how to test rc benzos

[CFC]

Yeah absolutely, we can't physically test drugs ourselves, or tell what drugs BLers have (ID) from their narrative descriptions or even good pictures - it would be speculative and potentially misleading, hence foolhardy.

But we definitely want to encourage people to send their drugs off for testing, and to link them to pill testing resources whenever we possibly can (like pillreports, which is actually listed on our website, or places like Wedinos, which is paid for by the Welsh government to test user's drugs).

We were actually working on a fairly comprehensive list of available drug testing facilities somewhere around here, early last year. I should really go see if I can find it.

 

[Keif' Richards]

That would be great. I'm not anti-knowledge. I just am always trying to look out for areas in which we may find ourselves bogged down with information/threads or what have you that might not have any possible productive outcome. I definitely don't want to imply that I know best here. It's all just my opinion and what has been almost ten years of ID of any kind being a no-go. I'm good with change I just want us to have an effective way of doing it, as I'm sure you all do.

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

this is not a drug id thread. i?m not asking you or anyone else what?s in my drugs. i?m asking what steps and resources i can utilize to find out beyond speculation, which is cut and dry HR. that list would be of significant value, CFC.

there?s no change here. that said i?ve learned of three labs and that reagent kits won?t help me. if you feel like closing a thread, have fun.

 

[Keif' Richards]

Hydro, it's not a personal matter. We all are supposed to be communicating with each other to help better the forums, or so I thought. It sucks when you simply bring up a matter of policy and then are rebuked as if you've insulted someone. I'm a moderator. When I became a moderator, we did not allow threads like this. We were discussing for a time, the possibility of allowing certain drug testing questions. I disagreed with this one. You could've talked to me like a colleague regarding your negative feelings, but instead, the familiar passive aggression that BL'ers get so hard for rears its head.

I understand that people who are new get upset over closed threads, but you guys have all been here for a long time. It sucks that you feel that way about me, because I was under the impression that we were a team. There is such a huge disconnect in terms of communication here and it's going to destroy this entire community.

This place has fallen so fucking far it's tragic.

 

[Tranced]

From the BDD guidelines:

NO DRUG TESTING QUESTIONS

NO PILL OR SUBSTANCE ID THREADS If you have an unknown substance, there is no way for us to know what you have without a test. Otherwise it's purely speculative, and your subjective experience of a drug will differ from someone else's. A false sense of security based on speculation could be dangerous.

Whilst "no drug testing questions" is not elaborated on, I think that it quite clear that it falls under the same reasoning as the "no pill or substance ID threads" and the reasons further elaborated upon of which I have highlighted in bold. Notice how it specifies that there is no way to know without a test? Seems kind of relevant to me.

I can not see any reason whatsoever why there is no problem discussing wedinos, energy control, or any kind of drug testing which is not 'purely speculative' or 'your subjective experience'. We have historically had relationships with MDMA pill testing companies, not to mention pillreports.com. The point of the the ID rules are to avoid "What did I take type threads", "is my yellow amphetamine real amphetamine", or "can I tell if my alprazolam is the real deal if tastes bitter", etc etc, and to me it seems that the no drug testing rule probably stems from that.

I think it's clear that a little bit of logic and rationality needs to be exercised here. The no drug testing question rule does not make sense, and if that's the case then it could (should) IMO be revised.

If people are wildly speculating on substances based upon subjective and anecdotal speculation then it's problematic. If people are using lab testing services or test kits then it could and should be encouraged, and has been for years.

The rules to bluelight are fluid and can be changed. Whoever happened to write the rule at the time was not necessarily an institution when it came to implementing rules, and the rules are not necessarily logically valid or future proof; lab testing services such as energy control and wedinos were quite simply not available back when such rules were written.

If a rule doesn't make sense, we change it. It seems to be that there is a consensus so far that discussing wedinos, energy control, etc is beneficial, and I can't see why it isn't.

If anybody can provide some valid argument about why testing questions in their entirety should be banned, I think everybody would be happy to hear them. That also stands for if certain testing questions should be disallowed because the results are too vague; in that case we simply make amendments to the guidelines and clarify them & update the rules/BLUA.

 

[Keif' Richards]

From the BDD guidelines:



Whilst "no drug testing questions" is not elaborated on, I think that it quite clear that it falls under the same reasoning as the "no pill or substance ID threads" and the reasons further elaborated upon of which I have highlighted in bold. Notice how it specifies that there is no way to know without a test? Seems kind of relevant to me.

It's absolutely fine to talk about wedinos, energy control, or any kind of drug testing which is not 'purely speculative' or 'your subjective experience'. The point of the rule is to avoid "What did I take type threads" or "is my yellow amphetamine real amphteramine", etc.

We have historically had relationships with MDMA pill testing companies, not to mention pillreports.com.

I think it's clear that a little bit of logic and rationality needs to be exercised here. The no drug testing question rule does not make sense, and if that's the case then it could (should) IMO be revised.

If people are wildly speculating on substances based upon subjective and anecdotal speculation then it's problematic. If people are using lab testing services or test kits then it could and should be encouraged, and has been for years.

The rules to bluelight are fluid and can be changed. Whoever happened to write the rule at the time was not necessarily an institution when it came to implementing rules, and the rules are not necessarily logically valid or future proof; lab testing services such as energy control and wedinos were quite simply not available back when such rules were written.

If a rule doesn't make sense, we change it. It seems to be that there is a consensus so far that discussing wedinos, energy control, etc is beneficial, and I can't see why it isn't.

If anybody can provide some valid argument about why testing questions in their entirety should be banned, I think everybody would be happy to hear them. That also stands for if certain testing questions should be disallowed because the results are too vague. If that's the case and anybody can think of it, then we'll simply clarify it and update the rules/BLUA.

Tranced. Thank you Christ (I'm a Jew) for being a voice of reason. As a moderator, I am supposed to follow the rules as they are laid out to me. There is always a certain level of subjective opinion involved with this job, but some stuff is utterly black and white. When I'm told "Drug testing questions are not allowed" then encounter a thread titled "how to test RC benzos", it's my job to address it.

There are so many layers of shit here, but what would be helpful, would be for people to not take every single administrative change to their thread as a deeply personal attack. I bring this issue up, with respect and deference to my peers and the response I get implies that I'm an asshole who enjoys "shutting people down". It was so disappointing to see that. Myself and others have dedicated so much time, energy and frankly, love to this community. We do it because we have an honest compassion for our peers.

I never discuss the "time and energy" bullshit. It's because I don't want to and I don't care. If you think we are in this for praise, I encourage you to view a curated section of my private message inbox; insults to my family; hope you die; hope you overdose; you're on a power trip; "you are a stupid fucking Kike" are examples of some of the shit that I and others receive regularly, usually for closing threads. Every once in a while, someone sends me a message and they say "Thank You". Honestly, when I get stuff life that, it makes my day. I am just so happy that I've been able to maybe make someone's day just a bit fucking better.

This is why I do it. This is why my friends do it. So while I don't want, expect or need praise, it also sucks when people deliberately try to put me down. The greatest insult of all, is after dedicating part of my heart and soul to this community, I find that the rules and regs that I have always operated by and believed in are no longer enforced. We've always had problems, but the HR forums used to be straight up Harm Reduction. We didn't fuck around with people's erections. We didn't actively promote drug use.

Is it a coincidence that, as we have relaxed our policies, treated each other with suspicion, passive aggression and disrespect, the community has crumbled before our eyes? There is still an opportunity to save this.

Tranced: I am totally in agreement. At the very least, we clearly have to revisit some of these policies. Things change. Ten years ago, Research Chemicals were fairly unheard of and Fentanyl wasn't yet around in force on the street. I don't know what the answer is, but at the very least, we need to communicate. This passive aggressive bullshit needs to end. It does not help anyone. If there are issues, we need to be discussing them with each other directly.

 

[Kaden_Nite]

I've always interpreted the no drug testing rule as referring to people being drug tested (like court-ordered or employment-related drug tests).

Testing actual drug samples though (either lab tests or DIY reagent tests) is very much essential to harm reduction IMO.

 

[Keif' Richards]

^Definitely man, but the issue is not really about the morality or ethics involved with testing drugs. We are absolutely in favor of drug testing. The problem is more about our limitations as a community. Being that we are remote, we can't personally test drugs or answer anyone's questions. We support the practice, it's just that we can't really do it and we're trying to figure out the best way of approaching this.

 

[Tranced]

I've always interpreted the no drug testing rule as referring to people being drug tested (like court-ordered or employment-related drug tests).

You know, as I made my reply to this thread I was really quite confused and couldn't quite work out why we suddenly had a no drug testing rule and why/when it had ever been implemented, and this is why. I knew something was off but couldn't quite place my finger on it, so thank you Kaden.

The no drug testing rule is about workplace/etc urine/hair sample tests, and not about getting drugs lab tested. As such, the reasoning for disallowing drug testing discussion in this thread is misguided and defunct. IIRC the only forum which has a specific no drug testing rule is 'MDMA & Empathogenic Drugs', because we have a dedicated MDMA pill testing forum.

Unless anybody can counter this, then I'd say it stands that we have no policy on drug testing in the sense of lab/etc testing, but just workplace/urine type testing. If people agree, then somebody can update the BDD guidelines to clarify, I'll update the user agreement, and the problem is surely resolved.

 

[MDPV_Psychosis]

You know, as I made my reply to this thread I was really quite confused and couldn't quite work out why we suddenly had a no drug testing rule and why/when it had ever been implemented, and this is why. I knew something was off but couldn't quite place my finger on it, so thank you Kaden.

The no drug testing rule is about workplace/etc urine/hair sample tests, and not about getting drugs lab tested. As such, the reasoning for disallowing drug testing discussion in this thread is misguided and defunct. IIRC the only forum which has a specific no drug testing rule is 'MDMA & Empathogenic Drugs', because we have a dedicated MDMA pill testing forum.

Unless anybody can counter this, then I'd say it stands that we have no policy on drug testing in the sense of lab/etc testing, but just workplace/urine type testing. If people agree, then somebody can update the BDD guidelines to clarify, I'll update the user agreement, and the problem is surely resolved.

This is how I always assumed it was. No drug testing rule was about urine/blood/hair/salvia testing done by employers, parole officers, etc and did not include drug reagent/lab analysis type identification testing.

But Kief brings up good points. For example, Is it a good idea for us to try and help people identify a drug based on what they report a reagents reaction to be. This is difficult to do remotely and can be somewhat subjective (what color something looks like) and, plus, reagents don't indicate what a substance is just what it might or might not be. Seems to be a sticky situation HR wise, kinda like trying to help someone ID a pill based on an imprint, which we don't do.

Perhaps we should only help people by giving them the basic information they need to help themselves - like which labs provide testing, where to get reagents, where to find information about using reagents but not go much further than that.

 

[Tranced]

But Kief brings up good points. For example, Is it a good idea for us to try and help people identify a drug based on what they report a reagents reaction to be. This is difficult to do remotely and can be somewhat subjective (what color something looks like) and, plus, reagents don't indicate what a substance is just what it might or might not be. Seems to be a sticky situation HR wise, kinda like trying to help someone ID a pill based on an imprint, which we don't do.

Perhaps we should only help people by giving them the basic information they need to help themselves - like which labs provide testing, where to get reagents, where to find information about using reagents but not go much further than that.

We have a Testing Q&A and Discussion sub-forum which has existed for at least about 15+ years, and I've never heard of anybody running into trouble with the ambiguity of the test results (might have happened, but never heard of it... certainly nothing major), but with 5600+ threads it seems like they've helped a great deal of people to use the tests as a guideline, as they are intended.

I think that there comes a point (generally, just something I've observed over the years) where people can try and take HR so seriously that it's crippling. Pill test kits are generally better than nothing, and services like EC, wedinos and ED are a godsend which should be available in every major city.

I honestly can't think of a single reason to actually go ahead and change this system, but again, I'm willing to hear it; or if people take issue in particular with the pill testing situation at BL they should probably raise it in the aforementioned sub-forum.

( )!

 

[MDPV_Psychosis]

We have a Testing Q&A and Discussion sub-forum which has existed for at least about 15+ years, and I've never heard of anybody running into trouble with the ambiguity of the test results (might have happened, but never heard of it... certainly nothing major), but with 5600+ threads it seems like they've helped a great deal of people to use the tests as a guideline, as they are intended.

I think that there comes a point (generally, just something I've observed over the years) where people can try and take HR so seriously that it's crippling. Pill test kits are generally better than nothing, and services like EC, wedinos and ED are a godsend which should be available in every major city.

I honestly can't think of a single reason to actually go ahead and change this system, but again, I'm willing to hear it; or if people take issue in particular with the pill testing situation at BL they should probably raise it in the aforementioned sub-forum.

( )!

Hmm... I may need to get out more? I was not so much aware of our pill test subforum tbh. Makes sense though.

I just figured reagent testing is a difficult and ambiguous process especially considering all the many many research chemicals out there. Lots of potential for false positives and confusion especially when we don't often don't yet know how brand new chemicals should react.

I do not mean to piss on the parade though. If we've had the pill testing forum in place and it's working wonders then I wouldn't suggesting changing a good thing.

But yes, I think we should change policy to reflect the fact that drug ID testing discussion is ok while keeping drug testing (of the employer/P.O. variety) off limits.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

But yes, I think we should change policy to reflect the fact that drug ID testing discussion is ok while keeping drug testing (of the employer/P.O. variety) off limits.

Like yourself, I always assumed that this was the policy.

Obviously, information on how to cheat drug tests from addiction services, law enforcement and employers should be prohibited as it is fraudulent behaviour and no methods are guaranteed to succeed and could ultimately cause more harm to the person asking the question.

On the other hand, questions about drug testing services should be positively encouraged and answered to the best of our ability imo.

I see what you mean about discussion of reagent tests being a bit of a grey area, but surely the collective experience of BL members who use these products is far better than just relying upon the included colour chart?

 

[Tranced]

^Like I say, sometimes I think things can attempt get so HR to the point of being stifling.

I mean, you could make the argument that any information we give here is ambiguous, subjective and anecdotal... all provided by a bunch of drug users who know no better, so let's just stop providing information... just in case.

The fact of the matter is that governments have nothing better to offer, so we're left to pass the HR amongst ourselves. This includes our accumulated knowledge, testing kits, and increasingly (thankfully), lab testing services.

But yes, I think we should change policy to reflect the fact that drug ID testing discussion is ok while keeping drug testing (of the employer/P.O. variety) off limits.

Just to clarify for anybody reading this would simply be a clarification of existing policy, rather than a change. There has never to my knowledge been a policy about discouraging or disallowing drug testing; only the opposite.

In fact, I'm unsure this has ever been brought up until now (I've certainly never seen it anyway).

 

[MDPV_Psychosis]

Tranced, thank you for the clarification on what I said about the proposed clarification.

^Like I say, sometimes I think things can attempt get so HR to the point of being stifling.

I mean, you could make the argument that any information we give here is ambiguous, subjective and anecdotal... all provided by a bunch of drug users who know no better, so let's just stop providing information... just in case.

I'd say I've fallen into this trap once or twice, sometimes it takes another more sensible person to point it out.

I see what you mean about discussion of reagent tests being a bit of a grey area, but surely the collective experience of BL members who use these products is far better than just relying upon the included colour chart?

This is a good point.

I've been thinking about it more, and even with the ambiguity harm is still reduced. Reagents don't necessarily tell you 100% what something is but they can narrow down the list of possibilities of both what something is and isn't. Harm has been reduced because the user has gone from worrying "this pill I'm about to take could be anything" to "to the best of my ability I believe this pill I'm about to take contains only mdma, or at least I know it doesn't contain XXX or XXX". That is a win, even though it's still possible the pill contains some obscure research chemical that may react to reagents too similar to the way mdma does.