dribble said:
I've always had respect for this fella?
Yes, looking back to the time he was in politics, I thought of Neil Blewett as a sensible man, a pragmatist who seemed to stand by what he thought rather than what others felt he should think. However, I'm not sure his involvement in Alcohol and other drugs would extend to supporting some of the broader aims of HR. Perhaps someone should ask him...
Mr Blonde said:
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.
Those are all good points. I certainly think HR Australia could work towards focusing more attention on the legal ramifications of drug use, in much the same way as the Drug Policy Foundation of the US has. With enough scope, if done correctly, I believe this could serve as one means of swaying public opinion. But first, a platform for reaching the public has to be established.
On a related note, perhaps the book idea could be expanded to three volumes of personal stories, focusing on 3 different outcomes of drug use; The Good - stories from non-problematic users; the Bad - addiction, compulsion etc; and the Ugly, or legal side - how the legal system has impacted on the lives of consumers, where drug use has been either problematic or non-problematic. Just throwing some ideas in here...
Mr Blonde said:
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.
And that's the problem, only it's not just governed by schools but by the broader education system and laws protecting children. Some years ago I wrote a piece for GPs on MDMA use and Rave Culture, and from that it was suggested by one GP that I should attend classrooms with him and talk about drugs. However, the idea didn’t get past first base as it wasn’t supported by those who made such decisions - not all that surprising really.
cudds said:
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.
I concur, it is necessary, but in moving with these changing times of new trends and drugs, such an objective can either be broadly or tightly defined. The former is perhaps easier in concept, because boundaries are not set, but the latter is more realistically achievable in the short term I believe, and less vulnerable to criticism. This doesn’t mean a tightly defined HR policy isn’t flexible, on the contrary, it simply requires regular review and amendment by representatives from relevant areas of science and society. Not an easy task either way, but IMO we've now come to that crossroad, where without a sound foundation and a clearly defined direction that offers real solutions to all parties, HR runs the risk of being further maligned and discredited, to a degree that it becomes far less tolerated, and thus less effective than it currently is.
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!!!
Absolutely. In line with what Tronica said in her response, the pleasure or enjoyment part of why people take drugs isn’t openly discussed and that needs to change IMO. That doesn’t mean HR has to encourage drug taking in any way, but somewhere in the messages, the hedonistic side of drug taking needs to be discussed and appreciated. I believe we can encompass the reasons for why people want to take drugs, while still supporting the premise of Harm Prevention, i.e. that no drug use is preferable and produces the lowest degree of risk. While the buck stops short of using crowbar tactics to prevent drug use, HR can easily be shown to have common ground with Harm Prevention advocates. But because HR accepts drug use will always occur, it can offer far more, and therefore has potential to influence both the cause and the outcome. It does this through creating awareness using a realistic and more readily received approach.
Bent Mk2 said:
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.
When adults complain about kids and drugs, I usually begin my response by asking what they know about youth culture in general. Do they
understand why young people prefer different dress and music? Do they know the latest bands, TV programs and games that young people prefer? Most have forgotten their own youth and why they thought the way they did back then, and that alone usually puts them way out of touch with the youth of today. I then usually steer the subject back to drugs, asking questions of them that many young people know the answers to. Unless ignorance rules, there’s usually an admission that they know relatively little about drugs, and that it’s mainly limited to what’s on TV or in the papers. Then I throw some figures at them like how many interventions RaveSafe sees at a typical event, and then compare this number to how many people are actually taking drugs at these events yet have no immediate problems. Then I throw some of my own history into the picture and mention some of the rec drug users I know who hold important positions or who have succeeded in business or academia. So, educating the uninformed is frequently about planting the seed. What often grows can and does change minds.
expothead said:
Also, I wouldn't say I was necessarily promoting the pro-drug agenda, more pro-choice.
The pro-choice argument certainly has its place in HR, at least informed choice does. I think the phrase is endorsed by virtually anyone who believes in reform. The pro-choice argument also runs into virtually every aspect of modern life. We are strongly encouraged to eat only healthy food, yet no-one who believed in a “free world” would deny someone the right to have a big breakfast of bacon, hash browns and fired eggs – or would they? There’ll always be those who think we have too many choices, simply because either they choose not to do these things, or because they’re simply ignorant of the choices available and what qualities/ benefits may go with those choices. Pro-choice in regards to drugs will always have a lot of backers, but mainly from those who take, or have taken drugs. Unless you’ve had a big breakfast when you’re really hungry for something of that nature, then you really don’t know what it is you’re missing…. A poor example perhaps…but you get my drift
Sykik said:
Convincing the Media, you need whistleblowers for statistics that can sway the public to become aware. You need well presentable people with respectable credentials backing HARM REDUCTION, not PRO-DRUG/Pleasure. I agree with the above post you need a united well organised front. As I beleve little steps are great, but education of the people (especially the ignorant people) I believe needs to be a BIG step.
These people are out there, and HR related conferences often see speakers present good arguments, but up until now, very little of a positive spin seems to make it into the papers. Of course its a different story if one speaker stands out with some seemingly radical or left field statement or idea. That needs to change, and one way of doing that IMO is to stage a Reform Conference, where HR plays a big part in supplying the evidence and rationale towards this goal. This would allow the coming together of minds from many disciplines. It would include speakers associated with every aspect of Drug Harm, and why significant reductions in drug related harms will only come through law reform. Sure the media would pick the eyes out of any such gathering, but, I’d be willing to bet such a conference would also attract a few otherwise conservative participants.
Breecamb said:
I really don't know how we can change/tweak the political minds to promote harm reduction. It appears there is still a strong conservative mind set amongst the mainstream media and political leaders (as seen earlier this year) and when the pendulum swings back in the other direction then the battle may not be as hard...
I agree, and as with anything political, public mindset can be changed. It will still be a long haul, but the stage is set, which is more than reflected in the recent comments from people like Overland and Keelty. To have acknowledged a blanket zero tolerance policy isn’t suitable for society (Overland) is a major step in the right direction.
…and btw Breecamb, thanks for your support of RaveSafe.
Infinite Jest said:
What would be useful, now, would be to think about the structure of the information: what would a comprehensive harm reduction resource look like? What would the categories be?
That’s an interesting question. From the perspective of those who attend events in a HR capacity, many of us would undoubtedly like to see a very broad range of information available. HR tends to concentrate on the direct health and legal aspects of drug use, and IMO some very basic information/advice is left out, often taken for granted that users know such things already – common sense you might say. Yet the drive and enthusiasm many users display, often sees the simple things forgotten, even something as simple as taking the right clothes to an event. I’d like to see the some of this sort of info also included. To include regular activities that are often associated with drug use serves to normalise drug use, and that alone can move mountains.
Infinite Jest said:
I agree that the media coverage is a good thing, I was glad to see it too. I'm agnostic on the ambassador idea; surely JB should be handling that sort of stuff? Can you expand on what you were thinking - are you thinking of giving the media someone's real-life contact details? You'd envisage similar roles in US/UK? (Like I say, I'm agnostic, I'm interested to hear more).
A few years ago Johnboy was frequently in the media and did a damn fine job of it, I might add. I don’t know of his schedule these days, or his level of involvement so I can’t comment on his willingness to step up such discussions, and create more awareness among the broader public. He’d certainly get my vote though.
If we are to select someone for the job of ambassador I believe it’s necessary to first have a clear understanding on what HR stands for, and that as we have seen is difficult with so many different views on what it should encompass. Again, I see merit in limiting the scope of HR in some ways, yet expanding it in other ways. It needs to reflect life style choices more than anything else, but within that have clearly distinguished aims and objectives. Reform needs to be right up there IMO, so no-one can say there’s a hidden agenda. Once that’s been established, if no suitable nominee is forthcoming, then approaching appropriate candidates could be considered. When I’ve time I’ll detail these ideas a little better.
I'm not even sure where the 'no synth' policy came from, it pre-dates my time. Happy to discuss modifying it.
Great. I would simply like to see discussion allowed where it pertains to HR, or has HR value. Chemistry is not a taboo subject and it pisses me off that so much ignorance is shown towards discussing how drugs are made. All it says to me is that those who haven’t learned it don’t like being left out. So, learn the science, it’s really not that difficult ….
As mentioned in the opening post, I wouldn’t like to see synthesis talk detailing the practical aspects of the synthesis; in other words providing information so that those not already capable of synthesising drugs could suddenly do it, or helping people improve yields. I don’t think either of those is relevant to HR. But warning about known or suspected impurities from a synth and offering advice on how these might be minimised or removed is sound HR info IMO. Again, guidelines would need to be formulated, but that’s what Admin and Mods do, isn’t it
If it looks realistic i.e. gains general support form other admin, I’m quite prepared to throw some ideas together.
Thanks again to those who’ve contributed.
