Man, if a cuckold couple goes to the adult store and asks for white bull, they are gonna be so disappointed.

Woohoo! Legalized Cocaine! I'm ready!


+

+

+

+


Woohoo! Bring on the coronary vasospasm, baby!

L.D. Ablo: The designer drugs spook me.

I'll stick with good old alcohol. Easily obtained and I know how to dose it.

Looks like I get to use this one again.

This is really sad, because people are being used as experimental animals on substances we know fark-all about.

But it brings in cash to failing adult novelty stores, so thats ok.

"What's in it? He didn't know."

Well, I'm sold.
Let me just pour some of this mystery agent into my skull and wait for the magic to happen!

/Contraband peddlers must be some of the best salesmen out there...
/That or users are really, really, stupid.

White Bull is an apparently legal substitute for cocaine, which retails illegally for $350 a gram


Cocaine, $350 a gram? LOLWUT?

styckx: Cocaine, $350 a gram? LOLWUT?

Right? Where do they come up with these numbers? $60 tops.....

Even synthetic drugs that have been around for years have pages long disclaimers of " May contain Death", can't say I'm too thrilled about mystery serums. If this is anything like what K2 is to Marijuana, then the outcome of use is rather unpredictable.

/rather take something to chill out
//looked into Modafinil to help with working the graveyard shift, but the side effects scared me off.

Geeves00: styckx: Cocaine, $350 a gram? LOLWUT?

Right? Where do they come up with these numbers? $60 tops.....

its Oz prices, look at the link in the article

/theres an article?

Geeves00: styckx: Cocaine, $350 a gram? LOLWUT?

Right? Where do they come up with these numbers? $60 tops.....

I did some Google-Fu.. Apparentely in Australia is one of the most profitable places to sell coke and $300-$400/gram is legit.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: It gives you wings! Or, more accurately, it motivates you to break into the zoo and rape the condor.

I chortled right loudly there sir. Must say I gave the old bird quite a start. And by old bird I mean condor, and by start I mean intercourse. Consensual, mind you. Many people think condors say no, but they say more than you'd think. You just have to learn how to read their drug-addled eyes.

/yes, I drug my condors first
//and yes, I do actually mean condors!

Fiona Patten, of the Eros Foundation, which has assumed the role of being the representative body for the legal high industry, hadn't heard of White Bull.

Well then... what an excellent representative Fiona Patten is for the legal high industry.

As someone who fails to understand the appeal of illegal highs, legal ones are similarly baffling to me.

My brain chemistry is unbalanced enough on it's own without introducing any foreign substances into the mix- legal or not.

BronyMedic: Woohoo! Legalized Cocaine! I'm ready!

[healthy.kaiserpermanente.org image 288x216]
+
[www.alivepluspharmacy.com image 185x185]
+
[sedationdentistrylosangeles.net image 350x350]
+
[www.eyecareandcure.com image 166x360]
+
[www.instamedic.co.uk image 424x342]

Woohoo! Bring on the coronary vasospasm, baby!

Don't tell people you have benzos; you'll get robbed at gunpoint.

When you make certain substances that people want illegal, they find a way to either get it or find a substitute. This is human nature. There is no way legal systems can win and all that will end up happening if they do not adapt is that some substance will be invented that is once again much worse than the original.

styckx: Geeves00: styckx: Cocaine, $350 a gram? LOLWUT?

Right? Where do they come up with these numbers? $60 tops.....

I did some Google-Fu.. Apparentely in Australia is one of the most profitable places to sell coke and $300-$400/gram is legit.

I did some Google-Fu, and found out that "White Bull" was the nephew of Sitting Bull, and is also the name of a work of fiction by Voltaire.

Of course, none of that is helpful. But it is interesting.

/To me, anyway.

"White Bull is part of a $200-million-a-year catalogue of legal highs that adult stores are marketing as an offset for the drop in DVD sales because of the prevalence of online porn."

Saw that coming... well, bad turn of phrase but yeah....

Once upon a time there was a little white bull

little white bull,,

SkunkWerks: As someone who fails to understand the appeal of illegal highs, legal ones are similarly baffling to me.

My brain chemistry is unbalanced enough on it's own without introducing any foreign substances into the mix- legal or not.

What's funny is that most people who do or have done illegal drugs stay away/would stay away from these fly by night legal versions. With the illegal shiat you know what you're getting yourself into, there is a history of side effects, dosage, purity and what it's cut with etc..

This legal shiat has none of that and is more geared and advertised to retards in high school who can't find a reputable dealer of the illegal shiat.

ADULT stores are selling a synthetic cocaine called White Bull for $100 a gram. This is twice the price of old-fashioned amphetamines that bikies used to cook....

Bikies?

styckx: White Bull is an apparently legal substitute for cocaine, which retails illegally for $350 a gram


Cocaine, $350 a gram? LOLWUT?

Isn't coke like $50 a gram?

CarnySaur: ADULT stores are selling a synthetic cocaine called White Bull for $100 a gram. This is twice the price of old-fashioned amphetamines that bikies used to cook....

Bikies?

Lance Armstrong types

White Bull is part of a $200-million-a-year catalogue of legal highs that adult stores are marketing as an offset for the drop in DVD sales because of the prevalence of online porn.

Saw that coming....

/poor turn of phrase but yeah

styckx: With the illegal shiat you know what you're getting yourself into

Because you can always trust someone willing to break the rules in order to make money to do business with you in a completely straightforward way? It's my understanding that illicit drugs are often cut with a great number of substances- both benign and otherwise- to maximize profit. Substances no one bothers to inform the consumer of, naturally, because doing so might endanger said profit.

No I don't really care if the rules are "right" or not. Nor do I care if there are some exceptional people who "skirt the line" between what's against the rules and what's actually amoral as well.

What I'm saying is that your feeling about whether you can trust in a substance sold to you by a long chain of people with already questionable scruples is only that: a feeling. It's not backed by what any empirical thinker would hazard a description of as "reasoning". You're still gambling.

That said, this distinction you're trying to make doesn't really make much sense to me. Both risks are equally daft from my perspective. But then, as I said, I really fail to understand the appeal, and thus the allure to taking such risks in the first place.

Nor am I- in my heart of hearts- a gambler.

Some white bull, bath salts and some of that russian Krokodil would make a helluva saturday night.

L.D. Ablo: The designer drugs spook me.

I'll stick with good old alcohol. Easily obtained and I know how to dose it.

Yeah, this. I understand my booze and my booze understands me.

It's called White Bull because it's actually a bull's semen in powdered form.

Fark everything but weed.

SkunkWerks: styckx: With the illegal shiat you know what you're getting yourself into

Because you can always trust someone willing to break the rules in order to make money to do business with you in a completely straightforward way? It's my understanding that illicit drugs are often cut with a great number of substances- both benign and otherwise- to maximize profit. Substances no one bothers to inform the consumer of, naturally, because doing so might endanger said profit.

No I don't really care if the rules are "right" or not. Nor do I care if there are some exceptional people who "skirt the line" between what's against the rules and what's actually amoral as well.

What I'm saying is that your feeling about whether you can trust in a substance sold to you by a long chain of people with already questionable scruples is only that: a feeling. It's not backed by what any empirical thinker would hazard a description of as "reasoning". You're still gambling.

That said, this distinction you're trying to make doesn't really make much sense to me. Both risks are equally daft from my perspective. But then, as I said, I really fail to understand the appeal, and thus the allure to taking such risks in the first place.

Nor am I- in my heart of hearts- a gambler.

It's less of a gamble than you make it out to be. For the most part, end users don't buy substances from strangers; the tendency is to buy whatever your substance of choice is from your friends, people you already know, and then when you get into "the scene" you buy it from their connection. Your model of trust holds if you're talking about a street purchase from a homeless guy or at a bus stop, but even those highly mobile guys want to do continuing business with you, and a skeeved-out customer is not a return customer.

Looks like I picked the right week to quit sniffing glue!

This is just stupid--- the legal stuff only benefits the SELLERS- not the users, as their risk is reduced. The buyer's risk is greatly increased, as each user becomes a test bunny.

Druggies: stick with what is safe and known. Buy the illegal stuff. You know what you are getting and what to expect. The risk of running afoul of the law is much better than the risk of seriously screwing up your head or body. I mean that kiddos. Stay safe out there--- and stick to illegal drugs--- the safe drugs.

It's not legal. The feds have catch-all phrasing that makes it illegal to use any substance for the purpose of getting high. You can't get out in front of the law by abusing a substance just because legislators haven't yet gotten around to specifically addressing that molecule.

Cybernetic: Don't tell people you have benzos; you'll get robbed at gunpoint.

I just tell them that vecuronium is the best Benzo out there. :)

Bender The Offender: I understand the ASA, Nitro, and o2, but why are you giving them benzos? If they aren't seizing, they aren't getting benzos from me (of course, this was back in the dark ages).

Cocaine-induced Acute Coronary Syndrome is because of coronary vasospasm, not coronary blockage, from the sympathetic dumping of epinepherine and norepi. If you treat the associated hypertension with Alpha/Beta blockers like Labetalol, or with calcium channel blockers like nicardine or cardizem, you can actually make the ischemia worse and cause an actual infarction.

You give sedation to blunt the sympathetic effects, and to minimize the patient's activity.

highwayrun: SkunkWerks: styckx: With the illegal shiat you know what you're getting yourself into

Because you can always trust someone willing to break the rules in order to make money to do business with you in a completely straightforward way? It's my understanding that illicit drugs are often cut with a great number of substances- both benign and otherwise- to maximize profit. Substances no one bothers to inform the consumer of, naturally, because doing so might endanger said profit.

No I don't really care if the rules are "right" or not. Nor do I care if there are some exceptional people who "skirt the line" between what's against the rules and what's actually amoral as well.

What I'm saying is that your feeling about whether you can trust in a substance sold to you by a long chain of people with already questionable scruples is only that: a feeling. It's not backed by what any empirical thinker would hazard a description of as "reasoning". You're still gambling.

That said, this distinction you're trying to make doesn't really make much sense to me. Both risks are equally daft from my perspective. But then, as I said, I really fail to understand the appeal, and thus the allure to taking such risks in the first place.

Nor am I- in my heart of hearts- a gambler.

It's less of a gamble than you make it out to be. For the most part, end users don't buy substances from strangers; the tendency is to buy whatever your substance of choice is from your friends, people you already know, and then when you get into "the scene" you buy it from their connection. Your model of trust holds if you're talking about a street purchase from a homeless guy or at a bus stop, but even those highly mobile guys want to do continuing business with you, and a skeeved-out customer is not a return customer.

Plus the illegal drugs market is one of the last vestiges of the free market and as such actually self regulates somewhat. If you poison your customers they cease being your customers because there is always another dealer. Dealers know this and .. don't poison their customers.

highwayrun: It's less of a gamble

Putting aside the matter of how you know it's "less", the phrase "less of a gamble" still contains the word "gamble".

highwayrun: For the most part, end users don't buy substances from strangers; the tendency is to buy whatever your substance of choice is from your friends

Most "crimes of passion" are committed by people close to you. Got a corpse with upwards of 80 stab wounds? It was likely a relative, or at the very least a friend. Complete strangers simply don't have the familiarity to hate you that hard.

Had a couple arrested while staying at the neighbor's just one house down some years back. They failed to tell the friends they were boarding with that night that they'd just come from a double murder in Vermont. Shot to death a man and his wife because they'd asked for more marijuana than the victim was able to supply. He said he couldn't and the logical answer to "I can't" is apparently a hail of 9mm bullets.

Not sure how the "friend factor" changes the risk here at all. Aside from brutal mutilation between friends, life's all full of excellent examples of why doing business of any sort (let alone the illicit kind) with friends or family is often a very bad idea. When business goes south, matters invariably get a lot more personal than they would if you were merely 'acquainted'.

My wife for some reason is obsessed with the show 'cops' at the moment, and I swear to god, 60-70% of the arrests in that show relate to illegal drugs or prescription drugs. High speed chases, fighting with the cops, putting everyone at risk, but not because they're high, it's because they don't want to go to jail for doing something to their own bodies.

And now we see another consequence of the war on drugs: people taking random farking chemicals which can be far more dangerous than the drug they're trying to emulate, all because they don't want to go to jail. Legalising and regulating all drugs is the only way forward, the police absolutely cannot do anything by intervening except make things worse for everyone.

lewismarktwo: If you poison your customers they cease being your customers because there is always another dealer.

You're assuming that the customer is cognizant enough to notice... or care.

As someone said up-thread:

way south: "What's in it? He didn't know."

Well, I'm sold.
Let me just pour some of this mystery agent into my skull and wait for the magic to happen!


And as the article just said:

"ADULT stores are selling a synthetic cocaine called White Bull for $100 a gram."

and:

White Bull is an apparently legal substitute for cocaine, which retails illegally for $350 a gram. ''The feeling is that of cocaine, speed, ecstasy,'' he said. Meaning it keeps you awake, a bit horny and somehow sets a disco beat rocking in your head. It also makes your heart beat faster, and put on a hot glow that suggests one's thermo-regulation system is out of whack.
Advertisement

''But it doesn't make you grind your teeth,'' said the merchant.

What's in it? He didn't know.

Fiona Patten, of the Eros Foundation, which has assumed the role of being the representative body for the legal high industry, hadn't heard of White Bull.

And my personal favorite:

She said the market in legal highs was worth $500 million a year

The short version? Despite the seller "not knowing what's in it" (the result of the same structure of middle-men you get in any market situation), people apt to do this kind of thing aren't terribly discriminating, nor do they think very far ahead.

In the odd case you get someone who actually "has a care", there's always a legion of suckers to replace him.