12 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
DaydreamJohnny says:
Thank god 2C-I was scheduled over the summer so that people wouldn't take it and kill old ladies and jump off of buildings!

Oh wait...

1. Most of this article's description of the drug itself is actually misinformation, and "Phearmonger" above is much closer to the truth.

2. He had the drug, even though it has been illegal for some months. How is that even possible?? (Clearly that legislation is working wonders).

3. I have taken 2C-I, I know many people who have also. It is not a drug that induces madness. Either it wasn't 2C-I, or more likely, the guy had some serious mental issues to begin with. Remember the bath salts guy who ate that other guy's face? Well he wasn't actually on bath salts. Some people are just crazy, and the tiniest thing could push them over the edge, but it's important to identify the real problem.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
pHearmonger says:
Let's get something straight: these 2C drugs are most certainly NOT amphetamines, nor are they "amphetamine-based". 2C-I has been around since 1998, but has only been made illegal this past June. It was classified as a "Schedule I" controlled substance, but this has no connection to amphetamines which are Schedule II. The word "amphetamine" comes from its chemical name: AlphaMethylPHenEThylAMINE. These can be one of hundreds of analogs, but all derivatives share a basic backbone that is an alpha methylated phenethylamine. 2C-I, like other 2C drugs, is not a methylated phenethylamine and cannot be considered analogous, let alone "basically just amphetamines". Accordingly, the effects of the two are grossly dissimilar. Amphetamine is a stimulant used for the ADHD medication Adderall, while 2C-I is a psychedelic comparable to LSD. In terms of chemical makeup, the difference is huge: 2C's are more closely related to the chemicals in chocolate than they are to amphetamines. If you're trying to compare something to amphetamines, look no further than those "bath salt" blends. Those are chock-full of amphetamine derivatives and who knows what else.

End of the chemistry lesson, all of this information is readily available online! Do the world a favor and DO YOUR HOMEWORKS.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bobbychuckles says:
This sounds like total bull to me.
A fall and strangulation equals an overdose?
Only to another ghoulish Thomas Noguchi clone.
reply
midwestking13 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
no.. a fall, strangulation, does not equal overdose. the entire story may help you. he allegedly strangled and beat his 81 year old landlady to death. during the struggle, her neighbors could hear her screaming.. they saw a man fleeing the scene..tried to stop him, but he fled to the roof. these witnesses said he seemed to have super human strength and seemed to be foaming at the mouth. also, he dismembered her cat. like others... it does seem that he was under the influence of something. dont you think?
pHearmonger replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
So here we find a man with a history of mental illness who has recently undergone a psychotic break. Where do the drugs come in? Just because he was "foaming at the mouth" and possessed "superhuman strength"? Have you ever seen someone in the throws of psychosis? These actions are not carried out by sane individuals, this man was clearly deeply disturbed and if anything drug use was a symptom rather than the explanation. Disregarding that, there has been no tox screen, so until then we have no reason to believe drugs were involved (let alone 2C-I of all things).
linkicon reporticon emailicon
tengent says:
I am utterly confused on why 2C-I out of all compounds has been singled out as a cause. It's just ignorance. What implies he ate an uncommon PSYCHEDELIC drug, or a drug at all? Any new drugs causing problems must be just like bath salts.

sigh
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ScientologySon says:
What brought Johnny to this point? Could it be his childhood in an abusive brainwashing cult called Scientology? No I am sure it was the drug. No other Scientology followers have ever done anything like this before.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
barnettster says:
Yes, you have a country that gives no one an opportunity and yet expect them to be law biding citizens.

And then when it hits the front page you ask why.

It's land of the FEE and home of the GRAVES and I'm glad to be an aMERICAN.

You do the math.
reply
lifeduringwartime replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Wow, I am at a loss. Only you can hold yourself back, barnettster. If you are going nowhere try something else and never give up!
hypnotoad72 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
As a glib generalization, I can see where that might make sense in a number of contexts...

But I'm missing something; this actor got goofed up on mind-altering drugs and killed someone. Was he getting high as means of escapism?

Was he really that poorly paid for what is apparently a successful television show? I'd bet he gets paid more than DBAs, programmers, support staff, and other such workers - who also have to use their brains a lot...
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ObscureStar says:
Tox report isn't in but we're just going to blame some random drug and ignore the mental illness entirely.

Right then. Carry on with the top-notch reporting.
reply
tengent replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Thank you..
Scroll Left Scroll Right