Jump to content

Talk:Cutting agent: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 48: Line 48:
==Wikified==
==Wikified==
Wikified as part of the [[WP:WWF|Wikification wikiproject]]! [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 15:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikified as part of the [[WP:WWF|Wikification wikiproject]]! [[User:JubalHarshaw|JubalHarshaw]] 15:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:This article is too poorly written and has a systemic bias of recreational drug-user primary authorship, to be "wikified".
[[Special:Contributions/68.41.109.202|68.41.109.202]] ([[User talk:68.41.109.202|talk]]) 08:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:55, 14 May 2009

The article is too america-centric.

In Europe there is currently an epidemic of marijuana cut with ground up glass beads, silica and sugar. Cocaine in Europe is cut by 95% with substances that are sometimes very dangerous. Hashish in Europe is cut with plastic, henna, and other nasty things.

If you really want to delete the important warnings about marijuana cut with ground-up glass beads and put that lie there, then you put people's lives at risk. Please see these two official UK and French government warnings about this kind of marijuana.I have a very high level of English, but if it wasn't encyclopedic enough for you, then please don't just delete it, but change the wording. Like it is now, it is very uncorrect and even dangerous to people's health to keep it like it is.

Just because you are not used to the thought of this happening, doesn't mean it's not true.

In fact, this occurring on a large scale in Europe makes what was called a "myth" in the previous version of the article the real myth.

I did source it. Poorly written? I don't agree. Unencyclopedic? Probably. But most times I wrote something, people would go in and change the wordning, not just revert the article to a previous version with obvious untruths.

I included more sources this time. Please clean up the article, don't just revert to obvious untruths.

Here are some PICTURES of the marijuana cut with this silica/taiwanese roadmarking material.

http://www.droguesnews.com/album-314209.html

Also, see these official government warnings and info from the UK legalization organization UKCIA

French govt warning reiterated by CIRC http://www.circ-asso.net/paris/pages/alerte.htm

UK govt warning http://www.info.doh.gov.uk/doh/embroadcast.nsf/vwDiscussionAll/297D9740D0412C9D802572650050A4A0?OpenDocument

Warnings and relevant information from UKCIA The first link includes information on pollutants found in hashish http://www.ukcia.org/activism/soapbar.htm http://www.ukcia.org/library/contam/default.php


Disclaimer: This is what I understand these terms to mean as one who has had experience (but not necessarily use) in such matters. I am confidant of the clarification but this is only what these terms mean in my area, and I cannot validate this elsewhere. I am under the impression that this is a discussion board so I don't have to verify these statements as we are only discussing the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.59.197.57 (talkcontribs) 03:13, 3 October 2006 68.59.197.57.



Cutting should not be mixed with lacing as cutting is used for primarily economic gains and substances are usually cut with a mundane substance such as salt and sugar (when cutting white powder substances such as cocaine). This is done in order to increase the amount of product you can sell without having to purchase more.

i.e. Diluting a juice or drink to sell less of the actual product.

Lacing is generally done to enhance/augment ones altered state of consciousness. For instance, it is not uncommon to lace marijuana with cocaine to gain the effects of both when used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.59.197.57 (talkcontribs) 03:14, 3 October 2006 68.59.197.57.

Wikified

Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! JubalHarshaw 15:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too poorly written and has a systemic bias of recreational drug-user primary authorship, to be "wikified".

68.41.109.202 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]