcohol (when abused) is still the number 1 ego-inflator out there.
An old hippie friend of him also told him that this cocaine is actually the real thing, very similar to what was going around 30 years ago.
So this guy was led to believe that most of the stuff sold as "cocaine" in the streets has little to do with cocaine any more. Maybe a mixture of topic anaesthetic (like lidocaine) and then whatever else. Amphetamines? dunno really know.
SWIM's FOAF does not swear by cocaine, not at all. But real cocaine is a totally fine thing in his opinion. And it is no less moral than the weed produced in UK by Taiwanese illegal immigrants that are totally working like slaves in some warehouse-turned-growhouse and have to deal with all sorts of shit, including deportation when police busts them.
Yes it has been shown that cocaine is cut with local anesthetics to make it more numbing. But realize that most cocaine seized whether on route to a country or in a country does contain cocaine. They have to prove that every single time they arrest someone.
That being said the cleaner the coke the better. Coke can be a nice buzz SWIM has enjoyed it many times but hates the side effects that become more ineviatable the more its done. Also saw too many friends go down the drain from first snorting then smoking then injecting then injecting it with heroin then going crazy and fucking up big time. Sad... Plus the crime involved in all areas from production to distribution to obtaining is just terrible. But that is 100% a result of the war on drugs.
Either way I still think coca the plant should be 100% legal and don't see too much of a problem with cocaine being a regulated substance available for recreational purposes in limited quantities for normal people and perhaps a bit more for 'registered addicts' or something like that.
That being said the cleaner the coke the better. Coke can be a nice buzz SWIM has enjoyed it many times but hates the side effects that become more ineviatable the more its done. Also saw too many friends go down the drain from first snorting then smoking then injecting then injecting it with heroin then going crazy and fucking up big time. Sad... Plus the crime involved in all areas from production to distribution to obtaining is just terrible. But that is 100% a result of the war on drugs.
Either way I still think coca the plant should be 100% legal and don't see too much of a problem with cocaine being a regulated substance available for recreational purposes in limited quantities for normal people and perhaps a bit more for 'registered addicts' or something like that.
VisualDistortion
Rising Star
I think MJ is about the only drug that will ever be taken off of schedule one. The government has done to well with its propaganda about all the rest for people to want them de-scheduled.
Infundibulum said:
I agree infundibulum. I guess i'm just a little biased when it comes to cocaine because of what i've seen it do to friends, and the way it made me feel when i did it....it feels good at first but the anxiety at the end is horrible but somehow you stiill crave more (shitty coke). No "one" drug is evil and thanx for correcteing my poor choice of words.
I also think if drug laws are changed it's not going to be Obama coming in and saying... "everyone it's time to light up". As already been said he will allow continued scientific research..hopefully in an unbiased manner and leave it up to the judicial sysytem to make a desicion that makes sense.The bush administration would never let it get that far because of his and his administrations ties to the religious right. Even though Obama seems to be catering a little to the religious right (he's not trying to make enemies,this early on),he seems like the kind of guy that would allow MJ to run it's course theough the system with an unbiased judgement. I'm cautiously opoomistic....so far. He alreay put an end to guantanamo bay....now that was evil.
Infundibulum said:
yes I definitely agree that in the sense of supporting the industry, its no less bad than buying weed in the example you gave. Im all for fair trading, sustainable farming and all that sort of thing, and I try to apply also to substances.
I dont know about the street coke in USA because Im not from there.. I do know that in Dreamland there are both, the adulterated and the pure one. SWIM isnt interested either way, for reason mentioned above and also for his preference to psychedelics. SWIM has already drank coca tea and feels that is a completely different thing than coke.
I still think that even pure coke has, in the long term, a negative effect on one's personality and ego, but indeed there's no such notion of absolute right and wrong (to anything). and I agree alcohol is also a big ego-enhancer. Not only that but it becomes an uncontrolled escape route to people's repressed/unconscious shadow)
burnt said:
yes, I agree. In a sane drug policy, farming and production would hopefully be regulated (therefore diminishing the ecological impact present today). Also as I mentioned I think as the world evolved collectively, cocaine using for the negative reasons and with the bad consequences would diminish, so its something that would control itself.
actually with a bit of conscience to begin with all problems solve by themselves I think
I don't think druglaws will change that quick. The atmosphere is so polluted that no politician will even sugest legalizing MJ. You cannot blame Obama or any other politician for this, because it's like sacrificing your political career. And with that the chance to change at least something for the better.
If you would want psychedelics to become legal, then first the atmosphere around it should change. You would want to see scientists and artists, important people, nobelprizewinners, to admit that they've been inspired by the psychedelic experience.
Then, slowly the image would change from psychedelic drugs offering just a poisonous escape from reality, to them being a vehicle for mental journey's and inspiration in the broadest sense; spiritually, emotionally, intellectually and psychologically.
If you would want psychedelics to become legal, then first the atmosphere around it should change. You would want to see scientists and artists, important people, nobelprizewinners, to admit that they've been inspired by the psychedelic experience.
Then, slowly the image would change from psychedelic drugs offering just a poisonous escape from reality, to them being a vehicle for mental journey's and inspiration in the broadest sense; spiritually, emotionally, intellectually and psychologically.
It may not be obama who is gonna do anything per say, but he may allow the people to do it. We are the ones who have to do it. t he even allows the climate to change it may be the push we need to educate people about responsible control of these substances. It is inevitable it is just going to take time and work. But it needs to be done carefully people are really brainwashed even members of our own community (who shouldn't be).
Cocaine is not as addictive as people like to think, It is especially not physically addictive and most people really like it and if they are around it they will buy it (especially when drunk) but they don't need it (like an opiate). But if you are rich it is likely different because you never have to come down. Although SWIM personally doesn't like it, coming down sucks and when on it you are emotionally delusional, no drugs should be illegal, it just makes them more dangerous because you don't no what your taking or how much. It only acts to make the use of the drug worse. Plus we need to develop new analogues of all these recreational drugs for minimal side effects and maximal pleasure.
SWIM got pure cocaine in mexico once, it was diff then most street cocaine, but SWIM has also gotten some raw within the states. It all depends who you know. If your coping on the corner what do you expect?
Pure cocaine takes about 30 sec to numb your gums and is not tingly but constant. Lidocaine numbs almost immediately and leaves a tingly sensation.
Cocaine is not as addictive as people like to think, It is especially not physically addictive and most people really like it and if they are around it they will buy it (especially when drunk) but they don't need it (like an opiate). But if you are rich it is likely different because you never have to come down. Although SWIM personally doesn't like it, coming down sucks and when on it you are emotionally delusional, no drugs should be illegal, it just makes them more dangerous because you don't no what your taking or how much. It only acts to make the use of the drug worse. Plus we need to develop new analogues of all these recreational drugs for minimal side effects and maximal pleasure.
SWIM got pure cocaine in mexico once, it was diff then most street cocaine, but SWIM has also gotten some raw within the states. It all depends who you know. If your coping on the corner what do you expect?
Pure cocaine takes about 30 sec to numb your gums and is not tingly but constant. Lidocaine numbs almost immediately and leaves a tingly sensation.
Similar threads
