1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
  1. DaPhist
    So, this show was all about synthetics and "designer" drugs. It mainly dealt with the business side of the industry, but...
    It showed how the DEA is dealing with the new drugs coming out, mainly by READING THIS FORUM!!!
    The DEA chemist on the show was talking about how they watch here (even showed a clip from a screen, recognized it instantly) to see what effects are reported regarding newer drugs they don't know about.
    The rules here are quite clear and most self-incriminating posts are removed, but here's another example of watching what you say on the 'net.
    Big Brother is ALWAYS watching. So, be careful brothers and sisters.

Comments

  1. Basoodler
    Re: CNBC's Crime INC. #6 "A Dangerous High"

    If they came down on this site they would lose it as a source of information. It would be completely not in the best interest of the DEA to hammer a member of this site for anything posted. That's like shooting yourself in the foot.

    Let them look at it.. it may save the lives of people who OD on obscure drugs having this information available.

    Its not like they are banning rc's the day after someone creates a drug info thread.

    Shulgin helped the DEA too.. but they didn't do a ban on every compound in his books.

    They need trip reports from users to evaluate the drugs..they also need it available to users to minimalize harm to the users..
  2. nigh
    Re: CNBC's Crime INC. #6 "A Dangerous High"

    I can't even begin to imagine that the DEA would bother coming after a user on here for simple possession of a quasilegal substance. That'd be a crazy amount of work for a possible conviction.
  3. trdofbeingtrd
    Re: CNBC's Crime INC. #6 "A Dangerous High"

    I would rather them come here and get real information rather than just make it up as they go (think of any idiotic drug myth) and put out false bullshit. If they see that a certain substance can be done somewhat safely and others (bromo dragon fly) are quite dangerous and relay that information to the public it's a win win. I have no doubt that there are many different officers on this site both as members and as guests, and while it would be just absolutely fucking crazy as Baslooder said above for them to go after members and the site, it's something I would rather have or people I would rather have around so that information is correct.

    I honestly believe in my heart that there are many non-corrupt agents whose best interests is the safety of people. This would mean that instead of having a person go and snort something that will kill them because they read that marijuana makes you want to kill, pillage, and rape....they will know that marijuana is extremely safe and even more compared to some of the insane research chemicals out there now (thanks AGAIN to the "war on drugs"). Truth saves lives, not propaganda on the tragically failed war on drugs.......there are enough people who want to save lives, so more power to everyone. Let's keep saving lives regardless what side of the fence you are on.
  4. profesor
    Re: CNBC's Crime INC. #6 "A Dangerous High"

    I think that was true of the Nazis too. Many were patriotic Germans who thought they were making the world a better place.

    Even if you are an innocent person with nothing but good intentions, stay the hell away from these people. In a war, both sides will accept some "collateral damage."
  5. trdofbeingtrd
    Re: CNBC's Crime INC. #6 "A Dangerous High"

    I mean this with all due respect, I said I believe that there are non corrupt agents, and I do.......but I never said I trust any of them. They are people just like you and I, I don't give trust because of position and rank, I give it because it's earned.

    However, thank you for the point just in case I did not know how bad of an idea it would be to trust those who are supposed to protect us because they are there. :)
  6. Fentiful
    Re: CNBC's Crime INC. #6 "A Dangerous High"

    "However, thank you for the point just in case I did not know how bad of an idea it would be to trust those who are supposed to protect us because they are there."

    Arguably, isn't a certain amount of trust amongst everyone necessary to survive? Of course there's always risks, there is with drug use, whether it be from the chemical it self or "collateral damage", just as there is with just waking up and taking a breath each day.....

    IMHO People who do RC's or even traditional illegal substances probably have a greater chance getting busted "scoring" than they do posting anything on here, or having a serious adverse reaction.....just some thoughts. M
  7. DaPhist
    Re: CNBC's Crime INC. #6 "A Dangerous High"

    I'm not saying that the DEA would be coming after anyone JUST because of this site.
    What I was refering to is being careful of what you say on the 'net.
    Lets's say you got nailed in LogJam, or are under suspicion for having shipments arrive at your house. When you get to court, you plead innocent as the shipments were "just for research" or you thought they were actually plant food, etc. Then the DA says, "Really? Well we have these posts that we traced back to your IP address giving trip reports, talking about how great it was, etc." I'm not even saying any evidence could or would come from this site. Just that what you say in public (on the 'net where anyone can read it) is not necessarily anonymous, and you should be careful.
    I've seen people "like" distibutors and vendors on Facebook. If those same vendors get nailed, do you think their Facebook accounts, and address lists AREN'T being looked at?!?
    Most people on here are quite responsible. But noobs and people on other sites say things that make my jaw drop sometimes. Again, the whole point was just watch what you say, EVERYWHERE.
  8. Basoodler
    Re: CNBC's Crime INC. #6 "A Dangerous High"



    The only way you are going to keep them away is close the site lol

    You don't think a dea chemist has access to the chemistry forum?.. they could probably woo the hell out of anyone with an access application..

    If they can penetrate high level drug organizations ..I'm pretty sure they had no trouble with a web forum.

    Just follow alpha's rules... don't sell drugs here or have outside communication ... unless you want to test em
  9. trdofbeingtrd
    Re: CNBC's Crime INC. #6 "A Dangerous High"

    Well yeah, it's true a certain amount of trust is needed, but that's a human thing really. There is only one person I trust 100% and after that, I don't trust anyone to much. NOT trusting people is a way to survive.

    It's not that I don't get your point or to a degree...agree, just that while your point is true over all, not trusting just anyone is a great way to stay alive and free.

    The way I grew up, the environment I grew up in taught me to keep my mouth shut and my eyes open. Also because of where I have taken myself in life, I ran into and across both as enemy and ally and could not take anything at face value.

    The OP has a great point, and people would be wise to hear it, just saying that the site and it's content being watched is not a surprise, and can be a bad thing for some when they act as if they don't care how important covering their asses is.
  10. hookedonhelping
    Re: CNBC's Crime INC. #6 "A Dangerous High"

    anytime you google nearly any illegal drug, the first hit is usually a result from drugs-forum, it should come as no surprise that the DEA is amongst us here at DF.

    While this site is invaluable to many worldwide in successfully reducing harm, it's also invaluable to the DEA is compiling data on what drugs are popular and what drugs need to be considered for an emergency ban or scheduling.

    I don't think the latter was Alfa's intention when he started this site, but how do you stop it? You can't.. not without halting discussion of new drugs, which won't happen. If your in the loop with whats new and exciting, this shouldn't present many obstacles, as Bassoodler said, they aren't banning drugs the day after a new thread on one is started.
  11. trdofbeingtrd
    Re: CNBC's Crime INC. #6 "A Dangerous High"

    As I said above, considering the DEA and other agencies including the off duty officer can be here at any time, I am glad if they take information from here.

    Let's look at this, one of the main goals of this site is harm reduction AND safety all around. We don't put fake and false information up, if it goes up, it's right back down. For instance there was a person who wanted to (and certain people have in the past) put up information on huffing, this was a suggestion that was heavily shot down because IT'S NOT SAFE. If someone comes to this site posting what is not safe, it's eliminated simply because that's not what DF is about.

    So, (using the DEA for example) the DEA reads about a new research chemical, and say sadly and tragically it takes a life which is brought to our attention by a poster, then it's NOT safe. Then the DEA knows it's not safe. However, say someone posts about how much something has helped their life, how they got off of heavy illegal or heavy prescription pills because of it, it's something that is saving lives and is a GOOD thing.......it's something we WANT to be known.

    I get this might not be the intial intention, but well, at least it's a silver lining between the people hearing this and freaking out and those who are the officers. We are all here for the better.
  12. makin
  13. Alfa
    Re: CNBC's Crime INC. #6 "A Dangerous High"

    The first thing visible on our homepage is our 'about drugs-forum':
    I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised of the DEA or any other officials using this site.
    No need to get paranoid or hostile about this.
    The statements above about IPs make no sense at all. We have never in the complete 10 year history of Drugs-forum received any request for IPs.
  14. MightyBlaze
    It's all very interesting. It is within our right to discuss whatever we please IMO.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!