Jakeperson
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,613
Harm Reduction - Where do we go from here?
- Thread starter phase_dancer
- Start date
phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,179
Wow! Thanks so much for the responses everyone, and sorry about my 'crowbar of frustration'. Rest assured I'll be pleasant to all from now on 
expothead, you're certainly not out of your league in discussing these issues. Any suggestion or comment, even if it seems obvious, is worth expressing. The way forward must involve Peer Education, so anything that is an issue, or you think should be an issue is worth discussing. There are still many grass roots problems that need addressing, in particular, the constant struggle to find fresh ways to successfully disseminate HR info.
For the book, a blog is certainly a great idea. I have a friend who may be able to spare time to set something up off site, but it shouldn't be totally discounted that Bluelight might have some role in this as well. Lots to think about, but the book is definitely a great idea. Funding for such a publication shouldn't be too hard to obtain, and would certainly be easier than raising money for a political party where disclosure of large donations is mandatory. An important thing to remember for anyone thinking of contributing is that writing skill is not necessarily a prerequisite. As Tronica explained, it's more about the background of the contributor.
Amblin, your comments are not lost and I fully encourage you to check out RaveSafe. Many of the best HR workers I know are not so skilled in pharmacology, yet their people skills are amazing. Others of our team specialise in keeping things in order - tidying, arranging, etc. so, you can be anything from multi-talented, to just keen to help. I'll also add that working in HR gives you the opportunity to speak with some authority, not only to peers, but also to those who have strong anti reform ideas but no first hand experience at the front line. Such experience tends to carry much more weight to any argument for reform.
Ah, Mr Blonde, looks like the nudge worked, hope there’s no skin off
Aside from your work on BL, you've also demonstrated an outstanding commitment to HR from your work in outreach. As you will have undoubtedly seen, respect for our group is there from authorities, and yet many of our regular volunteers come from the dance/music scenes. This is the value of a Peer based system; it demonstrates to both users and non-users that not all drug users are hopeless or unable to do without their drugs while attending events. In short, it defies many commonly accepted notions about users. From the recent event you attended, recommendations have been made that extend outside of promotion and management. Let’s see if any ground is gained....
Yes, its sad Tony Wood is still working the grindstone. He'll probably never relent, but that's ok, and although I like to think I would never do what he's done, nevertheless, from a parent’s POV, it's something I can understand.
In a strangely ironic way, he's highlighted the importance of drinking safe amounts of water. Not because he says this is how his daughter died, but because most people already know what really happened. The conversation thus sparked whenever Tony says MDMA killed his daughter, often further drives home the message with users. Thus the subject gets discussed where it may not have otherwise.
Tronica, I understand what you’re saying in regards to intimidation, but all I can say to those who might feel like this, is that any idea, no matter how left field or seemingly basic, is still worth throwing around. Refinements to operations of our RaveSafe group have often come from the ideas proposed by volunteers. Sure there’s Team Leaders who chew such ideas over, but a great deal of our ‘formula’ has come from volunteer Peer Helpers.
I think steps have already been made that aren’t yet apparent. In any event, there’s likely to be more outspoken academics in the future. Tronica’s above post was very informing, and indicates that a more favourable political climate will provide the turning point. I’m not talking major legislative changes, but rather a more realistic focus on the health aspects of recreational drug use.
I’ve thought a bit about this, and believe there are several ways to address the problem. One would be to have someone of public recognition write the forward or preface. The book itself wouldn’t necessarily be aimed at producing radical policy change, but more to highlight a need for the legal aspects of drug taking to be reconsidered and debated. So in a sense, like everything to date, it would be only a baby step.
While no-one here would claim amnesty bins would fix the problem, it should be seen that they are a great first step forward. In fact, if this was to be done nationally, it would be a milestone. The next step is to have these analysed, and unless Forensic resources are too tightly stretched, it would certainly be advantageous for LE to identify any binned tablets. The next step may happen automatically i.e. the release of any tablets containing dangerous or novel chemicals. Ideally of course, all results would be publicly available. While this definitely won’t happen over night, because the infrastructure is already in place, and will be added to in the event hospitals can also provide such bins, I believe it’s only a matter of time before more detailed information becomes publicly announced.
static_mind, the idea of testing satchels would be great if the contents of the kits weren't so toxic and corrosive. Even with the commercially available 'drug pouch' and similar products, there's still considerable danger from spills. H&S departments would never allow it. Still, if another approach to reagent design came up with something way less toxic....
It's fine to sound negative. We need to address these problems by offering potentially viable solutions, and negativity and doubt can serve to stimulate ideas. Let's see where we get with amnesty bins. Staunch opponents will in all likelihood still complain that it's sending the wrong message, but I think public backlash over the recent death of Gemma Thomas will override these objections. If the model can be shown to work and is adopted universally, it says that it is openly acknowledged that people take drugs. So, in a sense it's a move towards normalising drug taking.
Before the hardline propaganda pushed by the Howard Government in its later years, we had found many parents were keen supporters of harm reduction, simply because they saw it as extra protection for their kids. It didn't necessarily mean parents were pro reform, or even condoned taking drugs, but when it came down to it, the pragmatic ones accepted drug use will occur anyway and anything that could lessen the risks was rightly seen to be of value. This group then - the Mums and Dads of Australia - should be a target group for any HR program intent on swaying public opinion.
Keep the ideas and comments coming peeps. I think the book idea and suggestions raised here could eventually be split off into its own thread.
expothead, you're certainly not out of your league in discussing these issues. Any suggestion or comment, even if it seems obvious, is worth expressing. The way forward must involve Peer Education, so anything that is an issue, or you think should be an issue is worth discussing. There are still many grass roots problems that need addressing, in particular, the constant struggle to find fresh ways to successfully disseminate HR info.
For the book, a blog is certainly a great idea. I have a friend who may be able to spare time to set something up off site, but it shouldn't be totally discounted that Bluelight might have some role in this as well. Lots to think about, but the book is definitely a great idea. Funding for such a publication shouldn't be too hard to obtain, and would certainly be easier than raising money for a political party where disclosure of large donations is mandatory. An important thing to remember for anyone thinking of contributing is that writing skill is not necessarily a prerequisite. As Tronica explained, it's more about the background of the contributor.
Amblin, your comments are not lost and I fully encourage you to check out RaveSafe. Many of the best HR workers I know are not so skilled in pharmacology, yet their people skills are amazing. Others of our team specialise in keeping things in order - tidying, arranging, etc. so, you can be anything from multi-talented, to just keen to help. I'll also add that working in HR gives you the opportunity to speak with some authority, not only to peers, but also to those who have strong anti reform ideas but no first hand experience at the front line. Such experience tends to carry much more weight to any argument for reform.
Ah, Mr Blonde, looks like the nudge worked, hope there’s no skin off
Aside from your work on BL, you've also demonstrated an outstanding commitment to HR from your work in outreach. As you will have undoubtedly seen, respect for our group is there from authorities, and yet many of our regular volunteers come from the dance/music scenes. This is the value of a Peer based system; it demonstrates to both users and non-users that not all drug users are hopeless or unable to do without their drugs while attending events. In short, it defies many commonly accepted notions about users. From the recent event you attended, recommendations have been made that extend outside of promotion and management. Let’s see if any ground is gained....
Yes, its sad Tony Wood is still working the grindstone. He'll probably never relent, but that's ok, and although I like to think I would never do what he's done, nevertheless, from a parent’s POV, it's something I can understand.
In a strangely ironic way, he's highlighted the importance of drinking safe amounts of water. Not because he says this is how his daughter died, but because most people already know what really happened. The conversation thus sparked whenever Tony says MDMA killed his daughter, often further drives home the message with users. Thus the subject gets discussed where it may not have otherwise.
Tronica, I understand what you’re saying in regards to intimidation, but all I can say to those who might feel like this, is that any idea, no matter how left field or seemingly basic, is still worth throwing around. Refinements to operations of our RaveSafe group have often come from the ideas proposed by volunteers. Sure there’s Team Leaders who chew such ideas over, but a great deal of our ‘formula’ has come from volunteer Peer Helpers.
JDanger said:
I think steps have already been made that aren’t yet apparent. In any event, there’s likely to be more outspoken academics in the future. Tronica’s above post was very informing, and indicates that a more favourable political climate will provide the turning point. I’m not talking major legislative changes, but rather a more realistic focus on the health aspects of recreational drug use.
I’ve thought a bit about this, and believe there are several ways to address the problem. One would be to have someone of public recognition write the forward or preface. The book itself wouldn’t necessarily be aimed at producing radical policy change, but more to highlight a need for the legal aspects of drug taking to be reconsidered and debated. So in a sense, like everything to date, it would be only a baby step.
While no-one here would claim amnesty bins would fix the problem, it should be seen that they are a great first step forward. In fact, if this was to be done nationally, it would be a milestone. The next step is to have these analysed, and unless Forensic resources are too tightly stretched, it would certainly be advantageous for LE to identify any binned tablets. The next step may happen automatically i.e. the release of any tablets containing dangerous or novel chemicals. Ideally of course, all results would be publicly available. While this definitely won’t happen over night, because the infrastructure is already in place, and will be added to in the event hospitals can also provide such bins, I believe it’s only a matter of time before more detailed information becomes publicly announced.
static_mind, the idea of testing satchels would be great if the contents of the kits weren't so toxic and corrosive. Even with the commercially available 'drug pouch' and similar products, there's still considerable danger from spills. H&S departments would never allow it. Still, if another approach to reagent design came up with something way less toxic....
It's fine to sound negative. We need to address these problems by offering potentially viable solutions, and negativity and doubt can serve to stimulate ideas. Let's see where we get with amnesty bins. Staunch opponents will in all likelihood still complain that it's sending the wrong message, but I think public backlash over the recent death of Gemma Thomas will override these objections. If the model can be shown to work and is adopted universally, it says that it is openly acknowledged that people take drugs. So, in a sense it's a move towards normalising drug taking.
Damien said:
Before the hardline propaganda pushed by the Howard Government in its later years, we had found many parents were keen supporters of harm reduction, simply because they saw it as extra protection for their kids. It didn't necessarily mean parents were pro reform, or even condoned taking drugs, but when it came down to it, the pragmatic ones accepted drug use will occur anyway and anything that could lessen the risks was rightly seen to be of value. This group then - the Mums and Dads of Australia - should be a target group for any HR program intent on swaying public opinion.
Keep the ideas and comments coming peeps. I think the book idea and suggestions raised here could eventually be split off into its own thread.
Thanks phase-dancer for a great post and replies - it has been on mind for days now...
Firstly, I love the book idea, what would be the possibility of pictures (to counter the stereotype)?
In the interests of discussion without getting too shot down...
I can't believe this is the case but have been wondering about the terminology.
Harm minimisation has been around for somewhere near 30 years now(?), with better times and tougher times. Every movement has its use by date....
(remember Womens' Lib'?)
Also, 'harm reduction' naturally implies there is harm, and is a negative term. Certain prohibitionist organisations in their publications use the term as often as they possibly can in a bid to degrade the term and associate 'harm reduction' as many things that it isn't.
Has it lost its meaning? Could it be time for a new movement? In a corporate world we may consider relaunching. Lately I've been thinking of 'health promotion' as a term that captures the intent of harm reduction but is a positive term and more difficult to be aligned with a certain group or behaviour. It's not necessarily right but its just a thought.
Firstly, I love the book idea, what would be the possibility of pictures (to counter the stereotype)?
In the interests of discussion without getting too shot down...
I can't believe this is the case but have been wondering about the terminology.
Harm minimisation has been around for somewhere near 30 years now(?), with better times and tougher times. Every movement has its use by date....
(remember Womens' Lib'?)
Also, 'harm reduction' naturally implies there is harm, and is a negative term. Certain prohibitionist organisations in their publications use the term as often as they possibly can in a bid to degrade the term and associate 'harm reduction' as many things that it isn't.
Has it lost its meaning? Could it be time for a new movement? In a corporate world we may consider relaunching. Lately I've been thinking of 'health promotion' as a term that captures the intent of harm reduction but is a positive term and more difficult to be aligned with a certain group or behaviour. It's not necessarily right but its just a thought.
lil angel15
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,828
I do apologise for not replying to this thread but RL commitments have been taking up the majority of my time. I will attempt to set aside some time this weekend and reply with my thoughts on the subject.
I will echo what others have said and encourage everyone to have input on this subject. If you have thoughts or feelings that you believe are relevant, then let them be heard. It’s not about when you joined, your post count or if you work in a related field, rather, it’s about a genuine interest in HR initiatives and safer drug use amongst you, your peers and the wider community.
*hugs P_D*
I will echo what others have said and encourage everyone to have input on this subject. If you have thoughts or feelings that you believe are relevant, then let them be heard. It’s not about when you joined, your post count or if you work in a related field, rather, it’s about a genuine interest in HR initiatives and safer drug use amongst you, your peers and the wider community.
*hugs P_D*
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2002
- Messages
- 4,414
I wonder if Alex Wodak would do it? Or some of the folk from Australia Institute...
As you've said, one problem with 'harm reduction' is that its corollary 'benefit maximisation' is ignored. We are allowed the focus on 'reducing risks' but what about 'increasing benefits'? Isn't that what we are doing too? 'Pleasure' is a topic in the drugs field not often discussed although this is changing (there was a whole issue devoted to pleasure in one of last years issues of International Journal of Drug Policy).
I think what HR is really about is mindful drug use, aware drug use - a drug user who has a moderated and careful and respectful attitude to substances. Being mindful/aware of potential harms AND how to have the 'best' experience possible with the addition of their drugs of choice. Being educated about both drugs and about yourself and your environment.
Hehe, I've just made myself think of a West Australian campaign years back called Drug Aware. I don't know if it's still happening. I like the name of it
phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,179
Believe it or not Alex came up yesterday afternoon when discussing this very subject with a friend. Before I say anything more, I must remark that I have a deep respect for this man and see him as one of my few genuine heroes. HR in this country has a lot to thank Alex for.
However, my feelings are that we need to get someone who's of similar standing but who has never been previously associated with advocating HR or reform. A hard task no doubt, but I bet there's someone out there. It will all depend on the "flavour" of the book. That will mean more ideas and probably at some point, a meeting or two where this can be consolidated. I'm not completely ruling out Alex for this role Tronica, and I'm sure they'd be a place for his comments in any such book anyway. I think format and objectives need to defined first, then let’s see what fish we can catch.
I read dribbles post last night and it affected me more than I would have ever imagined. I've had to sleep on it before replying, as the impact of what you've said has hit me really hard. Only two months ago I championed for retaining the name RaveSafe with RS Vic, as opposed to changing to something with less of a negative connotation, which they now have done (Dance Wize). There were many reasons in my argument, not least the fact that the term is widely recognised and appeals to fringe groups.
From our position the term is also well galvanized with officials and promoters alike, so from that perspective we didn't see any need to change. I also feel having such a ‘bold’ title sends a message to those who look down at ravers. RaveSafe by essence implies that these guys aren't all hopeless. Many of authority now also recognise, as a group, these ‘Ravers’ or ex-ravers are fast becoming indispensable in the work they do. So, I've always regarded the name as being instrumental in redefining the negativity of the term Rave.
However, my firm conviction has been somewhat shaken by what your post has pointed out. After reading it, I felt quite uneasy and had a restless night because anything I could think of to argue against your suggestion, I could just as easily counter.
While one could argue that Woman’s Lib became redundant largely because they had by achieved most of their objectives, perhaps the same could be said of harm reduction as it currently stands. Perhaps HR, under its present definition has achieved all it can? I'm not totally convinced yet, and may argue against it down the track, but one thing is for sure, this will be on my mind for days and weeks to come.
As Tronica has pointed out, 'pleasure' is so often left out when drugs are discussed. Drug Aware isn't bad, but it sounds a bit like beware....maybe that's a good thing? I tend to think we would need something neutral like that, if neutral is the right word. IMO it needs to be something that on one hand indicates that which is healthy, safer and responsible, and on the other, that which is fun, indulgent, and rewarding. In between that though, there probably needs to be a message of sorts in the title.
Lots to think about here...
Lil angel15, thank you for your post. I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts, when you're ready and have the time. Big Hugs 2 you 2
Keep 'em coming folks...
static_mind
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,379
Give countries a HR % rating and try and show trends with countries with a higher rating to less drug ODs and stuff. Like
Government funded pill testing yes no
Decriminilised personal amounts of weed yes no
Free needles yes no
Acess to rehab yes no
Stuff like that, see if the highest countries have less harm on a whole. And if it doesnt support what we think, then we can change the questions to better support us, or make stuff up.
Im going to have a beer.
Government funded pill testing yes no
Decriminilised personal amounts of weed yes no
Free needles yes no
Acess to rehab yes no
Stuff like that, see if the highest countries have less harm on a whole. And if it doesnt support what we think, then we can change the questions to better support us, or make stuff up.
Im going to have a beer.
phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,179
Good stuff static_mind
This argument has been used before, by Enlighten and other Aus HR orgs. and is definitely worth including. The frustrating things is that DIMS, a Dutch testing organisation, has been positively recognised in several reports from major agencies, yet no other country has introduced a similar model afaik.
I believe the weed thing is demonstrated also by the Dutch model, where reportedly less Dutch young people are smoking despite wide availability through coffee shops etc.
Free needle benefits are widely recognised here. Alex Wodak has done much to demonstrate benefits, particularly in reducing incidence of Hep C and HIV
Of course, access to rehab should be seen to be as important as publicly accessable general health care. Rehab's available here, but not always that easy to access. That could improve, as could the availability of good counsellors.
Depending on the scope of the proposed book, something like this may be able to be included.
This argument has been used before, by Enlighten and other Aus HR orgs. and is definitely worth including. The frustrating things is that DIMS, a Dutch testing organisation, has been positively recognised in several reports from major agencies, yet no other country has introduced a similar model afaik.
I believe the weed thing is demonstrated also by the Dutch model, where reportedly less Dutch young people are smoking despite wide availability through coffee shops etc.
Free needle benefits are widely recognised here. Alex Wodak has done much to demonstrate benefits, particularly in reducing incidence of Hep C and HIV
Of course, access to rehab should be seen to be as important as publicly accessable general health care. Rehab's available here, but not always that easy to access. That could improve, as could the availability of good counsellors.
Depending on the scope of the proposed book, something like this may be able to be included.
expothead
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 708
--------------
I have a dream:
In the future "pleasure" won't be considered a dirty word. The general population will discard its prudish nature, grow up and accept that it is a human-right to seek pleasure in whatever form one wishes as long as one accepts responsibilities for any negative impacts this may cause. For those that desire them, pharmaceuticals would be purchased from institutions with medically qualified personnel that supervise dosage, contraindications, client wellbeing etc. These institutions would also provide counseling and medical services for those clients that needed them or felt their use had got out of control or was impacting negatively on them or those around them.
----------------
back to reality:
why is it so bad to want to get 'high' or should I say 'altered' (hell, even my kids spin around 'til they're dizzy and laughing - should I be stopping them?)??? alcohol is widely acceptable so why can't this acceptability be stretched to include other substances? the more and more I think about it this simple stumbling block seems to be the root of the issue and needs to be tackled first.
Perhaps reverse psychology might work. If we pushed for NO drugs in Parliament, including tobacco and alcohol (and caffeine if you like)...
Sorry, its the 'beer'...
I have a dream:
In the future "pleasure" won't be considered a dirty word. The general population will discard its prudish nature, grow up and accept that it is a human-right to seek pleasure in whatever form one wishes as long as one accepts responsibilities for any negative impacts this may cause. For those that desire them, pharmaceuticals would be purchased from institutions with medically qualified personnel that supervise dosage, contraindications, client wellbeing etc. These institutions would also provide counseling and medical services for those clients that needed them or felt their use had got out of control or was impacting negatively on them or those around them.
----------------
back to reality:
why is it so bad to want to get 'high' or should I say 'altered' (hell, even my kids spin around 'til they're dizzy and laughing - should I be stopping them?)??? alcohol is widely acceptable so why can't this acceptability be stretched to include other substances? the more and more I think about it this simple stumbling block seems to be the root of the issue and needs to be tackled first.
Perhaps reverse psychology might work. If we pushed for NO drugs in Parliament, including tobacco and alcohol (and caffeine if you like)...
Sorry, its the 'beer'...
phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,179
I dunno about doing anything that might ban beer 8(
Cheers
Cheers
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2006
- Messages
- 13,813
phase_dancer said:
Harm reduction has already come along quite a bit, that's for sure. We have needles freely availble to IDUs, pill testing kits, the presence of RaveSafe at festivals and not to mention this site and others which provide information to drug users on how to stay safe.
But there is still a lot to be done in my opinion. More shooting galleries for a start. Looking at the viability of making naltrexone available to users (I posted a thread on this not long ago). Pushing for looking at re-scheduling of commonly used substances or at least reducing penalties for those who are found in possession and perhaps looking at what constitutes possession (e.g. allowing a person who was carrying for friends to not be charged with the same kind of offense that a drug dealer would be). Legal harm to users is still a big issue I believe, as we all know what kind of repurcussions a drug conviction can have on a person's life.
Apart from that, a lot of the suggestions in this thread such as authorities more actively testing substances and getting information out to the public on what is going around. The amnesty bins will provide a massive opportunity for this to happen, Western Australia could quite possibly become the testing ground for this and amnesty bins could soon be rolled out all across the country, and with that the opportunity for testing and getting info out there by authorities will increase.
Increased access to rehab is another thing that has been mentioned and needs working on.
Reform of the current drug education students receive at school. Hell, this is something that a group could be formed for similar to RaveSafe that could offer to provide this service to schools. The drug education I and many others received during school was fairly shit, but it depends on what schools are willing to allow. I personally envision something more science based; explaining to high school kids how these substances actually work and how exactly the dangers present, how they can be avoided and also affirming that sometimes it is necessary to seek medical attention and what to do in such situations. Hell, I'd volunteer to do this; the guy that came and talked to us was obviously some dude who had been busted with something while out clubbing, sentenced to community service and had no idea what he was talking about. I can do better then that.
Harm reduction isn't redundant, so I hope you don't have too many restless nights P_D.
In regards to usage of the term... I've never really thought of it as being too negative, I mean obviously there are risks with using any drug and we want to reduce that for people. But I would be interested to see what others think of this.
And yes, I have noticed the media sometimes use the term perjoratively. But I think that's going to happen regardless with such a subject.
there's a few points that i would like to add to this, and i apologise in advance if they dont seem to link together seemlessly , but instead look rather ad hoc,(essay writing was never my forte, neither was spelling for that matter), they do all revolve around the future of the HR movement.
Firstly to see a genuine advance of the HR movement/lobby (i cant figure out which adjective best describes what 'we'(as pd pointed out everyone/most here have an interest in HR) are) we first must become unified internally. By this i mean that the wider HR lobby must first of all agree on what goals it aims to achieve. this may sound simple and perhaps unnessecary. but i would disagree. for example should (one of) the ultimate aims of the HR movement be the legalisation (and obviously strict regulation) of drugs? if this question was to be posed even here on bluelight the result would be far from unanomious, in fact at a guess it could range anywhere up to 50/50 in favour of and against. if as a lobby the HR movement is to have any real and long lasting success (which realistically can only be achieved through successful lobbying that can result in changing government policies) it must be representing a unified front rather than been seen to represent a rag tag spectrum of drug users with sectional interests (as with any successful movement, political or otherwise, it must be keep out of the hands and control of the extremeists and fringers, and rather be controlled by the intelligent moderates). Even with a united front , whether that be under the harm reduction banner(which while perhaps slightly tainted, still holds some respect and credence in wider society) or under some other name, it is still a long uphill road that needs to be travelled. But before this can be achieved there needs to be a serious internal debate about who we are and who we represent, and more importantly what our aims and goals are and why!! this must include but extend further than the single question of legalisation.
Secondly in response to what has been said above in regards to the use of the word pleasure. whilst personally i may wholeheartedly agree with some of what has been said (expothead a few posts above for example), i would say that if pleasure were to become a byword for the HR lobby it would be the final nail in the HR coffin. it would be the political bell tolling for thee (ie us). At all costs (i beleive) the HR movement cannot be seen to encourage drug use!!! if it was thought by the people the HR movement must successfully lobby to institute changes, that the HR movement was in any way trying to encourage drug use, that would shut the door on any advancement of HR policy for a generation. Everything we do must be seen through the prism of reducing the harm involved in drug use, rather than encouraging drug use. there is a massive difference. Therefore if words such as pleasure do start getting thrown around the perception changes from reducing harm to the advancement of selfish desires (we must aviod the perception that we are feathering our own nest). So for example should the HR movement push for legalisation and regulation of drugs it must be argued that this is to make drug use safer not wider or more frequent. eg if pills were pharm made and regulated, this would remove any chance that people would die from adulterants such as pma etc.
thirdly the HR lobby must forcefully demonstrate that the policy of prohibition doesnt work. Regardless of what it is trying to stop (think booze , drugs, sex etc) it never has worked. it never will work. even when probition is backed up by the death penalty it still doesn't work. a simple rule of economics applies, wherever there is a big enough demand, supply will occur. full stop.
The question is, if the HR lobby can make the legislators recongise the abismal failure of the prohibition policy what credible (in terms of electoral sellability) policy steps in to fill its shoes. The answer if a policy based around harm minimisation.
The follow on question from this is what would a sensible, acceptable policy based on harm minimisation involve?
i beleive the most effective way would be to seperate it into two general areas; Education and other.
I will quickly mention other first. this would involve the HR methods already known. these are obviously wide ranging and people other than me would be better off to explain in detail, but breifly things (already mentioned) such as; govt authorised pill testing, an increase in safe injecting rooms, removal of any drug charges that may result from going to hospital due to a drug problem/ overdoes, institutions such as rave safe having a greatly increased role not just at festivals, but perhaps even in cites on the weekend or even in specific nightclubs, etc.
now on to education; it may be an old cliche but education really is the key. the HR movement must have as one of its overarching aims a complusory drug awareness component in every school in australia. to me this is non negotiable. It is important that this education component must strike the correct balance. as mentioned earlier it cannot be, in any way, encouraging of drug use. yet at the same time we all know how useless the over the top campaigns are too. i like mr blonde's idea above about explaining the scientific side of how a drug works. on top of this it would need to explain the potential risks, both immediate and long term of each drugs use. and then it would also be important to explain safe methods of drug use should they ever decicde to experiement. (this must include a range of things such as the risk posed by overheating, not enough/to much water, needles use etc)
This is a long hard road, success will be difficult but is achievable.
the HR lobby must always remember; WE ARE NOT PRO-DRUG, WE ARE ANTI HARM!!!!!!!!
Firstly to see a genuine advance of the HR movement/lobby (i cant figure out which adjective best describes what 'we'(as pd pointed out everyone/most here have an interest in HR) are) we first must become unified internally. By this i mean that the wider HR lobby must first of all agree on what goals it aims to achieve. this may sound simple and perhaps unnessecary. but i would disagree. for example should (one of) the ultimate aims of the HR movement be the legalisation (and obviously strict regulation) of drugs? if this question was to be posed even here on bluelight the result would be far from unanomious, in fact at a guess it could range anywhere up to 50/50 in favour of and against. if as a lobby the HR movement is to have any real and long lasting success (which realistically can only be achieved through successful lobbying that can result in changing government policies) it must be representing a unified front rather than been seen to represent a rag tag spectrum of drug users with sectional interests (as with any successful movement, political or otherwise, it must be keep out of the hands and control of the extremeists and fringers, and rather be controlled by the intelligent moderates). Even with a united front , whether that be under the harm reduction banner(which while perhaps slightly tainted, still holds some respect and credence in wider society) or under some other name, it is still a long uphill road that needs to be travelled. But before this can be achieved there needs to be a serious internal debate about who we are and who we represent, and more importantly what our aims and goals are and why!! this must include but extend further than the single question of legalisation.
Secondly in response to what has been said above in regards to the use of the word pleasure. whilst personally i may wholeheartedly agree with some of what has been said (expothead a few posts above for example), i would say that if pleasure were to become a byword for the HR lobby it would be the final nail in the HR coffin. it would be the political bell tolling for thee (ie us). At all costs (i beleive) the HR movement cannot be seen to encourage drug use!!! if it was thought by the people the HR movement must successfully lobby to institute changes, that the HR movement was in any way trying to encourage drug use, that would shut the door on any advancement of HR policy for a generation. Everything we do must be seen through the prism of reducing the harm involved in drug use, rather than encouraging drug use. there is a massive difference. Therefore if words such as pleasure do start getting thrown around the perception changes from reducing harm to the advancement of selfish desires (we must aviod the perception that we are feathering our own nest). So for example should the HR movement push for legalisation and regulation of drugs it must be argued that this is to make drug use safer not wider or more frequent. eg if pills were pharm made and regulated, this would remove any chance that people would die from adulterants such as pma etc.
thirdly the HR lobby must forcefully demonstrate that the policy of prohibition doesnt work. Regardless of what it is trying to stop (think booze , drugs, sex etc) it never has worked. it never will work. even when probition is backed up by the death penalty it still doesn't work. a simple rule of economics applies, wherever there is a big enough demand, supply will occur. full stop.
The question is, if the HR lobby can make the legislators recongise the abismal failure of the prohibition policy what credible (in terms of electoral sellability) policy steps in to fill its shoes. The answer if a policy based around harm minimisation.
The follow on question from this is what would a sensible, acceptable policy based on harm minimisation involve?
i beleive the most effective way would be to seperate it into two general areas; Education and other.
I will quickly mention other first. this would involve the HR methods already known. these are obviously wide ranging and people other than me would be better off to explain in detail, but breifly things (already mentioned) such as; govt authorised pill testing, an increase in safe injecting rooms, removal of any drug charges that may result from going to hospital due to a drug problem/ overdoes, institutions such as rave safe having a greatly increased role not just at festivals, but perhaps even in cites on the weekend or even in specific nightclubs, etc.
now on to education; it may be an old cliche but education really is the key. the HR movement must have as one of its overarching aims a complusory drug awareness component in every school in australia. to me this is non negotiable. It is important that this education component must strike the correct balance. as mentioned earlier it cannot be, in any way, encouraging of drug use. yet at the same time we all know how useless the over the top campaigns are too. i like mr blonde's idea above about explaining the scientific side of how a drug works. on top of this it would need to explain the potential risks, both immediate and long term of each drugs use. and then it would also be important to explain safe methods of drug use should they ever decicde to experiement. (this must include a range of things such as the risk posed by overheating, not enough/to much water, needles use etc)
This is a long hard road, success will be difficult but is achievable.
the HR lobby must always remember; WE ARE NOT PRO-DRUG, WE ARE ANTI HARM!!!!!!!!
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2006
- Messages
- 13,813
^ Great post.
This is so important. As was mentioned somewhere else in this thread I believe, there are possible legal ramifications for being seen to promote drug use. Being seen to encourage drug use would literally be the end of political aspirations.
cudds said:
This is so important. As was mentioned somewhere else in this thread I believe, there are possible legal ramifications for being seen to promote drug use. Being seen to encourage drug use would literally be the end of political aspirations.
expothead
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 708
^ Yep well thought out post cudds - I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said - in particular the united goal.
Not like my 'pie in the sky' stuff although I can't help feeling going straight for the jugular might be easier... Also, I wouldn't say I was necessarily promoting the pro-drug agenda, more pro-choice. (Edit: Actually, I'm pretty sure I was thinking that we're bound to be confronted with the pro-drug comparison so why not take the bull by the horns.)
So how do we demonstrate the abysmal failure of prohibition? Seems the evidence is staring everyone in the face but no-one has the guts to stand up and say it or get behind it for fear of political suicide.
Not like my 'pie in the sky' stuff although I can't help feeling going straight for the jugular might be easier... Also, I wouldn't say I was necessarily promoting the pro-drug agenda, more pro-choice. (Edit: Actually, I'm pretty sure I was thinking that we're bound to be confronted with the pro-drug comparison so why not take the bull by the horns.)
So how do we demonstrate the abysmal failure of prohibition? Seems the evidence is staring everyone in the face but no-one has the guts to stand up and say it or get behind it for fear of political suicide.
Last edited:
Mr Blonde
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2006
- Messages
- 13,813
^ The numbers of people in prison for drug offenses that aren't related to trafficking. The numbers of people who have died from taking a substance they thought was something else. The numbers of people who have died from OD's that are related to impurities or too pure a product.
Some things to think about, there's more I'm sure.
Some things to think about, there's more I'm sure.
So much to consider and respond to, which I'll try in the next day or so.
I will say this, I've been on BL since 2000 or so, and I ended up here because until a certain point in my life I was absolutely, without question, anti-drugs. No one I knew took them, and all users were evil.
I was however a huge fan of booze.
Then a friend introduced me, and I realised 'drugs' weren't as bad as the media made out. But I decided if I was going to try something new, then I owed it to myself to look into it as much as I could. Eventually I found Bluelight.
Around a decade or so ago, at least in Melbourne, the average 18 - 22 year old was getting pissed, pissed and more pissed. Maybe a few mates would smoke pot, that'd be it. Within my large group I was certainly an 'early adopted'.
Flash forward quite a few years, any my 16 year old brother was surrounded by friends on pills every weekend. I begged him to wait, said I'd help him when I thought he was old enough, and educated him on what happens, and why, including what was actually happening inside his body (clearly not to P_D's level, but he got the point.
I suppose in all that ramble I'm trying to say, that a decade ago, because drug usage wasn't rift, a lot of people did turn to BL for information and direction. Now it seems if you're not dropping at least 3 pills on a Saturday night by the time you're 16 then you're nobody.
I think if there has been a reduction on the effectiveness of harm reduction over the years, a big part of that might be that as a generation, drugs are far more accepted. 10 years ago underground parties were the spots for a majority of drug users. Now I know people who drop pills and do coke at 3pm on a sunny Sunday at the local pub.
People think it's normal, therefore there's no harm.
Then you look at the other side, those who don't do, don't accept drugs. I've been on a few different forums after the death at BDO, and on those forums there was no doubt, if you take drugs and die, suck shit, it's your own fault.
That's another reason why HM may appear to be failing. More and more the general (anti-drug) public is seeing overdose in the press, farked up kids at parties on TV on NYD and the like, and they think there's now a massive problem, which only heightens their hate of drugs and their 'just say no' attitude.
I've tried to take HR with some of those people (without exposing my background) and they just don't care, or want to accept it. A lot want to bury their heads in the sand and want to believe if they keep saying just say no then it'll go away.
I don't know the answer, or how to do it, but we need to make sure people realise that yes, more people are taking drugs, which means there's more risk, because these kids aren't educating themselves. Which means we need now more than ever to step up harm minimisation activity.
Look at GHB, the poster child for the media. I've heard lots of 'kids' planning to take it for their first time, and have planned to do it on a boozy night out. I've told them of the dangers where I could, but that's a drop in the ocean.
Now more than ever HM needs to be front and centre. How we can make it happen, I don't know. As I pointed out to a few people, that young girl that died in Perth could have been their daughter. In many cases, they didn't believe it.
I will say this, I've been on BL since 2000 or so, and I ended up here because until a certain point in my life I was absolutely, without question, anti-drugs. No one I knew took them, and all users were evil.
I was however a huge fan of booze.
Then a friend introduced me, and I realised 'drugs' weren't as bad as the media made out. But I decided if I was going to try something new, then I owed it to myself to look into it as much as I could. Eventually I found Bluelight.
Around a decade or so ago, at least in Melbourne, the average 18 - 22 year old was getting pissed, pissed and more pissed. Maybe a few mates would smoke pot, that'd be it. Within my large group I was certainly an 'early adopted'.
Flash forward quite a few years, any my 16 year old brother was surrounded by friends on pills every weekend. I begged him to wait, said I'd help him when I thought he was old enough, and educated him on what happens, and why, including what was actually happening inside his body (clearly not to P_D's level, but he got the point.
I suppose in all that ramble I'm trying to say, that a decade ago, because drug usage wasn't rift, a lot of people did turn to BL for information and direction. Now it seems if you're not dropping at least 3 pills on a Saturday night by the time you're 16 then you're nobody.
I think if there has been a reduction on the effectiveness of harm reduction over the years, a big part of that might be that as a generation, drugs are far more accepted. 10 years ago underground parties were the spots for a majority of drug users. Now I know people who drop pills and do coke at 3pm on a sunny Sunday at the local pub.
People think it's normal, therefore there's no harm.
Then you look at the other side, those who don't do, don't accept drugs. I've been on a few different forums after the death at BDO, and on those forums there was no doubt, if you take drugs and die, suck shit, it's your own fault.
That's another reason why HM may appear to be failing. More and more the general (anti-drug) public is seeing overdose in the press, farked up kids at parties on TV on NYD and the like, and they think there's now a massive problem, which only heightens their hate of drugs and their 'just say no' attitude.
I've tried to take HR with some of those people (without exposing my background) and they just don't care, or want to accept it. A lot want to bury their heads in the sand and want to believe if they keep saying just say no then it'll go away.
I don't know the answer, or how to do it, but we need to make sure people realise that yes, more people are taking drugs, which means there's more risk, because these kids aren't educating themselves. Which means we need now more than ever to step up harm minimisation activity.
Look at GHB, the poster child for the media. I've heard lots of 'kids' planning to take it for their first time, and have planned to do it on a boozy night out. I've told them of the dangers where I could, but that's a drop in the ocean.
Now more than ever HM needs to be front and centre. How we can make it happen, I don't know. As I pointed out to a few people, that young girl that died in Perth could have been their daughter. In many cases, they didn't believe it.
Jakeperson
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,613
All things the government hold close to their heart.
And would not let out to any one trying to use it against them.
phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,179
Some very good points made in the above posts. Comments to follow....