Friday, 27 September 2013

Fwd: New fragrance from Mooshelle






--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Do you know what “cracker” means?





Dr. Eowyn posted: "New Black Panther Samir ShabazzMost of us know about the racist New Black Panthers (NBP) calling white people "crackers."Here's NBP leader Samir Shabazz in January 2012, calling for blacks to kill white people and their babies: "We're gonna have to kill s"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Do you know what "cracker" means?

by Dr. Eowyn

NBP Samir ShabazzNew Black Panther Samir Shabazz

Most of us know about the racist New Black Panthers (NBP) calling white people "crackers."

Here's NBP leader Samir Shabazz in January 2012, calling for blacks to kill white people and their babies: "We're gonna have to kill some crackers"..."We're gonna have to kill some cracker babies ... some little Penelopes and some little Rodneys" . . . .

But do you know what the word "cracker" actually means?

I didn't, and had thought the word is somehow related to crack cocaine. Until I read a reader's comment on a news article about human body parts being found in the sewer of a Detroit suburb:

fuzzyspappy FatbngurlumtRwgR

before cowboys, the term was used to describe the slave masters who "cracked the whip"

So I went to look the word up on Urban Dictionary:

Cracker

Originally the white slave driver because he would "crack" the whip, hence the noun cracker.

Noun. Slang word used to refer to those of European ancestry. The word is thought to have either derived from the sound of a whip being cracked by slave owners, or because crackers are generally white in color.

opposite of nigger, an insult to whites... except white people aren't dumb enough to walk around calling each other that word because it's intended to be demeaning.

Racist term for a white person

And yet blacks, including President Lucifer's attorney general Eric Holder, have the gall to insist blacks can't possibly be racist, and only non-blacks -- especially whites -- can be and are racist.

On March 1, 2011, Holder said he was fed up with listening to whining whites who claim the Justice Department deliberately blocked investigations of black-on-white racism. Holder said, "When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia [New Black Panthers intimidating voters in 2008], which was inappropriate .. .to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people."

In other words, what Holder was saying is that some racism is worse than others. Some racist injustice is worthy of prosecution, but racism against whites is not because whites simply haven't suffered enough. They don't deserve legal protection. So, any injustices committed against white people should be swept under the rug. It's not worth Eric Holder's time.

~Eowyn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/09/27/do-you-know-what-cracker-means/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Muslim women living under sharia law in America have trouble getting divorced





creeping posted: "Sharia law is alive and well in America. Read it and weep at the utter despair, the absurdity and inability to consider life outside of Islam. via 'Imam Shopping' -- Muslim Women's Long Road to Islamic Divorce - New America Media. DETROIT — Muslim women "
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Creeping Sharia

Muslim women living under sharia law in America have trouble getting divorced

by creeping

Sharia law is alive and well in America. Read it and weep at the utter despair, the absurdity and inability to consider life outside of Islam. via 'Imam Shopping' -- Muslim Women's Long Road to Islamic Divorce - New America Media. DETROIT — Muslim women whose husbands refuse to divorce them religiously have one alternative: […]

Read more of this post

creeping | September 27, 2013 at 11:15 AM | Categories: Creeping Sharia, Immigration, Legal, Media, Michigan, News, Politics, Religion, Sharia, Stealth Jihad | URL: http://wp.me/pbU4v-fEK

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/muslim-women-living-under-sharia-law-in-america-have-trouble-getting-divorced/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

, They Betrayed You



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Matt Kibbe - FreedomWorks
Date: Friday, September 27, 2013
Subject: Bruce, They Betrayed You
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


FreedomWorks

Bruce, we should have won.

Obama's Republican allies in the Senate betrayed you.

Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul did everything they could to Defund ObamaCare. But, Establishment Republicans stabbed them in the back. They gave Obama an easy out. They helped fund ObamaCare.

This isn't the first time the Establishment betrayed you. That's why you and I must replace the Obama-Republicans with real conservatives. People like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul. Conservatives who will do what it takes to stand up to Obama and stop his "radical transformation" of America. We can't have Republicans whipping votes for Obama.

But, Bruce, if we're going to replace them, if we're going to stop Obama, we need you to donate $50, $35, $15 or more right now!

 FWFA Betrayal Email Banner

And, Bruce, we can do it, we've done it before. With the help of patriots like you, Mike Lee took on the Republican establishment in 2010 and beat a RINO incumbent who voted for TARP. When Ted Cruz began his race for the Senate, he was polling at 3%. The big-money, establishment insiders were backing a moderate Obama-Republican who wouldn't stand on principle. But with the support of people like you, Cruz won. That's the power of grassroots. And, we must do it again.

If we're going to stop ObamaCare, stop the overspending, stop the NSA's spying, and restore our Constitutional liberties, we must act now. The turncoats in the GOP establishment have done enough damage. It's time to repopulate the Republican Party with fighters. And to do that, we need your help.

Bruce, that's why I need you to dig deep and donate $50, $35, $15 or more right now!

Together, we can replace them. Together, we can stop Obama.

In Liberty,

Matt Kibbe Signature

Matt Kibbe

FreedomConnector    Facebook    Twitter    Forward to a friend

Paid for by FreedomWorks for America and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to FreedomWorks for America are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes. www.FreedomWorksforAmerica.org

Like what you're reading? Donate to FreedomWorks for America today to fight for lower taxes, less government and more freedom.

Not interested? Click here to change your email preferences.


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Obamacare: Making Insurance ‘Affordable’ by Outlawing Competition and Limiting Consumer Choice


Obamacare: Making Insurance 'Affordable' by Outlawing Competition and Limiting Consumer Choice
Jeremy R. Hammond
September 27, 2013

The New York Times reports:

Lower Health Insurance Premiums to Come at Cost of Fewer Choices
Federal officials often say that health insurance will cost consumers less than expected under President Obama's health care law. But they rarely mention one big reason: many insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers.
From California to Illinois to New Hampshire, and in many states in between, insurers are driving down premiums by restricting the number of providers who will treat patients in their new health plans.
When insurance marketplaces open on Oct. 1, most of those shopping for coverage will be low- and moderate-income people for whom price is paramount. To hold down costs, insurers say, they have created smaller networks of doctors and hospitals than are typically found in commercial insurance. And those health care providers will, in many cases, be paid less than what they have been receiving from commercial insurers.

This government intervention in the market to attempt to control rising premiums by dictating what insurers will cover and limiting consumer choices is what Paul Krugman has described as "real market competition" in "a properly set up market system", as I noted in a previous post. As I mentioned, Krugman praised Obamacare's "clear ground rules", by which

he means standardized benefit packages, with the government dictating that insurance providers reduce the variety of packages available for consumers to choose from, thus effectively outlawing competition in this regard. They all have to provide the same or similar coverage.

So we have government dictating to insurers what "packages" they can provide and the perverse incentive for insurers to hold down costs by limiting policy holders to a certain network of health care providers. Thus, if you want to go to a doctor who isn't in the network, your insurance won't cover it. Which hospitals would insurers seek to exclude from their networks? Why, those whose patients require the costliest treatment, of course. As the Times continues:

Daniel R. Hawkins Jr., a senior vice president of the National Association of Community Health Centers, which represents 9,000 clinics around the country, said: "We serve the very population that will gain coverage ­ low-income, working class uninsured people. But insurers have shown little interest in including us in their provider networks."
Dr. Bruce Siegel, the president of America's Essential Hospitals, formerly known as the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, said insurers were telling his members: "We don't want you in our network. We are worried about having your patients, who are sick and have complicated conditions."
In some cases, Dr. Siegel said, "health plans will cover only selected services at our hospitals, like trauma care, or they offer rock-bottom payment rates."

The article isn't without its spin. It tries to portray insurance providers seeking doctors who will accept lower pay as a positive thing:

Consumers should be prepared for "much tighter, narrower networks" of doctors and hospitals, said Adam M. Linker, a health policy analyst at the North Carolina Justice Center, a statewide advocacy group.
"That can be positive for consumers if it holds down premiums and drives people to higher-quality providers," Mr. Linker said. "But there is also a risk because, under some health plans, consumers can end up with astronomical costs if they go to providers outside the network."
Insurers say that with a smaller array of doctors and hospitals, they can offer lower-cost policies and have more control over the quality of health care providers.

Again, towards the end of the article, it repeats:

many insurers see advantages in narrow networks, saying they can steer patients to less expensive doctors and hospitals that provide high-quality care.

Granted, the Times presents this argument as the insurers', but it does nothing to challenge it, despite its obvious ludicrousness. Needless to say, the idea that insurers will include "less expensive doctors" in their networks and still provide "higher-quality" care is nonsense. Why would the doctors included be "less expensive"? Why would they be willing to accept less money than a doctor not in the network. Why would a patient be willing to go to a doctor not in the network, even if that means ending up with "astronomical costs"? You get what you pay for. More expensive doctors are able to charge more for their services precisely because they provide either the same services as other doctors but with higher quality of care or they offer specialized services that aren't available elsewhere.

The Times quotes Obama:

"Competition and consumer choice are actually making insurance affordable," Mr. Obama said recently.

Perhaps by "recently", the Times meant 1984. What he means, of course, is that largely outlawing competition and limiting consumer choice are supposed to help slow the rate of increase in insurance premiums.

Do you think this is going to work?

http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2013/09/27/obamacare-making-insurance-affordable-by-outlawing-competition-and-limiting-consumer-choice/

Obama Administration Cherry-Picking Data to Persuade Americans How Wonderful Obamacare Is


Obama Administration Cherry-Picking Data to Persuade Americans How Wonderful Obamacare Is
Jeremy R. Hammond
September 27, 2013

The New York Times reports on how the Obama administration is rather blatantly cherry-picking data to try to convince Americans that Obamacare will be wonderful for them:

The Obama administration on Tuesday provided the first detailed look at premiums to be charged to consumers for health insurance in 36 states where the federal government will run new insurance markets starting next week, highlighting costs it said were generally lower than previous estimates.
…However, the data provided only a partial picture of the reality that consumers will face. The government did not identify the insurance companies offering policies in the federal marketplaces, also known as exchanges. Nor did it provide any information about the many policies that will cost more than the amounts cited in its report.
…The figures, almost by definition, provide a favorable view of costs, highlighting the least expensive coverage in each state.
…Insurance experts said the prices reported on Tuesday should be viewed with caution for several reasons. In many cases, the statewide figures are averages. The rates may be available only in parts of a state, and premiums can vary as much within a state as among states.

Keep in mind that "generally lower than previous estimates" doesn't necessarily mean decreases in costs, just a slower rate of increase from previous projections. Costs are still projected to increase . And how does Obamacare purport to mitigate rising costs? By effectively forbidding insurance providers from competing on coverage and limiting consumer choice. I discussed that here, where I also commented:

So we have government dictating to insurers what "packages" they can provide and the perverse incentive for insurers to hold down costs by limiting policy holders to a certain network of health care providers. Thus, if you want to go to a doctor who isn't in the network, your insurance won't cover it. Which hospitals would insurers seek to exclude from their networks? Why, those whose patients require the costliest treatment, of course.

On that note, the Times article notes:

Consumer advocates said that people shopping for health insurance should consider not only price, but also other factors like the list of covered drugs and the doctors and hospitals available in a health plan.

Indeed. But, naturally, the Obama administration isn't bragging about how it purports to limit prices by limiting such options for health care consumers.

So if constraining the market isn't the answer, what is? Freeing it, of course.

http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2013/09/27/obama-administration-cherry-picking-data-to-persuade-americans-how-wonderful-obamacare-is/

Lysander Spooner on the National Debt


TGIF:
Lysander Spooner on the National Debt
by Sheldon Richman
September 27, 2013

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew says if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling ­ or, as I call it, the debt sky, because apparently the sky is the limit ­ the government won't be able to pay all its bills starting October 17. The Congressional Budget Office says that dire condition won't set in until sometime between October 22 and 31.

As he has each time this issue has come up, President Obama emphasizes that increasing the debt would only permit the government to pay expenses already incurred and would not finance new spending. To which I again reply, rhetorically: Why is Congress allowed to spend money that it knows it won't possess unless the debt limit is raised? Not only does that violate good sense, it also rigs the debate over the debt limit by threatening default as the price of voting no.

Such a query about the debt sky assumes that Congress operates in a context of legitimacy. So what we really need to do is step back and question that context itself. To do that, there is no better person to turn to than Lysander Spooner (1808–1887), lawyer, abolitionist, entrepreneur, and libertarian subversive. It so happens that in section XVII of his 1870 essay "The Constitution of No Authority" (number 6 in his No Treason series), Spooner took up the question of government debt with his signature fresh look. As you might imagine, he left nothing standing.

"On general principles of law and reason," Spooner wrote, "debts contracted in the name of 'the United States,' or of 'the people of the United States,' are of no validity."

How could that be?

It is utterly absurd to pretend that debts to the amount of twenty-five hundred millions of dollars are binding upon thirty-five or forty millions of people, when there is not a particle of legitimate evidence ­ such as would be required to prove a private debt ­ that can be produced against any one of them, that either he, or his properly authorized attorney, ever contracted to pay one cent.
Certainly, neither the whole people of the United States, nor any number of them, ever separately or individually contracted to pay a cent of these debts.

He has a point. I can't recall ever registering such consent ­ or being asked to, for that matter. Can you? Aren't we taught that the "consent of the governed" is a sacred American principle?

Earlier in the essay, Spooner handily disposes of the claim that voting or paying taxes implies consent. Since we are subjected to the government's impositions whether or not we vote ­ opting out is forbidden ­ any given individual may have cast a vote purely in self-defense, for the perceived lesser of two evils. And paying taxes certainly cannot signify consent, because the penalty for nonpayment is theft of one's property, imprisonment, or (should one resist) death. In fact, there is no way not to consent, which makes the whole question rather suspicious. How can one actually consent if there is no possible way to withhold consent? (Charles W. Johnson has something to say about that.)

So by what authority do the people who claim to constitute the U.S. government borrow money in our names and compel us to repay the debt? By no authority at all, as far as I can see, unless "might makes right" counts as authority.

Spooner continues,

How, then, is it possible, on any general principle of law or reason, that debts that are binding upon nobody individually, can be binding upon forty millions of people collectively, when, on general and legitimate principles of law and reason, these forty millions of people neither have, nor ever had, any corporate property? never made any corporate or individual contract? and neither have, nor ever had, any corporate existence?

It seems that this is not possible. "Who, then, created these debts, in the name of 'the United States'?" he asks.

Why, at most, only a few persons, calling themselves "members of Congress," etc., who pretended to represent "the people of the United States," but who really represented only a secret band of robbers and murderers, who wanted money to carry on the robberies and murders in which they were then engaged; and who intended to extort from the future people of the United States, by robbery and threats of murder (and real murder, if that should prove necessary), the means to pay these debts.

Here, when Spooner says the members of Congress only "pretended to represent" Americans at large, he is referring to his earlier point that because the ballot is secret, we really don't know whom these alleged representatives actually represent, that is, whose agents they really are.

The money, therefore, was all borrowed and lent in the dark; that is, by men who did not see each other's faces, or know each other's names; who could not then, and cannot now, identify each other as principals in the transactions; and who consequently can prove no contract with each other.

But this is just the beginning of the problems with the so-called public debt.

Furthermore, the money was all lent and borrowed for criminal purposes; that is, for purposes of robbery and murder; and for this reason the contracts were all intrinsically void; and would have been so, even though the real parties, borrowers and lenders, had come face to face, and made their contracts openly, in their own proper names.

And how is this borrowed money to be repaid?

Having no corporate property with which to pay what purports to be their corporate debts, this secret band of robbers and murderers are really bankrupt. They have nothing to pay with. In fact, they do not propose to pay their debts otherwise than from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders. These are confessedly their sole reliance; and were known to be such by the lenders of the money, at the time the money was lent. And it was, therefore, virtually a part of the contract, that the money should be repaid only from the proceeds of these future robberies and murders. For this reason, if for no other, the contracts were void from the beginning.

In fact, Spooner continues,

these apparently two classes, borrowers and lenders, were really one and the same class. They borrowed and lent money from and to themselves. They themselves were not only part and parcel, but the very life and soul, of this secret band of robbers and murderers, who borrowed and spent the money. Individually they furnished money for a common enterprise; taking, in return, what purported to be corporate promises for individual loans. The only excuse they had for taking these so-called corporate promises of, for individual loans by, the same parties, was that they might have some apparent excuse for the future robberies of the band (that is, to pay the debts of the corporation), and that they might also know what shares they were to be respectively entitled to out of the proceeds of their future robberies.

When Spooner rips away the veil, we are left with the fact that a group of unknown profit-seeking principals authorize their agents to use the former's money in order to, among other things, extort a larger sum of money from a larger group of people who never consented to an arrangement in the first place. And it is all done, dishonestly, in the name of that larger group with the fraudulent words "government of the people, by the people, for the people." It's the greatest swindle ever perpetrated.

Finally, Spooner writes,

if these debts had been created for the most innocent and honest purposes, and in the most open and honest manner, by the real parties to the contracts, these parties could thereby have bound nobody but themselves, and no property but their own. They could have bound nobody that should have come after them, and no property subsequently created by, or belonging to, other persons.

The debt, then, was and is illegitimately incurred. The lenders, who voluntarily entered into this relationship with government officials, should have known that. Perhaps the lenders should sue those officials and collect damages from the officials' personal property, but it seems more accurate to think of them as Spooner did: as accomplices in crime. (See section XVIII of his essay.)

At any rate, they can have no proper claim against the rest of us.


http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/tgif-spooner-national-debt/

Who Wants Marijuana To Remain Illegal?


Who Wants Marijuana To Remain Illegal?
Michael S. Rozeff
September 26, 2013

Police unions, private prison corporations, alcohol and beer companies, pharmaceutical companies, and prison guard unions are said to be in the top five in terms of lobbying and paying lawmakers to keep marijuana illegal. Hey, this is DEMOCRACY at work. This is the best system on earth, right? This is the system the U.S. government tells us it wants for Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

If some foreign government through its politics forbids women from walking around without burkas on, that is a sign of its tyranny, U.S. officials tell us. The U.S. Department of State wrote in this respect about "the Taliban war on Afghanistan's women…" and its "oppressive regime". But if the existing U.S. system forbids someone from using marijuana or some other drug, this is not infringing rights and it's not oppressive.

These contradictions, these poses, these false rationales, these hypocrisies arise again and again, permeating the entire society, for a simple reason. The government is not based on any consistent basis of justice and rights. These two-faced statements are proof that government has no foundation in rights, never has had such a foundation, and wasn't established with such a foundation. The Bill of Rights was a compromise and an afterthought grafted onto a document (the Constitution) whose purpose was entirely that of setting up a control and command structure that did not, would not and could not tolerate a basic right like that of secession, because that would shatter the government whose aim that document was to establish.

There are no moral-sounding statements made by the current occupant of the White House that can be assumed to be or are correlated with the actual moral sentiments of that occupant, simply because he leads an institution that has no consistent basis or relation to justice and rights. When he orders a drone strike that kills civilians, he demonstrates this fact. You or I could not do this without being brought up for murder. But in this hallowed democracy, our vote makes this legal. This simple fact shows that democracy has no basis in justice and rights. It is typically used for the purpose of suppressing the rights of any minority on the losing side of any issue that is voted upon.

This includes users of those drugs that have been made illegal.

Fwd: [New post] Flesh-eating Russian heroin “Krokodil” has arrived in America




Dr. Eowyn posted: "I first published this post two years ago -- about a horrible flesh-eating drug that Russians concoct in their kitchen sink -- a desomorphine nicknamed "Krokodil" (crocodile). At the time, I warned that "No doubt Krokodil will soon arrive on America's "
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Flesh-eating Russian heroin "Krokodil" has arrived in America

by Dr. Eowyn

I first published this post two years ago -- about a horrible flesh-eating drug that Russians concoct in their kitchen sink -- a desomorphine nicknamed "Krokodil" (crocodile).

At the time, I warned that "No doubt Krokodil will soon arrive on America's shores."

It has.

Read about it here.

Krokodil literally rots your flesh away. Below is an example. You can see more gruesome pics here.

H/t FOTM's joworth and CSM.

~Eowyn

krokodil

Krokodil: The drug that eats junkies

A home-made heroin substitute is having a horrific effect on thousands of Russia's drug addicts

By Shaun Walker - UK's The Independent - June 22, 2011

Oleg glances furtively around him and, confident that nobody is watching, slips inside the entrance to a decaying Soviet-era block of flats, where Sasha is waiting for him. Ensconced in the dingy kitchen of one of the apartments, they empty the contents of a blue carrier bag that Oleg has brought with him – painkillers, iodine, lighter fluid, industrial cleaning oil, and an array of vials, syringes, and cooking implements.

Half an hour later, after much boiling, distilling, mixing and shaking, what remains is a caramel-coloured gunge held in the end of a syringe, and the acrid smell of burnt iodine in the air. Sasha fixes a dirty needle to the syringe and looks for a vein in his bruised forearm. After some time, he finds a suitable place, and hands the syringe to Oleg, telling him to inject the fluid. He closes his eyes, and takes the hit.

Russia has more heroin users than any other country in the world – up to two million, according to unofficial estimates. For most, their lot is a life of crime, stints in prison, probable contraction of HIV and hepatitis C, and an early death. As efforts to stem the flow of Afghan heroin into Russia bring some limited success, and the street price of the drug goes up, for those addicts who can't afford their next hit, an even more terrifying spectre has raised its head.

The home-made drug that Oleg and Sasha inject is known as krokodil, or "crocodile". It is desomorphine, a synthetic opiate many times more powerful than heroin that is created from a complex chain of mixing and chemical reactions, which the addicts perform from memory several times a day. While heroin costs from £20 to £60 per dose, desomorphine can be "cooked" from codeine-based headache pills that cost £2 per pack, and other household ingredients available cheaply from the markets.

It is a drug for the poor, and its effects are horrific. It was given its reptilian name because its poisonous ingredients quickly turn the skin scaly. Worse follows. Oleg and Sasha have not been using for long, but Oleg has rotting sores on the back of his neck.

"If you miss the vein, that's an abscess straight away," says Sasha. Essentially, they are injecting poison directly into their flesh. One of their friends, in a neighbouring apartment block, is further down the line.

"She won't go to hospital, she just keeps injecting. Her flesh is falling off and she can hardly move anymore," says Sasha. Photographs of late-stage krokodil addicts are disturbing in the extreme. Flesh goes grey and peels away to leave bones exposed. People literally rot to death.

Russian heroin addicts first discovered how to make krokodil around four years ago, and there has been a steady rise in consumption, with a sudden peak in recent months. "Over the past five years, sales of codeine-based tablets have grown by dozens of times," says Viktor Ivanov, the head of Russia's Drug Control Agency. "It's pretty obvious that it's not because everyone has suddenly developed headaches."

Heroin addiction kills 30,000 people per year in Russia – a third of global deaths from the drug – but now there is the added problem of krokodil. Mr Ivanov recalled a recent visit to a drug-treatment centre in Western Siberia. "They told me that two years ago almost all their drug users used heroin," said the drugs tsar. "Now, more than half of them are on desomorphine."

He estimates that overall, around 5 per cent of Russian drug users are on krokodil and other home-made drugs, which works out at about 100,000 people. It's a huge, hidden epidemic – worse in the really isolated parts of Russia where supplies of heroin are patchy – but palpable even in cities such as Tver.

It has a population of half a million, and is a couple of hours by train from Moscow, en route to St Petersburg. Its city centre, sat on the River Volga, is lined with pretty, Tsarist-era buildings, but the suburbs are miserable. People sit on cracked wooden benches in a weed-infested "park", gulping cans of Jaguar, an alcoholic energy drink. In the background, there are rows of crumbling apartment blocks. The shops and restaurants of Moscow are a world away; for a treat, people take the bus to the McDonald's by the train station.

In the city's main drug treatment centre, Artyom Yegorov talks of the devastation that krokodil is causing. "Desomorphine causes the strongest levels of addiction, and is the hardest to cure," says the young doctor, sitting in a treatment room in the scruffy clinic, below a picture of Hugh Laurie as Dr House.

"With heroin withdrawal, the main symptoms last for five to 10 days. After that there is still a big danger of relapse but the physical pain will be gone. With krokodil, the pain can last up to a month, and it's unbearable. They have to be injected with extremely strong tranquilisers just to keep them from passing out from the pain."

Dr Yegorov says krokodil users are instantly identifiable because of their smell. "It's that smell of iodine that infuses all their clothes," he says. "There's no way to wash it out, all you can do is burn the clothes. Any flat that has been used as a krokodil cooking house is best forgotten about as a place to live. You'll never get that smell out of the flat."

Addicts in Tver say they never have any problems buying the key ingredient for krokodil – codeine pills, which are sold without prescription. "Once I was trying to buy four packs, and the woman told me they could only sell two to any one person," recalls one, with a laugh. "So I bought two packs, then came back five minutes later and bought another two. Other than that, they never refuse to sell it to us, even though they know what we're going to do with it." The solution, to many, is obvious: ban the sale of codeine tablets, or at least make them prescription-only. But despite the authorities being aware of the problem for well over a year, nothing has been done.

President Dmitry Medvedev has called for websites which explain how to make krokodil to be closed down, but he has not ordered the banning of the pills. Last month, a spokesman for the ministry of health said that there were plans to make codeine-based tablets available only on prescription, but that it was impossible to introduce the measure quickly. Opponents claim lobbying by pharmaceutical companies has caused the inaction.

"A year ago we said that we need to introduce prescriptions," says Mr Ivanov. "These tablets don't cost much but the profit margins are high. Some pharmacies make up to 25 per cent of their profits from the sale of these tablets. It's not in the interests of pharmaceutical companies or pharmacies themselves to stop this, so the government needs to use its power to regulate their sale."

In addition to krokodil, there are reports of drug users injecting other artificial mixes, and the latest street drug is tropicamide. Used as eye drops by ophthalmologists to dilate the pupils during eye examinations, Dr Yegorov says patients have no trouble getting hold of capsules of it for about £2 per vial. Injected, the drug has severe psychiatric effects and brings on suicidal feelings.

"Addicts are being sold drugs by normal Russian women working in pharmacies, who know exactly what they'll be used for," said Yevgeny Roizman, an anti-drugs activist who was one of the first to talk publicly about the krokodil issue earlier this year. "Selling them to boys the same age as their own sons. Russians are killing Russians."

Zhenya, quietly spoken and wearing dark glasses, agrees to tell his story while I sit in the back of his car in a lay-by on the outskirts of Tver. He managed to kick the habit, after spending weeks at a detox clinic ,experiencing horrendous withdrawal symptoms that included seizures, a 40-degree temperature and vomiting. He lost 14 teeth after his gums rotted away, and contracted hepatitis C.

But his fate is essentially a miraculous escape – after all, he's still alive. Zhenya is from a small town outside Tver, and was a heroin addict for a decade before he moved onto krokodil a year ago. Of the ten friends he started injecting heroin with a decade ago, seven are dead.

Unlike heroin, where the hit can last for several hours, a krokodil high only lasts between 90 minutes and two hours, says Zhenya. Given that the "cooking" process takes at least half an hour, being a krokodil addict is basically a full-time job.

"I remember one day, we cooked for three days straight," says one of Zhenya's friends. "You don't sleep much when you're on krokodil, as you need to wake up every couple of hours for another hit. At the time we were cooking it at our place, and loads of people came round and pitched in. For three days we just kept on making it. By the end, we all staggered out yellow, exhausted and stinking of iodine."

In Tver, most krokodil users inject the drug only when they run out of money for heroin. As soon as they earn or steal enough, they go back to heroin. In other more isolated regions of Russia, where heroin is more expensive and people are poorer, the problem is worse. People become full-time krokodil addicts, giving them a life expectancy of less than a year.

Zhenya says every single addict he knows in his town has moved from heroin to krokodil, because it's cheaper and easier to get hold of. "You can feel how disgusting it is when you're doing it," he recalls. "You're dreaming of heroin, of something that feels clean and not like poison. But you can't afford it, so you keep doing the krokodil. Until you die."

Some of the names in this story have been changed

Here's a video of surgery on a Krokodil addict's gangrenous leg:

Dr. Eowyn | September 27, 2013 at 6:43 am | Tags: desomorphine, drug addiction, heroin, Krokodil | Categories: crime, Culture War, Evil, Health Care, Insanity | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-nwk

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/09/27/flesh-eating-russian-heroin-krokodil-has-arrived-in-america/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Meet The "White Widow," The Mysterious Female British Terrorist Who Might Be Behind The Kenya Mall Attack

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Ted Cruz’s origins continue to haunt him

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: 40 Things Every Self-Respecting Man Over 30 Should Own

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.