News: Night of drugs, love and friendship that ended with a mate dead

[Insane Platypus]

This is me speaking honestly here... but a drug like 1,4B or GHB are extremely dose sensitive and making drugs like these legal would be a very bad career move for someone who is trying to maintain his/her position as Prime Minister or President.

Not if you set a standard of quality and dosage. Yes, direct government regulation.

 

[Deformed_Neuron]

Hmmm... am I the only one who has read the GHB faq here?? Appears so.
Why do you think a drug such as GHB is so friggen dangerous in the first place??? Not only because it is extremely dose sensitive, it's because, as mentioned in the FAQ... that the margin between a recreational dose and overdosing is extremely thin.

What I mean to say is... with drugs like Heroin, or even Methamphetamine. People that usually over-dose on these drugs have a wider margin between recreational dosages and over dosage.
Think about it!! Trust me, a few people I know who have done extensive research on the chemical GHB before trying it find that due to the potent nature of the chemical it IS extremely hard to dose off.

 

[stacyrox]

Being bored on a Sunday night I decided to look into this whole "grevious bodily harm" thing.

After a quick Google search for "GHB" I found that this slang term was listed on almost every website I read, including Erowid (however they list it in 'other names used in the media'). Of course its near impossible to determine where the term came from originally, but it seems to be a random slang term used by someone in the states and its obvious why the media would pick it up and run with it straight away.

stace.

 

[Deformed_Neuron]

Also, imagine the outburst of immense feelings of a health system failed if say... as pointed out in Buck's article, a person suffering from a life threatening illness such as asthma, etc... were to die, because medical staff were simply too busy before-hand saving an individual that made the decision of using G, knowing the consequences (that he/she COULD die)... and this poor sufferer was left to die waiting in line to get treated.

You seriously have to think of things from the whole of Society's perspective, I know I would sure be damned angry if a member of my family couldn't be rescued from having an asthma attack... because a person *DECIDED* to go out and make a risky decision such as taking a dangerous drug such as GHB.

Even still, if GHB were to be legal and quality/potency controlled, do you think it would really make all that much of a difference? After all, as I stated earlier, it's the dosage margin for the recreational effects of the drug that makes consuming it dangerous in the first place.

Legalising a drug like GHB would be a good reason for society to be angry towards silly decisions the government makes, think about how logical it is.

GHB or 1,4B is a recreational drug usually taken in a party, or club environment amongst friends celebrating, or just simply partying. Unlike Heroin, where I believe it is possible for the user to safely ingest, inject, snort or smoke the drug in a medically monitored environment, using the pharmaceutical product under strict supervision. Realise... the recreational dosage margin is no where near as thin as that of GHB or it's precursors.

 

[buck_reed]

Also, imagine the outburst of immense feelings of a health system failed if say... as pointed out in Buck's article, a person suffering from a life threatening illness such as asthma, etc... were to die, because medical staff were simply too busy before-hand saving an individual that made the decision of using G, knowing the consequences (that he/she COULD die)... and this poor sufferer was left to die waiting in line to get treated.

You seriously have to think of things from the whole of Society's perspective, I know I would sure be damned angry if a member of my family couldn't be rescued from having an asthma attack... because a person *DECIDED* to go out and make a risky decision such as taking a dangerous drug such as GHB.

Thanks for referring to my article!

I think we need to accept the political climate where there is NO CHANCE that such drugs would be event unofficially endorsed by government, not with such a high risk potential.

We have a enough problems with new, uneducated users falling over every five minutes with GHB overdoses which are putting strain on the health system. To outline the problems let me put it this way.

Teenage girls are the largest growth group for smoking tobacco, a group of young people who are at a development point where they have a poor understanding of consequences and a strong drive to conform. The same rational drives teenages to expirament with Dexamphetamine, because it is relatibely available and they only are told by their friends of the positive benefits, not understanding the potential outcomes of both long term and short term Dexamphetmine use.

Now, 3 dexies is largely unlikely to kill you (although you will have a bit of a rough night) and 3 cigarettes will barely register (other than a bit of an embarassing cough). Three doses of G will kill you, especially if you get a poorly diluted batch.

Now, imagine we have all of these impressionable 18 year olds who a) have no concept of consequences and b)have just been able to drink legally. Any government who hands them GHB is going to be in office for about six second because the population who are most likely to want to use legalised GHB are the group least able to deal with, ore predict, the consequences. Suddently you would get all these muppets falling over, because while the government can police the quality of the GHB, they cannot police what prople do with it. What would the government do? Well, make it light light beer! (Yes, light GHB)...maybe make the legal dilution 1:100 or something so it had the potency of a glass or warm milk...who would take that recreationally? People would be back to illicitly made GHB in five minutes to get the desired effect and we would be back at square one. (It would be like if the tgovernment banned spririts so everyone would drink light beer...the stills would invariably come out).

Remember that bluelights in many cases are fairly educated people on the risks of drug taking (well that is the point of it)...we can;t expect the entire population to behave like people who use these forums.

Those of us in the health/harm minimisation world are largely of the same opinion (and I am sure that DrPlatypus would agree in principle to this) GHB and its precursors are one of the more risky, dangerous, and difficult recreational drugs to control. We are not saying take no drugs, we are saying, find a new one...there are plenty of other drugs in the sea with less risk, less contraversy and less likelihood of serious governmental intervention. If they Carr government suddenly has some kind of GHB Blitzkrieg because of an uneducated Newcastle couple that got it wrong, then people have to accept that it was the risky nature of the drug that meant someone would eventually screw it up in a public kind of way - not because of the apparent stupidity of the individuals. If it wasn' them, it would be someone else. Just be glad it wasn't a 14 year old who died after being pranbked at a cinema...this is the kind of thing that set off the US war on GHB.

Cheers,

Buck

 

[shal]

Interesting Article.

I think it shows the difference between a drug educated person and an undrug educated person. I think it shows that Bluelight adds value to the community by providing information on harm reduction and proper drug use.

I wonder if these people had read Bluelight if he would have ended up dead?

Food for thought...

shals :D

 

[buck_reed]

Hind sight is always 20/20, but I think we do need to recognise that Bluelight in and of itself doesn't stop people doing dumb things, rather it gives them basis for hopefully making informed decisions.

We do need to recognise in this specific case though that few people make informed and objective decisions after 14 burbon and cokes so the potential for this sort of thing always exists.

Cheers,

Buck

 

[Deformed_Neuron]

Ohhh, satricion. Sorry for the late reply regarding my Heroin use. I would like to think of myself not as a safe (there is no such thing as safe where drugs or MOST things are concerned) but a relatively responsible person.

I am extremely "picky" on who I get my Heroin off, due to the whole stereotypical scene of it (YES, alot of the street dealers are shadey).

While I don't know every single time the purity of the product I just paid for, I do have a little test before I "indulge". And... due to the fact that I smoke the stuff, as opposed to injecting, the risk of overdose is extremely low (but obviously still there).

Plus, I don't think many smack dealers in the first place would consider it a very profit-reaping thing to do, selling a pure product to someone who is buying low-scale such as myself. Due to the hefty prices of Heroin, most street Heroin is usually no more than 40% purity in my area... and even still, to get smack of this purity level would almost be like winning the lottery to some.

Ohh.. by the way Buck, you couldn't have hit the nail on the head more accurately mate, nice article.

 

[satricion]

Uh mate the purity of heroin is the least of your problems when it comes to assessing the dangers of heroin use. The point I made was that heroin is the media's biggest demon drug, and yet people still use it. This was in response to your comment earlier that the media's hysteria about G is good because it will keep people away from the drug. It won't and it hasn't. All the media's hysteria does is make it more difficult for real and useful information about using G safely to get out there to the users, and so people die.

The issue that you pointed out with the dose/response curve is exacerbated by G being illegal because people don't know how strong the product they're getting is...maybe if G was sold in the same way beer is, with a very small amount of active product in a large amount of liquid, with clear warnings on the side of the bottle about what you're drinking and what will happen if you mix it with other shit?

Giving people the right information and allowing them to make a choice is better than forcing them onto an illegal black market that doesn't care about their health and seeing if they sink or swim.

 

[Deformed_Neuron]

Heh, erm... in comparison to GHB, I would personally say Heroin is nothing in terms of danger. Yes, I believe the media has gone on "Superhype" mode with the recent OD's on GHB. I also agree that they blow things out of proportion, which sometimes distorts people's image about the current issue they rise.

But... What I am saying is think of all the reasons why GHB, or maybe in future 1,4B will remain illegal. Do you think it's a wise thing to not demonize drugs like GHB, or yes, even Heroin? Now don't get me wring, I'm not encouraging misinformation... BUT, you don't have to misinform in order to demonize.

Err... as for Heroin being the media's biggest "Demon" drug. I thought they all were the "Demon" drug. No matter how safe, or un-safe the usage of any drug is, it will be demonized. Look at Marijuana for instance.

As stated earlier, no matter what action the government take on GHB purity, if legalised. It will more than likely result in people turning to illicit grade stuff anyways.

What's the use in diluting a product, when it's only going to cause more "fogginess" in the situation?

Now, I would like to say some drugs would be legal. But, looking at the current situation REALISTICALLY... what with all these overdosages happening, I can't say it will happen in a hurry. Just don't hold your breath waiting, ok?

 

[Doomgurl]

sometimes tragedies like this need to happen so it can give us all a reality check.

drugs are not toys or lollies... i think sometimes, the vast majority of us lost sight of this little fact.


*shakes head* how sad.

 

[satricion]

But... What I am saying is think of all the reasons why GHB, or maybe in future 1,4B will remain illegal. Do you think it's a wise thing to not demonize drugs like GHB, or yes, even Heroin? Now don't get me wring, I'm not encouraging misinformation... BUT, you don't have to misinform in order to demonize.

The reason these drugs are illegal is political and ideological. That is why they are illegal now and that is why they will remain illegal.

As stated earlier, no matter what action the government take on GHB purity, if legalised. It will more than likely result in people turning to illicit grade stuff anyways.

This isn't true.

How many people do you know who drink moonshine? Would you drink something that a dealer assured you had alcohol in it when you could go down the road and buy a bottle of Glenfiddich? (or Passion Pop - The drink of the renaissance man).

Think about other drugs as well...I would probably pay three or four times black market price for a pill of guaranteed purity and dose. I would prefer to pay this much and get a guaranteed 120mg of MDMA than pay less and get something of more dubious quality.

What's the use in diluting a product, when it's only going to cause more "fogginess" in the situation?

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. At the moment in pubs we have signs that say "This much drinking = this much blood alcohol content" and it shows how many drinks of different kinds you need to drink to get to certain levels. This is much better than "have a sip of this bro, it'll get you mad fucked up"

 

[Deformed_Neuron]

Hmmm... again satricion, you're comparing Alcohol with a drug like GHB, without taking to note the lethality of the dosage margin on GHB's side.

What I was trying to say is... do you think people are going to use the licit grade GHB over the illicit grade if it is going to as diluted to the point it will almost not have any effect on the human mind in order to stop people overdosing from it. Again, please take note Alcohol dosing and GHB dosing are both completely different margins, so why compare the two?

 

[satricion]

You're right that overdosing on GHB is more easier and dangerous than on alcohol, and I accept that.

However, you have to work on the assumption that people are going to use G. So you need to make it safer. You can do this by putting government controls on the strength of the G that's out there. That way people know exactly what they're taking.

Furthermore, the government could probably provide the drug for at least a comparable price to dealers, and I believe that when faced with the option of buying from a dodgy dealer or buying from a legitimate place with real standards and product controls, that people will choose the later. It might take longer to get fucked up, but at least you know what you're taking.

The is the case with alcohol...it might take longer to get fucked up on a 40% bottle of scotch than it would to get fucked up on a 70% bottle of moonshine, but which are people going to choose? It's for this reason that I think if there was legal G available, the black market in G would die.

Think of another drug that you yourself use...I know I'd pay more for heroin if I knew exactly how strong it was. Wouldn't you?

 

[Deformed_Neuron]

Good point satricion, the validity of what you have just said is rather strong. However, unfortunately the government and the whole of society (yes, even the users) do not think in this sense.

Alot of people are pissed that drugs like Alcohol and Tobacco are legal as it is, what with all the health problems followed by the usage of these drugs... I can't see why not.

However, bringing out a possibly even more lethal drug such as GHB into the legal market would not be wise without more research into the danger, health risks, addictive nature, etc... into this chemical.

While I would much prefer to be getting my substances of choice from a 100% legitamate source, it still will not take away any of the potentially dangerous things that could happen from abuse.

That said... I also hear that once dependant on GHB, it's withdrawal symptoms can almost be life-threatining.

 

[wazza]

For info regarding GHB and withdrawal symptoms.

http://www.projectghb.org/files/addictionfactsheet.htm + http://www.projectghb.org/addiction/serious.htm

*also* http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ghb/ghb_addiction.shtml

Not too sure about life threatening? Except possible rare cases of suicide or walking in traffic due to confusion?

 

[satricion]

However, bringing out a possibly even more lethal drug such as GHB into the legal market would not be wise without more research into the danger, health risks, addictive nature, etc... into this chemical.

GHB was and still is used as an anaesthetic in hospitals. This is not an unknown chemical. We probably know more about it than MDMA.

While I would much prefer to be getting my substances of choice from a 100% legitamate source, it still will not take away any of the potentially dangerous things that could happen from abuse.

That's true. It's not an argument to keep G illegal though. The only time people resort to a black market is when they can't get something legally.

That said... I also hear that once dependant on GHB, it's withdrawal symptoms can almost be life-threatining.

You can die from alcohol withdrawals as well. You can also die from valium withdrawals, and (I believe) methodone.

 

[syntech]

in response to making G legal....you would have to be given a prescription.

now i dont know how the methodone program works, but if it were to ever happen with G, then it would be set up much the same wouldn't it?

i mean, your not gonna be able to just go and buy it at the shop are you?

so deformed_neuron, would you ever consider going to a methodone clinic as your source because its apparently safer than getting it off the streets?
so if G was legalised, this example proves that ppl will still look for it on the black market, because ppl still buy smack on the black market.

why would you possibly pay more for a weaker product, put yourself at the risk of being labelled as a druggie, when you can get it elsewhere? especially being a more educated user of G, like myself, i personally would not go to a clinic or whatever to obtain some.

i hope i'm making a legitimate comparison, after all the debate about comparing alcohol with G.

 

[buck_reed]

GHB was and still is used as an anaesthetic in hospitals. This is not an unknown chemical. We probably know more about it than MDMA.

Only in France. Every other country has discontinued the use of GHB due o the significant side effects. (Ever tried to take out an appendix from someone who is fitting...)

There has been, at this stage, significantly more research done on MDMA toxicology than GHB. For example, a medline search reveals 1718 entries for MDMA and 969 for GHB - half as much research (this does not take into account type or quality of research, but from experience even less GHB research has useful applicatins to humans than similar MDMA research

Cheers,

Buck

 

[buck_reed]

in response to making G legal....you would have to be given a prescription.

now i dont know how the methodone program works, but if it were to ever happen with G, then it would be set up much the same wouldn't it?

I hate to say it, but given current trends in medical liability, no doctor is going to write you a script for a substance which inadvertantly kills you if you triple the dose. And even if the did go down this road, we have 10-12 years of clinical trials before they release it.

NOW, add the cost of research, packaging, insurance - increase the price by a factor of 10. Would you buy GHB at $30 a dose when you can pick it up illicitly at $5.

Back to square one - try again.

Cheers,

Buck