We can begin with the cover. In order to grab the attention of the readership, Rolling Stone featured a cover of a semi-scantily clad Gwen Stefani being (literally) supported by her back-up band and the frightening, intriguing headline "The New (Legal) Killer Drug." (To be fair, there are small-print mentions of various bands and awards, but it is clear what the real draws are – sex and drugs, rock 'n' roll having taken the back seat.)

The headline is inaccurate in multiple ways. First, 2C-T-7, while comparatively "new" was synthesized in 1986, and there were no fatalities associated with it for the first fourteen years after its synthesis. Viagra has been associated with dozens of fatalities over the course of the past five years – but I don't see Rolling Stone rushing to do a hysterical article on this Doctor approved scourge of old men. Maybe it's because Viagra is supported by wealthy pharmaceutical companies for the sake of old people fucking, whereas 2C-T-7 is a product of the "underground" that people take in order to set off hydrogen bombs in their own heads . . . nah.

Second, as Mark Boal himself says on p. 5, ". . . the fact remains that thousands of people have used this drug without dying. Josh's story is really sad, but it doesn't indict the chemical – the most we can say is that we don't know enough about this drug's side effects." This sense of objectivity and restraint would have been better placed on the cover than in the Letter from the Editor, which most readers will likely ignore.

While this statement (and a few others scattered throughout the article) are intended to excuse him from the clearly sensationalistic coverage of a death which in all likelihood involved a synergistic reaction between multiple stimulant drugs, it does not alter the fact that in the minds of most readers the proposition that "2C-T-7 = Death" has already been firmly established. Mr. Boal would likely protest that these comments are unfair, but if he was not intending to mislead his audience, why did he title his article in such a flamboyantly provocative, blatantly inaccurate and aesthetically unappealing manner?

"It took this much of this drug to kill this boy. And it was perfectly legal," takes a rather definite position as to the role of 2C-T-7 in Joshua Robbins' death. In reality, the article should have been titled "It took this much of this drug, this much of this drug, and this much of this drug to kill this boy. And one was perfectly legal, one was quasi-legal, and one was extremely illegal." As Mr. Boal himself notes in the first paragraph of his article (p. 45), the coroner's verdict for Joshua Robbins was "Took too many drugs in too short a period of time." On p. 48 we learn that "in a clinical sense" the effects of "2C-T-7, which, combined with the lingering aftereffects of other drugs in his system, put more pressure on his heart than it could bear" caused Joshua's death. ("Clinical sense" and "journalistic integrity" apparently being very far removed.) Unfortunately for the facts, they just don't make good copy. (I should also note in passing that the photo of the pile of powder is not to scale – that looks like almost a gram of cocaine; any perceptive reader would note the vastly oversized gel cap on the right, but why vastly magnify the scale of the photo at all?)

Also on p. 48, we learn that Joshua had consumed nitrous oxide, ephedrine, and MDMA prior to his insufflation of 2C-T-7. The nitrous oxide is unlikely to have had any direct effect on Joshua's death – the combination of multiple stimulant drugs over the course of a twelve-hour period is of more concern. There are numerous anecdotal reports that indicate that taking 2C-T-7 in conjunction with MDMA (prior, during, or subsequent to one's "roll") vastly multiplies the effects of both substances. (Incidentally, this also neatly resolves the case of "Anonymous" in Seattle, who died after consuming an unknown dose of 2C-T-7 orally in conjunction with 200 milligrams of MDMA.) Ephedrine, an herbal stimulant, causes all the usual symptoms of stimulant drugs – increased heart rate, blood pressure, etc. By itself, the 25 milligrams of ephedrine that Joshua consumed that night would have been unlikely to cause a life-threatening reaction. In combination with two psychedelic amphetamines his central nervous system was overly stimulated, the same as if he'd snorted too much coke or drank too much caffeine. Tragic, yes. But not the basis to be writing articles about "killer drugs."

A further problem with the title of the article is that, contrary to Mr. Boal's claim, 2C-T-7 and the other chemicals on the "designer drug underground" are not "perfectly legal" (which, curiously, Mr. Boal observes on p. 48). If their use is intended to produce effects resembling those of an illegal drug, they are illegal under the provisions of the analog act. The elaborate legal charade which companies selling these chemicals engage in includes the promise of the buyer not to ingest these chemicals – while possession of these drugs may or may not be legal (proof of intent would come into play), their use as psychoactive chemicals is very much illegal, and if a police officer had been present on the night in question, and had been in the mood to prosecute, Joshua Robbins would have gone to jail.