My cousin and her girlfriend had a few puff's of a 'legal' joint, 1 died, the other lived. The cause of death was asphixiation, or to put it mildly, not enough oxygen to the brain. She was brain dead on arrival. I would love to sit the last two poster's here in a room with Melissa, and watch her rip you to shred's, until you are dead. And film it for youtube. It wont bring Roxy back, but to say they were on anything else is nothing more than trying to convince yourselve's, that they were, when all they did was toke on a fuckin joint. I know the fact's, you clearly know fuck all. I was a raver in the '80's-'90's, and I can say, I've done my fair share of ekkies that would blow ya away, pink champagne that made ya too scared to sleep, cocaine that didnae run around my brain, it took off.. I stopped all that back then, but yup, it was good. But when I have a single toke on a j and feel what they experienced a year later, I know that there is something wrong, especially when the 'legal' is more likely to kill than anything else.
To the two posters commenting on my comment's, I hope your kid's die from this same stuff, over and over again, just so I can say with certainty, that what you posted, is nothing more than what a junkie would say to a clued up kid trying to make them feel it's safe to keep taking them, when in fact you are clearly fuckin wrong..
I hope god in his wisdom makes you two fuckin watch while they die.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/police-swoop-in-60-000-edinburgh-legal-high-raids-1-3518804
These raid's happened because of this incident.
I hope you two die SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.......
If you had read my post thoroughly, then you would see that I agreed with you that synthetic cannabinoids can be dangerous, and said I was sorry to hear about your family. There's no need to start shouting about how you want me and my kids to die slowly. And no-one is persuading anyone to take anything, don't know where you got that idea. If safer alternatives like real cannabis/LSD/MDMA weren't outlawed then situations like this would never exist. That's not my fault, it's the fault of the War on Drugs, as I said earlier.
The point I was trying to make was too many people say "all legal highs will kill you" (or the opposite), which simply isn't true. Each one has its own safety profile, and a result some can be dangerous, others not so much. I understand that this is quite an emotional subject for you, but just saying that "all legal highs are evil!!" isn't a rational viewpoint I'm afraid.
You are right. The best you can do is either research/test before consumption or trust your vendor, but can't see where your example fits here. Bromo-Deagonfly is labelled as class A drug, illegal in most countries, and clearly proven to be dangerous taken in any dosages.
Again you are giving class A drug examples. Also I would say the steep dose/response curves you mentioned, it's not drugs, it's the people and the way their organisms response to substances. For example, John takes a puff of herbal incense and doesn't feel a thing, but his buddy Nick takes the same puff and gets so high he forgets where he's at. Is this what you mean?
Some people could also have an allergic reaction to a substance, which could only affect 0.00001% of the population. As a loose example, think of how serious peanut allergies can be, but it is a very rare condition.
While stimulants make up the majority of legal highs, there are many other classes, such as cannabinoids, sedatives, dissociatives, opioids, serotonergic psychedelics etc. All drugs will have different safety profiles and dosages, which will affect how safe they are to use. Don't forget that some drugs can be extremely addictive as well, which is not necessarily dangerous in the short term, but could mess your life up. Eg, it's perfectly safe to be addicted to clinical-grade Morphine or Heroin for your whole life (as we can see from war veterans using it daily for years), but it's not ideal for most people.
I completely agree.
The legality of BD-FLY is sketchy, it's still legal in many places, and was legal in many more when the incident occured. My point is that there is always an element of danger with ANY drug, but some are more likely to kill at a lower dosage. I was also using the BD-FLY incidents as an example where a simple mislabelling had serious consequences. I don't think it matters whether the examples are legal or not, I'm just using them to illustrate some basics about how drugs work.
Re: the dose-response curve, no that's not what I mean. You're right that some people have different effects from the same dose, but this is down to physiological differences such as tolerance. A steep dose-response means that there is a fine line between a threshold dose (one where the effects are barely felt) and an overdose (where undesired side-effects appear). For example with 25I-NBOMe, (which was legal in most places until not long ago), 10x the normal dose would be a huge overdose and would probably put the user in hospital if not kill them. But 10x the dose of LSD would cause no physiological damage (although it could be dangerous for your mental health).
If a drug has a steep dose-response curve, then a very small amount over the threshold dose will have a large effect - on the contrary, a drug with a shallower dose-response curve will need a large amount over the threshold for changes in effect. But drugs are complicated, as I said earlier side-effects occur at different dosages with different drugs. Looking at LSD vs 25I-NBOMe, you will get extreme physical side-effects with just a small OD of 25I-NBOMe (such as tachycardia that could cause a heart attack). With LSD, you'd just be away with the fairies for a few days if you took 10-100x the threshold dose. You could get run over or have a really bad time, but the drug itself wouldn't kill you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dose%E2%80%93response_relationship#Dose.E2.80.93response_curve