<p>better too weak than too strong- that’s how you OD.
They used to soak joints in PCP years ago, don’t know if they do that anymore.
I don’t think you would use baking powder to cut coke, because coke is crystalline and isn’t it sold in rocks?
Baby laxative used to be used or so I heard, although I never bought baby laxative but I know there was something nasty they used to cut coke with, meth probably.</p>
<p>I don’t think it would matter that much if pot was stronger now, it used to be you had to smoke a whole bag to feel it, and things that were stronger like Thai sticks, were desirable, I suppose as long as it wasn’t soaked in something toxic you would just adjust the amount, the way that someone who was used to drinking a beer after work, would have a shot of whiskey instead, but I doubt they would drink 12oz of scotch.</p>
<p>I suppose it depends on what kind of marijuana you smoke. As I said, the marijuana grown in cannabis growers’ clubs and so forth has indeed become much more potent, and cultivation techniques have improved, and since this inevitably spills over to the streets, it is indeed possible that on average levels have increased.</p>
<p>But potent weed was available 25-30 years ago as well. Moreover, if I had to decide between smoking a smaller quantity of more potent marijuana and a larger quantity of less potent marijuana, I’d smoke the more potent one to spare my lungs the additional smoke and so forth. Your perspective may differ.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I do. I know this both because the information is widely available on the internet and because I have some acquaintances (not particularly good ones) who use those substances occasionally and whom I asked to corroborate my intuitions about their prices. Since you seem to consistently trust your own anecdotal experience and gut feeling over statistical evidence, the following will probably be lost on you, but I will provide it nonetheless:</p>
<p>Explain to me how it is economical or practical for a dealer to take marijuana, a green plant composed of flower buds that are contiguous and whole and easy to visually examine for tampering (cutting and recombining, for example), which generally costs from $15-$30 per gram from a dealer on the street, and cut that substance with cocaine, crack or heroin (black tar, or south asian, your choice), each of which costs about $50-$60 per gram (though crack costs less per dose [“rock”], those doses are much less pure).</p>
<p>Please, stop making flippant denials and referencing your nebulous knowledge of the drug treatment industry; simply tell me how it could possibly, in any universe, be economical or practical for a drug dealer to try to adulterate a substance which is easy to see has been adulterated (at least with the substances you described), and costs less than the adulterants? Your position makes NO SENSE.</p>
<p>And before you pull out the “to make marijuana addictive for return customers”, understand that even if a customer gets totally addicted to marijuana the dealer would still lose money if cutting with the substances you described.</p>
<p>Now, note that I won’t say no dealers will do so; there are idiots everywhere. But it is not more than a sporadic practice to cut weed with adulterants, and when it happens the weed is cut with adulterants that increase its weight without changing its appearance (PCP sometimes; baby oil, other liquids, and so forth). In fact, in a somewhat new trend in Europe, heavy metals like lead are appearing in some street marijuana:</p>
<p>The other adulterant on the rise in Europe is small glass particles added to the marijuana to attempt to add weight to it without changing its appearance. PM me if you would like numerous testimonials from actual users of their experiences with buying so-called “grit weed” and how easy it was to tell that it had been adulterated; I can’t post links here because the links are to another forum.</p>
<p>But even with these more subtle adulterants, the weed is clearly adulterated (pictures of the lead show this, and testimonials for the grit also make it clear). This is exactly what I’ve been saying: it’s very difficult to adulterate weed with substances that are physically very different (powders, metals), such as the ones you contend are so often used.</p>
<p>Really, spideygirl, I’m interested in what exactly you think your basis for your argument is, because economically and practically, cutting marijuana is not useful for drug dealers, and is something that wouldn’t get past most users anyways; and empirically, the extremely low incidence of cutting with anything (and the fact that of the weed that is cut, it is almost always cut with fluids or certain cheap inert materials) really destroys your argument.</p>
<p>So really, what exactly are you talking about?</p>
<hr>
<p>emeraldkity:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Joints do get soaked in PCP sometimes - called “wet joints” - but this is done by the users themselves, as marijuana is basically always bought in the form of marijuana buds, and almost never as whole joints (except in Amsterdam, where obviously the legitimacy of the coffee shops has associated quality control).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not quite. Cocaine is most commonly sold as cocaine hydrochloride, a white powder. This is often mixed with baking powder or other similar looking substances (sometimes amphetamine [speed], which, in accordance with the economics of cutting, costs less than cocaine).</p>
<p>The crystalline rocks you are thinking of is crack cocaine. It actually includes baking powder too, but is actually a crude and impure form of freebase cocaine (i.e. cocaine that is not part of an ionized salt). I don’t know if Wikipedia is still allowed here (my apologies in advance to the moderators if it is not), but the following pages should illustrate the difference:</p>
<p>As I said above, amphetamines (methamphetamine is also sometimes used) can show up as adulterants in cocaine, but since they have a non-negligible cost themselves, more common is to use cheap, inert cutting materials.</p>
<p>DISCLAIMER</p>
<p>I suspect many of you will wonder “why does 1of42 know so much about drugs, and why is he so insistent on arguing about them?” The answer is that I find the high level of misinformation and ignorance in the general population fascinating and so have striven to form a complete picture for myself of the dangers and facts of drug use and the drug trade, drawing from a bunch of different sources, including the medical literature, government sources, and non-traditional information sources like Erowid. And I argue about it because it annoys me when people are wrong and are brazen about it and won’t admit it. :)</p>
<p>Erowid and its related constellation of publications are extremely informative, if informal sources. I have not posted links to it because it would appear to violate the rules about posting non-authoritative sources, but given the general lack of firsthand knowledge about drugs in the mainstream, sources like Erowid give a lot of very useful information. Once must take it with a grain of salt of course, since much of it is written by frequent drug users, and of course their overall perspective will likely be different than some other groups’.</p>
<p>I vote with emeraldkity4 on this. My experience is completely out of date – it entirely predates the very existence of crack – but I have seen a largish quantity of cocaine purchased wholesale, and prior to cutting it was gravel-sized translucent crystals, not white powder. What did you think those razorblades were for?</p>
<p>Huh. Weird. I can’t seem to figure out what you guys are referring to - all references I can find to crystalline cocaine talks about crack. Ah well - maybe you’re all just too venerable. (Don’t hurt me, I used a nice word for it! ;))</p>
<p>As for what the razor blades are for… well, sufficed to say that going to a private school full of wealthy kids for high school, I knew at least a few people who used cocaine occasionally, and I actually did wonder at one point what was the point of using razor blades to chop up something that’s already a powder. According to these acquaintances, sometimes the powder gets clumpy (moisture) and interferes with snorting - the other reasons for using a razor blade or other sharp-edged object was to “rack out the line”, I was told. I really don’t want to think about whose trial-and-error led to that practice, though…</p>
<p>Wow, I didn’t actually realize the guy who discovered LSD was still alive.</p>
<p>Cocaine HCl certainly is a crystalline ionic salt, I’ve just never heard of it having an appearance of anything other than a white powder (because the crystals are small, or something). I bow to your superior knowledge. Or maybe you old timers just got the good stuff. ;)</p>
<p>1of42: “I know this both because the information is widely available on the internet and because I have some acquaintances (not particularly good ones) who use those substances occasionally and whom I asked to corroborate my intuitions about their prices. Since you seem to consistently trust your own anecdotal experience and gut feeling over statistical evidence, the following will probably be lost on you, but I will provide it nonetheless”</p>
<p>1of42, I trust professionals – people with doctorates in medicine, YEARS of practical experience, and a specialty in the field of addiction. People who are at the front lines of attempting to save people from destruction. I certainly would not take my information from a kid down the hall in my dorm, who might have gotten some drugs a few times on the streets of Trenton.</p>
<p>I have previously suggested that you go to some of the fine treatment centers near Princeton and find out the truth (rather than surfing the net to tease out “studies” which corroborate your prejudice). You seem to have quite an interest in this subject, so I am surprised that you have not yet done so.</p>
<p>1of42: “Explain to me how it is economical or practical for a dealer to take marijuana, a green plant composed of flower buds that are contiguous and whole and easy to visually examine for tampering (cutting and recombining, for example), which generally costs from $15-$30 per gram from a dealer on the street, and cut that substance with cocaine, crack or heroin (black tar, or south asian, your choice), each of which costs about $50-$60 per gram (though crack costs less per dose [“rock”], those doses are much less pure)… Please, stop making flippant denials and referencing your nebulous knowledge of the drug treatment industry; simply tell me how it could possibly, in any universe, be economical or practical for a drug dealer to try to adulterate a substance which is easy to see has been adulterated (at least with the substances you described), and costs less than the adulterants? Your position makes NO SENSE… And before you pull out the “to make marijuana addictive for return customers”, understand that even if a customer gets totally addicted to marijuana the dealer would still lose money if cutting with the substances you described.”</p>
<p>1of42, the prices you cite are not necessarily valid. It’s a big planet, and the drug market is huge. Prices vary in different places depending on all sorts of things. Pot can be more expensive, easily, that heroin or cocaine. For example, when cheap imported weed has to compete with high quality U.S. product, it can be economical for growers from certain nations to doctor it with substances that you think are more expensive (because you heard about some street price in Newark or something for cocaine or heroin of a particular quality). </p>
<p>Also, in your very own universe 1of42, pot can be adulterated without it being seen. And by the way, 1of42, you have made the assumption that buyers CARE that the product has been adulterated. Many do not. Most adolescents who suffer from the disease of addiction are poly-addicts. That means they will take anything to get high. Some kids have done things like drink mouthwash, vanilla, snort gas fumes, or even Drano! You think that they would care if their pot was mixed with something? You see 1of42, it really is a big world out here.</p>
<p>And by the way, just in case readers might think none of my warnings should be relevant to them because they do not have the disease of addiction, let me add that many drugs can change your brain permanently, even with just one use. Meth is a great example of that - it is the worst! Whatever it is, unless you have grown it yourself, or studied it chemically in a lab, you do not know for sure what you are taking. Why take that risk?</p>
<p>1of42: "I suspect many of you will wonder “why does 1of42 know so much about drugs, and why is he so insistent on arguing about them?” The answer is that I find the high level of misinformation and ignorance in the general population fascinating and so have striven to form a complete picture for myself of the dangers and facts of drug use and the drug trade, drawing from a bunch of different sources, including the medical literature, government sources, and non-traditional information sources like Erowid. And I argue about it because it annoys me when people are wrong and are brazen about it and won’t admit it. ”</p>
<p>Actually, 1of42, the reason why I spend the time responding to your posts on drugs is that they are FILLED with misinformation and erroneous assumptions – dangerous ones. I find nothing about the world of illicit drugs to be “fascinating”, knowing as I do…
…what it looks like when kids’ lives are destroyed
…what track marks look like on young, perfect skin
…what it sounds like to hear a father, a man who might be a surgeon or a CEO and capable of making so much happen in the world, sob over the dealth of his child
…the excruciating sound that a woman’s voice can make when she wails over the declining health of the child that once grew within her, knowing that she is helpless to make things better
…what it looks like to see lonely brothers or sisters, wondering why drugs have been chosen rather than a relationship with them
…how depressed and frustrated kids in recovery can be when their minds no longer work as well, damaged by years of using
…what it feels like to hug people who cannot stop, despite many attempts and relapses, no matter how they try, wishing that they had never “picked up” in the first place (people who THOUGHT that they were just partying, and that they were SO SMART and knew oh so much.</p>
<p>I cannot imagine why anyone would find entertainment in this subject, knowing the whole story.</p>
<p>I feel an obligation to post the truth, not because (like you) I am “annoyed” over misinformation, but because I care about people and hope to help rather than harm them. Yourself included.</p>
<p>spideygirl, the fact is, unless I’m misjudging this very much, no one has posted yet who is an addiction specialist. So until that happens, there’s you posting a bunch of unverifiable information that apparently comes to you from professionals, that is contradicted by available statistical evidence, and that you have yet to verify in any way other than to tell me to go to addiction treatment centers, which I don’t really have the time to do because without a car it takes me quite a long time to get anywhere off campus and I’m not willing to waste the better part of a day running around because you can’t find a source to back up your specious arguments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>spideygirl, I quoted you prices from the government agencies involved with policing and monitoring the drug trade, who have the biggest data sets on the issue of pricing. They substantiate my argument. I’m not going off of anecdotal prices - though I did mention them; I am working on the basis of the statistics I found and linked you to.</p>
<p>You have yet to provide any evidence for your assertion that cocaine or heroin is regularly cheaper than marijuana; you have yet to provide any evidence for the assertion that marijuana is regularly adulterated with heroin, or cocaine. I have provided you evidence of its economic non-viability, as well as a number of reports of actual adulterated marijuana (coming from Europe, where the phenomenon is currently most common), that include significant detail about what is being used to adulterate it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey, when a drug user decides they want to go mix some crack in with their marijuana, that’s one thing. I’m not arguing about the user that gets adulterated marijuana (or adulterates it themselves) to get a different high. Because it’s irrelevant. To say that that has bearing on whether marijuana itself is addictive (which is where this discussion started) is like saying that decaf coffee is addictive because a lot of people have a cigarette with a cup of coffee.</p>
<p>Pot indeed can be adulterated without it being seen (I gave a couple of examples of possible substances - PCP, baby oil,liquids like that), but it’s easy to tell once it’s used, and with most substances it’s also very easy to tell beforehand. As I said in the last post, I’ll be happy to link you to some discussion of adulterated British marijuana, wherein the ease of figuring out whether it’s adulterated is discussed.</p>
<p>Yes, drugs are a tragedy. They destroy lives, and tear apart families. I have personally experienced that as well - don’t think your the only one here who’s ever been affected by drugs firsthand.</p>
<p>But drugs are tragic enough without you making up half-truths to make them seem scarier.</p>
<p>The bottom line is this: you made an assertion about adulterants. You have yet to provide any evidence for that assertion, and when I have provided robust statistical reports and other information from the government agencies whose job it is to follow these issues, you have ignored it and then made dismissive comments designed to deflect attention away. Why is that? Is it because you have absolutely no evidence for the position you’re taking? Or is it just fun to argue so ridiculously? Either way, I’m waiting. Waiting for some real evidence of what you’re saying. Something like a report discussing the widespread practice of adulterating marijuana with cocaine and heroin unknown to users. Or the relatively low price of cocaine and heroin compared to marijuana. Anything to support what you’ve been saying. Because, so far, you’ve provided nothing - as usual for you - and (again, as usual) it looks like you have no evidence to back up your assertions.</p>
<p>1of42, I see lots of assumptive language about the strength of your argument and the weakness of mine. However, despite borrowing from the language of trial lawyers you have done none of what you think you have in attempting to prove your point. When any suggestion is made, such as names of professionals, studies, or physical locations nearby that you can even visit, you have made excuses that you cannot find them, they are not credible, or they are too far. You state that you find this subject “fascinating”, and that you seek information, yet you have better things to do than to go speak to professionals in your area. You have criticized the US government for providing false information, yet now are using parts of it to support your argument of the moment. </p>
<p>Let me put it another way. You are right. You know more than the treatment professionals, more than psychiatrists with many degrees and decades in addiction medicine. You see, it is all a vast conspiracy to stop college kids who don’t merely think that they know more than they do, they actually DO know more! I really am part of this vast conspiracy which aims to prevent people like you from finding out that in fact, you DO know more than professionals. The truth is that addiction professionals at Betty Ford, Hazeldon, Carrier, Fair Oaks, and others don’t know as much as certain college kids holed up in their dorm who surf the net for information. You figured it all out; you have uncovered the truth. Those professionals don’t use studies, they don’t use facts or statistics, they make it all up as they go along. Only the college kid knows the real truth.</p>
<p>Why do I even bother speaking to experts nationwide on drugs? Why would I ever assume that they have based their processes on sound research? What a waste of time! From now on, 1of42, when I have a question about drugs, substance abuse, or addiction medicine I will just ask you instead. You can surf the net and find the answer for me.</p>
<p>I am glad we had the opportunity to iron this out.</p>
<p>Excuse? How about this: if you want to come to Princeton and give me a ride to one of the places you have suggested, I’ll be happy to go. This is not an excuse: I’ do not have a car on campus, and do not have the time to spend on trying to figure out transportation and then actually getting there - especially around finals time. There’s also (though this is secondary) the issue of credibility - you have not provided a single piece of evidence to support your argument, except that supposedly the instant I enter a treatment center all of your arguments will clearly be supported with rigorous evidence. Sorry, but I’m just not willing - or really able - to take the (large amount of) time necessary to go and maybe or maybe not see your argument substantiated, when you have provided no other indications that it is. Do you blame me for that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re putting words in my mouth and trying to make a straw man argument. I never said everything the US government did was false. I said that their stance on drugs has been so one-size-fits-all and reactionary as to poison the discourse on drugs and make the government a less-than-credible source on he issue of drugs. If you had read the transcripts of Congressional hearings on marijuana, for example, you’d know why I feel that is a valid criticism. Moreover, I criticize the US government for its heavy-handed approach both with other nations (insidious and overbearing attempts to force other countries not to allow medical marijuana, for example) and even the country’s own states (with federal law enforcement raiding people even in states with legal medical marijuana - abetted by a ridiculous Supreme Court decision).</p>
<p>But that does not mean I consider the US government incompetent in all respects - and I never said I did. For example, when the DEA reports that it seized 10 kilograms of cocaine from some boat in the Gulf of Mexico as they were smuggling it into America, I’m not sitting here going “Well that sounds like a lie!” Likewise, when the government gathers statistics on the price of drugs, something it both has little reason to blur the truth about and has had a good track record with (there’s a long record, and I cross-checked what I could to see if it looked right), I don’t have a problem with it.</p>
<p>But that’s not the only reason - the main reason is that I figured you’d trust a government source more than independent ones, even though the latter were the first sources I found (the two types do agree, by the way). Do you not?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cut the condescension.</p>
<p>The point is that you have provided not a single iota of evidence to support anything you have said. You have not provided a single link to a study, an article, peer-reviewed literature, even to one of your precious treatment centers, that supports anything you have been saying. And that is the problem. If you linked me to an addiction specialist who was saying the same things as you, be it on their center’s website, or wherever else, I would take it very seriously. But you haven’t even done that.</p>
<p>I’m not telling you I doubt your evidence because you’ve provided it and I have found it wanting. </p>
<p>I’m telling you I doubt your evidence because, so far, you have provided NONE AT ALL. You keep saying “mental health experts” this, and “addiction specialists” that, but have provided nothing to verify that they agree with what you’re saying; nothing so much as a third-hand media article has been provided by you. And that is the bottom line. Provide some evidence - any evidence - of what you’re saying, or you will continue to look like you’re making this stuff up on the spot.</p>
<p>1of42: “Excuse? How about this: if you want to come to Princeton and give me a ride to one of the places you have suggested”</p>
<p>I will put this on my “things to do” list for the next time I am in the area. It may take 6-18 months for you to hear from me on it, but I will contact you through CC the next time I pass through. If you stop using CC, email me your contact information so I can reach you. You won’t find me at all scary, BTW - just a good-natured soccer mom who sometimes wears a spidey costume. </p>
<p>Since you are a student, I will even buy you dinner. In return, you will visit one or two fine addiction treatment centers near Princeton, speak to professionals, and maybe even sit in on some educational sessions.</p>
<p>As far as evidence goes, evidence for WHAT? There have been MANY topics covered in the “Illicit Drugs Should Be Avoided” debate between the two of us. I am clearly not going to play the tiresome game you like to play of citing one study, then having you surf the net to post another, and so on. </p>
<p>Here is REALITY:</p>
<p>In every library, there is a huge section on addiction. In those books studies are cited. The vast majority of the books agree that illegal drugs are bad. </p>
<p>This is not complicated.</p>
<p>A tiny minority of fringe players like to challenge the notion that drugs are bad. You like to focus on those opinions. Statistics can say whatever you’d like them to. You can even pay for studies which will say whatever you wish. You can ignore lots of good research, and focus on a few dissenting opinions. All of this can take up lots of your time, but it is a game I am not wiling to play.</p>
<p>The TRUTH is that the majority of the best minds world-wide agree that illegal drugs should be avoided for health reasons. They have lots of high quality research to back them up. You should rely on professionals to sift through research, to apply it, and to guide you based on years of experience doing so. Surfing the net is not a sound substitute for reliance on the best minds in a field.</p>
<p>It is childish to pretend that you cannot find volumes of books on this subject, filled with information citing excellent research.</p>
<p>spideygirl: Thanks for the offer. I’m sure I’ll still be on CC.</p>
<p>My question was for you to provide evidence to substantiate the assertion that marijuana is often adulteration with heroin and/or various forms of cocaine, something that you have repeatedly asserted but have yet to provide any evidence for. It’s not like there’s a dearth of information on the general issue of adulteration either - I found lots of talk about the use of PCP, heavy metals and glass particles to adulterate marijuana, but nothing about heroin or cocaine.</p>
<p>I suspect, not to insult you, that you’re not really basing this argument on any particular validated conclusions, but rather on third-hand misinformation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know, though it may surprise you I’ve actually been to the Princeton library and come back with stacks of books on the issue of drugs, addiction and prohibition many times (surprising? shouldn’t be, really). A lot of them agree with what you say. But a non-negligible, large number of them raise serious questions. Mostly about marijuana.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A tiny minority? Fringe players? This is your first mistake: dismissing every opinion you don’t agree with as baseless, lunatic and not worth listening to. The people who are questioning the official stance on marijuana, for example, are not a tiny minority; they are not fringe players (many are prominent doctors, including many involved in the drug field), and they have conducted a large amount of very sound research.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean that they are right, merely that they have a viewpoint worth listening to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A lot of them have very good research. And then there’s a lot who don’t, and who base their arguments on third-hand pseudo-evidence. The fact of the matter is, I don’t trust anybody to tell me what to think about the literature; having been the child of 2 doctors who were never hesitant to give me access to primary research (medical journals and the like) I’m confident in my ability to digest the medical literature. Doesn’t mean I think I’m the equal of every medical doctor out there; but I’m not an idiot, and I know how to read a medical study.</p>
<p>The bottom line is, so far you have made a number of assertions, and when asked to substantiate them, you have always declined, and tried to redirect. I’m not asking much. A few case reports to back up your claim of crack-adulterated marijuana, maybe? Or some studies of the physical addictiveness of marijuana? Anything would be nice.</p>
<p>“. A few case reports to back up your claim of crack-adulterated marijuana, maybe?”</p>
<p>The National Institute on Drug Abuse sponsors 21 Community Epidemiology Workgroups (CEWGs) around the country that report regularly on drug abuse trends seen in metropolitan communities across the nation. I have sat on the Seattle-King County CEWG since 2000. As far as I am aware, we have no reports of crack-adulterated marijuana, either from the DEA or from community and youth workers, and I haven’t seen a single report of anyone known to use such a substance recently admitted (past five years) to publicly funded treatment.</p>
<p>Back in 1998, we saw some cases of intentionally adulterated marijuana, but it was adulterated with formaldehyde.</p>
<p>On balance, and having seen firsthand hundreds and hundreds of cases of individuals who have a psychological dependence on marijuana, and understanding the risks inherent in the approach, I’d legalize it (for those age 21 and over), regulate it or sell it in state stores, and put the money into treatment where it is sorely needed. I have seen too many kids who, having discovered that we either lied or at least stretched the truth when it comes to talking about marijuana, think we are also not telling the truth when it comes to methamphetamines or, perhaps worse, the prescription opiates they find in mom’s medicine cabinet which have terrific addiction potential. Our methadone system in Washington State is now being overwhelmed by individuals addicted to prescription opiates, with addiction often dating to the teen years, and, from a pharmacological perspective, there is little difference between the prescription opiates and heroin in their addictive potential.</p>
<p>I fully understand the risks inherent to such an approach, but as a medical matter it just is the case that alcohol abuse - among both youth and adults - has both more serious health and social consequences, and a far greater physical addiction potential - and withdrawal from alcohol, unlike withdrawal from heroin, is, from a medical perspective, extremely dangerous.</p>
<p>Which is what I suspected, since everything I’ve seen discuss marijuana adulteration has not mentioned cocaine, heroin or crack as common adulterants. Have you seen heroin or anything like that used, mini? Not that spideygirl would probably care what the actual answer is, because you’ll be some “fringe player” saying “drugs are OK”…</p>
<p>Haven’t seen or heard reports of it. Since virtually all of the heroin in the Pacific Northwest is ‘black tar’ (unlike that found on the east coast), it would be particularly difficult if not impossible to adulterate marijuana with it. I can imagine the east coast stuff could be used, but I can’t exactly see why.</p>
<p>The “mom network” must be very pervasive indeed, able as it is to apparently keep all mention of this supposedly MDMA-adulterated marijuana off of the document archives of the DEA, NIDA, and out of all of the scholarly databases I searched. Hmm…</p>
<p>As for your assertion of regular MDMA adulteration of marijuana… I’d love to see a reputable source to back that up. Not to be blunt, but I suspect you’re the victim of some third-hand stories.</p>
Or maybe you old timers just got the good stuff. ;)</p>