If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News.com.au)   Anthrax contaminated heroin spreads. Because if there's one thing you don't want in a drug that can kill you is another drug that can kill you   (news.com.au) divider line 174
    More: Scary, anthrax, Health Protection Agency, drug users, Dr. Brian McCloskey, heroin, Anthrax contaminated, European countries, Glasgow  
•       •       •

5261 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2010 at 4:09 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-02-06 01:45:14 PM  
Contaminating illegal drugs would be a marvy way to execute a biological attack. But I'd use something more communicable than anthrax.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2010-02-06 01:49:24 PM  
I don't care as long as they keep the rat poison out of my cocaine.
 
2010-02-06 01:50:13 PM  
Diogenes: Contaminating illegal drugs would be a marvy way to execute a biological attack. But I'd use something more communicable than anthrax.

I was thinking the same thing. contaminate heroin or cocaine with something fairly nasty, then flood the market with that batch of drugs. As a bonus, most drug addicts have weakened immune systems. So your infection rate (at least initially) should be quite a bit above the average. Not to mention the fact that the addicts themselves will probably be too coked up to notice that they're dying. so that should up the transmission rate.
 
2010-02-06 01:56:56 PM  
Sounds like a self-correcting issue to me. Wouldn't really be effective as a terror weapon because it would only target people no one gives a shiat about anyway.
 
2010-02-06 01:57:28 PM  
Weaver95: Diogenes: Contaminating illegal drugs would be a marvy way to execute a biological attack. But I'd use something more communicable than anthrax.

I was thinking the same thing. contaminate heroin or cocaine with something fairly nasty, then flood the market with that batch of drugs. As a bonus, most drug addicts have weakened immune systems. So your infection rate (at least initially) should be quite a bit above the average. Not to mention the fact that the addicts themselves will probably be too coked up to notice that they're dying. so that should up the transmission rate.


Well, I wasn't thinking so much for myself, but of the "unfriendly" countries that produce them. Hard to track, hard to contain, hard to prevent. Whatever contaminant will establish itself in the population like TB or Hep C.
 
2010-02-06 01:59:27 PM  
Somacandra: Sounds like a self-correcting issue to me. Wouldn't really be effective as a terror weapon because it would only target people no one gives a shiat about anyway.

i224.photobucket.com

Epidemiology does not work that way!
 
2010-02-06 02:00:31 PM  
Somacandra: Sounds like a self-correcting issue to me. Wouldn't really be effective as a terror weapon because it would only target people no one gives a shiat about anyway.

actually, that's exactly WHY it would be so effective. the only problem would be infecting drug addicts with something that was virulent enough to harm the general population but at the same time wouldn't kill the drug addict carriers until after they had a chance to infect the general population in numbers large enough for your attack to meet it's objectives.

I suppose you could compromise and just contaminate cocaine instead of heroin. there are a LOT of cocaine (ab)users out there. you could probably devastate a good bit of wall street by contaminating their cocaine supply with something biological and nasty.
 
2010-02-06 02:05:17 PM  
Weaver95: actually, that's exactly WHY it would be so effective.

This. Anyone remember why HIV/AIDS spread so rampantly at first? The government and medical establishment did not want to publicize a disease that "only" affected gays and IV drug users.

/"gay flu" FTL
 
2010-02-06 02:08:17 PM  
Weaver95: Diogenes: Contaminating illegal drugs would be a marvy way to execute a biological attack. But I'd use something more communicable than anthrax.

I was thinking the same thing. contaminate heroin or cocaine with something fairly nasty, then flood the market with that batch of drugs. As a bonus, most drug addicts have weakened immune systems. So your infection rate (at least initially) should be quite a bit above the average. Not to mention the fact that the addicts themselves will probably be too coked up to notice that they're dying. so that should up the transmission rate.


but then you have to worry about them dying so fast they don't spread the disease all that much.
 
2010-02-06 02:16:19 PM  
SilentStrider: but then you have to worry about them dying so fast they don't spread the disease all that much.

that's why I was thinking you'd have to change your infection vector a bit. maybe cocaine would work better, or use something a bit slower acting. you'd have to test various diseases out on drug addicts and chart the rates of infection and lethality. that would give you a better idea of which agent to use with your attack.
 
2010-02-06 02:34:20 PM  
Weaver95: SilentStrider: but then you have to worry about them dying so fast they don't spread the disease all that much.

that's why I was thinking you'd have to change your infection vector a bit. maybe cocaine would work better, or use something a bit slower acting. you'd have to test various diseases out on drug addicts and chart the rates of infection and lethality. that would give you a better idea of which agent to use with your attack.


You know what might work? Developing a strain of marijuana that was slightly toxic. Not enough to kill you or do serious harm at first, but with steady accumulation of the toxin in the system.

Kinda like how people can build up tolerances to substances.
 
2010-02-06 02:44:18 PM  
Aarontology: You know what might work? Developing a strain of marijuana that was slightly toxic. Not enough to kill you or do serious harm at first, but with steady accumulation of the toxin in the system.

Kinda like how people can build up tolerances to substances.


the problem is that cannabis tends to act as an anti-bacterial agent. And a virus wouldn't survive processing and transport, let alone consumption (which involves baking into food products or inhaling the fumes).

no, a drug that involves directly snorting or injection into the bloodstream would work best. Or something in pill form, which would be ideal. you could time release the biological agent with pills.
 
2010-02-06 03:05:47 PM  
Diogenes: Epidemiology does not work that way!

Futurama awesomeness aside, anthrax doesn't spread directly from person to person. It spreads with spores. That's a piss poor biological weapon. You need something highly personally infectious too not just deadly.
 
2010-02-06 03:11:57 PM  
Somacandra: Diogenes: Epidemiology does not work that way!

Futurama awesomeness aside, anthrax doesn't spread directly from person to person. It spreads with spores. That's a piss poor biological weapon. You need something highly personally infectious too not just deadly.


well...unless you wanted to just kill a bunch of drug addicts.
 
2010-02-06 03:13:34 PM  
Somacandra: Diogenes: Epidemiology does not work that way!

Futurama awesomeness aside, anthrax doesn't spread directly from person to person. It spreads with spores. That's a piss poor biological weapon. You need something highly personally infectious too not just deadly.


Oh. I wasn't speaking specifically about anthrax. I was thinking something more along the line of viruses or something that would take hold in the population. Drug addicts' behavior would cause it to spread like wildfire. And as we see with HIV/AIDS, TB, Hep C, etc. it won't stay limited to the addict population for long.
 
2010-02-06 03:14:30 PM  
Weaver95: the problem is that cannabis tends to act as an anti-bacterial agent. And a virus wouldn't survive processing and transport, let alone consumption (which involves baking into food products or inhaling the fumes).

Hmm. Good point. I suppose the best way would be to somehow contaminate something like over the counter aspirin at the source.
 
2010-02-06 03:20:45 PM  
Yo dawg, I heard u like drugs, so I put drugs in ur drugs so u can overdose while u overdose.
 
2010-02-06 03:23:15 PM  
Remember kids, always buy your heroin from a reputable dealer.

Diogenes: Contaminating illegal drugs would be a marvy way to execute a biological attack. But I'd use something more communicable than anthrax.

At first I would consider ricin, as it's a Markov genius, but I don't think it's contagious. Maybe Y Pestis, AKA the Plague.
 
2010-02-06 03:27:04 PM  
Paris1127: Maybe Y Pestis, AKA the Plague.

Nah, it's easily curable nowadays. What we need is something downright poisonous. If only there were such a thing as ingestible, noncurable poisons that people would spend lots of money to give themselves...

Nah, it'd never work.
 
2010-02-06 03:36:23 PM  
Aarontology:
Hmm. Good point. I suppose the best way would be to somehow contaminate something like over the counter aspirin at the source.


No, the idea is still sound. if you've got a population that is willing to inject substances into their veins without regard for the consequences, then you could find a way to abuse it.

hmm...but what to use....

H1N1 is a possibility, as is pneumonic plague. In fact, pneumonic plague would be more lethal than H1N1, assuming you can cultivate a drug resistant strain.
 
2010-02-06 03:46:28 PM  
Weaver95: H1N1 is a possibility, as is pneumonic plague. In fact, pneumonic plague would be more lethal than H1N1, assuming you can cultivate a drug resistant strain.

Maybe a mutated form of polio or smallpox. Something that the current vaccines or treatments can't really deal with. Hell, a widespread tampering of fluoride in enough water supplies could cause some serious havoc.

The best approach would be to have something survivable, but extremely debilitating. Sure, taking out a ton of people would work, but creating a situation where those people survive and consume serious amounts of man hours and resources would be better.
 
2010-02-06 03:48:43 PM  
Aarontology: The best approach would be to have something survivable, but extremely debilitating. Sure, taking out a ton of people would work, but creating a situation where those people survive and consume serious amounts of man hours and resources would be better.

if you could come up with an airborne vector strain of rocky mountain spotted fever, that might do the trick.
 
2010-02-06 03:49:31 PM  
Aarontology: You know what might work? Developing a strain of marijuana that was slightly toxic. Not enough to kill you or do serious harm at first, but with steady accumulation of the toxin in the system.

Not IN the strain, but remember paraquat?
 
2010-02-06 03:53:21 PM  
Weaver95: airborne vector strain of rocky mountain spotted fever

Good lord, that would be catastrophic.

robmilmel: Not IN the strain, but remember paraquat?

I had to look that one up. That's beyond wrong.
 
2010-02-06 03:57:53 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Knows who did this and is willing to cooperate
 
2010-02-06 03:58:10 PM  
robmilmel: Aarontology: You know what might work? Developing a strain of marijuana that was slightly toxic. Not enough to kill you or do serious harm at first, but with steady accumulation of the toxin in the system.

Not IN the strain, but remember paraquat?


the problem with paraquat was that a lot of cannabis isn't smuggled in from mexico, it's home grown/distributed. smugglers don't like moving marijuana - it's hard to smuggle, easy for authorities to spot and it doesn't make as much money as cocaine or heroin. Contaminating mexican cannabis didn't turn out to be all that effective at all.
 
2010-02-06 03:58:56 PM  
Aarontology: Weaver95: airborne vector strain of rocky mountain spotted fever

Good lord, that would be catastrophic.


I don't know if something like that is even possible, but if it could be done, it would incapacitate a city relatively quickly.
 
2010-02-06 03:58:57 PM  
Anthrax is not a drug; it is a bacteria.
 
2010-02-06 04:02:27 PM  
*backs slowly out of the thread*

/off to hug my stash
 
2010-02-06 04:04:38 PM  
Some people say alcohol's a drug. It's not a drug, it's a drink.
 
2010-02-06 04:07:06 PM  
I remember thinking during the anthrax scare when everyone was so suspicious of white powders, etc. that it seemed perfect to mix that stuff in with drug shipments. Just aim for drugs that are mostly snorted or injected, since burning or freebase would probably destroy the agent itself. It's too easy. Your targets would infect themselves... and mostly enjoy it.

Then, sure. We could say no one cares about a coke fiend, but there's a lot of closet coke fiends out there. Never mind this problem: Most of our money is tainted with these fiends' drugs, so we'd all be exposed a little, just not as much as the users.

The only thing is whatever it is has to be fast-acting and contagious as hell, else quarantines and mass hysteria would keep deaths down.

/Didn't Chappelle do something like this too?
//Tyrone Biggums!
 
2010-02-06 04:10:00 PM  
Paris1127: Remember kids, always buy your heroin from a reputable dealer.

Diogenes: Contaminating illegal drugs would be a marvy way to execute a biological attack. But I'd use something more communicable than anthrax.

At first I would consider ricin, as it's a Markov genius, but I don't think it's contagious. Maybe Y Pestis, AKA the Plague.


You're right. Ricin is just a chemical made from castor plants. Deadly as fark, but it's not contagious.
 
2010-02-06 04:13:14 PM  
Approves:

graphics.ink19.com
 
2010-02-06 04:14:53 PM  
50-50 you might get anthrax from the next hit and die, all the addicts would still take the hit... now if we could get that to 100%... some might take a second to think about it...
 
2010-02-06 04:16:11 PM  
Weaver95: Diogenes: Contaminating illegal drugs would be a marvy way to execute a biological attack. But I'd use something more communicable than anthrax.

I was thinking the same thing. contaminate heroin or cocaine with something fairly nasty, then flood the market with that batch of drugs. As a bonus, most drug addicts have weakened immune systems. So your infection rate (at least initially) should be quite a bit above the average. Not to mention the fact that the addicts themselves will probably be too coked up to notice that they're dying. so that should up the transmission rate.


They tried that already with paraquat. It didn't work then either. & also, the ratio of heroin addicts:general population isn't large enough to do much good populationwise. No one will notice, and pretty much no one will care. In America, if you killed all the junkies, you'd at best take out 50-75,000 people.
 
2010-02-06 04:16:12 PM  
beve: Some people say alcohol's a drug. It's not a drug, it's a drink.

According to a judge in Iowa, so are Jello Shooters
 
2010-02-06 04:17:13 PM  
So I take it that melting the heroin in a spoon won't kill the anthrax spores?

That's what you do, right?
 
2010-02-06 04:18:34 PM  
Obnox: *backs slowly out of the thread*

Yeah, um, have you people always been bio-terrorists or am I just now noticing for the first time?
 
2010-02-06 04:18:41 PM  
Virulency: 50-50 you might get anthrax from the next hit and die, all the addicts would still take the hit... now if we could get that to 100%... some might take a second to think about it...

Getting people to think or reform is not what we're interested in. We're well past that. We're for killin'.

/by the way, all of you have been reported.
 
2010-02-06 04:19:22 PM  
tildology.com
 
2010-02-06 04:20:20 PM  
there have been cases of anthrax in heroin for a long time in europe-- the bonemeal that is sometimes cut into the final product will be from infected cows.
 
2010-02-06 04:20:23 PM  
Barakku: Anthrax is not a drug; it is a bacteria.

Thank God!! I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point this out.

To the 25 or so posters above Barakku.....FAIL!!!
 
2010-02-06 04:20:40 PM  
ZAZ: I don't care as long as they keep the rat poison out of my cocaine.

thread over.
 
x23
2010-02-06 04:24:09 PM  
crispyone: Barakku: Anthrax is not a drug; it is a bacteria.

Thank God!! I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point this out.

To the 25 or so posters above Barakku.....FAIL!!!


same here... i was waiting... and waiting... and waiting... then FINALLY. come on people.
 
2010-02-06 04:25:12 PM  
sounds like a helluva a way to create job openings.
 
2010-02-06 04:26:26 PM  
Somacandra: Sounds like a self-correcting issue to me. Wouldn't really be effective as a terror weapon because it would only target people no one gives a shiat about anyway.

This a million times!
 
2010-02-06 04:29:07 PM  
In case terrorists ever need help coming up with ideas, fark is there to help.

Hey, whatever happened to that carnivore program? or did that only apply to email?

/just amused
//not opposed in any way to freedom of communication, speech, etc
 
2010-02-06 04:29:27 PM  
Jimmy Devil Rocket Science: Obnox: *backs slowly out of the thread*

Yeah, um, have you people always been bio-terrorists or am I just now noticing for the first time?


what? you mean you don't have conversations like this with your friends all the time?
 
2010-02-06 04:31:04 PM  
Aarontology: Weaver95: SilentStrider: but then you have to worry about them dying so fast they don't spread the disease all that much.

that's why I was thinking you'd have to change your infection vector a bit. maybe cocaine would work better, or use something a bit slower acting. you'd have to test various diseases out on drug addicts and chart the rates of infection and lethality. that would give you a better idea of which agent to use with your attack.

You know what might work? Developing a strain of marijuana that was slightly toxic. Not enough to kill you or do serious harm at first, but with steady accumulation of the toxin in the system.

Kinda like how people can build up tolerances to substances.


Caught off guard:
www.slaphappysusan.com
 
2010-02-06 04:31:29 PM  
Weaver95: Jimmy Devil Rocket Science: Obnox: *backs slowly out of the thread*

Yeah, um, have you people always been bio-terrorists or am I just now noticing for the first time?

what? you mean you don't have conversations like this with your friends all the time?


They know too much. They need to be silenced.
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report