phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,179
Over the past year or two, we have seen some government funded drug advisory and outreach groups displaying a tendency to turn away from emphasizing harm reduction. Indeed, without giving example, at least one has attempted to distance themselves from their primary role by changing their identity because of perceived connotations surrounding the group’s previous name.
Additionally, drug trend research is being directed more towards examining specifics relating to harms caused by drug use. What’s wrong with that, you might ask? Well, it seems that overall, something may be missing from these studies; that ever important fundamental of good science - objectivity. We see it everywhere we look. Focus has become more on the few that fall, and often excludes the majority, or particular subsets of users; those for who drug use may be essentially non-problematic. Inclusion of this group is not only vital to producing impartial and meaningful data, but also for generating open dialogue, free of idealistic notions, on how we can best manage and direct future policies.
Perhaps reflective of this paradigmatic shift, many drug trend studies are becoming further and further behind the eight ball. User trends are changing rapidly, in part at least, due to availability. Indeed, when speaking to a University researcher recently, it became apparent these departments aren't keeping abreast of user trends. Naturally, this means these studies cannot achieve their prime objectives.
The advent and popularity of newer or novel substances, particularly over the past 2 years, and the how, where & why these drugs are obtained, have not been recognised by some groups until quite recently. Yet, despite this sudden awareness, it remains to be seen whether relevant data will be included in upcoming reports. If it is left a year, it's very likely trends will have again changed, making such inclusions worth far less, and accurate analysis of user trends impossible.
I see a greater problem here, one that also echoes this turn away from the Harm Reduction concept. While it’s not solely the aim of such studies to better inform users, this information has, nevertheless, in the past been of great importance to HR groups, as it facilitates the development and refinement of intervention and early warning strategies. Accurate overview also allows the public to gain insight into the broader drug using community.
It would seem that decisions made on whether or not to notify the public of these changes are being balanced against the currently stapled bottom line of whether it might send the wrong message, particularly if such shifts in user trends only represent a minority of drug users. In other words; don’t tell them what a few are doing for fear they’ll all want to…
Today, the letterhead message from government and many relative NGOs, seems to be “Don't do drugs, and if you do, seek rehab...” There's little middle ground, and in accordance with that, less accurate information is disseminated to where it often does the most good; the receptive user and his/her associates. It’s so bad, that if Gov. or NGO funded HR workers are to give advice in accordance with operational protocols, they must condemn drug use per se. Still, if outreach groups were to operate strictly under such a code, it would be next to impossible for them to provide a non-judgemental service. That prejudice must be there, for failure to exhibit some form of disapproval and/or strong deterrent contradicts their protocol under any zero tolerance policy.
We need to then ask; Have some of our harm reduction based organisations become redundant?
Coupled with such obsolescence is another alarming trend, although, rather than stemming from government, this comes from parts of the drug using community itself, and indeed is expressed by some individuals contributing to drug discussion groups. It concerns the notion, accepted among an ever growing fraction of this and other forums, that it's best not to expose new substances for a fear these will become illegal, or scheduled faster. Whichever way you look at it, this effectively equates to an unwillingness to support the fundamental principles of harm reduction. Regrettably, BL doesn’t seem to be impervious to this shifting mind-set. While, it might seem from some of the threads addressing this issue that relatively few believe exposure should take second place to informed choice, these posts don't reveal the views of some of our more prominent BLers who have for one reason or another indicated they do not support disclosure.
Looking at the history of Bluelight, one can see how a focus towards Harm Minimisation/ Reduction has varied over the past 10 years or so. Initially, many posters came here to link up with fellow users, exchange ideas, and report the experiences they had with drugs. The HR message was there from the beginning, but it wasn't till a few years later that BL really blossomed. Looking back to around 2002; there were the usual "my pill is better than yours" posts, but a typical day would also see harm reduction reflected in almost every thread on this forum, and referral to ‘classic’ HR related posts was frequent. Then something unusual happened. In late 2004, the-hive closed and many of its active posters eventually found a new home at BL.
Today, we see that Bluelight has really grown as a comnmunity, offering forums for health and science etc; a wonderful variety non-drug related topics and interests. We also see a wide variety of drug related subjects discussed on BL, and that's also great. We see more posts discussing new or novel compounds, structure activity relationships and theoretical drugs derived from exploring receptor-ligand interaction; most fascinating subjects.
While I certainly don’t object to such frank and open discussions, I am however concerned at how overall, in some ways HR seems to have taken second place to all of this. It also strikes me as sad that so many people – on and off this board - who once stood strong in support of HR, now instead back away from boldly stating their opinions. Perhaps it’s due to the propaganda spouted by the prohibitionist movement, or a fear they may be more vulnerable in a legal sense. Whatever the cause/s, I’m finding people are generally becoming more reluctant to admit use, even past drug use.
So, it is then perhaps not so surprising that currently in Australia, open support for law reform and other issues important to the successful dissemination of HR information has also waned over recent times. How then are the HR crusaders meant to continue effectively?
I believe the answer lies in three principle areas.
1) Encourage those opposed to HR, or who simply don't know much about it, to engage in discussions, both on and off BL.
2) Gather every bit of information out there relevant to HR and broadcast that widely.
3) Be more pro-active. Use all resources available to us to be the first to identify, warn or inform of new substances and trends. Promote this website widely, and regularly initiate conversation on the subject of informed choice and importance of constructive, drug discussion forums. Most importantly, do this with those who support prohibition as it currently stands.
Recently, we’ve again had the media referring to Bluelight in news articles. I believe this should be a welcomed thing, regardless of the increased publicity and the flack it could bring. We now, more than ever need exposure, and with that, IMO we also need to appoint (or reinstate) a local ambassador. Many prohibitionists presume those wanting reform are mainly either hopeless users - too slack or lazy to actively voice or promote their views - or eccentric academics that are largely ignored by the general population. This needs to change.
A matter which has had significant affect on many users on and off the broad concerns last year's posting of the Neorganics analysis results. Despite some outcomes not being considered positive, with several posters appearing to have left BL (or at least have not posted regularly since) IMHO we must nevertheless strive to continue to present such information. Without it, HR has virtually nothing to offer. Not that long ago a post was made concerning the lack of knowledge displayed on 2C-I by onsite medical teams. However, 2CI is a relatively well known drug. What if the drug in question was an unknown substance contained in some commercially available product? At least with the former, paramedics or ER staff could find such information if they tried hard enough. With unknowns this simply isn’t possible. So how do emergency personnel treat someone when they know nothing of possible interactions? A standard treatment could well produce unexpected or even life threatening outcomes.
Other drugs are hitting the market worldwide, often marketed and packaged so as to mislead. It is naturally argued that identifying these compounds merely plays into the hands of authorities and serves to have the active ingredients scheduled sooner. However, in relation to HR, that argument holds no water. Sure newer and more novel compounds will in all likelihood replace these newly scheduled drugs at some point. Yes, they could possibly be more dangerous, but no-one can be sure these drugs won’t be worse than what may follow, particularly if we don’t know what the present drugs circulating are.
In improving the effectiveness of HR today, and to hopefully bring it up to speed in relation to newer and upcoming substances, we need to stay informed. We also need to make sure such info reaches as many users as possible. Perhaps now, more than ever before, we HR advocates need to ask ourselves where do we go from here?
As said, BL and other forums need to embrace all resources in an effort to alert, notify, and educate users. Also, as I’ve constantly reminded in regards to synthesis discussion, we need to look at the value this and other forums may find in discussing some aspects of synthesis, particularly in relation to impurities, contaminants etc. The ‘no synth’ rule is not a blanket BL policy, but regardless, IMO any such black and white policy should never be made by anyone without a practical HR background, and preferably also a good knowledge of chemistry and relative toxicology.
It can well be argued (and has), that, compared to a few years ago, a greater proportion of MDMA available in Aus is now being made in this country. It would seem prudent then, from a harm reduction perspective, to also target producers with our messages. But how does this sit with present Aus DD policies?
As I’ve said, I don't think we should allow synthesis discussion just for the sake of those wishing to learn how to do it, or improve their yields. But I do believe it's important to signal potential for dangers to anyone in the chain; from manufacturers to consumers. By in large this would be deterrent in nature, so, from a HR perspective, I believe this is completely acceptable. Not only that, but it’s the responsible thing to do.
There’ll be those who claim such talk is too risky; authorities and governments will act to censor Bluelight or worse. Personally, I believe that’s rubbish. In our present climate, Bluelight is a great reference for research groups, medical professionals, forensics and law enforcement. These departments would in some cases be lost without this resource.
The momentum towards achieving a rational approach from government has waned significantly this past year or so and doesn’t seemed to have gained any ground under the present government. The current environment surrounding drug education is first and foremost based on not sending the wrong message. In at least one state (Qld) it has now become a crime to get high on anything but alcohol. It doesn't matter whether the substance you take is not specifically scheduled, if it has a similar pharmacological profile to a scheduled drug, its illegal by definition.
We’ve also recently seen maximum sentences for users increased substantially, done it is said to act as a deterrent. But unless a user or potential user sees it in the paper, there’s practically nothing distributed by drug advice agencies or Law enforcement that informs of the potential penalties. The recent thread How to - Deal with LE by fortehlulz has filled a long standing void, so fortehlulz’s contributions have been invaluable
We need some new ideas people, some fresh input into how Harm Reduction can remain an important tool in limiting and preventing harms associated with drug use. Let’s hear of your ideas on how we might address some of the problems HR is currently facing and will continue face in the future.
Additionally, drug trend research is being directed more towards examining specifics relating to harms caused by drug use. What’s wrong with that, you might ask? Well, it seems that overall, something may be missing from these studies; that ever important fundamental of good science - objectivity. We see it everywhere we look. Focus has become more on the few that fall, and often excludes the majority, or particular subsets of users; those for who drug use may be essentially non-problematic. Inclusion of this group is not only vital to producing impartial and meaningful data, but also for generating open dialogue, free of idealistic notions, on how we can best manage and direct future policies.
Perhaps reflective of this paradigmatic shift, many drug trend studies are becoming further and further behind the eight ball. User trends are changing rapidly, in part at least, due to availability. Indeed, when speaking to a University researcher recently, it became apparent these departments aren't keeping abreast of user trends. Naturally, this means these studies cannot achieve their prime objectives.
The advent and popularity of newer or novel substances, particularly over the past 2 years, and the how, where & why these drugs are obtained, have not been recognised by some groups until quite recently. Yet, despite this sudden awareness, it remains to be seen whether relevant data will be included in upcoming reports. If it is left a year, it's very likely trends will have again changed, making such inclusions worth far less, and accurate analysis of user trends impossible.
I see a greater problem here, one that also echoes this turn away from the Harm Reduction concept. While it’s not solely the aim of such studies to better inform users, this information has, nevertheless, in the past been of great importance to HR groups, as it facilitates the development and refinement of intervention and early warning strategies. Accurate overview also allows the public to gain insight into the broader drug using community.
It would seem that decisions made on whether or not to notify the public of these changes are being balanced against the currently stapled bottom line of whether it might send the wrong message, particularly if such shifts in user trends only represent a minority of drug users. In other words; don’t tell them what a few are doing for fear they’ll all want to…
Today, the letterhead message from government and many relative NGOs, seems to be “Don't do drugs, and if you do, seek rehab...” There's little middle ground, and in accordance with that, less accurate information is disseminated to where it often does the most good; the receptive user and his/her associates. It’s so bad, that if Gov. or NGO funded HR workers are to give advice in accordance with operational protocols, they must condemn drug use per se. Still, if outreach groups were to operate strictly under such a code, it would be next to impossible for them to provide a non-judgemental service. That prejudice must be there, for failure to exhibit some form of disapproval and/or strong deterrent contradicts their protocol under any zero tolerance policy.
We need to then ask; Have some of our harm reduction based organisations become redundant?
Coupled with such obsolescence is another alarming trend, although, rather than stemming from government, this comes from parts of the drug using community itself, and indeed is expressed by some individuals contributing to drug discussion groups. It concerns the notion, accepted among an ever growing fraction of this and other forums, that it's best not to expose new substances for a fear these will become illegal, or scheduled faster. Whichever way you look at it, this effectively equates to an unwillingness to support the fundamental principles of harm reduction. Regrettably, BL doesn’t seem to be impervious to this shifting mind-set. While, it might seem from some of the threads addressing this issue that relatively few believe exposure should take second place to informed choice, these posts don't reveal the views of some of our more prominent BLers who have for one reason or another indicated they do not support disclosure.
Looking at the history of Bluelight, one can see how a focus towards Harm Minimisation/ Reduction has varied over the past 10 years or so. Initially, many posters came here to link up with fellow users, exchange ideas, and report the experiences they had with drugs. The HR message was there from the beginning, but it wasn't till a few years later that BL really blossomed. Looking back to around 2002; there were the usual "my pill is better than yours" posts, but a typical day would also see harm reduction reflected in almost every thread on this forum, and referral to ‘classic’ HR related posts was frequent. Then something unusual happened. In late 2004, the-hive closed and many of its active posters eventually found a new home at BL.
Today, we see that Bluelight has really grown as a comnmunity, offering forums for health and science etc; a wonderful variety non-drug related topics and interests. We also see a wide variety of drug related subjects discussed on BL, and that's also great. We see more posts discussing new or novel compounds, structure activity relationships and theoretical drugs derived from exploring receptor-ligand interaction; most fascinating subjects.
While I certainly don’t object to such frank and open discussions, I am however concerned at how overall, in some ways HR seems to have taken second place to all of this. It also strikes me as sad that so many people – on and off this board - who once stood strong in support of HR, now instead back away from boldly stating their opinions. Perhaps it’s due to the propaganda spouted by the prohibitionist movement, or a fear they may be more vulnerable in a legal sense. Whatever the cause/s, I’m finding people are generally becoming more reluctant to admit use, even past drug use.
So, it is then perhaps not so surprising that currently in Australia, open support for law reform and other issues important to the successful dissemination of HR information has also waned over recent times. How then are the HR crusaders meant to continue effectively?
I believe the answer lies in three principle areas.
1) Encourage those opposed to HR, or who simply don't know much about it, to engage in discussions, both on and off BL.
2) Gather every bit of information out there relevant to HR and broadcast that widely.
3) Be more pro-active. Use all resources available to us to be the first to identify, warn or inform of new substances and trends. Promote this website widely, and regularly initiate conversation on the subject of informed choice and importance of constructive, drug discussion forums. Most importantly, do this with those who support prohibition as it currently stands.
Recently, we’ve again had the media referring to Bluelight in news articles. I believe this should be a welcomed thing, regardless of the increased publicity and the flack it could bring. We now, more than ever need exposure, and with that, IMO we also need to appoint (or reinstate) a local ambassador. Many prohibitionists presume those wanting reform are mainly either hopeless users - too slack or lazy to actively voice or promote their views - or eccentric academics that are largely ignored by the general population. This needs to change.
A matter which has had significant affect on many users on and off the broad concerns last year's posting of the Neorganics analysis results. Despite some outcomes not being considered positive, with several posters appearing to have left BL (or at least have not posted regularly since) IMHO we must nevertheless strive to continue to present such information. Without it, HR has virtually nothing to offer. Not that long ago a post was made concerning the lack of knowledge displayed on 2C-I by onsite medical teams. However, 2CI is a relatively well known drug. What if the drug in question was an unknown substance contained in some commercially available product? At least with the former, paramedics or ER staff could find such information if they tried hard enough. With unknowns this simply isn’t possible. So how do emergency personnel treat someone when they know nothing of possible interactions? A standard treatment could well produce unexpected or even life threatening outcomes.
Other drugs are hitting the market worldwide, often marketed and packaged so as to mislead. It is naturally argued that identifying these compounds merely plays into the hands of authorities and serves to have the active ingredients scheduled sooner. However, in relation to HR, that argument holds no water. Sure newer and more novel compounds will in all likelihood replace these newly scheduled drugs at some point. Yes, they could possibly be more dangerous, but no-one can be sure these drugs won’t be worse than what may follow, particularly if we don’t know what the present drugs circulating are.
In improving the effectiveness of HR today, and to hopefully bring it up to speed in relation to newer and upcoming substances, we need to stay informed. We also need to make sure such info reaches as many users as possible. Perhaps now, more than ever before, we HR advocates need to ask ourselves where do we go from here?
As said, BL and other forums need to embrace all resources in an effort to alert, notify, and educate users. Also, as I’ve constantly reminded in regards to synthesis discussion, we need to look at the value this and other forums may find in discussing some aspects of synthesis, particularly in relation to impurities, contaminants etc. The ‘no synth’ rule is not a blanket BL policy, but regardless, IMO any such black and white policy should never be made by anyone without a practical HR background, and preferably also a good knowledge of chemistry and relative toxicology.
It can well be argued (and has), that, compared to a few years ago, a greater proportion of MDMA available in Aus is now being made in this country. It would seem prudent then, from a harm reduction perspective, to also target producers with our messages. But how does this sit with present Aus DD policies?
As I’ve said, I don't think we should allow synthesis discussion just for the sake of those wishing to learn how to do it, or improve their yields. But I do believe it's important to signal potential for dangers to anyone in the chain; from manufacturers to consumers. By in large this would be deterrent in nature, so, from a HR perspective, I believe this is completely acceptable. Not only that, but it’s the responsible thing to do.
There’ll be those who claim such talk is too risky; authorities and governments will act to censor Bluelight or worse. Personally, I believe that’s rubbish. In our present climate, Bluelight is a great reference for research groups, medical professionals, forensics and law enforcement. These departments would in some cases be lost without this resource.
The momentum towards achieving a rational approach from government has waned significantly this past year or so and doesn’t seemed to have gained any ground under the present government. The current environment surrounding drug education is first and foremost based on not sending the wrong message. In at least one state (Qld) it has now become a crime to get high on anything but alcohol. It doesn't matter whether the substance you take is not specifically scheduled, if it has a similar pharmacological profile to a scheduled drug, its illegal by definition.
We’ve also recently seen maximum sentences for users increased substantially, done it is said to act as a deterrent. But unless a user or potential user sees it in the paper, there’s practically nothing distributed by drug advice agencies or Law enforcement that informs of the potential penalties. The recent thread How to - Deal with LE by fortehlulz has filled a long standing void, so fortehlulz’s contributions have been invaluable
We need some new ideas people, some fresh input into how Harm Reduction can remain an important tool in limiting and preventing harms associated with drug use. Let’s hear of your ideas on how we might address some of the problems HR is currently facing and will continue face in the future.
