A drug called 'monkey dust' which causes people to eat faces and jump from buildings is spreading

a reply to: Jefferton

That's pretty darn close to my assessment, as well.

That's one thing I avoided like the Plague when I was younger, still do obviously, was drugs of any sort. Saw 'em do too many horrible things to people, and people do horrible things to get 'em. Failed to see the "fun" in it.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

They weren't really called "bath salts" on the street.

They were called things like:

Bloom
Cloud 9
Cosmic Blast
Scarface
Vanilla Sky
Lunar Wave
Ivory Wave

They weren't even illegal either, when the craze first began. You could by them at the corner store. They started (apparently) as a legal alternative to weed. Then authorities got on the case and made the original products illegal. This was before they realized how hard they would be to stop. Manufacturers just morphed the recipes chemically to avoid the laws. This is when the really bad stuff started showing up.

They were always a synthetic drug, and because of this they were relatively simple to chemically alter.

a reply to: seagull
If you do ethanol then you do drugs.
Ethanol is possibly the most damaging drug in society, from addiction to violence. I've had many a conversation with cops and they all say the same. If cops have to break up a party where everyone is drunk then the risk of violence is high, but when they break up an illegal rave where everyone is under the influence of MDMA, next to no violence due to the different affects ethanol and MDMA have on users.

I absolutely agree that the drug in the OP sounds horrendous, and with all drugs some effects are worse than others, but saying 'I don't do drugs' can only be taken seriously if one does not use ethanol as well.
If one is arguing 'I only use legal drugs' then the argument is based on transferring responsibility of use to the opinion of the nanny state.
Personally, I make my own judgement call, and the users of heroin, spice, 'bath salts' etc are the best advert for never touching those particular drugs. But then kicking out time at bar/clubland in any UK town on the weekend is a fantastic advert for not using ethanol.

If you use ethanol, you are a drug user, no matter how much you sugar coat it with lines like "Oh, I love the malty/hop flavour of this real ale", you wouldn't drink it if it had no ethanol in it.
Same with people who drink wine and criticise people with different drugs of choice. You have to ask yourself why there are 4 or 5 brands of grape juice in the supermarket, but an entire aisle of wines.
People drink wine for the ethanol, the drug, but pretend it is for the bouquet and aroma etc, don't make me laugh lol, it is pure hypocrasy and denial.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I'm not sure how to feel about your statement.

Technically you may have a point, but socially I'm not sure I agree.

People don't kill other people for a Budweiser, but they will for coc aine / heroin. You are correct though about alcohol fueled violence. "Liquid Courage" some call it.

I don't know.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
It's a tricky one isn't it, but UK stats do show that ethanol related violence is number one. Possibly because it is the most used drug in the nation though so 'per capita' crime is bound to be higher.
Cocaine is everywhere though, it is difficult to avoid in my parts, I'm constantly saying no thanks to 'lines' offered to me at parties or bar/clubland, and from people who are lawyers, probation officers, even a few cops I know.

Some drugs most definitely have worse effects than others, and I'd put Heroin, Meth-Amphet, Spice, and synthetic highs at that end of the scale for sure. But the violence attributed solely to ethanol should not be disregarded as minor.
Ethanol use contributes to a massive percentage of crime in the UK, and I am genuinely surprised that it is not a controlled drug.
Cops hate dealing with drunks but have a laugh dealing with people who use MDMA or stoners. Purely anecdotal of course, but I've never heard a cop tell me any different.
...and I think if we were all honest, we'd admit that ethanol use causes many many problems in our societies.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Thing is, you can actually drink in moderation, you can't take heroin or even this skunky weed in moderation.

I usually have two shots of whisky before bed. (I tell my wife it helps with my blood pressure )

You shouldn't really conflate someone getting blotto with everyone who has a glass of wine with dinner, or a couple of pints after work.


I think that is the real difference between booze and illegal drugs. You can't just have a little bit of a trip can you?

a reply to: SprocketUK
Ooh, this is a really difficult one to discuss without breaching T&C's but any drug, be it legally prescribed or otherwise, can be taken at lower doses for less of an effect.
Because I can see no way to explain without getting this post removed, I'll just state again that ethanol users consume it for the effects of the drug, nothing more, nothing less.
The proof of that is the 2 or 3 non-alcoholic beers in the booze aisle of the supermarket, and the few brands of grape juice compared to the amount of wine on sale.

People drink it for the effects of the ethanol. Now of course some use more than others, and the same can be said for people who use other drugs. All drugs are the same, take a small amount then there is a minimal effect, take a larger amount and the intoxication is much greater.
I've always challenged the hypocracy of ethanol users who criticise people choosing to use a different drug while harming nobody else.

The actions and behaviour of the user should be the sole consideration, and ethanol users are number one for damage to society, if only because of the sheer numbers of users. Violence, addiction, liver failure etc.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I disagree. There is a taste side to it.

Offer my Mrs A glass of prosecco and she will choose mineral water. Asti on the other hand, she is game.

Sure you could in principle dose many things so as not to be off your face, never seen one single person do that though.

Apart from a few folks years ago with a bit of weed.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I disagree. There is a taste side to it.

It is the ethanol providing the 'taste' as you put it.
You can sugar coat it as much as you like, but if a drink was created with exactly the same taste but without the ethanol then it would not sell as much. Non-alcoholic beer and grape juice sales are a tiny percentage of the sale of ethanol based products.

I understand why you don't wish to be seen as an ethanol user because it goes against everything people stand for against using mind altering substances. But ethanol products are consumed for the ethanol, be it the taste it adds, or the effect on the brain.
Any attempt to deny that is clumsy at best in my opinion.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

After thinking about this for a moment, I think the area where I may disagree is comparing alcohol to MDMA.

MDMA was actually legal for many years. I used to see it all the time in bars back in the 80's. Then the FDA basically killed it because it wasn't regulated by them, causing it to disappear. From there the drug was synthesized into the "Ecstasy" we know today (which is most definitely illegal). You really don't have to go very far, chemically, to get from ecstasy to monkey dust (or whatever it's called). Hallucinations aside, one of the main negative immediate medical side effects of both of these drugs is "hyperthermia" (overheating) (not to mention the likely brain damage they cause). In the case of this monkey dust stuff, the hyperthermia is more pronounced and behavior is more panicked as a result.

I guess the summary here is, MDMA is really just a diluted little brother of this monkey dust stuff.

I don't know if this is really disagreeing with your point though. Maybe I'm agreeing. I don't know.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Oh it's so difficult to have a discussion about such issues on ATS without breaching T&C's so I'll sidestep and say that whatever mind altering substance people use, from ethanol to heroin (and everything in between), it should be the effects of the use on society which should be considered more than the legal status of the substance itself.

Millions of people recreationally use all sorts of illegal substances every weekend in the UK. These millions of people hold down jobs and cause no more problems than ethanol users do, some would argue less due to the violence associated with alcohol.

Ethanol is a dangerous drug yet is socially accepted, and that is where I see the hypocracy.
The effects of any drug on society should be the issue, not the snobby attitude that my drug is better than your drug when both sets of users harm nobody else while using it.
If ethanol was invented now, it would be a controlled drug for its obvious damage to society reasons.

Everything in moderation. It's a myth to think that users of other substances can't limit their intake. There's many functional coke/heroin/marijuana (etc) users, in much the same way that there's many functionial alcohol users.



a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Ethanol is tasteless. It's what gives you the buzz, but, you taste 5 different non alc beers and I guarantee they all have an aftertaste that is horrible.

That's why they don't sell so well.

I have no issue with being a drinker. Nor do most people.

There are millions of recreational drinkers, I doubt very much there is a single, recreational heroine user.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

There are millions of recreational drinkers, I doubt very much there is a single, recreational heroine user.

I'll agree with heroin, but you cannot lump heroin and synthetic highs with the many other drugs (including ethanol) which are taken recreationally every weekend in the UK.
It is dishonest at best to suggest that in my opinion.
...and you have contradicted yourself by saying that beer without ethanol has a horrible taste, because clearly that indicates the ethanol has an effect on the final brew.

I'm not surprised though, it is common for ethanol users to be in denial that they are using a recreational drug just the same as someone who uses something else to enhance their recreational experience on the weekend.
It is hypcritical though in my opinion.

a reply to: SprocketUK

... I doubt very much there is a single, recreational heroine user.

Maybe the first time!

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Ethanol is tasteless. It's what gives you the buzz, but, you taste 5 different non alc beers and I guarantee they all have an aftertaste that is horrible.

That's why they don't sell so well.

I have no issue with being a drinker. Nor do most people.

There are millions of recreational drinkers, I doubt very much there is a single, recreational heroine user.

There are millions of recreational drug users throughout the world. Not all of them end up addicts.

a reply to: markojo
There are millions in the UK alone every weekend who turn up for work on a Monday holding down well paid jobs.
Around 9000 people die in the UK each year solely from the effects of alcohol, while deaths from MDMA are around 60 people a year.
Of course, there are many more people using ethanol than MDMA so the figure is bound to be higher, but out of the millions of tablets being consumed every weekend, one has to consider 60 deaths as very low as a percentage.

All drugs when misused are dangerous, it's just a pity that so many ethanol users have a holier than thou attitude about their socially accepted choice of recreational drug.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

They get away with it the first few times, then its generally curtains, addiction and a life of crime that's in the post.

Crack(rock Cocaine) on the other hand, well i don't know many people who have tried that stuff more than once and not developed a serious problem with the substance.

Alchohol and Tobacco products, however, are far more addictive than both of the above and those are perfectly legal. They are also responsible for far more deaths than Smack or Coke ever have been.

I think a great deal of it depends on your financial circumstances. If you don't have to steal to fund your habit, then you negate the crime issues. Highly refined substances are always going to cause problems for people. We're not designed for them.

a reply to: andy06shake

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Alchohol and Tobacco products, however, are far more addictive than both of the above and those are perfectly legal. They are also responsible for far more deaths than Smack or Coke ever have been.

Agreed.
There are around 350,000 hospital admissions in the UK each year for alcohol related conditions, while the figure for hospital admissions as a result of 'other' drug effects hovers around the 21,000 mark.
Anyone who uses ethanol and thinks they are not a recreational drug user is deluding themself.

People buy 'vodka and coke' for the ethanol, not the taste. Any attempt to deny that is daft at best, they are no different to someone using a drug to enhance their experience while dancing or whatever.
The only issue to be of concern in my opinion is the effect a users behaviour has on society, and look at any town or city on the weekend in the UK and one can see immediately that ethanol users cause the most problems.