• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Forensic Science Update: Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate (GHB)

If you don't die, you will be brain damaged in smart time- not because of any drug neurotoxicity but simply because you can't get oxygen to the brain.

having said that. Are you aknowledging that a) A person under general anaesthetic would exibit the symptoms concurrent with a GCS of 3? and b) That GHB has been shown to protect tissues from the damaging effects of hypoxia and ischemia (reviewed in Li et al. 1998). (quoted from my initial post.)

All drugs are dangerous.. its a moot point. Some are more dangerous than others for any number of reasons. GHB certainly has a much higher dose/response curve, and having a friend or patron passing out is certainly enough to put the wind up anyone. But facts are that if you wake up after having passed out on G you will be fine compared to most other drugs where braindamage is guarranteed. If you have information that conclusivly shows the required dosage of GHB to kill in most cases please provide.. because all i can find are either multi-drug deaths involving GHB, or a few examples of extreme stupidity. (I am reading a tox report at the moment where the concentration of 1,4-B in the 290lbs subjects Urine was 4260 mg/L and ethanol was 0.02!!!!)
 
Last edited:
I can see about 20 different disscusion points in this thread are we all going around in circles! ghostcorps you are trying to go into your points to deep imo, if you slow down for 5 seconds and look at this from a more basic pov because all your points are quite basic jacked up with fancy bs! All the people you are arguing with in this thread are well aware of what you are saying
 
ld50: i know we all agree on the basic point that GHB is very dangerous when a) mixed with otehr drugs, and B) taken without a certain level of intelligence.

no doubt.. no argument. in fact i hate teh drug personally.

perhaps im just a tad pedantic.. but all im trying to do is show that GHB is no more evil than MDMA.. ( i use MDMA because it has the largest fan base).. and if to do so i have to use clinical data and scietific numbers.. then so be it.. this is one of the few places i figued i could so so without having to dumb it down.. or conform to any concensus.
 
ghostcorps said:
ld50: i know we all agree on the basic point that GHB is very dangerous when a) mixed with otehr drugs, and B) taken without a certain level of intelligence.

no doubt.. no argument. in fact i hate teh drug personally.

perhaps im just a tad pedantic.. but all im trying to do is show that GHB is no more evil than MDMA.. ( i use MDMA because it has the largest fan base).. and if to do so i have to use clinical data and scietific numbers.. then so be it.. this is one of the few places i figued i could so so without having to dumb it down.. or conform to any concensus.
Click to expand...

Well i have nothing against the use of clinical and scientific research statistics, i use this data to my advantadge as everyone else should. I respect your choice on how you use your mdma but i would of thought most bl'ers would use mdma for alot of other reasons rather then using it because it has a large fan base.
 
lol.. when i said 'use' i meant use it to compare to GHB.. i dont like MD much either ;p
 
more than dabble :).. as long as it contains a tryptamine in there somewhere ill brush my teeth with it .. oh and K too
 
Of COURSE someone under an anaesthetic has a GCS of 3- doh!

What they also have is
- a $10,000 ventilation circuit, breathing for them,
- about another 10,000 dollars worth of cardiovascular monitoring, watching second-to-second changes in vital signs
- a circulation free of a wide range of other recreational substances which can throw off our ability to monitor those vital signs
- a cuffed endotracheal tube inserted past their larynx, ensuring that they have a patent airway
- one dedicated senior anaesthetist, who's full attention is on the patient and the patient alone
- an empty stomach, because they have been fasted before their anaesthetic, so that they don't vomit and aspirate their stomach contents and pull a Jimmy Hendrix on us
- a pretty important reason to have a general anaesthetic in the first place

Anyone else want to draw safety parallels between medically induced coma and recreational drug induced coma?
C'mon... having fun now!
=D
 
you didnt respond to the coment made in the forensic study... ie: that all that equiptment is unessecary as GHB has been shown to protect tissues from the damaging effects of hypoxia and ischemia (reviewed in Li et al. 1998). If you are going to contest that this is incorrect please give somethign other than ER experience...

look. i can see where this is going.. and im not going to sit here paraphrasing the article i posted initially.. if you want to try to disprove it, then go ahaead... dont direct your ego at me.
 
Last edited:
Again, what possible relevance does this have to the real world? If someone is presented to Emergency as being unconcious due to GHB is the doctor to assume that they are "protected" to anoxia, and just let them lie there barely breathing, or are they going to use all of that equipment the help them breath?

How many people present themselves with a note saying "I have only taken a known dosage of pharma grade GHB and nothing else"? They sure as hell can't tell you themselves as they are unconcious. Naturally a doctor is going to assume other drugs are involved and act accordingly.

Where exactly do your thought experiments get us?

And why exactly did you use the word ego, just then?
 
hmmm.. just a guess.. but maybe the study has relavance because its data set consists of admissions to ER, It is NOT a study of clinical administration of known doses.

As I said before.. time and time again.. in an ER situation.. the doctors/nurses are obliged to treat OD's as a worst case scenario.. But any of them will tell you, an admission to ER does not always equate to an NDE.


Its no use saying that GHB+other drugs is bad.. because that is not in question... My issue is with people trying to equate the damages caused by multi-drug abuse with GHB only.. as this is a misleading and all-too-common equation presented to the media by proffesionals (not looking at anyone in particular) and others ...

harm reduction is one thing.. and im all for it. But in a forum where people are educated enough to know the basics (I have assumed).. I dont see why going deeper and nutting out the facts from the misconceptions and bet-hedging is such a faux pas.
 
Last edited:
that's not a faux pas, but accusing someone of directing their ego rather than simply giving their qualified opinon is another thing entirely. again I ask you why you brought that up, and I also ask agin what are your qualifications?

as to the waking up brain damaged no doubt he will have an answer. i certainly know of a few cases where the person has not woken up at all, and yes from only having taken GHB. i don't know how much more damaged you can get than that.
 
Fuck im getting engrosed in this argumentive discussion :).

Ghostchorps are u aware of how much dr caldicott deals with the issues of ghb at the royal adelaide, and how much time he puts into the matter....?

Show some respect, a medical opinion is allways a good one after all he doesnt deal with real to life cases for nothing.
 
johnboy: notice i edited my post for clarity.

ld50: I appologise if i sounded disrespectful. I was simply indicating that rather than be amused by my comments that it would be a much cleaner thread if he would simply refer directly to the study.
 
But harm reduction has to exist in the real world. We have to acknowledge that the average drug user is going to be offered GHB for the first time when they are already on other drugs. and usually when they are already out at an event. Talking about GHB in terms of a multi-drug incident is not misleading, it is realistic.

I will also notice that you didn't answer my two direct questions.
 
I might also mention that It sems people think im saying GHB is harmless.. this is not the case. But what I am saying is that it is not more harmful than MDMA (not really saying much there) but then my inital goal was to counter the whole "say not to 'G'" campaign that has been going on.. call me devils advocate if you must.. but I dont like lies.. and in when considering the liklyhood of braindamage MDMA has far more potential.
 
And as you already admitted above the "GHB is less harmful than MDMA" arguement only holds true under ideal conditions that do not exist in this universe. So do you realy want to keep floggin this horse?
 
two direct questions.

firstly.. my qualifications.. if I even have any.. are not relavant.. whether I am a doctor or a layman.. does not discount the information I put forward.. only logical discussion and superseeding fact will do so. Secondly.. I asked the Dr to not direct his ego at me (some quip about finding my argument humerous) for the same reason as the above stated relavance of qualifications. In otherwords.. I did not find his resting on his qualifications as relavant nor professional.
 
Hang on. Qualifications are irrelevant, but everyone else's pisstaking of you, or anyone else for that matter, were (rightly) ignored? Odd. Thanks for answering anyways.
 
johnboy said:
And as you already admitted above the "GHB is less harmful than MDMA" arguement only holds true under ideal conditions that do not exist in this universe. So do you realy want to keep floggin this horse?
Click to expand...

Ideal conditions? ODs are not an ideal situation.. and I would much rather OD onGHB than MDMA. I am ignoring multi-drug scenarios because when drugs are mixed they act together.. as a cocktail of sorts.. the lethal nature of such a mixture is generally worse than that of each drug on its own. To identify GHB as the sole cause of death when it is involved in a multi drug death is to lie. That is all... if I was trying to preach to the masses I would be taking the approach of:

"Dont mix your G"
or
"dont drink and G"
or
"Leave your G at home"

or some such line.. but I am trying to have an intelligent discussion about the nature of GHB.. and while I may seem a tad antagonistic.. I appologise.. but I honestly look forward to the doctors response.. I am simply trying to evoke somethgin a bit stronger than the same old lines given to the media about GCS.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top