Hey, there! Log in / Register

Three more possible overdoses at a concert

Boston Police report they are investigating what appear to be three drug overdoses at a Bank of America Pavilion concert last night.

Three men in their 20s suffered apparent overdoses during a concert by Sound Tribe Sector 9, police say, adding all were taken to local hospitals for treatment.

On Wednesday, police say, three people ODed on Molly at a Zedd concert at the House of Blues, one fatally.

Neighborhoods: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Also, Electric Zoo festival in NYC canceled its third day after two overdoses: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/nyregion/electri...

Bad batch going around, perhaps? Yikes.

up
Voting closed 0

I went to that concert last night to see the opening band, Umphrey's Mcgee. They had a great set! The crowd was friendly, happy, positive and really into the music. Then the set break happened, most or all of the Umphrey's Mcgee fans left -- as in, completely left the venue -- and about 45 minutes later STS9 went on. I saw STS9 about a decade ago and they were an improvisational jam band with an electronic influence, so I hung around to see what they were up to. Those days of improv seem to be gone; their music has crossed into almost pure drum and bass style electronica. The seats filled up with a much younger crowd, many of whom were clearly rolling, tweaking or tripping. Many fans were hopping seats to get closer (this was an assigned seating show and not general admission), crowding people out -- I saw one person jump a seat to stand between a couple, completely oblivious that they were at the show together -- and generally unfriendly, pushy and aggressive. The police presence seemed to be limited to confiscating an LED hula hoop (like that is a concern with so much rampant drug use) instead of enforcing any kind of general order on the situation. What a mess. I hope this venue gets their act together and that the reputation of the opening band doesn't suffer as a result of the actions of many of the terrible fans of STS9.

up
Voting closed 0

Nobody cares about the reputations of two obscure bands; you can't ruin someone's reputation if it never existed in the first place. This post is about three kids getting seriously injured not your disapointment with the artists' shift from "jam" to "electronica". Get a clue.

up
Voting closed 0

Exactly anon. It's about three people that made a choice an died because of it.

up
Voting closed 0

Just because you are ignorant to the music doesn't mean both of the bands aren't popular.

up
Voting closed 0

Police were likely ignorant of the band shift to Drum &Bass, otherwise they might have manned the detail at the show, just days after the other incidents. My personal bias is that high bpm D&B encourages tweaking, speeding etc. just to keep up.

up
Voting closed 0

Then your personal bias is ignorant, just because you think that doesn't make it true. People choose to do drugs at all types of concerts, these assholes are just giving a bad name to dance music and further enhancing the bs stereotype that you need to be high on something to go enjoy the music.

up
Voting closed 0

I like electronic music and had a full range of personal experiences at events, including enhanced ones. So you are the ignorant one, anon coward.

Cops just need to have some expectations, like more trouble at rap events than, say, a folk or classical concert. Tweakers less likely than potheads at Jimmy Buffet. If there is bad molly out there, covering EDM events is prudent.

up
Voting closed 0

You are still talking about the music...and completely missed my point. Lets try again at a third grade reading level: Kids hurt because of drugs, the music doesn't matter.

up
Voting closed 0

The police are having their own turf war. State police get the traffic in that hood, while Boston police get the venue, except they decided not to man their detail, claiming their people were needed in other hoods.

up
Voting closed 0

Any word on what they're overdosing on?

up
Voting closed 0

Molly

up
Voting closed 0

Sounds more to me like contamination.

MDMA, properly formulated, is a safe drug that had a lot to recommend legalizing it, including therapeudic use in conjunction with psychotherapy and behavior modification - only the WAR ON DRUGS fools went extremely the other way with it, ignoring the scientific and medical input because WAR.

So, because some puritanical ubermoralists decided to make a drug that was safer than alcohol super illegal, guess who is doing the formulating and supplying?

Maybe they should call it Jelly Roll instead of Molly - like the methanol and benzene-tainted "booze" sold during Prohibition that killed mamas and made daddies stone blind?

up
Voting closed 0

Do you let your kids use it?

up
Voting closed 0

your kids use alcohol or tobacco? Or vote, drive, or legally take out credit?

Let's not be obtuse here.

up
Voting closed 0

don't have kids.

up
Voting closed 0

Alcohol and tobacco are regulated by the govt. MDMA, and certainly not "Molly" on the street, isn't.

Whether it should be is another question. But anyone singing its praises on the Internet while people are overdosing on what was probably sold to them as "molly" is playing a dangerous game.

up
Voting closed 0

Pointing out that illogical and anti-scientific prohibition resulting in illegal markets vending tainted products that are killing people is now "promoting use".

Discussing how a safe drug has been made unsafe by making it illegal glamorizes and encourages use of tainted drugs.

Right.

Only if people are as stupid as you are.

But think of the children!

up
Voting closed 0

It isn't a matter of "letting" them use any controlled substance. That isn't realistic in the least - particularly when prescription drug abuse is far more common in their age group than "illegal" drug abuse. I don't wallow in an illusion of that level of control.

I view it as a matter of education such that, should they encounter certain drugs, they know what they are, what to expect and why people use them - and also understand the downside of use. Just say No is total bullshit, and has been all along. "Know your poison" and "learn how to make good decisions" is a far more appropriate approach that will last beyond the years they live in my house.

I have made it clear to them that ANY street drug is suspect - particularly if you are buying it at a party, from people you do not know, etc. Most suspect are drugs where you have no freaking idea what is in them ... like pills you buy at an event. Pre-rolled joints also fall into this "how can you know" category. The economics of drugs being illegal - even safe ones - mean adulteration is common. Beware!

I also tell them that they NEVER have to do what their friends are doing. Furthermore, I have told them that if their friends insist on using drugs that they find dubious, they can always "babysit" - be the sober one watching out for trouble. That's a way to be a good friend without being a stupid/dead one.

If MDMA were available in clean forms (which it was at MIT ...) and available in quality-assured form, I would give them the honest truth: it is not a harmful drug. Period. (Nancy isn't a scientist and/or was not around when there was strong medical lobbying to make it available by prescription and/or has not read any of the recent research into "dangerousness" of drugs, where MDMA ranks #3 least dangerous.) It makes you want to hug people and be kind of tedious and annoying, etc. It can, in extreme cases, make you so thirsty that you drink too much water, etc. but not in small doses.

Sorry there isn't a simple answer - but we all know where simplistic attitudes toward drugs and alcohol get us!

up
Voting closed 0

Anytime you or your kids need instructions on how to get on the Silk Road website, give me a shout.Plenty of good MDMA there.

up
Voting closed 0

MDMA is not safe for general consumption. It can cause permanent disruption of serotonin reuptake in the brain. In other words, chemical depression.

I don't even want to imagine the possible side effects of someone with major chemical depression or bipolar disorder taking MDMA.

At least with alcohol, the depressive effects of the booze will wear off in a day or two. It's not always that way with Molly. Molly can fcuk you up permanently.

up
Voting closed 0

Just so you all know

Toxicology reports take 2 weeks to be finalized

MOLLY BEING THE REASON FOR OVERDOSE IS PURELY CONJECTURE .. .Mostly from Police, the more reasonable explinations are ..

1. NOT MOLLY , sold as molly but actually Bath Salts,
2. Mixing Drugs MOlly and others ...
3. Dehydration, Molly will QUICKLY speed up the process of dehydration and Bath Salts even moreso!

GET THE FACTS ! before buying into what someone tells you ... Check your shit and BE Smart !!!

up
Voting closed 0

There's no legitimate research that shows that moderate MDMA use causes "permanent disruption of serotonin reuptake in the brain". There is some research that heavy repeated use over a short period can temporarily reduce serotonin production, but the same research has also shown that this effect is reversed simply by abstaining from taking the drug for a period of time. There's no evidence that MDMA is toxic at typical dosages. Even evidence of adverse outcomes from long-term, heavy misuse is mixed, and not considered definitive at this point. All evidence points to alcohol being much more potentially toxic, both in short-term and chronic use.

When people make broad, blatant and easily discountable generalities like the poster above, they may believe they are doing a good deed, but I think that in fact they are simply teaching the curious to treat any caution as 'chicken-little ranting'. And that can lead to a population of users who are at risk for actual bad outcomes.

First, because it encourages uncritical consumption - "Oh this guy I just met says he'll sell us some molly - I've taken X before and it was fun, let's do it." 'How much should I take? I don't know, how about four?" It's the bathtub-gin phenomena. My guess is that this is what happened in the recent ODs - someone passing off PMA or somesuch as MDMA. (PMA = MDMA mimic, easily made but very dangerous).

Second, there are some persons for whom MDMA or other related compounds pose demonstrably real physical risk. (eg people taking SSRIs like Prozac, paxil, Zoloft, etc). And there are short term issues that any MDMA users should be aware of. Dehydration and disorientation are the most obvious (and are also a problem for users of alcohol btw).

And third, like any euphoric, the repeated use of MDMA may be masking long-term anxiety or distress. People self-medicate in all sorts of ways (most commonly with alcohol and junk food, I suspect). A well-informed population is more likely to spot this sort of misuse, and understand how to address it constructively (ie not with incarceration, but treatment).

***

Btw, there is a large body of positive research, starting in the 1970s, studying the efficacy of MDMA (and other empathogens) to treat anxiety, depression and other disorders. Since the 80s, most of this work has been primarily done in Western Europe, as in the US MDMA has been classified a Class I drug (for primarily political, rather than medical reasons). This means it is nearly impossible for doctors in this country to investigate it's potential positive uses.

up
Voting closed 0

It always strikes me as odd when x-drug users feel they are experts and pass themselves off on the Internet as medical researchers. If you stand by your diagnosis why not add your medical license and phone so that you can be held liable for the expertise you so eagerly have at the ready. You sound like a reasonably educated dealer...not a Dr.

up
Voting closed 0

That having sex too much ruins your oxytocin receptors. Female orgasms, in particular, use up all the oxytocin, forever!

The guy that said this was a doctor - discredited, with no research, but people believed it and perpetuated it like the old rumor game!

Funny how that sounds so much like the "permanent damage" hypothesis (a not unreasonable, but entirely unproven hypothesis) posted above as "fact".

If you want to actually discuss his counter-arguments to this baseless assertion, with research citations, go for it.

Otherwise, it strikes me as odd when people make vague statements about people's professions and cast aspersions in order to discredit a very well laid out and reasoned set of arguments (and avoid actually researching the situation).

It is particularly bizarre when an anonymous drive by poster simply fails to understand that UHub, like much of the Boston area, is heavily populated with people who are medical and health researchers in our professional lives, have access to journals, and know how to read the scientific literature.

up
Voting closed 0

In the medical profession, or any other licensed profession, real scholarly research (involving the drawing of conclusions from multiple sources) relies on the researchers putting their professional credibility and personal liability on the line. State who you are or don't give medical advice. If you truly are a community of medical professionals than remember your oath and remember that young adults might easily read your posts and see them as drug advocacy.

up
Voting closed 0

You first.

Neither I nor any others here have been giving drug use advice in any medical fashion, anyway - WE ARE CLEARLY DISCUSSING SOCIAL POLICY AND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF UNSCIENTIFIC APPROACHES TO DRUG POLICY. Those include safe, mostly harmless drugs becoming unsafe because they are not controlled and not properly formulated.

You are trying to shut down dialog on that VERY IMPORTANT subject while offering NOTHING of any scientific value. Your absurd "talking about drugs not being OMFG DANGEROUS! DANGEROUS! DANGEROUS OMFG! will make kids do drugs" is utter bullshit - and you know it.

Either participate in the dialog by contributing what grownups call scientific evidence, or go hump your Nancy Reagan brand strawman elsewhere, please.

up
Voting closed 0

You don't call this drug use advice:
"Second, there are some persons for whom MDMA or other related compounds pose demonstrably real physical risk. (eg people taking SSRIs like Prozac, paxil, Zoloft, etc). And there are short term issues that any MDMA users should be aware of. Dehydration and disorientation are the most obvious (and are also a problem for users of alcohol btw)." ?

up
Voting closed 0

That's not drug advise. Don't be willfully dense.

up
Voting closed 0

What you would like (as evidence by your incorrect political assumptions) is for me to agree with you or post elsewhere. What I am offering is that the conjecture in the tone of this conversation is irresponsible, equally as dangerous as screaming Drugs: Danger Danger and a product of the anonymity the venue provides. I am not making medical assertions so my license and name are not being given.

up
Voting closed 0

What I would like to see is for you to make an argument - ANY argument - but one supported by using facts, reason, and evidence. Make a statement, back it with research findings, put it out there for discussion.

I don't care what you argue - just stop with the "well in science blah blah" and "medical this that" and "you must be a dealer" comments that are, well, NOT ARGUMENTS.

This is not a peer-reviewed journal. Nobody is giving medical advice. When you sling around sciency terms and don't have even basic understanding of the professional use of those terms, you just make yourself look silly.

And when you state that talking about drugs will make kids think it is okay to use them, you make your derailing agenda pretty clear.

up
Voting closed 0

I thought you original post was dangerously advocating the use of an illegal drug as well.

"MDMA, properly formulated, is a safe drug that had a lot to recommend legalizing it, including therapeudic use in conjunction with psychotherapy and behavior modification - only the WAR ON DRUGS fools went extremely the other way with it, ignoring the scientific and medical input because WAR."

Guess what, the dealers are going to tell kids that they have the purest, safest MDMA around.

Maybe you should have stated it's great if your trusted friend makes it in an MIT lab, otherwise it's a dangerous street drug, watch out!!

But now I see a lot of back-tracking and argumentation. you're claiming to be discussing a lot of things on a lot of levels.None of which your simplistic first post had a caveat for.

You should no better.

Weak.

PS: I'm a log-time listener and I'm quite familiar with your posts. I disagree with your conclusions but have respect for your knowledge.

This isn't a "driveby anon"hit you're so quick to categorixze and dismiss challenging posts with.

up
Voting closed 0

Thanks.

up
Voting closed 0

I know of at least one study at McLean Hospital in Belmont that used MDMA for therapeutic purposes for people who were sun setting and needed to deal with dying/death.

up
Voting closed 0

Most times when you buy drugs from strangers, you'll get high and be fine. BUT SOMETIMES, you buy drugs and you die. End of discussion. Conduct yourself accordingly.

up
Voting closed 0

So kind of like buying a used car?

up
Voting closed 0