Do NOT inject

[Runner]

Those of you who have a followed the many injection related threads would
know that my stance has always been of that injecting street drugs is a BAD idea. The primary reason being HARM REDUCTION as this is the purpose of this site. Unfortunatelly, many have failed to see that the best advice in fact IS not to inject AT ALL and concentrated on giving the many advices. I will not repeat the large posts I have made in the past outling the dangers associated with injection of street drugs but I will relay this post by someone who is very well respected in many a circle.

Do NOT inject anything which you have not made, purified and analyzed yourself (or otherwise know for sure that the identity of the drug is unquestionable, and that no byproducts, cutting agents or other foreign substances are present). The reason why you find little information about injection at this site is because this is a harm reduction website, and therefore we do not advertize the use of any drug in an unsafe way, and that includes injection of any drug which can just as well be taken orally, insufflated, or in those cases when you are in a real hurry - vaporization/smoking.

Rhodium
Chief Bee

 

[SteveElektro]

Whether or not it's a bad idea, people will do it.
Harm reduction must be pragmatic if it wishes to succeed.

 

[Flexistentialist]

Everyone knows injecting is the riskiest route of administration. However in the real world, people do make the decision to inject street drugs.

Seeing as Bluelight is about harm reduction, it makes sense that we inform people of the range of ways they can minimise potential harms when injecting.

People will inject whether you like it or not, and I can't see that changing anytime soon. Bluelight is an important resource for injectors to ask questions they otherwise wouldn't have answered. Just bluntly telling people not to inject seems a little silly for a harm reduction website.

 

[BigTrancer]

We could probably achieve Harm Minimisation by telling people 'Do NOT do drugs'... but the best we can really aim for is Harm Reduction, by asking people to think about what they're doing, be informed of the risks and take several important but easy steps to reduce them.

BigTrancer

 

[Flexistentialist]

Going by our government's definition, there are three pillars of harm minimisation: demand reduction (eg school based "drug prevention"), supply reduction (eg police, customs) and harm reduction (eg Bluelight).

Preventing people taking up an activity isn't harm reduction.

Harm reduction attempts to reduce potential harms for people who are currently choosing to use. Of course injecting's not safe, but people still do it. Because it's a harm reduction website, people provide advice on reducing injecting related harms. I don't see how it's counter harm reduction.

 

[shrredda]

Well.. Runner......you have big Kahuna's my friend

To come here and say what you do is a good thing fer BL.....I agree with you completely. Shooting up is the dumbest thing you can do as a drug user.

I think its the most irresponsible thing that you can do to yourself...'as' a drug user. I know that there is a risk involved with any drug, but the method of administration does have a great deal to do with how safe your altered state of reality will be.

Personally i am pretty 'anti-opiates'...I think most of us have enough trouble dealing with the problems we face.....with all the 'other' substances available to us. IMHO

Hey...I reckon it would be good if not only people like Runner have their say and are read, but that 'anti-drug' individuals would say their piece in here more often..... Harm Reduction essentially, like other sensitive issues, relies on the providers of the said Harm Reduction having the ability to be objective.

I think it would be great if young people coming in to BL, could see the pro's and con's of drug taking, from 'all' standpoints. However extreme they would be........without flaming.....

Bit idealistic perhaps....but somewhere close would be fucking good hey...?


Compliments to the 3 posters before me for deliberately 'not ' being the type of Bl'ers that flame threads such as this.

Bl should not become a place that is, 'predominantly' a boysclub , essentially catering for users that want to sprout druggisms and urban myth about how much and how often they got fucked up last week, and swapping recipes on the best way to do that....

Thats not Harm Reduction.

At least you persist Runner. I am the first to admit that I often do not agree with the status quo here. I have played the devils advocate a few times in Bl forums. I never did it just to be precious. I just thought that some threads needed to have the 'other' point of view represented. It was always my point of view though,

I pulled the pin real quick mate..!! I couldnt hack the flaming..!! ..... call me soft but I got to taking it too seriously and the flamers werent...hee hee


Anyway...keep it up Runner....ya got my vote %)

 

[Pleonastic]

Quick poll:

a) Is anyone who currently injects planning on stopping based on the information in this thread?

b) Is anyone who is seriously thinking of injecting going to be stopped by someone telling them "just don't"?

People have to be responsible for their own actions. Personally I'd never inject, but who am I to tell someone not to. I can't argue that what's been said in here isn't good advice because I tend to agree with the sentiment, but it should be worded to actually sound like advice, rather than an order - otherwise it will fall on deaf ears. Some people (possibly mormons ) will say "don't drink alcohol". Some other people will say "don't do drugs, but alcohol is fine". And then others will say "you can do drugs, but don't inject them". All three are dead convinced of their view point, but who's really right?

Preaching what people should and shouldn't do doesn't usually help much. The best aproach is to just try and give people as much information as possible, and let them make up their own minds. I think that if people are willing to wear the consequences of their actions, then I have no right to judge them on those actions. Each to their own.

 

[Runner]

BT: if someone tells you that they are about to throw themselves off a building, will you tell them to wear some padded gear so they have at least *some* chance of surviving and call this Harm Minimisation because if you told them why its not idea they'd probably do it anyways?

Pleonastic: based on information in this thread up to now, perhaps no one will think twice about injecting. This thread was more for the people who are already familiar with the arguement at hand. For those that are not, here a few links of my past posts with some REAL Harm Minimisation tips:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=591809#post591809

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=591826#post591826

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=591831#post591831

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=1110044#post1110044

 

[Pleonastic]

I do agree with your motivations, but my problem is with telling people what not to do, and calling them morons if they don't listen. Call someone a moron, and they're just going to say "well fuck you then" and everything else you have to say to them (despite it being good advice) will not be heard. They're just going to focus on the insult and turn defensive.

 

[Runner]

To tell the truth, my main aspiration is to convince those that have not yet tried injecting street drugs but are contemplating it. I do not see many users that have already tried it to listen to me, because this is only human nature. If we were talking about something that had equally good arguements on both sides, I would never throw insults, or even cut down good points from the other side of the arguement. It is however my opinion that this arguement is quite different - there is no arguement coming from the other side other than "people will do it anyways, so lets just provide some helpful tips". The arguements that I bring up in relation to the harm that is caused by the injection of street drugs should be so compelling that in my opinion only someone with half a brain OR someone that is desperatelly trying to justify themselves would argue against it. To those people all I can say is, yes, I hope you DO follow all the so called harm minimisation tips when you inject, just like to the PMA pill users out there, I say make sure you stay in the ~30mg dose range which I think is considered safe.

 

[BigTrancer]

Calling someone a half-brain or a junkie just because they argue in favour of disseminating information about safe injecting practices is ludicrous. What is the possible motivation for this thread, given that you've covered this issue before (in your own linked threads) with more cogent arguments? Do you propose that all threads with information about safe injecting practices be off-limits to people who haven't injected drugs before?

I posted a rhetorical question in one of your linked threads:

BigTrancer posted: 17-07-2003

I suppose the issue we're headed towards now is something along the lines of "Does a social stigma against IV drug reduce harm?"

The answer is clearly 'no', and making IV discussion taboo, as you seem to intend, will neither deter people from taking up IV use, nor will it encourage existing IV users to make positive changes in their behaviours. If people want to inject then they should be able to access copious and detailed information on how to do so safely! IMHO, there is a big line for someone to cross, between thinking IV drug use could be fun, and actually getting a needle and drugs and stabbing themselves with it.

This is not one of the most rabidly pro-IV drug use forums on BL... please remember the distinction between encouraging IV use and encouraging safe IV practices. I seriously question your contention that the presence of some bona-fide harm reduction information about IV drug use which is presented in a fairly responsible manner has any relation to encouraging IV-naive drug users to take up the needle.

BigTrancer

 

[Runner]

^^^^^

Well, I guess it all comes down to where the line lies that separate those things that are discouraged altogether and those things are considered acceptable providing care is taken. Others lines lie further then mine for a still unknown reason.

The original purpose of this thread? To reinforce the anti-injection arguement by a neat summary posted by a very respected person and encourage a debate which will generate interest so more facts can come out and more minds can be changed.

If people want to inject then they should be able to access copious and detailed information on how to do so safely!

To reiterate my point of view, there is NO safe way to inject street drugs. ie. just like there is no safe way to "train surf" to get a rush. You might get away with it once and maybe a million times because you took whatever care, but it still remains *a bad idea* that should be discouraged.

Providing information such as "use a filter when injecting" is the same as saying use a ladder to get on top of the train and not the window to climb out of if one decides to go train surfing. You are still gonna either fall off or hit something when on top because there is too many *UNKNOWNS*.

The point is, unless you have synthesised your drug, or know who did it, and they did it good, the last thing you might ever feel is the needle in your vein.

To remind, particularly in Perth, the recently abundant Asian imported (i've always just assumed this ?) meth is gone it seems! All what's left is the stinky gluggy variety of various colours. I've just recently tested what looked like a little, familiar smelling, yellow rock with mandaline to produce a very dirty browny/bluey cloud which did not even closely resemble the aqua that meth gives with mandeline. What could be in it?

* A small amount of meth.HCl possibly - around 20%
* The rest 80% could have been
1. Unwashed solvents such as acetone/toluene/metho (poisonous)
2. Hypophosphorus acid (very corrosive)
3. Hydroiodic acid (will eat through metal)
3. Iodine (corrosive and water insoluable)
4. Iodo-ephedrine (consider it a little bonus since it is mildly psyco-active)
5. P2P (poisonous)
6. Aziridines (poinsonous)
7. HI salts of methamphetamine instead of HCl
8. A miriad of other unknown, potentialy poisonous by products of a
poor or a totally incorrect synth in various amounts.
9. Whatever agent they used to cut the rest of the gear (your guess is as good as mine but hope for the best that it's epsom salts, glucose or MSM).

 

[SteveElektro]

there is no arguement coming from the other side other than "people will do it anyways, so lets just provide some helpful tips". The arguements that I bring up in relation to the harm that is caused by the injection of street drugs should be so compelling that in my opinion only someone with half a brain OR someone that is desperatelly trying to justify themselves would argue against it.

Ok here's one. I know it's risky, I know it could lead to sickness or death, but they are risks I am prepared to take to live the sort of life I choose to enjoy.
Much like the boxer who risks health for his career, or the occasional binge drinker who gives his liver and brain an assault every weekend, IV users make a choice with their life that can be detrimental to their health. It is however their choice, and should be respected.
That's where harm reduction comes in. The choice to participate in these activities should only be made when one is informed of the risks involved. Telling someone not to do it is making an attempt to interfere with their liberty, whereas informing them of the risks involved is allowing them to make their choice wisely.

"IV'ing street drugs is dangerous due to unknown contaminants, therefore you'd have to be stupid to do it"
This is an example of bad advice as far as I'm concerned, as it makes a moral judgement on those who choose to take the risk, despite the fact it is their body and their life.
A better way of saying it would be:
"IV'ing street drugs is dangerous due to unknown contaminants, therefore you should not do it unless you are prepared to suffer the consequences that may arise"
This statement makes no such moral judgement, yet still delivers the point perfectly.
This is the way to reduce harm, by information not judgement or demand.

 

[Runner]

Judgement this, judgement that...blah blah...personally I slag on political correctness and wipe my dick on it. Wheather I chose to use a slightly offensive approach or not, the point still stands clear as day. Perhaps I took the approach I did for a reason.

Now to the boxer analogy. Boxing is a controlled sport with rules where harm is minimised. It stands well below the line I spoke about in my previous post of what should be discouraged altogether and what should be accepted providing care is taken. On the other hand, some time in the early 90s a sport called Ultimate Fighting Championships came out in US and was legal only in one state in USA. The first 4 competitions had only two rules - no biting and no eye gouging. Everything else goes including no time limits and fight till a tap out. The events, 3 of which the legendary Royce Gracie won, saw injuries such as broken bones, concusions, contusions, brain damage and disfigurements. It was soon realised that the competition can not go on because it falls way above the line. The competition was completelly modified into a controlled timed competition with judges, time limits, golves and strict rules against things like elbows to back of the head, kicking while opponent is on the ground etc.

Competitors weren't simply told tips on how to survive better in the ring, but the actual form of competition was changed because the form of the original competition was fundumentally flawed in that the risks involved were above the line above which behaviour should be discouraged.

I hope this explains a few things.

"IV'ing street drugs is dangerous due to unknown contaminants, therefore you'd have to be stupid to do it"
This is an example of bad advice as far as I'm concerned, as it makes a moral judgement on those who choose to take the risk, despite the fact it is their body and their life.

To me its a perfectly good advice providing the facts are stated as I have done previously. I don't see where a moral judgement is made here. A judgement about the intelligence of the person is made, that's for sure though. Just like "Picking up a bag full of powder from the floor and just eating it is dangerous due to not knowing what it is, therefore you'd be stupid to do it." How about that statement? Still don't like it?

 

[SteveElektro]

Judgement this, judgement that...blah blah...personally I slag on political correctness and wipe my dick on it.

Yeah, and I'd tell anyone who told me to stop to shut up and mind their own fucking business. Gets nowhere.

Now to the boxer analogy. Boxing is a controlled sport with rules where harm is minimised. It stands well below the line I spoke about in my previous post of what should be discouraged altogether and what should be accepted providing care is taken.

That's complete bullshit and you know know it. About as good an argument as the "alchohol is not bad vbecause it's legal" standpoint.
Ever heard of the term "punch drunk"?
A boxer died recently from a punch. How about F1? Remember Senna?
The point is that it's their choice and the fact that it's dangerous may not be of enough consequence to discourage the act.

To me its a perfectly good advice providing the facts are stated as I have done previously. I don't see where a moral judgement is made here. A judgement about the intelligence of the person is made, that's for sure though. Just like "Picking up a bag full of powder from the floor and just eating it is dangerous due to not knowing what it is, therefore you'd be stupid to do it." How about that statement? Still don't like it?

Well you can say it that way if you want but don't be surprised when people don't listen to you. I have nothing against people making judgements really, I just tend to respond with something along the lines of "shut the fuck up" when they do.

 

[Runner]

That's complete bullshit and you know know it. About as good an argument as the "alchohol is not bad vbecause it's legal" standpoint.

No its not bullshit, just because someone died from a punch in boxing does not make boxing stupid. Because someone died from overheating on MDMA, does not make taking MDMA generally stupid. It just makes the sad events unfortunate the risks of which are quite minimal.

I don't see how the legality of alcohol bears any relation to the topic in question. No, drinking alcohol is not stupid. No, getting totally smashed is not stupid although it bears certain risks. Playing a game of who chickens out first and trying to beat each other while sculling shooters is plain stupid as the result will most likelly be hospitalisation and worst case scenario - death.

Well you can say it that way if you want but don't be surprised when people don't listen to you. I have nothing against people making judgements really, I just tend to respond with something along the lines of "shut the fuck up" when they do.

Well, then I guess my target audience are not people like yourself, but people that are prepared to re-evaluate their beliefs and perhaps sometimes accept that they might have been stupid in their way of thinking.
It is my belief the majority of people are quite capable of admitting the stupidity of a past belief or action.

 

[BloSs0m]

ever since we were in pre school the same lines ahve been repeated "dont do drugs" has is stopped people?! no it makes them more interested.

If people want to shoot up, then they will know about the risks and the complications that can arise and if they want more information on it, they should be able to have a place where they CAN ask the questions that they need to know...

you're not going to save peoples lives and braincells on a message board, but u CAN provide information to make theire choices safer... because no matter how much u say "IVing is bad,dont do it" people still are going to do it, and they will do it for years and generations to come... id prefer if i ever decided to inject <which i wont but thats beside the point> to know of somewhere where i can have the facts told to me straight up.

 

[SteveElektro]

No its not bullshit, just because someone died from a punch in boxing does not make boxing stupid. Because someone died from overheating on MDMA, does not make taking MDMA generally stupid. It just makes the sad events unfortunate the risks of which are quite minimal.

I don't see how the legality of alcohol bears any relation to the topic in question. No, drinking alcohol is not stupid. No, getting totally smashed is not stupid although it bears certain risks. Playing a game of who chickens out first and trying to beat each other while sculling shooters is plain stupid as the result will most likelly be hospitalisation and worst case scenario - death.

But like I said, death is possible in many activities. Your argument seems to rests on how likely death is when participating in a given activity. If we look at how many people shoot street drugs, and how many of them die due to contaminants, the risk is not as great as you seem to be making out.

Well, then I guess my target audience are not people like yourself, but people that are prepared to re-evaluate their beliefs and perhaps sometimes accept that they might have been stupid in their way of thinking.
It is my belief the majority of people are quite capable of admitting the stupidity of a past belief or action.

If one knows the risk and is prepared to suffer the consequences, then how is anything stupid? Because you personally don't think it's a good idea?
The only stupid way to approach a situation is to not know the risks or not be prepared to suffer the consequences, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Runner]

BloSs0m: just an allusion from the paracetamol thread for you...

Your best mate decides to experiment with OTC drugs and to find out if 5 grams of paracetamol will have any psyco-active effect if taken orally in one go. Being educated you know that the limit is something like 4 grams in a space of 24 ours, with doses taken every 4 hours and that overdoses have led to deaths in the past. You know that although you friend might survive this, chances are he/she will die. Will you

a. tell him/her to do it if he/she wants to but explain the facts and look up what to do in a case of an overdose

b. tell this person he/she is a fucking moron and explain why he/she is, and do your best to stop it from happening


If you choose (a), you are an irresposible person with little understanding of the consequences of your friend's actions to say the least.

If you choose (b), you have possibly saved your friends life because being a smart person, you'd be hanging out with fairly smart individuals, who would certainly listen to your advice which is as ONE RIGHT SIDED as one could get.

P.S. This post in no way discourages finding out information on how to handle overdoses of various drugs.

 

[Runner]

But like I said, death is possible in many activities. Your argument seems to rests on how likely death is when participating in a given activity. If we look at how many people shoot street drugs, and how many of them die due to contaminants, the risk is not as great as you seem to be making out.

No, my arguement rests on where you draw the line of things that should be discouraged altogether and things that should be accepted providing care is taken.

We don't have statistics on how many people die due to contaminants which is irrelevant as I've just stated since my arguement has nothing to do with who dies or who doesn't. That's not the point.

If one knows the risk and is prepared to suffer the consequences, then how is anything stupid?

Please tell me you don't really believe this? If I decided to crash my car into a brick wall at 100km/h without a seatbelt just see what happens and I knew about all the consequences, am also NOT stupid according to your way of thinking?

Have you seen Jackass? See, they are stupid, but its fucking funny because it makes good TV. They know they are fucking stupid, and they also know it makes great TV and that is why they do it.