Utahrd
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2011
- Messages
- 382
I heard an interesting take today from the Bunk Police about the term "research chemical". (PLEASE read what I have written before shanking me for blasphemy) They challenged the way I think about RCs vs non RCs. It seems that this issue hasn't been acknowledged yet. Why do we refer to some drugs as RCs and others, we don't refer to as RCs?
Research Chemical is a loosely used term, USUALLY used to define a drug that meets some of the following criteria: 1. more recently discovered 2. fewer people have had experience with the drug i.e. fewer total doses taken around the world thus far 3. not as well known and understood by the public 4. ironically, many drugs termed as "Research Chemical" have had less research done on them than drugs that are almost never referred to as RCs
Non typical definition for RC: A drug that has been isolated, discovered, synthesized, "taken" by people or animals, or has ever had any amount of research done on it. Psilocybin (the compound in "magic mushrooms) is not referred to by the majority as a research chemical, yet there has been a good deal of research done about it in the last five years, and who knows how long it has been on the planet and eaten by humans. Psilocybin is a chemical of research. Marijuana represents many chemicals of research.
The Bunk Police expressed that they are not opposed to RCs. Given the loose nature of the term, it would be foolish to outright oppose chemicals of research, or any potential future candidates. I myself have been known to talk badly about RCs, and it is time for that to change.
We need to reverse the stigma of the term Research Chemical by changing the way people think about the term RC. Obviously we don't want to confuse people. And so I propose that we go by this motto when giving out information : DO NOT TEACH PEOPLE OUTRIGHT FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN. Rather teach them to be somewhat cautious where caution is warranted, and to be cautious and well informed when taking drugs.
REGARDING HARM REDUCTION: Let's use the example of Sex Education in public schools. I remember my sex Ed class, we learned human anatomy quite thoroughly, especially the sex organs. It was very dry and boring to say the least. But don't think for a second that those kids didn't go have sex anyways! And so, the question of whether to copulate or not copulate was presented like this by the school I went to: "If you choose to have sex, practice safe sex by using the following methods (condoms etc.) However, the only 100% way to guarantee no pregnancy and no STDs is to never have sex" because the people writing the curriculum knew damn well that kids have their free will, they can't all be caged and controlled like animals. (even rabbits in cages get pregnant now and then) I don't see a whole lot of "DON'T TAKE DRUGS" on this site or PR.com, because we know it's in vain.
For many people, the cold, lifeless, scientific bare minimum information on drugs is just going to fly right over their heads, and the bunk police have addressed that in a post on here. The issue of how to "dumb things down" is a tough one. One person can handle chemical acronyms and nothing more advanced than that, some can handle more advanced discussion on re-uptake inhibitors and the like. I myself can hardly grasp basic info on atomic interactions.
The objective should be to teach people as much as they are able and willing to comprehend. It's only been within the last year that I can pronounce DMT or MDMA or THC. A good first step is vocabulary. We need to give people a better understanding of what is street slang and what is scientific terminology. Think of this: perhaps we (I) should ask more questions to get a better idea of the general knowledge the public has about drugs, before we go alone into telling them that they are wrong and spitting out words and concepts they have never heard before. Then we can teach them more effectively. EXAMPLE: #1 "I took a bunch of rolls tonight!" #2 "what is that?" #1 "you know, rolls, thizz, ecstasy" #2 "What drug is that, I mean?" #1 "I just told you" #2 "do you know what MDMA is?" #1 "not really" #2 "what about piperazine?"
That's just an example, not everybody will have such a vague understanding. The key is sensitivity I suppose, and then if it is effective, to try to appeal to the reptilian mind, in other words, to be friendly and evoke a positive reaction in the person you're trying to educate. Not everybody will be receptive to it, some people will have no reception for it whatsoever and will continue to buy into hype and only hype. I can't tell you how many times I have beat myself up trying and failing to explain drugs to people. DON'T BEAT YOURSELF UP.
somebody else take it from here, I am tired.
Research Chemical is a loosely used term, USUALLY used to define a drug that meets some of the following criteria: 1. more recently discovered 2. fewer people have had experience with the drug i.e. fewer total doses taken around the world thus far 3. not as well known and understood by the public 4. ironically, many drugs termed as "Research Chemical" have had less research done on them than drugs that are almost never referred to as RCs
Non typical definition for RC: A drug that has been isolated, discovered, synthesized, "taken" by people or animals, or has ever had any amount of research done on it. Psilocybin (the compound in "magic mushrooms) is not referred to by the majority as a research chemical, yet there has been a good deal of research done about it in the last five years, and who knows how long it has been on the planet and eaten by humans. Psilocybin is a chemical of research. Marijuana represents many chemicals of research.
The Bunk Police expressed that they are not opposed to RCs. Given the loose nature of the term, it would be foolish to outright oppose chemicals of research, or any potential future candidates. I myself have been known to talk badly about RCs, and it is time for that to change.
We need to reverse the stigma of the term Research Chemical by changing the way people think about the term RC. Obviously we don't want to confuse people. And so I propose that we go by this motto when giving out information : DO NOT TEACH PEOPLE OUTRIGHT FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN. Rather teach them to be somewhat cautious where caution is warranted, and to be cautious and well informed when taking drugs.
REGARDING HARM REDUCTION: Let's use the example of Sex Education in public schools. I remember my sex Ed class, we learned human anatomy quite thoroughly, especially the sex organs. It was very dry and boring to say the least. But don't think for a second that those kids didn't go have sex anyways! And so, the question of whether to copulate or not copulate was presented like this by the school I went to: "If you choose to have sex, practice safe sex by using the following methods (condoms etc.) However, the only 100% way to guarantee no pregnancy and no STDs is to never have sex" because the people writing the curriculum knew damn well that kids have their free will, they can't all be caged and controlled like animals. (even rabbits in cages get pregnant now and then) I don't see a whole lot of "DON'T TAKE DRUGS" on this site or PR.com, because we know it's in vain.
For many people, the cold, lifeless, scientific bare minimum information on drugs is just going to fly right over their heads, and the bunk police have addressed that in a post on here. The issue of how to "dumb things down" is a tough one. One person can handle chemical acronyms and nothing more advanced than that, some can handle more advanced discussion on re-uptake inhibitors and the like. I myself can hardly grasp basic info on atomic interactions.
The objective should be to teach people as much as they are able and willing to comprehend. It's only been within the last year that I can pronounce DMT or MDMA or THC. A good first step is vocabulary. We need to give people a better understanding of what is street slang and what is scientific terminology. Think of this: perhaps we (I) should ask more questions to get a better idea of the general knowledge the public has about drugs, before we go alone into telling them that they are wrong and spitting out words and concepts they have never heard before. Then we can teach them more effectively. EXAMPLE: #1 "I took a bunch of rolls tonight!" #2 "what is that?" #1 "you know, rolls, thizz, ecstasy" #2 "What drug is that, I mean?" #1 "I just told you" #2 "do you know what MDMA is?" #1 "not really" #2 "what about piperazine?"
That's just an example, not everybody will have such a vague understanding. The key is sensitivity I suppose, and then if it is effective, to try to appeal to the reptilian mind, in other words, to be friendly and evoke a positive reaction in the person you're trying to educate. Not everybody will be receptive to it, some people will have no reception for it whatsoever and will continue to buy into hype and only hype. I can't tell you how many times I have beat myself up trying and failing to explain drugs to people. DON'T BEAT YOURSELF UP.
somebody else take it from here, I am tired.
