Cryptocurrency regulation in the UK: is Bitcoin legal ...

Why Should We Fear a Cashless World?

The Guardian, 21 March, 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/money/commentisfree/2016/ma21/fear-cashless-world-contactless?CMP=fb_gu

The health food chain "Tossed" has just opened the UK's first cashless cafe. It's another step towards the death of cash.
This is nothing new. Money is tech. The casting of coins made shells, whales' teeth and other such primitive forms of money redundant. The printing press did the same for precious metals: we started using paper notes instead. Electronic banking put paid to the cheque. Contactless payment is now doing the same to cash, which is becoming less and less convenient. In the marketplace convenience usually wins. That's fine as long as people are making this choice freely. What concerns me is the unofficial war on cash that is going on, from the suspicion with which you are treated if you ever use large sums of cash to the campaign in Europe to decommission the 500-Euro note. I'm not sure the consequences have been properly considered.
We already live in a world that is, as far as the distribution of wealth is concerned, about as unequal as it gets. It may even be as unequal as it's ever been. My worry is that a cashless society may exacerbate inequality even further. It will hand yet more power to the financial sector in that banks and related fintech companies will oversee all transactions. The crash of 2008 showed that, when push comes to shove, banks have already been exempted from the very effective regulation that is bankruptcy -- one by which the rest of us must all operate. Do we want this sector to have yet more power and influence? In a world without cash, every payment you make will be traceable. Do you want governments (which are not always benevolent), banks or payment processors to have potential access to that information? The power this would hand them is enormous and the potential scope for Orwellian levels of surveillance is terrifying.
Cash, on the other hand, empowers its users. It enables them to buy and sell, and store their wealth, without being dependent on anyone else. They can stay outside the financial system, if so desired. There are many reasons, both moral and practical, to want this. In 2008 many rushed to take their money out of the banks. If the financial system really was as close to breaking point as we are told it was, then such actions are quite justified. When Cyprus's banks teetered on the cliff of financial disaster in 2011, we saw bail-ins. Ordinary people's money in deposit accounts was sequestered to bail out the system. If your life savings were threatened with confiscation to bail out a corporation you considered profligate, I imagine you too would rush to withdraw them.
We have seen similar panics in Greece and, to a lesser extent, across southern Europe. Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, recently declared that banking was not fixed and that we would see financial panic again. In Japan, the central bank has imposed negative rates and you are charged by banks to store money. This is to try and goad people into spending, rather than saving. So much cash has been withdrawn from banks that there are now reports that the country has sold out of safes.
These are all quite legitimate reasons to want to exit the system. I'm not saying we should all take our money out of the bank, but that we should all have the option to. Cash gives you that option. Why remove it? It's our money. Not the banks'. The telephone teaches us a useful lesson. At its peak in 2008, there were 1.3bn landlines for a global population close to 7 billion. Today more than 6 billion people have a mobile phone -- more than have access to a toilet, according to a UN study. Many assume that the mobile succeeded where the landline failed, because the superior technology made widespread coverage more possible. There is something to that. But the main reason, simply, is that, to get a landline, you need a bank account and credit. About half of the world's population is 'unbanked', without access to the basic financial services you need. Telecom companies saw no potential custom, the infrastructure was never built and many were left with fewer possibilities to communicate. But a mobile phone and its airtime you can buy with cash. You don't need to be banked. Almost anyone can get a mobile -- and they have. The financial system was actually a barrier to progress for the world's poor, while cash was a facilitator for them.
Six billion people around the world will have a smartphone by 2020. They will have pretty much everything they need to participate in e-commerce -- internet access, basically -- except the financial inclusion. Which is why there will be a huge role to play in the future for new forms of digital cash -- from Kenya's M-Pesa to bitcoin -- money you can use even if you are not financially included.
Cash has its uses for small transactions -- a chocolate bar, a newspaper, a pint of milk -- which, in the UK, are still uneconomic to process by other means. It will always be the fastest and most direct form of payment there is. I like to tip waiters, for example, in cash, knowing they will receive that money, without it being siphoned off by some unscrupulous employer. I also like to shop in markets, where I can buy directly from the producer knowing they will receive the money, without middle men shaving off their percentages. It also has its uses for private transactions, for which there are many possible reasons, and by no means all of them illegal. Small businesses starting out need the cash economy. Poor people need the cash economy. The war on cash is a war on them.
If you listen to the scaremongering, you'd start to think that all cash users are either criminals, tax evaders or terrorists. Sure, some use cash to evade tax, but it's paltry compared to the tax avoidance schemes Google and Facebook have employed. Google doesn't use cash to avoid tax. It's all done via legislative means. Cash means total financial inclusion, a luxury the better-off take for granted. Without financial inclusion -- and there will always be some who, for whatever reason, won't have it -- you are trapped in poverty. So beware the war on cash.
submitted by ThetruthWithin37 to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Why we need to think more carefully about what money is and how it works

Most of us have overlooked a fundamental problem that is currently causing an insurmountable obstacle to building a fairer and more sustainable world. We are very familiar with the thing in question, but its problematic nature has been hidden from us by a powerful illusion. We think the problem is capitalism, but capitalism is just the logical outcome of aggregate human decisions about how to manage money. The fundamental problem is money itself, or more specifically general purpose money and the international free market which allows you to sell a chunk of rainforest and use the money to buy a soft drink factory. (You can use the same sort of money to sell anything and buy anything, anywhere in the world, and until recently there was no alternative at all. Bitcoin is now an alternative, but is not quite what we are looking for.) The illusion is that because market prices are free, and nobody is forced into a transaction, those prices must be fair – that the exchange is equitable. The truth is that the way the general money globalised free market system works means that even though the prices are freely determined, there is still an unequal flow of natural resources from poor parts of the world to rich parts. This means the poor parts will always remain poor, and resources will continue to accumulate in the large, unsustainable cities in rich countries. In other words, unless we re-invent money, we cannot overturn capitalism, and that means we can't build a sustainable civilisation.
Why does this matter? What use is it realising that general purpose money is at the root of our problems when we know that the rich and powerful people who run this world will do everything in their power to prevent the existing world system being reformed? They aren't just going to agree to get rid of general purpose money and economic globalisation. It's like asking them to stop pursuing growth: they can't even imagine how to do it, and don't want to. So how does this offer us a way forwards?
Answer: because the two things in question – our monetary system and globalisation – look like being among the first casualties of collapse. Globalisation is already going into reverse (see brexit, Trump's protectionism) and our fiat money system is heading towards a debt/inflation implosion.
It looks highly likely that the scenario going forwards will be of increasing monetary and economic chaos. Fiat money systems have collapsed many times before, but never a global system of fiat currencies floating against each other. But regardless of how may fiat currencies collapse, or how high the price of gold goes in dollars, it is not clear what the system would be replaced with. Can we just go back to the gold standard? It is possible, but people will be desperately looking for other solutions, and the people in power might also be getting desperate.
So what could replace it? What is needed is a new sort of complementary money system which both
(a) addresses the immediate economic problems of people suffering from symptoms of economic and general collapse and
(b) provides a long-term framework around which a new sort of economy can emerge – an economy which is adapted to deglobalisation and degrowth.
I have been searching for answers to this question for some time, and have now found what I was looking for. It is explained in this recently published academic book, and this paper by the same professor of economic anthropology (Alf Hornborg). The answer is the creation of a new sort of money, but it is critically important exactly how this is done. Local currencies like the Bristol Pound do not challenge globalisation. What we need is a new sort of national currency. This currency would be issued as a UBI, but only usable to buy products and services originating within an adjustable radius. This would enable a new economy to emerge. It actually resists globalisation and promotes the growth of a new sort of economy where sustainability is built on local resources and local economic activity. It would also reverse the trend of population moving from poor rural areas and towns, to cities. It would revitalise the “left behind” parts of the western world, and put the brakes on the relentless flow of natural resources and “embodied cheap labour” from the poor parts of the world to the rich parts. It would set the whole system moving towards a more sustainable and fairer state.
This may sound unrealistic, but please give it a chance. I believe it offers a way forwards that can
(a) unite disparate factions trying to provoke systemic change, including eco-marxists, greens, posthumanists and anti-globalist supporters of “populist nationalism”. The only people who really stand to lose are the supporters of global big business and the 1%.
(b) offers a realistic alternative to a money system heading towards collapse, and to which currently no other realistic alternative is being proposed.
In other words, this offers a realistic way forwards not just right now but through much of the early stages of collapse. It is likely to become both politically and economically viable within the forseeable future. It does, though, require some elements of the left to abandon its globalist ideals. It will have to embrace a new sort of nationalism. And it will require various groups who are doing very well out of the current economic system to realise that it is doomed.
Here is an FAQ (from the paper).
What is a complementary currency? It is a form of money that can be used alongside regular money.
What is the fundamental goal of this proposal? The two most fundamental goals motivating this proposal are to insulate local human subsistence and livelihood from the vicissitudes of national and international economic cycles and financial speculation, and to provide tangible and attractive incentives for people to live and consume more sustainably. It also seeks to provide authorities with a means to employ social security expenditures to channel consumption in sustainable directions and encourage economic diversity and community resilience at the local level.
Why should the state administrate the reform? The nation is currently the most encompassing political entity capable of administrating an economic reform of this nature. Ideally it is also subservient to the democratic decisions of its population. The current proposal is envisaged as an option for European nations, but would seem equally advantageous for countries anywhere. If successfully implemented within a particular nation or set of nations, the system can be expected to be emulated by others. Whereas earlier experiments with alternative currencies have generally been local, bottom-up initiatives, a state-supported program offers advantages for long-term success. Rather than an informal, marginal movement connected to particular identities and transient social networks, persisting only as long as the enthusiasm of its founders, the complementary currency advocated here is formalized, efficacious, and lastingly fundamental to everyone's economy.
How is local use defined and monitored? The complementary currency (CC) can only be used to purchase goods and services that are produced within a given geographical radius of the point of purchase. This radius can be defined in terms of kilometers of transport, and it can vary between different nations and regions depending on circumstances. A fairly simple way of distinguishing local from non-local commodities would be to label them according to transport distance, much as is currently done regarding, for instance, organic production methods or "fair trade." Such transport certification would of course imply different labelling in different locales.
How is the complementary currency distributed? A practical way of organizing distribution would be to provide each citizen with a plastic card which is electronically charged each month with the sum of CC allotted to him or her.
Who are included in the category of citizens? A monthly CC is provided to all inhabitants of a nation who have received official residence permits.
What does basic income mean? Basic income is distributed without any requirements or duties to be fulfilled by the recipients. The sum of CC paid to an individual each month can be determined in relation to the currency's purchasing power and to the individual's age. The guiding principle should be that the sum provided to each adult should be sufficient to enable basic existence, and that the sum provided for each child should correspond to the additional household expenses it represents.
Why would people want to use their CC rather than regular money? As the sum of CC provided each month would correspond to purchases representing a claim on his or her regular budget, the basic income would liberate a part of each person's regular income and thus amount to substantial purchasing power, albeit restricted only to local purchases. The basic income in CC would reduce a person's dependence on wage labor and the risks currently associated with unemployment. It would encourage social cooperation and a vitalization of community.
Why would businesses want to accept payment in CC? Business entrepreneurs can be expected to respond rapidly to the radically expanded demand for local products and services, which would provide opportunities for a diverse range of local niche markets. Whether they receive all or only a part of their income in the form of CC, they can choose to use some of it to purchase tax-free local labor or other inputs, and to request to have some of it converted by the authorities to regular currency (see next point).
How is conversion of CC into regular currency organized? Entrepreneurs would be granted the right to convert some of their CC into regular currency at exchange rates set by the authorities.The exchange rate between the two currencies can be calibrated so as to compensate the authorities for loss of tax revenue and to balance the in- and outflows of CC to the state. The rate would thus amount to a tool for determining the extent to which the CC is recirculated in the local economy, or returned to the state. This is important in order to avoid inflation in the CC sector.
Would there be interest on sums of CC owned or loaned? There would be no interest accruing on a sum of CC, whether a surplus accumulating in an account or a loan extended.
How would saving and loaning of CC be organized? The formal granting of credit in CC would be managed by state authorities and follow the principle of full reserve banking, so that quantities of CC loaned would never exceed the quantities saved by the population as a whole.
Would the circulation of CC be subjected to taxation? No.
Why would authorities want to encourage tax-free local economies? Given the beneficial social and ecological consequences of this reform, it is assumed that nation states will represent the general interests of their electorates and thus promote it. Particularly in a situation with rising fiscal deficits, unemployment, health care, and social security expenditures, the proposed reform would alleviate financial pressure on governments. It would also reduce the rising costs of transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. In short, the rising costs and diminishing returns on current strategies for economic growth can be expected to encourage politicians to consider proposals such as this, as a means of avoiding escalating debt or even bankruptcy.
How would the state's expenditures in CC be financed? As suggested above, much of these expenditures would be balanced by the reduced costs for social security, health care, transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. As these savings may take time to materialize, however, states can choose to make a proportion of their social security payments (pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowance, etc.) in the form of CC. As between a third and half of some nations' annual budgets are committed to social security, this represents a significant option for financing the reform, requiring no corresponding tax levies.
What are the differences between this CC and the many experiments with local currencies? This proposal should not be confused with the notion, or with the practical operation, of local currencies, as it does not imply different currencies in different locales but one national,complementary currency for local use. Nor is it locally initiated and promoted in opposition to theregular currency, but centrally endorsed and administrated as an accepted complement to it. Most importantly, the alternative currency can only be used to purchase products and services originating from within a given geographical range, a restriction which is not implemented in experiments with Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). Finally, the CC is provided as a basic income to all residents of a nation, rather than only earned in proportion to the extent to which a person has made him- or herself useful in the local economy.
What would the ecological benefits be? The reform would radically reduce the demand for long-distance transport, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of energy and materials, and losses of foodstuffs through overproduction, storage, and transport. It would increase recycling of nutrients and packaging materials, which means decreasing leakage of nutrients and less garbage. It would reduce agricultural intensification, increase biodiversity, and decrease ecological degradation and vulnerability.
What would the societal benefits be? The reform would increase local cooperation, decrease social marginalization and addiction problems, provide more physical exercise, improve psycho-social and physical health, and increase food security and general community resilience. It would decrease the number of traffic accidents, provide fresher and healthier food with less preservatives, and improved contact between producers and consumers.
What would the long-term consequences be for the economy? The reform would no doubt generate radical transformations of the economy, as is precisely the intention. There would be a significant shift of dominance from transnational corporations founded on financial speculation and trade in industrially produced foodstuffs, fuels, and other internationally transported goods to locally diverse producers and services geared to sustainable livelihoods. This would be a democratic consequence of consumer power, rather than of legislation. Through a relatively simple transformation of the conditions for market rationality, governments can encourage new and more sustainable patterns of consumer behavior. In contrast to much of the drastic and often traumatic economic change of the past two centuries, these changes would be democratic and sustainable and would improve local and national resilience.
Why should society want to encourage people to refrain from formal employment? It is increasingly recognized that full or high employment cannot be a goal in itself, particularly if it implies escalating environmental degradation and energy and material throughput. Well-founded calls are thus currently made for degrowth, i.e. a reduction in the rate of production of goods and services that are conventionally quantified by economists as constitutive of GDP. Whether formal unemployment is the result of financial decline, technological development, or intentional policy for sustainability, no modern nation can be expected to leave its citizens economically unsupported. To subsist on basic income is undoubtedly more edifying than receiving unemployment insurance; the CC system encourages useful community cooperation and creative activities rather than destructive behavior that may damage a person's health.
Why should people receive an income without working? As observed above, modern nations will provide for their citizens whether they are formally employed or not. The incentive to find employment should ideally not be propelled only by economic imperatives, but more by the desire to maintain a given identity and to contribute creatively to society. Personal liberty would be enhanced by a reform which makes it possible for people to choose to spend (some of) their time on creative activities that are not remunerated on the formal market, and to accept the tradeoff implied by a somewhat lower economic standard. People can also be expected to devote a greater proportion of their time to community cooperation, earning additional CC, which means that they will contribute more to society – and experience less marginalization – than the currently unemployed.
Would savings in CC be inheritable? No.
How would transport distances of products and services be controlled? It is reasonable to expect the authorities to establish a special agency for monitoring and controlling transport distances. It seems unlikely that entrepreneurs would attempt to cheat the system by presenting distantly produced goods as locally produced, as we can expect income in regular currency generally to be preferable to income in CC. Such attempts would also entail transport costs which should make the cargo less competitive in relation to genuinely local produce, suggesting that the logic of local market mechanisms would by and large obviate the problem.
How would differences in local conditions (such as climate, soils, and urbanism) be dealt with?It is unavoidable that there would be significant variation between different locales in terms of the conditions for producing different kinds of goods. This means that relative local prices in CC for agiven product can be expected to vary from place to place. This may in turn mean that consumption patterns will vary somewhat between locales, which is predictable and not necessarily a problem. Generally speaking, a localization of resource flows can be expected to result in a more diverse pattern of calibration to local resource endowments, as in premodern contexts. The proposed system allows for considerable flexibility in terms of the geographical definition of what is categorized as local, depending on such conditions. In a fertile agricultural region, the radius for local produce may be defined, for instance, as 20 km, whereas in a less fertile or urban area, it may be 50 km. People living in urban centers are faced with a particular challenge. The reform would encourage an increased production of foodstuffs within and in the vicinity of urban areas, which in the long run may also affect urban planning. People might also choose to move to the countryside, where the range of subsistence goods that can be purchased with CC will tend to be greater. In the long run, the reform can be expected to encourage a better fit between the distribution of resources (such as agricultural land) and demography. This is fully in line with the intention of reducing long-distance transports of necessities.
What would the consequences be if people converted resources from one currency sphere into products or services sold in another? It seems unfeasible to monitor and regulate the use of distant imports (such as machinery and fuels) in producing produce for local markets, but as production for local markets is remunerated in CC, this should constitute a disincentive to invest regular money in such production processes. Production for local consumption can thus be expected to rely mostly – and increasingly – on local labor and other resource inputs.

submitted by anthropoz to sustainability [link] [comments]

Why We Should Fear a Cashless World

The Guardian, 21 March, 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/money/commentisfree/2016/ma21/fear-cashless-world-contactless?CMP=fb_gu

The health food chain "Tossed" has just opened the UK's first cashless cafe. It's another step towards the death of cash.
This is nothing new. Money is tech. The casting of coins made shells, whales' teeth and other such primitive forms of money redundant. The printing press did the same for precious metals: we started using paper notes instead. Electronic banking put paid to the cheque. Contactless payment is now doing the same to cash, which is becoming less and less convenient. In the marketplace convenience usually wins. That's fine as long as people are making this choice freely. What concerns me is the unofficial war on cash that is going on, from the suspicion with which you are treated if you ever use large sums of cash to the campaign in Europe to decommission the 500-Euro note. I'm not sure the consequences have been properly considered.
We already live in a world that is, as far as the distribution of wealth is concerned, about as unequal as it gets. It may even be as unequal as it's ever been. My worry is that a cashless society may exacerbate inequality even further. It will hand yet more power to the financial sector in that banks and related fintech companies will oversee all transactions. The crash of 2008 showed that, when push comes to shove, banks have already been exempted from the very effective regulation that is bankruptcy -- one by which the rest of us must all operate. Do we want this sector to have yet more power and influence? In a world without cash, every payment you make will be traceable. Do you want governments (which are not always benevolent), banks or payment processors to have potential access to that information? The power this would hand them is enormous and the potential scope for Orwellian levels of surveillance is terrifying.
Cash, on the other hand, empowers its users. It enables them to buy and sell, and store their wealth, without being dependent on anyone else. They can stay outside the financial system, if so desired. There are many reasons, both moral and practical, to want this. In 2008 many rushed to take their money out of the banks. If the financial system really was as close to breaking point as we are told it was, then such actions are quite justified. When Cyprus's banks teetered on the cliff of financial disaster in 2011, we saw bail-ins. Ordinary people's money in deposit accounts was sequestered to bail out the system. If your life savings were threatened with confiscation to bail out a corporation you considered profligate, I imagine you too would rush to withdraw them.
We have seen similar panics in Greece and, to a lesser extent, across southern Europe. Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, recently declared that banking was not fixed and that we would see financial panic again. In Japan, the central bank has imposed negative rates and you are charged by banks to store money. This is to try and goad people into spending, rather than saving. So much cash has been withdrawn from banks that there are now reports that the country has sold out of safes.
These are all quite legitimate reasons to want to exit the system. I'm not saying we should all take our money out of the bank, but that we should all have the option to. Cash gives you that option. Why remove it? It's our money. Not the banks'. The telephone teaches us a useful lesson. At its peak in 2008, there were 1.3bn landlines for a global population close to 7 billion. Today more than 6 billion people have a mobile phone -- more than have access to a toilet, according to a UN study. Many assume that the mobile succeeded where the landline failed, because the superior technology made widespread coverage more possible. There is something to that. But the main reason, simply, is that, to get a landline, you need a bank account and credit. About half of the world's population is 'unbanked', without access to the basic financial services you need. Telecom companies saw no potential custom, the infrastructure was never built and many were left with fewer possibilities to communicate. But a mobile phone and its airtime you can buy with cash. You don't need to be banked. Almost anyone can get a mobile -- and they have. The financial system was actually a barrier to progress for the world's poor, while cash was a facilitator for them.
Six billion people around the world will have a smartphone by 2020. They will have pretty much everything they need to participate in e-commerce -- internet access, basically -- except the financial inclusion. Which is why there will be a huge role to play in the future for new forms of digital cash -- from Kenya's M-Pesa to bitcoin -- money you can use even if you are not financially included.
Cash has its uses for small transactions -- a chocolate bar, a newspaper, a pint of milk -- which, in the UK, are still uneconomic to process by other means. It will always be the fastest and most direct form of payment there is. I like to tip waiters, for example, in cash, knowing they will receive that money, without it being siphoned off by some unscrupulous employer. I also like to shop in markets, where I can buy directly from the producer knowing they will receive the money, without middle men shaving off their percentages. It also has its uses for private transactions, for which there are many possible reasons, and by no means all of them illegal. Small businesses starting out need the cash economy. Poor people need the cash economy. The war on cash is a war on them.
If you listen to the scaremongering, you'd start to think that all cash users are either criminals, tax evaders or terrorists. Sure, some use cash to evade tax, but it's paltry compared to the tax avoidance schemes Google and Facebook have employed. Google doesn't use cash to avoid tax. It's all done via legislative means. Cash means total financial inclusion, a luxury the better-off take for granted. Without financial inclusion -- and there will always be some who, for whatever reason, won't have it -- you are trapped in poverty. So beware the war on cash.
submitted by ThetruthWithin37 to conspiracyfact [link] [comments]

Why We Should Fear a Cashless World

The Guardian, 21 March, 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/money/commentisfree/2016/ma21/fear-cashless-world-contactless?CMP=fb_gu

The health food chain "Tossed" has just opened the UK's first cashless cafe. It's another step towards the death of cash.
This is nothing new. Money is tech. The casting of coins made shells, whales' teeth and other such primitive forms of money redundant. The printing press did the same for precious metals: we started using paper notes instead. Electronic banking put paid to the cheque. Contactless payment is now doing the same to cash, which is becoming less and less convenient. In the marketplace convenience usually wins. That's fine as long as people are making this choice freely. What concerns me is the unofficial war on cash that is going on, from the suspicion with which you are treated if you ever use large sums of cash to the campaign in Europe to decommission the 500-Euro note. I'm not sure the consequences have been properly considered.
We already live in a world that is, as far as the distribution of wealth is concerned, about as unequal as it gets. It may even be as unequal as it's ever been. My worry is that a cashless society may exacerbate inequality even further. It will hand yet more power to the financial sector in that banks and related fintech companies will oversee all transactions. The crash of 2008 showed that, when push comes to shove, banks have already been exempted from the very effective regulation that is bankruptcy -- one by which the rest of us must all operate. Do we want this sector to have yet more power and influence? In a world without cash, every payment you make will be traceable. Do you want governments (which are not always benevolent), banks or payment processors to have potential access to that information? The power this would hand them is enormous and the potential scope for Orwellian levels of surveillance is terrifying.
Cash, on the other hand, empowers its users. It enables them to buy and sell, and store their wealth, without being dependent on anyone else. They can stay outside the financial system, if so desired. There are many reasons, both moral and practical, to want this. In 2008 many rushed to take their money out of the banks. If the financial system really was as close to breaking point as we are told it was, then such actions are quite justified. When Cyprus's banks teetered on the cliff of financial disaster in 2011, we saw bail-ins. Ordinary people's money in deposit accounts was sequestered to bail out the system. If your life savings were threatened with confiscation to bail out a corporation you considered profligate, I imagine you too would rush to withdraw them.
We have seen similar panics in Greece and, to a lesser extent, across southern Europe. Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, recently declared that banking was not fixed and that we would see financial panic again. In Japan, the central bank has imposed negative rates and you are charged by banks to store money. This is to try and goad people into spending, rather than saving. So much cash has been withdrawn from banks that there are now reports that the country has sold out of safes.
These are all quite legitimate reasons to want to exit the system. I'm not saying we should all take our money out of the bank, but that we should all have the option to. Cash gives you that option. Why remove it? It's our money. Not the banks'. The telephone teaches us a useful lesson. At its peak in 2008, there were 1.3bn landlines for a global population close to 7 billion. Today more than 6 billion people have a mobile phone -- more than have access to a toilet, according to a UN study. Many assume that the mobile succeeded where the landline failed, because the superior technology made widespread coverage more possible. There is something to that. But the main reason, simply, is that, to get a landline, you need a bank account and credit. About half of the world's population is 'unbanked', without access to the basic financial services you need. Telecom companies saw no potential custom, the infrastructure was never built and many were left with fewer possibilities to communicate. But a mobile phone and its airtime you can buy with cash. You don't need to be banked. Almost anyone can get a mobile -- and they have. The financial system was actually a barrier to progress for the world's poor, while cash was a facilitator for them.
Six billion people around the world will have a smartphone by 2020. They will have pretty much everything they need to participate in e-commerce -- internet access, basically -- except the financial inclusion. Which is why there will be a huge role to play in the future for new forms of digital cash -- from Kenya's M-Pesa to bitcoin -- money you can use even if you are not financially included.
Cash has its uses for small transactions -- a chocolate bar, a newspaper, a pint of milk -- which, in the UK, are still uneconomic to process by other means. It will always be the fastest and most direct form of payment there is. I like to tip waiters, for example, in cash, knowing they will receive that money, without it being siphoned off by some unscrupulous employer. I also like to shop in markets, where I can buy directly from the producer knowing they will receive the money, without middle men shaving off their percentages. It also has its uses for private transactions, for which there are many possible reasons, and by no means all of them illegal. Small businesses starting out need the cash economy. Poor people need the cash economy. The war on cash is a war on them.
If you listen to the scaremongering, you'd start to think that all cash users are either criminals, tax evaders or terrorists. Sure, some use cash to evade tax, but it's paltry compared to the tax avoidance schemes Google and Facebook have employed. Google doesn't use cash to avoid tax. It's all done via legislative means. Cash means total financial inclusion, a luxury the better-off take for granted. Without financial inclusion -- and there will always be some who, for whatever reason, won't have it -- you are trapped in poverty. So beware the war on cash.
submitted by ThetruthWithin37 to ShrugLifeSyndicate [link] [comments]

A realistic way forwards (long, but I believe important)

Most of us have overlooked a fundamental problem that is currently causing an insurmountable obstacle to building a fairer and more sustainable world. We are very familiar with the thing in question, but its problematic nature has been hidden from us by a powerful illusion. We think the problem is capitalism, but capitalism is just the logical outcome of aggregate human decisions about how to manage money. The fundamental problem is money itself, or more specifically general purpose money and the international free market which allows you to sell a chunk of rainforest and use the money to buy a soft drink factory. (You can use the same sort of money to sell anything and buy anything, anywhere in the world, and until recently there was no alternative at all. Bitcoin is now an alternative, but is not quite what we are looking for.) The illusion is that because market prices are free, and nobody is forced into a transaction, those prices must be fair – that the exchange is equitable. The truth is that the way the general money globalised free market system works means that even though the prices are freely determined, there is still an unequal flow of natural resources from poor parts of the world to rich parts. This means the poor parts will always remain poor, and resources will continue to accumulate in the large, unsustainable cities in rich countries. In other words, unless we re-invent money, we cannot overturn capitalism, and that means we can't build a sustainable civilisation.
Why does this matter? What use is it realising that general purpose money is at the root of our problems when we know that the rich and powerful people who run this world will do everything in their power to prevent the existing world system being reformed? They aren't just going to agree to get rid of general purpose money and economic globalisation. It's like asking them to stop pursuing growth: they can't even imagine how to do it, and don't want to. So how does this offer us a way forwards?
Answer: because the two things in question – our monetary system and globalisation – look like being among the first casualties of collapse. Globalisation is already going into reverse (see brexit, Trump's protectionism) and our fiat money system is heading towards a debt/inflation implosion.
It looks highly likely that the scenario going forwards will be of increasing monetary and economic chaos. Fiat money systems have collapsed many times before, but never a global system of fiat currencies floating against each other. But regardless of how may fiat currencies collapse, or how high the price of gold goes in dollars, it is not clear what the system would be replaced with. Can we just go back to the gold standard? It is possible, but people will be desperately looking for other solutions, and the people in power might also be getting desperate.
So what could replace it? What is needed is a new sort of complementary money system which both
(a) addresses the immediate economic problems of people suffering from symptoms of economic and general collapse and
(b) provides a long-term framework around which a new sort of economy can emerge – an economy which is adapted to deglobalisation and degrowth.
I have been searching for answers to this question for some time, and have now found what I was looking for. It is explained in this recently published academic book, and this paper by the same professor of economic anthropology (Alf Hornborg). The answer is the creation of a new sort of money, but it is critically important exactly how this is done. Local currencies like the Bristol Pound do not challenge globalisation. What we need is a new sort of national currency. This currency would be issued as a UBI, but only usable to buy products and services originating within an adjustable radius. This would enable a new economy to emerge. It actually resists globalisation and promotes the growth of a new sort of economy where sustainability is built on local resources and local economic activity. It would also reverse the trend of population moving from poor rural areas and towns, to cities. It would revitalise the “left behind” parts of the western world, and put the brakes on the relentless flow of natural resources and “embodied cheap labour” from the poor parts of the world to the rich parts. It would set the whole system moving towards a more sustainable and fairer state.
This may sound unrealistic, but please give it a chance. I believe it offers a way forwards that can
(a) unite disparate factions trying to provoke systemic change, including eco-marxists, greens, posthumanists and anti-globalist supporters of “populist nationalism”, as well as large numbers of confused and worried "ordinary" people. The only people who really stand to lose are the supporters of global big business and the 1%.
(b) offers a realistic alternative to a money system heading towards collapse, and to which currently no other realistic alternative is being proposed.
In other words, this offers a realistic way forwards not just right now but through much of the early stages of collapse. It is likely to become both politically and economically viable within the forseeable future. It does, though, require some elements of the left to abandon its globalist ideals. It will have to embrace a new sort of nationalism. And it will require various groups who are doing very well out of the current economic system to realise that it is doomed.
Here is an FAQ (from the paper).
What is a complementary currency? It is a form of money that can be used alongside regular money.
What is the fundamental goal of this proposal? The two most fundamental goals motivating this proposal are to insulate local human subsistence and livelihood from the vicissitudes of national and international economic cycles and financial speculation, and to provide tangible and attractive incentives for people to live and consume more sustainably. It also seeks to provide authorities with a means to employ social security expenditures to channel consumption in sustainable directions and encourage economic diversity and community resilience at the local level.
Why should the state administrate the reform? The nation is currently the most encompassing political entity capable of administrating an economic reform of this nature. Ideally it is also subservient to the democratic decisions of its population. The current proposal is envisaged as an option for European nations, but would seem equally advantageous for countries anywhere. If successfully implemented within a particular nation or set of nations, the system can be expected to be emulated by others. Whereas earlier experiments with alternative currencies have generally been local, bottom-up initiatives, a state-supported program offers advantages for long-term success. Rather than an informal, marginal movement connected to particular identities and transient social networks, persisting only as long as the enthusiasm of its founders, the complementary currency advocated here is formalized, efficacious, and lastingly fundamental to everyone's economy.
How is local use defined and monitored? The complementary currency (CC) can only be used to purchase goods and services that are produced within a given geographical radius of the point of purchase. This radius can be defined in terms of kilometers of transport, and it can vary between different nations and regions depending on circumstances. A fairly simple way of distinguishing local from non-local commodities would be to label them according to transport distance, much as is currently done regarding, for instance, organic production methods or "fair trade." Such transport certification would of course imply different labelling in different locales.
How is the complementary currency distributed? A practical way of organizing distribution would be to provide each citizen with a plastic card which is electronically charged each month with the sum of CC allotted to him or her.
Who are included in the category of citizens? A monthly CC is provided to all inhabitants of a nation who have received official residence permits.
What does basic income mean? Basic income is distributed without any requirements or duties to be fulfilled by the recipients. The sum of CC paid to an individual each month can be determined in relation to the currency's purchasing power and to the individual's age. The guiding principle should be that the sum provided to each adult should be sufficient to enable basic existence, and that the sum provided for each child should correspond to the additional household expenses it represents.
Why would people want to use their CC rather than regular money? As the sum of CC provided each month would correspond to purchases representing a claim on his or her regular budget, the basic income would liberate a part of each person's regular income and thus amount to substantial purchasing power, albeit restricted only to local purchases. The basic income in CC would reduce a person's dependence on wage labor and the risks currently associated with unemployment. It would encourage social cooperation and a vitalization of community.
Why would businesses want to accept payment in CC? Business entrepreneurs can be expected to respond rapidly to the radically expanded demand for local products and services, which would provide opportunities for a diverse range of local niche markets. Whether they receive all or only a part of their income in the form of CC, they can choose to use some of it to purchase tax-free local labor or other inputs, and to request to have some of it converted by the authorities to regular currency (see next point).
How is conversion of CC into regular currency organized? Entrepreneurs would be granted the right to convert some of their CC into regular currency at exchange rates set by the authorities.The exchange rate between the two currencies can be calibrated so as to compensate the authorities for loss of tax revenue and to balance the in- and outflows of CC to the state. The rate would thus amount to a tool for determining the extent to which the CC is recirculated in the local economy, or returned to the state. This is important in order to avoid inflation in the CC sector.
Would there be interest on sums of CC owned or loaned? There would be no interest accruing on a sum of CC, whether a surplus accumulating in an account or a loan extended.
How would saving and loaning of CC be organized? The formal granting of credit in CC would be managed by state authorities and follow the principle of full reserve banking, so that quantities of CC loaned would never exceed the quantities saved by the population as a whole.
Would the circulation of CC be subjected to taxation? No.
Why would authorities want to encourage tax-free local economies? Given the beneficial social and ecological consequences of this reform, it is assumed that nation states will represent the general interests of their electorates and thus promote it. Particularly in a situation with rising fiscal deficits, unemployment, health care, and social security expenditures, the proposed reform would alleviate financial pressure on governments. It would also reduce the rising costs of transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. In short, the rising costs and diminishing returns on current strategies for economic growth can be expected to encourage politicians to consider proposals such as this, as a means of avoiding escalating debt or even bankruptcy.
How would the state's expenditures in CC be financed? As suggested above, much of these expenditures would be balanced by the reduced costs for social security, health care, transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. As these savings may take time to materialize, however, states can choose to make a proportion of their social security payments (pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowance, etc.) in the form of CC. As between a third and half of some nations' annual budgets are committed to social security, this represents a significant option for financing the reform, requiring no corresponding tax levies.
What are the differences between this CC and the many experiments with local currencies? This proposal should not be confused with the notion, or with the practical operation, of local currencies, as it does not imply different currencies in different locales but one national,complementary currency for local use. Nor is it locally initiated and promoted in opposition to theregular currency, but centrally endorsed and administrated as an accepted complement to it. Most importantly, the alternative currency can only be used to purchase products and services originating from within a given geographical range, a restriction which is not implemented in experiments with Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). Finally, the CC is provided as a basic income to all residents of a nation, rather than only earned in proportion to the extent to which a person has made him- or herself useful in the local economy.
What would the ecological benefits be? The reform would radically reduce the demand for long-distance transport, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of energy and materials, and losses of foodstuffs through overproduction, storage, and transport. It would increase recycling of nutrients and packaging materials, which means decreasing leakage of nutrients and less garbage. It would reduce agricultural intensification, increase biodiversity, and decrease ecological degradation and vulnerability.
What would the societal benefits be? The reform would increase local cooperation, decrease social marginalization and addiction problems, provide more physical exercise, improve psycho-social and physical health, and increase food security and general community resilience. It would decrease the number of traffic accidents, provide fresher and healthier food with less preservatives, and improved contact between producers and consumers.
What would the long-term consequences be for the economy? The reform would no doubt generate radical transformations of the economy, as is precisely the intention. There would be a significant shift of dominance from transnational corporations founded on financial speculation and trade in industrially produced foodstuffs, fuels, and other internationally transported goods to locally diverse producers and services geared to sustainable livelihoods. This would be a democratic consequence of consumer power, rather than of legislation. Through a relatively simple transformation of the conditions for market rationality, governments can encourage new and more sustainable patterns of consumer behavior. In contrast to much of the drastic and often traumatic economic change of the past two centuries, these changes would be democratic and sustainable and would improve local and national resilience.
Why should society want to encourage people to refrain from formal employment? It is increasingly recognized that full or high employment cannot be a goal in itself, particularly if it implies escalating environmental degradation and energy and material throughput. Well-founded calls are thus currently made for degrowth, i.e. a reduction in the rate of production of goods and services that are conventionally quantified by economists as constitutive of GDP. Whether formal unemployment is the result of financial decline, technological development, or intentional policy for sustainability, no modern nation can be expected to leave its citizens economically unsupported. To subsist on basic income is undoubtedly more edifying than receiving unemployment insurance; the CC system encourages useful community cooperation and creative activities rather than destructive behavior that may damage a person's health.
Why should people receive an income without working? As observed above, modern nations will provide for their citizens whether they are formally employed or not. The incentive to find employment should ideally not be propelled only by economic imperatives, but more by the desire to maintain a given identity and to contribute creatively to society. Personal liberty would be enhanced by a reform which makes it possible for people to choose to spend (some of) their time on creative activities that are not remunerated on the formal market, and to accept the tradeoff implied by a somewhat lower economic standard. People can also be expected to devote a greater proportion of their time to community cooperation, earning additional CC, which means that they will contribute more to society – and experience less marginalization – than the currently unemployed.
Would savings in CC be inheritable? No.
How would transport distances of products and services be controlled? It is reasonable to expect the authorities to establish a special agency for monitoring and controlling transport distances. It seems unlikely that entrepreneurs would attempt to cheat the system by presenting distantly produced goods as locally produced, as we can expect income in regular currency generally to be preferable to income in CC. Such attempts would also entail transport costs which should make the cargo less competitive in relation to genuinely local produce, suggesting that the logic of local market mechanisms would by and large obviate the problem.
How would differences in local conditions (such as climate, soils, and urbanism) be dealt with? It is unavoidable that there would be significant variation between different locales in terms of the conditions for producing different kinds of goods. This means that relative local prices in CC for agiven product can be expected to vary from place to place. This may in turn mean that consumption patterns will vary somewhat between locales, which is predictable and not necessarily a problem. Generally speaking, a localization of resource flows can be expected to result in a more diverse pattern of calibration to local resource endowments, as in premodern contexts. The proposed system allows for considerable flexibility in terms of the geographical definition of what is categorized as local, depending on such conditions. In a fertile agricultural region, the radius for local produce may be defined, for instance, as 20 km, whereas in a less fertile or urban area, it may be 50 km. People living in urban centers are faced with a particular challenge. The reform would encourage an increased production of foodstuffs within and in the vicinity of urban areas, which in the long run may also affect urban planning. People might also choose to move to the countryside, where the range of subsistence goods that can be purchased with CC will tend to be greater. In the long run, the reform can be expected to encourage a better fit between the distribution of resources (such as agricultural land) and demography. This is fully in line with the intention of reducing long-distance transports of necessities.
What would the consequences be if people converted resources from one currency sphere into products or services sold in another? It seems unfeasible to monitor and regulate the use of distant imports (such as machinery and fuels) in producing produce for local markets, but as production for local markets is remunerated in CC, this should constitute a disincentive to invest regular money in such production processes. Production for local consumption can thus be expected to rely mostly – and increasingly – on local labor and other resource inputs.
submitted by anthropoz to ExtinctionRebellion [link] [comments]

Weekly Digest - 9th August

Weekly Digest - 9th August
https://preview.redd.it/w9lmekk1wuf51.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=72e14f620ae624a4122991eaa1143e0b1c248790

Hi Solve.Care Community

There’s been more excitement this week at Solve.Care! We added BC Bitcoin to our list of currencies. It’s been an especially busy week as CEO Pradeep Goel and CMO Dr. Hanekom, both took part in several interviews, plus worldwide mentions and more.
Our CMO, Dr. Hanekom Speaks Candidly in His Solo TV Interview
Our CMO Dr. Hanekom was recently interviewed on SoloTV, a program that covers the latest happenings in the blockchain/crypto sphere. He speaks candidly about the lack of trust within stakeholder relationships and the challenges current methods of healthcare face. Catch the whole interview where Dr. Hanekom talks about Global Telehealth Exchange, Team.Care Networks, and the innovative and hardworking people he surrounds himself with. You can watch the full interview here.
More Fiat Currencies Now Paired with SOLVE
Earlier this week, we officially announced the pairing of SOLVE with GBP and EUR on BC Bitcoin Exchange! We’re providing more pairs for even greater access to global healthcare using your local currency. You can also find SOLVE on Bittrex, Upbit, Kucoin, Huobi Korea, CoinTiger, Changelly, Bitsdaq, LiteBit, HitBTC, VCC Exchange and Coinspot. Here’s the link to BC Bitcoin.
Better Lives with Care.Wallet: Schizophrenia in Canada
Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels and behaves. Those afflicted often feel they have lost touch with reality which causes significant anxiety for the individual, their family, and friends. Schizophrenia may result in one or a combination of hallucinations, delusions, and extremely disoriented thinking and behavior that impairs daily functioning. According to the Canadian Minister of Health, 1% of the population has schizophrenia and 30% of those cases are detected between the ages of 20 to 34 years old. Schizophrenia also places a substantial financial burden on individuals with the illness, members of their family and the health care system. You can read it here.
This Week’s Community Spotlight is on Coinmong
We created the Community Spotlight to highlight those who reflect Solve.Care’s passion in the mission to make healthcare better for everyone. We strive to attract quality people to our community, from all over the world, who understand our potential. And this month’s Community Spotlight goes to long-term supporter, Coinmong!
Future of Global Telehealth Series: Overcoming the Regulatory Environment
In our new series, The Global Future of Telehealth, we’ll look at the different challenges the future of telehealth faces and how we plan to solve them such as; legislative, license verification, data security, availability, payments, and more. Telehealth is on the rise and the demands for its global benefits, past the crisis, are becoming clear. The ability to meet some current medical needs, without restriction, is fast becoming the desired way to access treatments and consultations, beyond the pandemic. This week we looked at how Global Telehealth Exchange overcomes barriers within the international regulatory environment and how telehealth will continue to grow. Click here to read the full article.
Stay up to date by following us on your favorite social media. And join the discussion in our official Telegram channel.
Your Solve.Care Team
submitted by sdmikecfc to solvecare [link] [comments]

Why Should We Fear A Cashless World?

The following article comes from The Guardian, 21 March, 2016. I felt it was worth pasting here, as it does not express the usual fears about mind control, etc. which so many conspiracy theorists become obsessed with, but it does deal more with the mechanics through which a corrupt world government (such as that predicted in the Bible) will be able to use the cashless society to oppress the world. --Dave
Why we should fear a cashless world
(The Guardian, 21 March, 2016)
http://www.theguardian.com/money/commentisfree/2016/ma21/fear-cashless-world-contactless?CMP=fb\_gu
The health food chain Tossed has just opened the UK's first cashless cafe. It's another step towards the death of cash.
This is nothing new. Money is tech. The casting of coins made shells, whales' teeth and other such primitive forms of money redundant. The printing press did the same for precious metals: we started using paper notes instead. Electronic banking put paid to the cheque. Contactless payment is now doing the same to cash, which is becoming less and less convenient. In the marketplace convenience usually wins.
That's fine as long as people are making this choice freely. What concerns me is the unofficial war on cash that is going on, from the suspicion with which you are treated if you ever use large sums of cash to the campaign in Europe to decommission the 500-Euro note. I'm not sure the consequences have been properly considered.
We already live in a world that is, as far as the distribution of wealth is concerned, about as unequal as it gets. It may even be as unequal as it's ever been. My worry is that a cashless society may exacerbate inequality even further.
It will hand yet more power to the financial sector in that banks and related fintech companies will oversee all transactions. The crash of 2008 showed that, when push comes to shove, banks have already been exempted from the very effective regulation that is bankruptcy -- one by which the rest of us must all operate. Do we want this sector to have yet more power and influence?
In a world without cash, every payment you make will be traceable. Do you want governments (which are not always benevolent), banks or payment processors to have potential access to that information? The power this would hand them is enormous and the potential scope for Orwellian levels of surveillance is terrifying.
Cash, on the other hand, empowers its users. It enables them to buy and sell, and store their wealth, without being dependent on anyone else. They can stay outside the financial system, if so desired.
There are many reasons, both moral and practical, to want this. In 2008 many rushed to take their money out of the banks. If the financial system really was as close to breaking point as we are told it was, then such actions are quite justified. When Cyprus's banks teetered on the cliff of financial disaster in 2011, we saw bail-ins. Ordinary people's money in deposit accounts was sequestered to bail out the system. If your life savings were threatened with confiscation to bail out a corporation you considered profligate, I imagine you too would rush to withdraw them.
We have seen similar panics in Greece and, to a lesser extent, across southern Europe. Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, recently declared that banking was not fixed and that we would see financial panic again. In Japan, the central bank has imposed negative rates and you are charged by banks to store money. This is to try and goad people into spending, rather than saving. So much cash has been withdrawn from banks that there are now reports that the country has sold out of safes.
These are all quite legitimate reasons to want to exit the system. I'm not saying we should all take our money out of the bank, but that we should all have the option to. Cash gives you that option. Why remove it? It's our money. Not the banks'.
The telephone teaches us a useful lesson. At its peak in 2008, there were 1.3bn landlines for a global population close to 7 billion. Today more than 6 billion people have a mobile phone -- more than have access to a toilet, according to a UN study. Many assume that the mobile succeeded where the landline failed, because the superior technology made widespread coverage more possible. There is something to that.
But the main reason, simply, is that, to get a landline, you need a bank account and credit. About half of the world's population is 'unbanked', without access to the basic financial services you need. Telecom companies saw no potential custom, the infrastructure was never built and many were left with fewer possibilities to communicate. But a mobile phone and its airtime you can buy with cash. You donít need to be banked. Almost anyone can get a mobile -- and they have. The financial system was actually a barrier to progress for the world's poor, while cash was a facilitator for them.
Six billion people around the world will have a smartphone by 2020. They will have pretty much everything they need to participate in e-commerce -- internet access, basically -- except the financial inclusion. Which is why there will be a huge role to play in the future for new forms of digital cash -- from Kenya's M-Pesa to bitcoin -- money you can use even if you are not financially included.
Cash has its uses for small transactions -- a chocolate bar, a newspaper, a pint of milk -- which, in the UK, are still uneconomic to process by other means. It will always be the fastest and most direct form of payment there is. I like to tip waiters, for example, in cash, knowing they will receive that money, without it being siphoned off by some unscrupulous employer. I also like to shop in markets, where I can buy directly from the producer knowing they will receive the money, without middle men shaving off their percentages.
It also has its uses for private transactions, for which there are many possible reasons, and by no means all of them illegal. Small businesses starting out need the cash economy. Poor people need the cash economy. The war on cash is a war on them.
If you listen to the scaremongering, you'd start to think that all cash users are either criminals, tax evaders or terrorists. Sure, some use cash to evade tax, but it's paltry compared to the tax avoidance schemes Google and Facebook have employed. Google doesn't use cash to avoid tax. It's all done via legislative means.
Cash means total financial inclusion, a luxury the better-off take for granted. Without financial inclusion -- and there will always be some who, for whatever reason, wonít have it -- you are trapped in poverty. So beware the war on cash.
submitted by GodOrMoney to conspiracy_commons [link] [comments]

Firstly, don't buy drugs on reddit (or even the clearnet). Secondly, CBD buds aren't legal.

2 things to get off my chest that eat at me most days I come to clear the modque. This is not a post to try and reinstate the rules, it is just some explaining.
edit 1: Apologies for getting heated in the comments of this one, this post is the outlet for the festering rage that increases every time I read about someone being scammed or claiming CBD flower is legal. I'm normally pretty chill, I promise x
edit 2: Adding some Q&A from the comments into the main body. Some of them I've included because they are good points that are a good idea to add, others are to stop others asking the same question.
edit 3: you guys who previously thought CBD flower was legal, and have now changed your stance and agree with what I'm saying, you guys are the real MVPs. Whether you commented or not, you're the real homies fr.

Don't buy drugs on reddit, or on the clearnet.

On average, we hear of one person on this sub being scammed by another redditor (and sometimes a clearnet site) every 2 days. I'd hazard a guess and say most people don't message us about being scammed out of embarrassment (in hindsight). That's a lot of money being wasted, money that (given our average age) we really can't afford to just piss away.
You know it genuinely makes us upset when we see someone scammed for a couple hundred quid. Not because it breaks the rules, not because the sub is at risk, but because someone has lost money they worked for and they are also encouraging the scammer to keep scamming.
So, this is me saying just don't fucking do it. Business conducted without connection to the sub is irrelevant to us, and this post isn't to protect the sub or us. If someone is here vending through PMs there is a 99.99% chance they are a scammer.
Imagine, right, you've got 10LBs of grass in 20 different strains in 3 different forms. You clearly have money through previous sales, and you're set to vend.
Do you, a, frantically PM people through reddit asking you to buy through Wickr. Or, b, setup shop on a market and continue to build rep.
Also, everyone who says they have a firrrrrrrre link (flame emoji x 10) who deals through Wickr you should message they are also a scammer. You will loose your money and your dignity. They will also have your address that you will more than likely be blackmailed with shortly after (which is also a common occurrence).
Every person who's been scammed messages us the same way 'I know it's stupid and I know it was obvious they are a scammer but u/WorthlessPieceOfShit scammed me and here's proof.'.
Hindsight is a bitch, so get some fuckin forsight and don't be a moron.
Also, clearnet websites, don't even touch 'em.
Instagram is like wading through a pool of shit to find a gold plated coin. Yeah the coin is there, but it is neither worth the trouble or time. It can be alluring to those who can't be arsed with learning to use the markets because of how easy it is, and then after the fact will justify why Instagram is better than any other alternative.
Not only that, think of your OPSEC for gods sake.
For those of you who struggle to keep your singular brain cell company who will still go on to piss money into the wind, if you contact us with proof that you have been scammed, there is no repercussion. Don't be afraid, we will only judge you in private ;).

Reddit Plug Comment Q&A

Q) So is there no way of finding a dealer on reddit?
A) Wherever you look, you will always be able to find a source. If you attend your local female only 60+ chrrurch group for long enough you will find a lovely old lady who knows a guy who knows a guy who comes through. All I'm saying is that, as an amateur, you will miss the obvious warning signs of a scammer and with no way to verify legitimacy of a reddit plug (other than PGP) you will fall victim. I say amateur, because those who know what they are doing don't buy through a damn social media platform, unless they know them personally or have an exceptional circumstance.
Q) So where do I find a plug online? You all talk of doing it but don't let up. or What market?
A) Right, this isn't the place for this sort of question, and truth be told there isn't a reliable single outlet for it any more. However, the one and the only search term you need is DNM. With this single acronym, you have the full capacity to go out and research every single aspect of ordering safely online. Where to go, who to buy from, how to keep yourself safe. It's all out there and very easy to do/find. Like seriously. Just do the research, learn the shit, learn how to use bitcoin and tumblers, learn how to use PGP, learn it all (like we all had to) and you'll be up and running in no time.
If you can't work it out, then you really should stick to street dealers. I don't say that patronisingly, I mean that if you can't work it out from there on your own, you will end up getting scammed or getting caught.

CBD Buds Are Illegal

Update: in another one of the usual shite and misleading responses to a petition our favourite home office shed some light on CBD products, too, and it's even more stupid than we thought:
In relation to industrial hemp, the Government has no intention of amending this policy. The Government operates a robust and risk-based licensing system to enable the cultivation of low THC cannabis (industrial hemp) from the non-controlled parts of the cannabis plant (i.e. seeds and fibre/mature stalk). Our policy enables the production of hemp fibre for industrial purposes or the obtaining of seeds which are then pressed for their oil. The cultivation of cannabis plants must be from approved seed types with a THC content not exceeding 0.2%. The ‘0.2%’ reference is used solely to identify varieties which may potentially be cultivated, within the scope of this policy. The current policy is in place to prevent misuse and diversion of the controlled parts of the cannabis plant, and currently, there is a large number of companies successfully operating under this industrial hemp policy.
Home Office
To be honest this contradicts some of the laws quoted below, so it should be taken with a teaspoon of salt, but even so.
End of update
No, it isn't a grey area. NO, CLEAR don't always get it right. Yes, you can get nicked for it. Yes, it is illegal.
Here is a link to the law in question. There are no 2 ways about it, CBD buds are not legal.
Here is another supporting sheet, and whilst it is produced by the government, it doesn't serve as a legal document, moreso advice, so take that with a pinch of salt.
Home Office policy provides that licences may be issued for the cultivation of cannabis plants with a low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content for the production of hemp fibre for industrial purposes or the obtaining of seeds which are then pressed for their oil. For both of these uses, licences are granted to enable the use of non-controlled parts of the plant (i.e. seeds and fibre/ mature stalk only). This policy is only applicable where non-controlled parts of the plant are used.
There needs to be a defined commercial end use and the Home Office only issues licences for cultivation of plants from approved seed types with a THC content not exceeding 0.2%. The ‘0.2%’ reference is used solely to identify varieties which may potentially be cultivated, within the scope of this policy, and to differentiate between the fee level is applicable under the Misuse of Drugs (Fees) Regulations 2010. The Hemp (Third Country Imports) Regulations 2002 also require, except in specified circumstances, that hemp from ‘third countries’ be imported under a licence an
Oil, tea, handbags and shampoo can be made from industrial hemp, and the plant that they were made from may contain low levels of THC and contain CBD as long as they are produced by licensed peoples.
Flower, however, is not legal under any circumstance. Theoretically, completely THC and THC-V free flower would be un controlled (legal). But that is impossible by current standards, and doesn't exist (yet). Every CBD heavy plant has atleast trace THC(-V). The bulshit 0.2% rule that ill-informed people and love toting is nothing more than the number that allows a company to grow that plant under license, and for that plant to be grown for industrial use. Nothing else.
Feel free to also brows 2001s misuse of drugs act in which you find nothing contradictory of the above.
So please, for the love of god, stop hounding us and eachother over whether it is legal and why you think it is.
If you can provide me with proof of the contrary, I'd love to see it, and would happily change my stance.

CBD Flower Isn't Legal Comment Q&A

Q) What do you make of this?
Specifically "The law states products ‘derived from’ industrial hemp can be exempt from the MODA if they have been ‘processed’ and contain less than 1mg of THC or CBN."
I always thought that was the loophole or grey area, that it is considered a processed hemp product by way of drying, curing and trimming, but I've not spent all that long looking into it and I'm not at all qualified to comment, I'm certainly not a legal professional.
A) Interesting point, and an article I hadn’t seen before.
Here is the government fact sheet they are referring to, in which it states:
'An “exempt product” means a preparation or other product consisting of one or more component parts, any of which contains a controlled drug, where—
a) the preparation or other product is not designed for administration of the controlled drug to a human being or animal;
b) the controlled drug in any component part is packaged in such a form, or in combination with other active or inert substances in such a manner, that it cannot be recovered by readily applicable means or in a yield which constitutes a risk to health
c) no one component part of the product or preparation contains more than one milligram of the controlled drug or one microgram in the case of lysergide or any other N-alkyl derivative of lysergamide.'
Do you mean to tell me that they prepare the CBD buds half a gram at a time? Not a chance. So that breaks rule b. So CBD if prepared in a quantity above half a gram (at any point if it was in contact with more than half a gram) , even if it is broken down into grams to sell). There will not be a single place that picks half a gram at a time, prepares it and then packages it in half gram quantities only. Thus, still illegal.
And the products are advertised and meant for human consumption. So, still controlled under the laws i originally stated.
Q) But it's legal under EU law, which we abide by, so that's where the grey area is isn't it?
A) CBD flower isn't legal according to the EMCDDA, in fact they don't even distinguish it from high THC weed as far as legality.
The only time Cannabis is Legal under EU law is if prescribed medically, be it THC or CBD strong. Even further, they only allow four brands of either to be prescribed: sativex, marinol, cesamet and bedrocan two of which are fuckin synthetic.
Are you saying that the legality of regular weed is a grey area because is can be prescribed medically by the EU? No. Are you saying that because the EU allow it to be medically prescribed you can appeal in court? I should hope not.
Further than that, the EMCDDA just set out the guidelines, i.e. if the country sees fit they can decide their own drug laws (such as in the case of CBD flower being legal in France and Italy, yet illegal in the UK).
Source 1 , Source 2 straight from the horses mouth.
Q) But it's sold in headshops, so it isn't your fault if you get caught is it?
A) This just isn't true, I don't know how else to put it. Less you show me the 'if I didn't know it was illegal, it's not illegal law lol'.
Just as a side note, why do you think Holland and Barret don't sell the flower, and only sell the oil eh? Cmon now use your noggin. Quite a few CBD shops have been raided too, so the fact that they exist isn't testament to legality in any way.
If you're local corner shop sold ketamine in its sherbert packets, and you knew what you were buying, and it says ketamine on the reciept, you're still getting nicked for having ket on you regardless of whether you can produce a reciept to say you bought it at a shop. Just because the shop gets nicked, doesn't mean you don't.

Sorry For The Rant

Now that these two things are very clear, I can stop getting twisted over people getting scammed and just laugh as the information is here and clear, and I can link this post whenever CBD is being debated.
The majority of you guys are sound, like really sound, and I know most of us would kick it if we met, so don't take it personally. Those who this is aimed at will know lol.
submitted by wilk007 to uktrees [link] [comments]

Adrafinil vs Modafinil - The Definitive Reddit Guide

What is Modafinil?


Modafinil is a eugeroic – or, simply, a wakefulness-promoting agent – with a primary purpose of combating narcolepsy amongst suffers. Eugeroics differ from other stimulants because they are considered relatively non-addictive. This means that they do not cause the typical side effects experienced with most stimulants, like agitation and nervousness.
Let us first discuss the chemical components of Modafinil. It is a racemic mixture, and such mixtures have equal amounts of left- and right-handed enantiomers. Enantiomers are the two forms in which large numbers of chemicals exist. Both forms are chemically and structurally identical, yet are nevertheless mirror images of the other. In other words, enantiomers are the ‘left’ and ‘right’ versions of a drug. These are called S and R enantiomers. One enantiomer is typically responsible for the majority of a drug’s effects, while the other can contribute to those positive effects. In other cases, the less dominant enantiomer can cause adverse side effects, or it be inert.
Interestingly Modafinil Most racemic mixtures are balanced equally. This means half of the mixture is ‘left’ enantiomer and the other half is ‘right’. Modafinil is an equal combination of its S- and R- enantiomers, meaning that both have a psychoactive function. Just as you sometimes need two hands to do a job correctly, Modafinil uses both of its enantiomers to provide the ideal effect on body and mind.
Preliminary scientific evidence has found that Modafinil works through histamine signaling. This phrase might indeed baffle you if you aren’t familiar with biological terminology. What this essentially means is that the histamine receptors, found for example in the central nervous system, are provoked. Michael J Minzenberg and Cameron S Carter’s journal provides ample scientific research on Modafinil’s neurochemical actions and effects.
Histamine acts a neurotransmitter, a chemical substance which is released at the end of a nerve fibre by the arrival of a nerve impulse. Neurotransmitters affect the transfer of the impulse to another nerve fibre, muscle fibre, or some other structure within the body. Modafinil enhances histamine activity by stimulating the central system. This increased activity therefore impacts other nerve fibres/muscle fibres in the body, accounting for its ability to stimulate a fatigued body.
As well as fighting tiredness, Modafinil also improves general mood and well-being amongst users, with positive improvements seen with mental focus, analytic capability and memory recall and retention.
Britain deems Modafinil a prescription-only drug. In America, meanwhile, Modafinil’s brand name is Provigil. It is considered a scheduled drug, meaning that it necessitates a prescription in order to obtain it legally.

What is Adrafinil?


Adrafinil is a pro-drug to Modafinil. This simply means that supplementation of it increases concentrations of Modafinil in the body. The liver changes Adrafinil to Modafinil.
Similarly to Modafinil, Adrafinil’s cognitive benefits are enhanced by noted improvements in day-time alertness, motivation, mood and energy levels. It also does not generate the irritability, anxiousness and nervousness routinely experienced through the use of other stimulants.
Britain does not measure Adrafinil under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, a legislation that governs the regulation of drugs. This means that it is not regulated. Adrafinil’s legal status and nootropics in general, nevertheless remains in grey area. It is lawful for purchase by British residents, but only for personal use. In the U.S, however, the drug is currently legal and can be bought, prescription free, as an alternative to Modafinil. Though its manufactured moniker Olmifon was discontinued in 2011, Adrafinil itself can still be purchased easily online.

Why do they differ?

Modafinil and Adrafinil are two of the most popular stimulants available. Though both offer similar if not identical cognitive benefits, there are key distinctions between both.
Chemically speaking, the structures of both drugs are very similar:

Adrafinil Structure
It is, however, with the body’s processing of each drug that differences become most apparent. Modafinil is processed through metabolic activity occurring mainly in the liver. Lesser contributions to the metabolising process are made through the activity of the enzyme cytochrome P450 (CYP). Cytochrome p-450 (often abbreviated “CYP”) is a class of enzymes that is involved in the metabolism of many medications and is located primarily in the liver.
But, what exactly are enzymes? They exist in living organisms and catalyze specific biochemical reactions within the body. At the beginning of a reaction process, molecules exist called ‘substrates’. The enzyme converts these into ‘products’. All metabolic processes in cells require enzymes to react within the body at rates fast enough to sustain life.
Adrafinil differs because it is changed into Modafinil in the liver. This means that it relies on greater enzyme activity to process correctly and efficiently.
The conversion process of Adrafinil and Modafinil sees the former breaking down into the latter as a compound. This is how it is metabolized. Enzymes are relied upon more during the metabolic process of Adrafinil. As mentioned briefly in the metabolism of Modafinil, the enzyme involved in metabolizing Adrafinil when it reaches the liver is Cytochrome p-450.
How quickly the liver is able to convert Adrafinil is dependent upon metabolic rate and the efficiency of the liver overall. Two people of the same sex, similar age and weight can take the same dose of Adrafinil but achieve very different results.
In necessitating a more rigorous metabolism process, the most profound difference between Modafinil and Adrafinil is that the latter requires the greater use of Cytochrome p-450. Over time, if the drug is not taken cyclically, such enzymes can build up in the liver with potentially damaging effects on the organ as a whole.

Adrafinil vs Modafinil Dosage


For Adrafinil, it as advised to dose between 600 to 1200mg per day. It is further advised, as with the majority of supplements, to begin on a low dose, only increasing the amount after recognizing your own body’s reaction and tolerance. Adrafinil should not be taken in the afternoon and evening to prevent a sleepless night. Ideally, it should be taken 3 times a week and for no longer than five months. This is primarily to prevent side effects, tolerance and the build-up of enzymes in the liver.
Examine.com state that Adrafinil’s recommended dosage range is vast, ranging from 600 to 1,200mg. BodhiSvaha on erowid.org explained their willingness to take both small doses and larger ones of Adrafinil:
After extensive experimentation with dosage, I have settled on taking 300mg when I wake up and another 300 mg in the early afternoon. There does not seem to be much, if any, habituation or tolerance created by Adrafinil. Occasionally I will take doses up to 1200 mg when a high degree of concentration is required. I have found this dose to be very effective at potentiating and improving the tryptamine experience, in particular. I find tryps sometimes bring a feeling of lethargy or body load with some cognitive dullness. Adrafinil counters this effect very nicely.
Here it is evident that, despite there being a large range of recommended doses for Adrafinil, all of them are safe. Whatever you choose within that range is dependent on your desired alertness and bodily tolerance. Reddit user ssitimefill explains the necessity of slowly upping Adrafinil dosage, as well as suggesting why a higher dose than Modafinil is required:
To my knowledge it is not established how what proportion of adrafinil is broken down into modafinil and what proportion into modafinilic acid. This proportion likely varies person to person, and also by dose. Some studies have reported adrafinil more potent at lower doses. The general psychological effect of adrafinil depends not only on the quantity converted into modafinil but the rate of this conversion. 300 mg of modafinil from adrafinil is not likely to produce an identical effect from 300 mg of modafinil. Basically there is no way to determine optimum dose of adrafinil other than trial and error. The best procedure is to start with low doses (measured via scale) and slowly increase dose until you reach the optimal, then sub-optimal dose. When you have reached sub-optimal dose (too much adrafinil) you can deduce what dose is optimal for you.
Because Modafinil does not transform in the liver, it generally requires lesser dosage to reach its optimum effect. Modafinil is typically sold in 100 mg or 200 mg tablets. The latter option is more popular due to its greater availability. 200 mg is indeed the recommended dose, to be taken once per day, usually during the morning. It may be taken with or without food. (nootriment.com)
Some recommend starting with an initial intake of 100 mg Modafinil dosage. This helps with accustoming the body to the drug itself. An anonymous writer on erowid.org posted his first use of 100mg Modafinil, describing its positive effects:
And today I tried modafinil 100 mg for the first time. I took it at around 10:45 AM today and it is now 4:35 PM. My experience has been much like those of others herein described– initial buzziness (~1 hr after I took the pill) that lasted about as long. But for the past 4 hours, I have been just plain awake. I have not succumbed to the usual desire to take a nap in the afternoons despite the near-90-degree heat, which usually puts me right to sleep. I have had no such desire in fact. I am not jittery or having unusual thoughts, etc.
It is also possible to take higher doses. Up to 400 mg per day has been shown to be very well-tolerated. Pino on drugs-forum tried a variety of dosages and provides some succinct information of the results:
Combinations:
200 mg modafinil + caffeine: Pleasant vibe, easy and fast thinking. Able to solve sudokus a lot quicker. The bus driver becomes more self reassured in conversations and is able to focus more than 16 hours. Sleep quality is ok. (bp: 130/80) 200 mg modafinil + too much caffeine (4 cups of coffee): Anxiousness and some hypertension kicks in here. (bp: 140/93) Concentration is less than optimal in this region. 400 mg modafinil + normal caffeine: Nice euphoria, but can also turn into anxiousness.
It is clear that the recommended doses are speculative and dependent on personal accounts of drug use. There are certainly more user reviews around the internet that explain individual experiences of alternating dosage amounts. There is, of course, still the question of the differences in dosage between Modafinil and Adrafinil. Jjhurley on Reddit discussed the differences in dosage between both:
… most people tell me 300mg of adra is comparable to just 100mg of moda. Whether your ratio or this other ratio is correct doesn’t make too much a difference, but I have been taking 600mg of adra and don’t want to lose any potency. Is this to say I should go with 300-400mg of moda? If so, that’s a little upsetting because I was really hoping to have equal, if not better, experiences on just 200mg of moda.
ProfWiki agreed that Adrafinil should be taken in higher dosages than Modafinil:
I take 600 mg in order to get effects. This is equivalent to about 200 mg of modafinil. I think throwf0 read you as saying modafinil since he mentioned modafinil. Modafinil is a lot stronger than adrafinil. 150 mg of adrafinil would be about like 50 mg of adrafinil. Anyway, like I said, 50 mg of Adrafinil is far too lose to be effective. 50 mg of MODAfinil might work okay for some but they typically are just breaking up a standard 100/200 mg dose. Being that Adrafinil works by metabolizing into Modafinil, and that as a rule of thumb 1/3 of Adrafinil turns into modafinil, a 50 mg dose of Adrafinil would be just roughly 16-17 mg of modafinil. There wouldn’t be any effects from such a low level dose.

Adrafinil vs Provigil


Let us first make one distinction:
Adrafinil = generic drug Provigil = brand name of Modafinil
It is often questioned what the difference between Provigil and Adrafinil is. However, the former is simply a branded name for the generic drug Modafinil, which, as we have now found, is the metabolite of Adrafinil. So long as users are acquiring pure generic versions of Adrafinil, then the same effects as Provigil will be felt and the advised dosage will essentially be identical.
It is therefore not unusual for potential users to question the differences between Provigil and Adrafinil. Moreover, it is certainly not unreasonable to question their differences. For instance, internet user Shatneresque questioned the difference between Modafinil and Provigil, which are the same drug, asking:
My pharmacy sent me a email saying I can now replace my Provigil ($125 a month) with the generic version and they need my okay to do so. Before I say yes and say the money, I want to know if anyone has noticed any differences. I am very happy with the provigil and have been taking it for several years.
This query was answered by Serpens:
It appears that Cephalon, the maker of Provigil, has been purchased by Teva, titan generic manufacturer. There are currently three manufacturers selling a generic labeled ‘modafinil’ : Cephalon (brand holder), Teva, and Par. All three are using the same brand name NDA license on file with the FDA. In addition, Elsevier’s Clinical Pharmacology has images and references available for the generic product being shipped for all three drug companies. They’re all the same pill. Images of all three products show a white oblong tablet with “Provigil” on one side, and the strength on the other. All products have the same inactive ingredients.
Queries like this prove that caution is imperative when deciding on which supplement to use. This is especially true if you are a first time user or are, like Shatneresque, accustomed to using one particular brand such as Provigil. Researching alternatives and finding the most information about whatever drug you are choosing is vital if you are to select the right one for you. Awareness is the key and there is no harm in asking questions that, to you, may sound obvious once they are answered.

About Provigil


Provigil was originally manufactured by Cephalon, the same company behind the previously branded version of Adrafinil (Olmifon). Business editor Dell Poncet writes of how, in 1999, interest for both Cephalon and Provigil was taking off, with registered quarterly sales of $10.7 million. Being among the leading biopharmaceutical companies in the world, Cephalon flourished. In 2011, it was acquired by Teva, the largest generic drug manufacturer in the world for a huge $6.8 billion (read more here). There is little surprise, then, that Provigil is sold at quite a cost.
A 30-day supply of Provigil 200mg pills can cost as much as $1500. Buyers in the UK can therefore expect to pay even more if the pharmacy offers world-wide shipping.
Since branded Modafinil is so expensive, Adrafinil is clearly the best alternative. The latter drug does not come attached to a manufactured title, and is inexpensive yet easily attainable. What is more, it can be bought prescription-free online or by phone. There are plenty of legitimate outlets stocking Adrafinil and these can be accessed at the click of a button. If economizing is one aspect of importance, then Adrafinil is certainly the best choice.

Modafinil in India


More importantly health-wise, though, is the scary possibility of purchasing a dodgy-version of branded Modafinil online. With the cost of Provigil being so high, it is unsurprising that many prospective users look for a cheaper alternative for their first time trying the drug. Many turn to the internet’s grey market, where there is a lingering risk of being ripped off with tampered drugs. This is where extra caution and care should be applied.
Once users began contemplating off-label equivalents, international pharmacy websites quickly took the opportunity to sell these kinds of drugs. The most popular location from which many internet users buy unbranded Modafinil is India. Sources of the drug in India do not require strict quality control, nor are prescriptions required by users.
In fact, there is much information to be considered with regard to India’s counterfeit drugs market. This article on New York Times discusses how:
India’s drug industry is one of the country’s most important economic engines, exporting $15 billion in products annually, and some of its factories are world-class, virtually undistinguishable from their counterparts in the West. But others suffer from serious quality control problems. The World Health Organization estimated that one in five drugs made in India are fakes. A 2010 survey of New Delhi pharmacies found that 12 percent of sampled drugs were spurious.
Meanwhile, this article on safemedsonline.org attests to the New York Times’ discussion, stating that:
The Food and Drug Administration recently conducted a series of raids in India to uncover counterfeit drugs. The raids yielded large quantities of substandard medicines and resulted in several arrests. However, in India, the penalties for making and selling counterfeit medicines are minimal, the convictions are rare, and the profits are enormous. Since the raids late last year, the problem has only gotten worse.
Alarm bells should definitely ring here. Without quality control, many drugs that appear on international websites do not contain legitimate ingredients. It is a huge gamble to assume your purchased pills are pure or authentic. There’s a great possibility that you might not experience the proper effects of the medication and there is serious potential that you may have toxic reactions to the ingredients in fake versions of the drug. Some websites and online Nootropics communities maintain lists of verified and trustworthy Modafinil vendors, but such vendors do not generally stay on the lists for long. In many cases, a trusted supplier can end up sending out a fake or ineffective batch of pills even after you have developed a long-standing relationship with them. It is almost impossible to protect against this risk.
There is really only one sensible alternative if you find the price of Provigil unreasonable, or if you are contemplating buying potentially contaminated off-label versions from India. Users should purchase Adrafinil from a reputable supplier instead, rather than paying the very serious costs of purchasing from an unreliable source abroad.

Adrafinil vs Modafinil forum


There are many reviews across the internet on individual preferences: Adrafinil or Modafinil. It is all, of course, subjective to user experience. Whilst some remain skeptical towards the newer of the two drugs, Adrafinil, there are huge amounts of successful reviews to be considered. On reddit, jjhurley writes:
Long story short, today is just my 3rd day using adrafinil and I’m impressed with the results so far. I keep reading from people who’ve experienced both adra & moda is that they prefer modafinil. To me it is surprising there would be a whole lot of difference given what we know about adrafinil converting to modafinil once in your system. I understand the conversion takes time but I wouldn’t think that to make a significant impact to different effects.
It is also important to remember that Adrafinil is converted into Modafinil once in the liver. Many users therefore experience the same results with both drugs, and are positive in their opinions of both. DoyouknowmyPW on Reddit concurs, stating that:
I’ve been using Adrafinil and Modafinil for a few weeks now during the workweek. 100-150mg for Modafinil, 200-270 for Adrafinil. I’ve never noticed any painful side-effects, might just be a coincidence. Sharp pain like that could be trapped gas (of course I am not a physician though!). It does help greatly staying more alert during the day. Before I would have issues some days where I am truly struggling to keep my eyes open, especially during meetings. I’ve fallen asleep at least twice for a brief second because my eyes were just too heavy. Since I’ve been taking the morning dose that sleepiness has gone away and I am now on a better sleep schedule because I feel tired when I’m suppose to.
Some users speak of branded versions of the drugs. For example, Akoward on drugs-forum writes:
Recently got a hold of some Nuvigil. Have had previous experience with Olmifon (Adrafinil). As has been said before its much more potent at lower dose that Adrafinil. I only need 1/2 a pill to do what 2x300mg Adrafinils were doing for me. I took a whole Nuvigil the first time and was more productive in that single day that I had been in ages. Got all my work done, worked on personal projects… it was amazing. I will say that some of the physical side effects were a little troubling (ever present tightness in the collarbone to middle neck area, massive restless legs)
It is important to see that with Akoward’s review, despite him alternating to the branded Armodafinil, side-effects were still experienced. This goes to show that Adrafinil, though not manufactured under a moniker, is no less competent in generating the excellent results that might be expected from those drugs which sound more ‘professional’.

Adrafinil vs Modafinil vs Armodafinil


Like Adrafinil and Modafinil, Armodafinil is a stimulant used to combat fatigue. Introduced in 2007, Armodafinil appears under brand names such as Nuvigil, Artvigil, and Waklert. It is purportedly more effective at lower doses than its relatives Adrafinil and Modafinil.
Armodafinil is an enantiopure drug. Enantiopure drugs contain only one of the enantiomers (spoken about earlier), R or S. The R enantiomer is longer acting and is most responsible for the effects of Modafinil specifically. Since the S enantiomer is not as strong, Armodafinil’s dosage is therefore lower. Most doses are 150mg compared to Modafinil’s 200mg standard dose.
Whilst the effects last for roughly the same time, Armodafinil takes longer to reach its peak than Modafinil, and therefore even longer than Adrafinil. This is simply because the S enantiomer reacts and leaves the body faster. Remember, Armodafinil does not have the S enantiomer, whereas Modafinil does. Adrafinil does, too, because Modafinil is a component within it. Because of this, users find that the effects of Armodafinil take longer to make themselves apparent – a potential disadvantage for prospective users.
So, how is Armodafinil processed? Dopamine is a compound existing as neurotransmitter within the body. It is also precursor of other substances including adrenaline. Armodafinil is an indirect dopamine receptor agonist. What this essentially means, then, is that Armodafinil provokes the dopamine levels in the body.
Armodafinil is metabolized in much the similar way as Modafinil. It relies on amide hydrolysis primarily, and enzyme activity from by cytochrome P450 secondly. Amide Hydrolysis refers to the reaction with water of amides – a compound)
As a consequence, this means that is does not rely as much on heavy enzyme activity in the liver. Adrafinil does. This presents further difference that may be considered by potential users. However, it is important to remember to stick to dosage guidance. If taken properly, and often cyclically, Adrafinil is no more threatening to the liver than Modafinil or Armodafinil.
Because Armodafinil, Modafinil and Adrafinil are all very similar in terms of effect, there is much discussion about which is the best. With regard to Modafinil and Armodafinil specifically, some may assume that because small dosages are needed for the latter that it is more efficient. However, it is important to remember individual sensitivity levels. Different drugs can have different reactions for different people. Potency is therefore not the only factor; the personal experience of using either Armodafinil or Modafinil is equally important. A trial and error approach may be necessary, but, of course, extensive research to find the best possible supplement for you is paramount.
In undertaking research, then, you may discover information that suits your needs. For example, it is proposed that, unlike Modafinil, Armodafinil will not actually disturb your existing sleep patterns. Modafinil users might agree a good night’s sleep is difficult to achieve depending on the dosage.
Reddit user guitar1560 states that
I took 50mg two days in a row twice. Couldn’t sleep well the second night both times
Whereas SequenceConvenience writes
I’ve experienced pretty strong sleep changes while taking modafinil, but nothing that has been negative. I actually seem to need less sleep, at least in the sense that it is very easy for me to get out of bed the day after taking modafinil. Then again, I also don’t seem to have much in the way of dreams during those nights.
Armodafinil does not impact sleep pattern. However, with SequenceConvenience’s review, it is clear that some find this a positive effect of Modafinil while others, like guitar1560, may be disappointed.
Respective costs of the drugs might further influence your decision. KimberCT on Longe City tried both Armodafinil and Modafinil, but was swayed somewhat by the price of Nuvigil (the branded name of Armodafinil):
Currently taking 250mg armodafinil daily. To be honest, I kind of prefer modafinil. It seems to have a little more of a quick kick to it. Probably that isomer with a short half life peaking. Other than that, I can’t tell the difference between Nuvigil and modafinil (Sun Pharma). I’d probably have continued taking modafinil, but Cephalon has jacked the price since Nuvigil was FDA approved. With an Rx, Provigil is twice the price of Nuvigil. Their way of getting everyone onto Nuvigil before Provigil’s patent expires.
Adrafinil, meanwhile, can be obtained very cheaply online because it does not exist under a manufactured name. Nevertheless, many of these drugs are safe to use even if they lack a moniker like Provigil or Nuvigil. To stop concerns of the legitimacy of your purchased drug, always ask that your online manufacturer provides a COA (Certificate of Authenticity) on demand. This means that the substance batch has undergone a third-party laboratory analysis to ensure that your purchased drug matches its label and is not contaminated.
A common side-effect of Adrafinil is that the urine can smell different after ingestion of the drug. This is because one of Adrafinil’s metabolites contains a sulphur-based compound, and sulphur is strong smelling in itself.
However, these criticisms are not limited to Adrafinil alone and it should not sway potential users away from this particular drug. Modafinil has also been found to change the odor of urine. For example, PhysicsMaestro on Longe city queries:
I’ve been using modafinil (modalert) for about 8 months now, and regularly noticed a distinct smell of my urine whenever taking it. However, with this armodafinil, I don’t seem to notice it, which worries me a bit (i.e., not really what it states to be). Has anyone else noticed this difference between armodafinil and modafinil? I thought maybe the S-enantiomer could be metabolized and excreted quicker, thus resulting in an early onset smell, but I am just guessing.
Jadamgo answered:
The difference could easily be due to one of the excipients of the tablet, not the active ingredient. It’s also possible that only the S-enantiomer causes the smell, and of course, there’s the possibility that either these pills or the old ones didn’t actually contain modafinil. Sometimes they contain caffeine or dimethylamylamine or other stimulants, either mixed with modafinil or completely replacing it.
PhysicsMaestro thereafter concurrs:
I thought the odorous urine was ubiquitous to all variants of modafinil, resulting from its metabolites. But I guess the smell could be dependent on the enantiomer. I am willing to assume that whatever enzyme metabolizes modafinil to modafinil acid would leave its chirality intact. I don’t think it would be the excipients since the smell is so widely reported with different sources (and the modafinil has a sulfiyl group, so)
Nor does Armodafinil escape the urine issues. An anonymous writer on Erowid.org wrote:
Oh, and the pill tastes awful. Don’t let it get stuck in your mouth. And my pee starts to smell like it, too, but I get used to it
It is therefore important not to be selective of criticism based on what drug you have been swayed by. If you read that Modafinil is apparently “safer” because it does not rely on rampant enzyme activity, then do remember to include other issues such as cost-efficiency and, of course, other side-effects that might become more apparent than rare liver problems. These side-effects might include nausea, chest-pain or a faster heart rate (nhs.uk).
Adrafinil stands out as the most cost-effective, and, though it has been reported to alter urine odor, it is not alone. Modafinil, the more expensive, and Armodafinil, with a longer reaction time, also generate similar side-effects.
As well as reviews on specific effects of Adrafinil, Armodafinil or Modafinil, there are plenty of general overviews to be found around the internet. On Reddit, BitcoinOperatedGirl writes of her experience:
I tried the adrafinil first, starting with a low dose of 200mg one morning. I prepared a capsule and put it in a baggie next to my pillow before I went to sleep. When my alarm clock rang in the morning, I swallowed the capsule, silenced the alarm clock, and went back to sleep. I was expecting the stimulatory effect to eventually wake me up, as a caffeine pill would, but I ended up sleeping for two more hours. I felt a little disappointed after getting up and not feeling any stimulation, so I decided to add an extra 400mg to the mix. The rest of the day, I was in a fairly good mood. I thought that I was maybe a little more energetic and motivated than usual. I was fairly productive and I worked out. The effect wasn’t what I expected, however. I’ve read people on here talking about feeling wired, and “laser beam focus”, but a whole 600mg of adrafinil felt nothing close to what I imagined (I guess I imagined it would feel like a mild dose of ritalin or something). On the upside, I experienced no substantial anxiety, whereas all the amphetamine-like drugs make me very uncomfortably anxious (I really can’t stand them, they feel disgusting to me). I didn’t really feel a crash and I went to bed at my normal hour. I’m experimenting with adrafinil again today. I took 800mg this time. I was feeling particularly tired this morning (cripplingly tired, lethargic really). I definitely feel more energetic now. I’ve gotten some work done, I’m feeling the drive to write walls of text on reddit and I’m going to have a workout in a few minutes. I don’t expect to have any motivational issues today. Maybe I’ll even cook something fun. Only unfortunate side-effect seems to be a mild headache, but advil seems to be taking care of that. I also tried armodafinil a week ago. Took a small 75mg dose in the morning. Same setup as with adrafinil. I also fell back to sleep for 2 hours. I felt pretty anxious that day and also got a headache. I can’t quite be sure the armodafinil is to blame but I suspect it is. Seems much more anxiety-inducing than adrafinil, which is unfortunate given that it seems adrafinil is worse for your liver. Armodafinil is probably just not for me.
Nezxon on LongeCity meanwhile states that:
I’m taking 75mg Adrafinil (Olmifon) twice daily and I haven’t experienced any side effects. I’d like to give Armodafinil a try, perhaps even safer in the long-term than Modafinil is.
These kinds of reviews certainly help to build a solid picture of each drug’s story. Undertaking research like this to decide on which drug is preferable to you is definitely something you should embark on before picking at random a supplement based on one review.

Adrafinil vs Modafinil reddit


The only notable difference in reviews between Modafinil and Adrafinil is that the latter takes longer to take effect. For example, justmodz1 stated that:
adrafinil is the precursor of modafinil in that it came first and led to the discovery of modafinil in fact adrafinil turns into modafinil in the body due to breakdown of it molecules which actually means that the two have the same effects but adrafinil takes longer to take effect.
While KPC100 agreed that:
Adrafinil gets turned into Modafinil in your system. Because of this, you need a much larger dose and it takes longer to take effect.
Although it does have a longer reaction time, this certainly shouldn’t be a downfall of Adrafinil. It is simply a case that Adrafinil’s chemical processing takes a little longer. However, once complete, the results are just as effective as those found with Modafinil. Take into consideration, also, that Adrafinil will certainly stimulate, energize and ultimately shake you awake. The seemingly longer period of time before this happens will soon become irrelevant when the benefits are reaped. Further Reddit reviews compare other aspects of Adrafinil and Modafinil.
Jjhurley, commenting on the actual nature of each drug, states that:
I keep reading from people who’ve experienced both adra & moda is that they prefer modafinil. To me it is surprising there would be a whole lot of difference given what we know about adrafinil converting to modafinil once in your system. I understand the conversion takes time but I wouldn’t think that to make a significant impact to different effects.
While the same user goes on to discuss issues of costing, in the end suggesting that, in terms of price, they would definitely prefer Adrafinil:
I was really hoping to have equal, if not better, experiences on just 200mg of moda. The reason I’d like to not take more than that is simply cost. At $1.50-2.00 per 200mg pill of moda (prices based off the quantities I’d be ordering as well as variation in supplier prices) it’s too costly to have to take twice that for my own personal budget. To be honest, even at $1.50-2.00 per pill/200mg is already high for my budget. I can get 50g of adrafinil for $98 which comes out to up to 50% cheaper a single moda dose/pill of 200mg. If conversion ratios are right and I’d need two pills or 400mg of moda though then my adra would be 75% cheaper.
There are plenty of important aspects to consider when choosing between Modafinil or Adrafinil. Firstly, selecting the safest and most reliable drug should be of paramount interest. Whereas Adrafinil is often tested by third parties and is shipped nationally rather than across sees, Modafinil (both branded and unbranded versions) is often left untested and sent from India. Quality control is a big issue of concern for international pharmacies and should definitely guide your final decision.
Pricing is also important to consider. Although you might think you’re getting a better deal by choosing a cheaper off-label version from India, it is still not as easy to buy Modafinil as it is Adrafinil. Most venders of Modafinil do not accept Paypal. This service offers secure buyer protection. With the option of a legitimate, nationally supplied alternative in Adrafinil, it is illogical to risk your bank account details instead – just to purchase a drug that will likely be contaminated and unsafe
submitted by Ximena556677 to NootropicsTalk [link] [comments]

How to Buy Modafinil in the UK | What You Must Know

How to Buy Modafinil in the UK | What You Must Know

Are you curious about how to buy Modafinil in the UK these days?
Then you’re in the perfect place.
Here’s the skinny:
While the smart drug is technically regarded as prescription-only in the United Kingdom, you can simply and legally buy Modafinil online – whether you have a doctor’s prescription or not.

But there’s a little bit more to it…
So in this comprehensive guide, I talk about everything you need to know about getting the world’s most popular smart drug while living in the United Kingdom.
While I’m not from the UK, I certainly know how to order Modafinil online while living in the country. Luckily, it’s not too difficult these days.
After buying nootropics online for nearly a half decade, I’ve found out which vendors will send your legit smart drugs with fast shipping. These online Modafinil pharmacies will also guarantee your order. You’ll get your smart drugs or you’ll get your money back. No questions asked.
When ordering from these types of online Modafinil vendors, there’s no risk for you! Buying Modafinil in the United Kingdom has never been easier.
In this guide, we’ll talk about:
This United Kingdom Modafinil guide is comprehensive to ensure anything and everything you need to know is included. I wanted to make sure every question about Modafinil and the UK was answered.
Of course, I’ve gotta hit you with a quick disclaimer before we dive in…

What is Modafinil?

Now, you might just want to know where you can buy Modafinil online in the U.K. – which is perfectly fine.
But some of y’all may want a little more information about what Modafinil is and why so many successful individuals use the smart drug. As the world’s most popular smart drug, Modafinil has gained popularity for one reason. Why?
Because Modafinil works.
The smart drug is the premier cognitive enhancer on the market for a reason. If you take Modafinil, you will find benefits like:
They say coffee is the lifeblood of champions, but I’m of the opinion that Modafinil is.
Overall, Modafinil will help you crush the day like nothing else. You’ll feel like you can accomplish anything and everything you want to. Now, Modafinil isn’t the “Limitless” pill in real life. You won’t write a full novel in one day. But it’s pretty darned close.
In the late 1980s, French researchers were working to create a wakefulness agent to treat common ailments like (Source):
The pharmaceutical drug was named Provigil and quickly made its way to the United States, the land of overuse and abuse.
It didn’t take long for CEOs and grad students to see the value of Provigil. In the blink of an eye, every hustler on the east coast of the U.S. was taking Modafinil to gain an advantage over the competition.
The smart drug craze had officially begun.
Why?
Because it’s easy to beat the competition when you can pop one pill and focus for upwards of 12-15+ straight hours. There’s a reason you’re curious how to get your hands on Modafinil in the United Kingdom.

Is Modafinil Legal in the UK?

You should know I’m not a lawyer. Certainly no legal scholar. Just a dude who knows way too much about smart drugs and how they benefit people looking to achieve more in life.
With that in mind, this section about Modafinil in the UK and legalities should be taken as hyperbole. Nothing less. Nothing more.
So, is it legal to buy Provigil in the United Kingdom? Well, yes and no.
Modafinil is fully regulated as a prescription-only medication by the government. But it’s a bit of a grey area.
Here’s how I’ll break it down:
You cannot get the smart drug for off-the-label uses, like cognitive enhancement, from a pharmacy in the United Kingdom. You’d have to prove you have narcolepsy or sleep apnea to a doctor within the country.
However, what about ordering online? Are there legal issues to worry about when buying Modafinil online and shipping it to the United Kingdom?
Well, I don’t believe so.
If you’re buying online…
Here’s why:
Since Modafinil is not listed on the Misuse of Drugs Act, it’s not illegal to possess the substance for personal use – even if you don’t have a prescription.
In practical terms, this means that you can order Modafinil online in the United Kingdom and have little issue receiving the product.
Even if import controls “catches” your smart drugs in-transit, there are no legal repercussions you need to worry about. The worst that happens? Your package gets confiscated by import controls and customs destroys it. If that happens, your online Modafinil pharmacy will issue you a refund or reshipment. Whatever you want.
No harm. No foul.
–> Is Modafinil legal in the UK?
In my opinion, yes. Well, at least it’s legal enough to order online without worry. But again, I’m no lawyer and you’ll have to make that choice for yourself. Always do your own research and make smart choices.

How to get a Modafinil Prescription in the UK

While Modafinil laws in the UK don’t seem to be an issue for the vast majority of individuals, some people might be interested in how to get a Modafinil prescription here.
The reality?
It can be difficult to get a Modafinil prescription in the UK.
This is for one reason and one reason only…
Modafinil can only be prescribed in the UK for ailments like narcolepsy and excessive daytime sleepiness due to sleep apnea or shift sleep disorder.
For ‘off-the-label’ uses, such as taking Modafinil as a smart drug or nootropic, doctors in the country tend to avoid writing prescriptions for it.
Here’s why:
Modafinil laws in the UK and the risks a doctor takes when prescribing something off-the-label here.
UK doctors are faced with far greater legal risk when prescribing medications off-the-label due to laws and legislation provided by UK.gov:
The responsibility that falls on healthcare professionals when prescribing an unlicensed medicine or a medicine off-label may be greater than when prescribing a licensed medicine within the terms of its licence. Prescribers should pay particular attention to the risks associated with using unlicensed medicines or using a licensed medicine off-label.
Aka a doctor could get into legal trouble if they prescribed a drug off-the-label that caused someone a health problem.
Most doctors simply aren’t willing to take this risk when you walk into their office asking about Provigil for cognitive enhancement.
Therefore, to get a Modafinil prescription in the UK, you’ll have to prove that you have narcolepsy or excessive daytime sleepiness due to sleep apnea or shift sleep disorder.
That’s the only way to do it.
As such, many have found buying Modafinil online far easier while living in the United Kingdom.
Which is what we’ll discuss below…

Where to Buy Modafinil Online in the UK | 2020 Guide

If you’re looking to buy Modafinil in the United Kingdom, you’re in the right spot. Below you’ll find the best online Modafinil vendors that ship to the country.
After working with over a half dozen pharmacies throughout the years, I’ve found the vendors below to be the absolute best.
All my preferred Modafinil sellers offer:
But enough with the ado, let’s get into things and see where you can buy Modafinil online in the UK.
Here are my favorite sellers:

As of writing this article, BuyModa is the premier Modafinil vendor in the whole entire world. Bar none. These guys are the best. If you’re buying Modafinil in the United Kingdom, I’d recommend taking a look at these guys.
Their customer service is impeccable, the pricing is low, and their Bitcoin discount is solid.
I’m talking a 35% BTC discount on top of their already LOW, LOW prices. Some of the lowest in the industry.
Plus, Modafinil orders in the UK from Buy Moda will arrive within 6-10 days, with most orders arriving within a week. That’s pretty quick shipping!
And the most important part…
You can pay for Buy Moda orders with credit cards.
Like all legitimate Modafinil vendors, Buy Moda offers guaranteed delivery. You either get your order or they’ll send you a full refund or a reshipment. It’s your choice. You have no worries here.
But do know…the customer service from Buy Moda is truly second to none. I’ve yet to find a Modafinil vendor that takes care of their customers in the way Buy Moda does. You’ll be in great hands when ordering here.
Overall, a great option for those in the UK.
Oh, and one more thing…
When you spend over $100 bucks on any order with the world’s best Modafinil vendor, Buy Moda — you also get 30 free pills with the order. Aka more savings!
If you’re buying Modafinil in the UK, another place I’d recommend checking out is Modafinil XL.
These guys do a good job shipping Modafinil to the UK. Modafinil XL is known for great customer service, low prices, legit products, and some of the best discounts in the industry.
You can save up to 35% on your order from this vendor with their Bitcoin coupons.
Shipping times to the UK vary, but most orders arrive within 6-10 days from Modafinil XL. If for some reason your package doesn’t arrive, you’ll get a full refund or reshipment. Whatever you prefer.
Overall…highly recommended!
This is another legitimate Modafinil vendor for any and all living in the United Kingdom. They’ve been around quite some time and do a great job.
Another vendor who holds Modafinil stock in Europe is Eufinil.
In fact, these guys only ship to Europe. It’s what they do. It’s their specialty. So you know they do it well.
While I prefer other vendors above for larger orders because they’re generally cheaper, I found one heck of a use for Eufinil.
If you’re looking to buy Modafinil in the United Kingdom, but don’t want to spend tons of cash…
Eufinil allows you to make small orders.
You can order as low as 20 servings of Modafinil from these guys — which ends up being about $60 Euros shipped.
Not a bad deal at all.
Eufinil also offers fast shipping to the UK because they hold stock in the country, guaranteed delivery, and great customer services.
Many in the United Kingdom get their orders from Eufinil in less than 3 business days. That’s fast, fast!
Overall, they’re an ideal option for anyone looking to test Modafinil out.

Shipping Modafinil | United Kingdom Edition

If you’re worried about shipping Modafinil to the UK, you needn’t be!
Why?
Because all of the major online Modafinil retailers offer guaranteed delivery to the UK.
Every. Single. One.
This leads me to believe that customs and border security in the United Kingdom simply are not concerned with generic Modafinil and Provigil being shipped to the country from other parts of the world…mainly India.
Because these vendors guarantee their delivery to the UK. This means they’ll refund your full order if the package somehow gets taken by customs.
This wouldn’t be profitable if a lot of packages were being taken by the government and customs officials.
Furthermore, there’s little to no legal risk to you as an individual ordering Modafinil online in the UK.
As previously discussed, Modafinil is not on the Misuse of Drugs Act – as of the writing of this article. This means possession of Modafinil is not a crime in the United Kingdom.
Meaning you are not committing a crime buying Modafinil online in the UK and shipping it to your home. The worst case scenario is customs confiscates the smart drugs and you get a refund from the seller.
There has yet to be a documented case of someone having legal issues in the UK because they bought Modafinil for personal use from inside the country.
So shipping Modafinil to the UK shouldn’t be a concern whatsoever.
P.S: Just remember that I’m no lawyer.

Generic Modafinil and Armodafinil in the UK

You can buy Modafinil and Armodafinil from a pharmacy in the U.K. if you get a prescription from a doctor in the country – although that can be harder said than done.
Once you have that prescription, you just go to the pharmacy in the U.K. and pick up brand name Modafinil like:
You can find these brand name Modafinil products in U.K. pharmacies, although we’ve found Provigil to be far more common.
For Britains looking to order Modafinil online, popular generic Modafinil and Armodafinil products are:
Each one of these products do a damn good job and offer solid cognitive benefits. However, after testing all of these products, I do have a few recommendations for my British readers and those living in the country.
Modalert is probably the strongest generic Modafinil product you’ll find in the U.K. I couldn’t recommend it enough.
Modvigil, on the other hand, is a cheap alternative for individuals looking for generic Modafinil.
Searching for Modafinil’s little cousin Armodafinil in the UK? Then I certainly prefer Waklert. That being said, Artvigil is a cheaper form of generic Armodafinil.
Overall, I tend to use Modalert and Waklert.
I’ve simply found these products to be superior to all other forms of generic Modafinil and recommend them to anyone looking to buy Modafinil online in the United Kingdom.

Adrafinil in the UK, Prescription-Free Alternative

I’m of the opinion that ordering Modafinil in the United Kingdom from an online vendor shouldn’t be an issue.
However, I know a few of you may have concerns.
If that’s you, there’s also viable Modafinil alternatives to consider. These nootropics are 100% legal and offer decent cognitive benefits.
One of my personal favorites? Enter Adrafinil.
Adrafinil is a 100% legal nootropic that’s available over-the-counter.
It works like Modafinil because the body essentially converts Adrafinil to the active ingredients in Modafinil upon ingestion (Source).
As such, it takes a little longer for Adrafinil to kick in when compared to Modafinil. Plus, this stuff isn’t as strong as Modafinil.
But it works! You’ll find cognitive benefits from Adrafinil.
If you’re looking to get your hands on over-the-counter smart drugs, like Adrafinil, this is my favorite vendor.

Other Nootropics

For those curious about other nootropic options and potential Modafinil alternatives, below you’ll find a few more suggestions.
But please understand…
Modafinil is the ‘King’ with regards to smart drugs.
Armodafinil in the UK would then be the ‘Queen’ here, followed by Adrafinil as the ‘Prince’ – if we’re taking that little analogy to its logical conclusion.
Still, there’s a few other nootropics I love for UK residents. Here’s a few of my favorites:

The Verdict? | UK Edition

That about wraps it up, mate.
Everything you need to know about how to buy Modafinil in the UK. The details you need to get the good stuff. To get your hands on the world’s most popular smart drugs — at great prices.
We talk about if Modafinil is legal in the United Kingdom, where you can buy it online, and so much more.
If you have any questions about buying Modafinil in the UK, feel free to sound off in the comments below.
I’ll get back to you with a detailed answer.
submitted by MundaneManagement to ModafinilEurope [link] [comments]

J.P. Morgan Early Look at the Market – Mon 10.16.17 - **PLEASE DO NOT FORWARD THIS DOCUMENT**

J.P. Morgan Early Look at the Market – Mon 10.16.17

SEC DISCLAMIER: PLEASE DO NOT FORWARD THIS DOCUMENT

Morning Levels

Trading Update

Top Headlines for Monday

Catalysts – big events to watch over the coming months

Full catalyst list

  • Wed Oct 18 – Fed speakers: Dudley, Kaplan.
  • Wed Oct 18 – US housing starts for Sept. 8:30amET.
  • Wed Oct 18 – US building permits for Sept. 8:30amET.
  • Wed Oct 18 – US Beige Book. 2pmET.
  • Wed Oct 18 – earnings before the open: ABT, Akzo Nobel, ASML, MTB, MTG, NTRS, Reckitt Benckiser, SVU, USB
  • Wed Oct 18 – earnings after the close: AA, AXP, BDN, BHE, BXS, CCI, CCK, EBAY, GHL, HXL, KALU, LLNW, SLG, SLM, STLD, TCBI, URI.
  • Thurs Oct 19 – China Q3 GDP and Sept retail sales, IP, and FAI (Wed night/Thurs morning)
  • Thurs Oct 19 – US Leading Index for Sept. 10amET.
  • Thurs Oct 19 – earnings before the open: ADS, BBT, BK, BX, DGX, DHR, DOV, GPC, KEY, Nestle, NUE, Pernod Ricard, Philips Lighting, PM, PPG, Publicis, RCI, Roche, SAP, SNA, SON, Thales, TRV, TSMC, TXT, Unilever, VZ, WBC, WGO.
  • Thurs Oct 19 – earnings after the close: ASB, ATHN, ETFC, ISRG, LHO, MXIM, NCR, PBCT, PFPT, PYPL, WDFC, WERN.
  • Fri Oct 20 – BOJ’s Kuroda speaks. 2:30amET.
  • Fri Oct 20 – US existing home sales for Sept. 10amET.
  • Fri Oct 20 – Yellen speaks to National Economists Club in Washington. 7:15pmET.
  • Fri Oct 20 – earnings before the open: Assa Abloy, BHGE, CFG, CLF, Daimler, DST, GE, GNTX, HON, InterContinental Hotels, KSU, MAN, PG, SLB, STI, SYF, TomTom, Volvo.
  • Mon Oct 23 – China Sept property prices (Sun night/Mon morning).
  • Mon Oct 23 – US Chicago Fed Activity Index for Sept. 8:30amET.
  • Mon Oct 23 – earnings before the open: HAL, HAS, ITW, KMB, LII, Philips, STT, STX, VFC
  • Mon Oct 23 – earnings after the close: ARNC, CR, JBT, OI, ZION.
  • Tues Oct 24 – Eurozone flash PMIs for Oct. 4amET.
  • Tues Oct 24 – ECB bank lending survey. 4amET.
  • Tues Oct 24 – US flash PMIs for Oct. 9:45amET.
  • Tues Oct 24 – earnings before the open: AMTD, Anglo American, BASF, BIIB, CAT, CLB, CNC, CVLT, ETR, Fiat Chrysler, FITB, GLW, GM, INFY, IPG, LLY, LMT, MAS, MCD, MMM, Novartis, PCAR, PHM, PNR, R, RF, SAH, SHW, SWK, UTX, WAT, WDR.
  • Tues Oct 24 – earnings after the close: AKAM, AMP, AXS, Canadian National Railway, CMG, COF, CYBE, DFS, ESRX, HLI, IRBT, IRM, MANH, NUVA, RGC, T, TSS, TXN.
  • Wed Oct 25 – US durable goods for Sept. 8:30amET.
  • Wed Oct 25 – US FHFA home price index for Aug. 9amET.
  • Wed Oct 25 – US new home sales for Sept. 10amET.
  • Wed Oct 25 – Bank of Canada rate decision. 10amET.
  • Wed Oct 25 – Brazilian rate decision (after the close).
  • Wed Oct 25 – earnings before the open: ALK, ALLY, ANTM, Antofagasta, AOS, APH, BA, BAX, BTU, Capgemini, Dassault Systemes, DPS, FCX, FLIR, Fresnillo, HBAN, Heineken, IP, IR, KO, LEA, LH, Lloyds Banking Group, NDAQ, NSC, NYCB, OC, Peugeot, SIRI, SLAB, TMO, TUP, V, WBA, WEC, WYN.
  • Wed Oct 25 – earnings after the close: ABX, ACGL, AFL, AMGN, CA, CLGX, DLR, FFIV, FNF, FTI, KIM, LSTR, MC, MLNX, NOW, NXPI, ORLY, PKG, PLXS, RJF, SSNC, TSCO, TYL, UNM, VAR, WCN, XLNX.
  • Thurs Oct 26 – Riksbank decision. 3:30amET.
  • Thurs Oct 26 – ECB rate decision. 7:45amET press release, 8:30amET press conf.
  • Thurs Oct 26 – US wholesale inventories for Sept. 8:30amET.
  • Thurs Oct 26 – US advance goods trade balance for Sept. 8:30amET.
  • Thurs Oct 26 – US pending home sales for Sept. 10amET.
  • Thurs Oct 26 – earnings before the open: ABB, ABX, Aixtron, ALLE, ALV, Anheuser Busch, APD, Bayer, BEN, BMS, BMY, BSX, BWA, CCMP, CELG, CHTR, CMCSA, CME, COP, Deutsche Bank, ENTG, EQT, EXLS, F, GNC, HLT, HSY, LUV, MMC, MKC, NEM, Nokia, OAK, ODFL, PX, Santander, Schneider Electric, SPGI, STM, TWTR, UNP, UPS, VC, VNTV, WM, XEL, XRX.
  • Thurs Oct 26 – earnings after the close: AIV, ATEN, CB, CDNS, CENX, CLS, EXPE, FLEX, FTNT, FTV, GILD, GOOG, HIG, INTC, LPLA, MAT, MSFT, NATI, PFG, PRO, SGEN, SIVB, SYK, VDSI, VRSN.
  • Fri Oct 27 – China Sept industrial profits (Thurs night/Fri morning).
  • Fri Oct 27 – US Q3 GDP, personal consumption, and core PCE for Q3. 8:30amET.
  • Fri Oct 27 – US Michigan Confidence numbers for Oct. 10amET.
  • Fri Oct 27 – earnings before the open: B, MRK, PSX, SC, TRU, Volkswagen, WY, XOM.
  • Mon Oct 30 – US personal income/spending and PCE for Sept. 8:30amET.
  • Mon Oct 30 – US Dallas Fed index for Oct. 10:30amET.
  • Mon Oct 30 – analyst meetings: CSX
  • Mon Oct 30 – earnings before the open: HSBC
  • Mon Oct 30 – earnings after the close: AVB, CGNX, RE, RTEC, VNO
  • Tues Oct 31 – BOJ rate decision (Mon night/Tues morning).
  • Tues Oct 31 – US Employment Cost Index for Q3. 8:30amET.
  • Tues Oct 31 – US Case-Shiller home price index for Aug. 9amET.
  • Tues Oct 31 – US Chicago PMI for Oct. 9:45amET.
  • Tues Oct 31 – US Conference Board Sentiment readings for Oct. 10amET.
  • Tues Oct 31 – earnings before the open: ADM, AET, Airbus, AMT, Barclays, BNP, CMI, ECL, FIS, GGP, K, MA, OSK, PFE, XYL.
  • Tues Oct 31 – earnings after the close: APC, CHRW, CXO, PLT, WFT, X
  • Wed Nov 1 – US ADP jobs report for Oct. 8:15amET.
  • Wed Nov 1 – US Markit Manufacturing PMI for Oct. 9:45amET.
  • Wed Nov 1 – US Manufacturing ISM for Oct. 10amET.
  • Wed Nov 1 – US construction spending report for Sept. 10amET.
  • Wed Nov 1 – US auto sales for Oct.
  • Wed Nov 1 – FOMC meeting decision. 2pmET.
  • Wed Nov 1 – earnings before the open: AGN, APO, CEVA, CLX, EL, GRMN, HFC, LFUS, Novo Nordisk, ORBK, Standard Chartered, TAP, TRI.
  • Wed Nov 1 – earnings after the close: ALL, BHF, BXP, CACI, CAVM, CSGS, EGOV, FB, LNC, MANT, MET, MUSA, OXY, PRU, QCOM, ULTI, XPO.
  • Thurs Nov 2 – BOE rate decision. 8amET.
  • Thurs Nov 2 – US nonfarm productivity and unit labor costs for Q3. 8:30amET.
  • Thurs Nov 2 – earnings before the open: ADP, AN, BCE, CI, Credit Suisse, DISCA, H, ICE, LDOS, Royal Dutch Shell, Sanofi, Swiss Re, WRK.
  • Thurs Nov 2 – earnings after the close: AAPL, AIG, ATVI, CBS, CRUS, FLR, HLF, JCOM, RMAX, SBUX, UNIT.
  • Fri Nov 3 – US jobs report for Oct. 8:30amET.
  • Fri Nov 3 – US trade balance for Sept. 8:30amET.
  • Fri Nov 3 – US factory orders and durable goods orders for Sept. 10amET.
  • Fri Nov 3 – US non-manufacturing ISM for Oct. 10amET.
  • Mon Nov 6 – Fed’s Dudley speaks at The Economist Club of New York.
  • Tues Nov 7 – RBA rate decision. Mon night/Tues morning.
  • Tues Nov 7 – US JOLTs jobs report for Sept. 10amET.
  • Tues Nov 7 – US consumer credit for Sept. 3pmET.
  • Thurs Nov 9 – US wholesale trade sales/inventories for Sept. 10amET.
  • Fri Nov 10 – US Michigan Confidence preliminary numbers for Nov. 10amET.
  • Tues Nov 14 – US PPI for Oct. 8:30amET.
  • Wed Nov 15 – US CPI for Oct. 8:30amET.
  • Wed Nov 15 – US Empire Manufacturing for Nov. 8:30amET.
  • Wed Nov 15 – US retail sales for Oct. 8:30amET.
  • Wed Nov 15 – US business inventories for Sept. 10amET.
  • Thurs Nov 16 – US import prices for Oct. 8:30amET.
  • Thurs Nov 16 – US industrial production for Oct. 9:15amET.
  • Thurs Nov 16 – US NAHB housing index for Nov. 10amET.
  • Fri Nov 17 – US housing starts and building permits for Oct. 8:30amET.
  • Mon Nov 20 – US Leading Index for Oct. 10amET.
  • Tues Nov 21 – US existing home sales for Oct. 10amET.
  • Wed Nov 22 – US durable goods for Oct. 8:30amET.
  • Wed Nov 22 – US final Michigan Confidence numbers for Nov. 10amET.
  • Wed Nov 22 – FOMC 11/1 meeting minutes. 2pmET.
  • Fri Nov 24 – US flash PMIs for Nov. 9:45amET.
J.P. Morgan Market Intelligence is a product of the Institutional Equities Sales and Trading desk of J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and the intellectual property thereof. It is not a product of the Research Department and is intended for distribution to institutional and professional customers only and is not intended for retail customer use. It may not be reproduced, redistributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, without J.P. Morgan’s consent. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.
submitted by SIThereAndThere to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

COSHH Safety Training Video UK- Control of Substances ... UK health and safety legal framework - YouTube Legislation Update Service Health and Safety Legal Update ... Magic Money: The Bitcoin Revolution  Full Documentary ... Bitcoin Trading for Beginners (A Guide in Plain English ...

Tighter EU laws governing cryptocurrency will lead to wider Bitcoin adoption, claims the CEO of established UK crypto exchange Coinfloor. This month, the European Union implemented a new law ... According to the document, the reason for the move is to prevent double taxation of cryptocurrency. Under previous legislation, crypto was taxed with a sales tax or income tax and then taxed again under goods and services. ... Jon Jaehnig is an American freelance writer specializing in Technology and Health. Jon has degrees in Scientific and ... Crypto regulation in the UK is rather fragmented but most Britons can buy or sell the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum with ease. Cryptocurrency regulation in the UK is a bit of a muddy picture – and, sadly for Bitcoin advocates, it isn’t always an optimistic one either.. In a word, British crypto regulation is rather fragmented. The UK’s financial regulator will unveil its guidelines on cryptocurrency policy later this year, which could have global repercussions for how virtual currencies like bitcoin are regulated. As of 2019, 32 states have introduced legislation accepting or promoting the use of Bitcoin and blockchain distributed ledger technology (DLT), while a few have already passed them into law.

[index] [55621] [53871] [1516] [41005] [7889] [2323] [2795] [63593] [560] [32724]

COSHH Safety Training Video UK- Control of Substances ...

This is a short overview of some of the main points to think about when considering how you comply with UK health and safety law. This 1 hour webinar will provide an update on the key changes to health and safety legislation over the past 12 months and will include any relevant legislat... This video is about the UK legal framework for health and safety. This video is about the UK legal framework for health and safety. Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X Bitcoin trading is the act of buying low and selling high. Unlike investing, which means... Exploring the revolutionary Bitcoin digital currency. It doesn't need banks or to be printed. It can be transferred in a second to anywhere in the world. Wit...

https://forex-thai.automining.pw