Admin Attention No sourcing rule / Endorsing specific Companies.

[Bearlove]

Hey Guys,

I have just been advised that I am not allowed to discuss or name the various suppliers of Test Kits available specifically in the 'MDMA & Empathogenic Drug' section.

They have recently changed asked people that post to stop using slang for MDMA and until the goods are tested posters are to use the term 'Un-tested' or 'Tested' MDMA but we are not allowed to tell people where the kits are available from.

The section is full of brand names of everything under the sun but it seems that by naming a brand of test kit were breaking the sourcing rule by endorsing a specific supplier - (I would rarely mention a single supplier).

Surely as the section is the main place for people to discus MDMA (and substances sold as) we need to be able to promote safe use by testing any substance prior to taking? If we are unable to tell people which kits have been tried and tested - they could buy some substandard kit and get false reaction leading to them ingest a substance that could prove to be fatal.

Can somebody please shed some light on this and explain how we can promote safe use of a substance when we are unable to tell people how to test their product prior to use.

I was going to send this question via PM but as several mods / ex mods are discussing this I thought it would be quicker and easier to make a public post.

Thanks
Bearlove

 

[LuGoJ]

This rule is potentially dangerous. There are many people out there are literally too lazy to search for things on their own, i find it absolutely annoying but it is what it is. If one of these people decides "fuck it, i'll just drop without testing" or gets scammed by going to unreputable vendor because they had to jump through hoops to find where they can buy a test kit then this site and it's moderators have failed. I know it sounds absolutely insane that some people need things handed to them on a platter like that but that doesn't really matter in the end.

I have always loved bluelight but some of these rules are getting a bit crazy. Correct me if i'm wrong but it seems that some rules only apply to certain subsections, shouldn't there be consistency across the entire site?

edit

While i'm on the topic of consistency, in the top sticky of the MDMA forum it mentions dancesafe.org for test kits yet people aren't allowed to mention that in posts? Is someone breaking the rules if they link to that sticky in one of their posts?

 

[babylonboy]

My understanding was always that sourcing for equipment that was directly related to harm reduction was absolutely permissible, and even encouraged. There's a scale thread, for instance, and we tell people where they can get filters for mixtures intended for injection, no? I agree, I think you were right to see this as an insensible rule, and to post in a public forum. Essentially, I think you're right about everything, BearLove.

 

[Bearlove]

If you check any of the other forums then products are openly named and discussed from Brands / Manufacturers of of cars, watches, shoes, food stuffs, alcoholic drinks, cigarettes , musical instruments, electronics etc

The only place, at the moment where this rule is being enforced is in a Harm reduction section on a product that should be in every users arsenal. Seems were ok to talk about the problems that arise by taking contaminated products but we cannot give the names of the test kits / suppliers as that is deemed product endorsement.

 

[angeleyes]

Somewhere in pill reports or aus pill reports on BL I got politely warned about this rule when a user didn't know where to get a test kit from, I linked him to a test kit supplier which I found in a sticky (on here, in the sticky rules, not in the discussion further down) and then was made aware about all this.

This was a few weeks to a month ago.

In my situation (possibly the only one) I was told off because EZ-Test or one of the supplies that was in the sticky was apparently doing slow shipments and fucking around with emails.


I can't really fucking fathom why there would be split decisions on this especially when we all know the true figure on how many people use test kits.


My bitching can be resolved by amending the no sourcing/suppliers to strictly exclude test kits ONLY (not to misinterpret "HR sourcing" that isn't HR sourcing) and establishing a list of reputable supplies of test kits, making a sticky saying "OI YO TRUST THESE GUYS: HERE!" And surely make a portion of sales go towards the upkeep of BL, but I'll leave that to the admins of here & there on that.

Just a thought.

 

[Bearlove]

Test kits and Test kit suppliers are probably the biggest two subjects that people contact me about and ask about on Pillreports.

This thread pretty much sums up what suppliers are available.

EZTEST are without doubt one of the biggest suppliers and when they are working they are fine, the problem is they often get backlogged on orders and the system falls down. They stop answering emails and people are left not knowing if the kits have been sent and possibly lost in the post etc. Add to this the single use vials are really expensive when you can buy a bottle of solution and your own vials for testing on the go as highlighted in this thread.

I hope that the admins can shed some light onto this somewhat frustrating situation.

 

[angeleyes]

Your one step ahead with the list Bearlove Thanks for trying to organise a bit more clarity

 

[alasdairm]

i refer you to this thread and the discussion therein: Sourcing of supplies

note, that is a staff-only discussion so non staff won't be able to access the full thread. however, in the interests of disclosure and transparency, allow me to paraphrase the discussion.

this is a complex question exacerbated by the fact that bluelight and bluelighters span the globe. we've considered creating a list of 'permitted' links to vendors but we've not been able to execute it to date. generally speaking, there is broad support for this greater idea (among the admins/owners) but that's not enough. it's a drastic scenario but if something went wrong as a result of this shift (perhaps a legal action which we could not afford to defend) then there would be no more bluelight. we can't do any hr at all if the site has to shut down.

the issue has not been settled and we continue to discuss it but, for now the policy is clear and should always have been (so apologies if it has not been): "no sources for drugs, drug paraphernalia or any substances with questionable legal status."

you (that is, bl forum staff) have discretion concerning what constitutes "drug paraphernalia or any substances with questionable legal status" in your forum. if in doubt, err on the side caution and let's discuss any unclear cases in the usual place.

test kits are drug paraphernalia and, therefore, links to sources for test kits are not allowed.

Can somebody please shed some light on this and explain how we can promote safe use of a substance when we are unable to tell people how to test their product prior to use.

you can tell people how to test their product by telling them to obtain an mdma test kit. you don't have to, nor should you, tell them where to get it.

This rule is potentially dangerous. There are many people out there are literally too lazy to search for things on their own, i find it absolutely annoying but it is what it is. If one of these people decides "fuck it, i'll just drop without testing" or gets scammed by going to unreputable vendor because they had to jump through hoops to find where they can buy a test kit then this site and it's moderators have failed. I know it sounds absolutely insane that some people need things handed to them on a platter like that but that doesn't really matter in the end.

i disagree. people have to take some responsibility for their own experience and safety. if somebody knows they should test unidentified product but chooses not to because they're too lazy to do a simple google search, that is their choice and the consequences are their responsibility.

Correct me if i'm wrong but it seems that some rules only apply to certain subsections, shouldn't there be consistency across the entire site?

i totally agree. the no sources policy applies across all bluelight forums. if you see examples which appear to contravene, please report them.

While i'm on the topic of consistency, in the top sticky of the MDMA forum it mentions dancesafe.org for test kits yet people aren't allowed to mention that in posts?

please report the specific thread in question and we'll take a look.

thanks

alasdair

 

[LuGoJ]

i disagree. people have to take some responsibility for their own experience and safety. if somebody knows they should test unidentified product but chooses not to because they're too lazy to do a simple google search, that is their choice and the consequences are their responsibility.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one as I am but a small potato in the BL world.

Hopefully one day there can be a sticky of reputable test kit suppliers, until then i will make it my mission to PM anyone that asks.

 

[23536]

We should SELL test kits. BL should be a one-stop HR shop.

I know, I know, test kits are considered paraphernalia and the site would be endangered by trafficking in paraphernalia.

But that interpretation of the law is magnificently stupid. And people come on these forums and defend police? Police want you dead. They want all of us dead.

What an insane world we live in where we aren't allowed to help one another.

 

[Bearlove]

As I am not Bluelight staff I do not have access to the thread so I am unable to see when this was started, what progress has been made, when this was last addressed etc. If this has not been addressed for some time may I suggest a review asap - as no other section has reported a problem with 'product endorsement' may I suggest test kits be top of the agenda :D. I wonder why this is being enforced now and apparently only in the MDMA section as this was never the case when I was modding the section and seems to only have come into force in the last month or so.

Test kits are not 'drug paraphernalia' as they are neither used to make, take, conceal etc. They can be considered a basic organic chemistry set and from my experience are not restricted / controlled etc (unlike bongs, needles etc)

I do not understand why we should not tell people were to buy kits from? Surely the idea of harm reduction is sharing our knowledge with others in the attempt to minimize the risk? A test kit can stop people taking a potentially deadly substance, it gives users the information they need before taking the substance - can't really get any more harm reduction than that.

Yes people can use a search engine - but not knowing what to look for they could easily buy the wrong kit, so many different kits on the market and some clearly do not work, some are falsely advertised etc.

Seems a rather backward approach to harm reduction but if these are the rules of the site and they are not open for discussion then so be it.

Bear

 

[23536]

^Sadly, testing kits are considered paraphernalia. See this post, for instance:

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...-Tragedies?p=11808420&viewfull=1#post11808420

Bear in mind that I'm not a lawyer. I'm just some guy on the internet really.

Sorry for the anti-cop rant. I can't help myself.

 

[Bearlove]

Thanks 23536, I'll just have to hope for the admins to revisit the section about paraphernalia and give some serious consideration about allowing us to give people the adequate information about kits. When you check the legal definition of 'drug paraphernalia' the kits don't really fit into any of the classifications but depending on the circumstances (Ie if you were found with a bag of pills/powder and a kit) then they would be classed as such. A kit by itself with no substances would not be a problem from my understanding - I will contact the kit manufacturers and see if they have any literature on legality.

 

[alasdairm]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one as I am but a small potato in the BL world.

your considered opinion is as valuable as the next person's. thanks for your input which was, as its always the case with you,

Hopefully one day there can be a sticky of reputable test kit suppliers...

indeed.

We should SELL test kits. BL should be a one-stop HR shop.

point taken but, at this time, we're just not set up to operate a retail business. we're not even a business entity and the formalised move to becoming a legal business entity is, obviously, a complex one.

But that interpretation of the law is magnificently stupid.

you are entitled to your opinion but i'd say that's a rather simplistic analysis but certainly one that's easy to make when you don't have to look at the bigger picture or take any personal responsibility for an incorrect decision on this issue.

And people come on these forums and defend police? Police want you dead. They want all of us dead.

this is a bit of a emotional, hyperbolic non-sequitor and i'm not sure of its relevance.

What an insane world we live in where we aren't allowed to help one another.

equating this with not being allowed to help each other is, again for me, hyperbole and emotionally charged nonsense.

i just did a google search for "mdma test kit" and the first page of results contains everything anybody could need to be able to move forward with a test kit purchase. if you want to help somebody you need only tell them to google "mdma test kit". you'll also be teaching somebody to fish rather than just handing them a fish which is arguable more valuable.

As I am not Bluelight staff I do not have access to the thread so I am unable to see when this was started, what progress has been made, when this was last addressed etc. If this has not been addressed for some time may I suggest a review asap - as no other section has reported a problem with 'product endorsement' may I suggest test kits be top of the agenda :D. I wonder why this is being enforced now and apparently only in the MDMA section as this was never the case when I was modding the section and seems to only have come into force in the last month or so.

it's always been policy but there's been no clear, site-wide standard leading to different rules in different places and a lot of confusion.

Test kits are not 'drug paraphernalia'

that's a matter of opinion and geography.

...and from my experience are not restricted / controlled etc (unlike bongs, needles etc)

in some u.s. states, for example, there is wording in paraphernalia laws to include anything which "identify, analyze, or test" scheduled substances. we have to consider issues in a wider context than your experience.

Surely the idea of harm reduction is sharing our knowledge with others in the attempt to minimize the risk? A test kit can stop people taking a potentially deadly substance, it gives users the information they need before taking the substance - can't really get any more harm reduction than that.

you can discuss every aspect of the kit except a specific source. it's really no limitation at all.

Yes people can use a search engine - but not knowing what to look for they could easily buy the wrong kit, so many different kits on the market and some clearly do not work, some are falsely advertised etc.

which is an opportunity to better educate people about the kits themselves and testing generally.

Seems a rather backward approach to harm reduction but if these are the rules of the site and they are not open for discussion then so be it.

it's demonstrably open for discussion. we're discussing it now.

thanks for the comments.

alasdair

 

[23536]

I apologize for my outbursts. I have deep-seated issues with authority figures.

We could, as a community, organize action to get some of these laws changed. Some groups, like drug policy alliance, already do that.

 

[johnboy]

To be honest it is your site/forum and you can do what you want but this was discussed and, I thought, decided on about a decade ago. Testing kits are not paraphernalia. Not in most jurisdictions in the world. And they have one use; harm reduction. This exception, as fas as I know, has been in place for about ten years and there have been zero legal repercussions for Bluelight and I can't see how there ever would be. Even if there was, is Bluelight now in the business of taking no chances? And saying people should just google for themselves is more than a bit disappointing to hear. That isn't really the Bluelight I remember.

One major question that people have about testing kits is how to get them when they are unable to have things mailed to them. Yes it is easy to find suppliers online that can mail kits to you but what about people who have nosey parents opening their mail? That is one reason we always had retail supplier discussion of kits in the Aus forum. Many retail shops that stock testing kits don't advertise it online and many also change their mind about stocking them. So up to date discussion of availability is important.

But like I said. Your site. Your rules. I just can't see what BL gains by this.

 

[alasdairm]

To be honest it is your site/forum and you can do what you want...

if this was a case of "our site. our rules." then i wouldn't have reached out to you for an opinion so, aside, to me that's a little disingenuous.

Testing kits are not paraphernalia. Not in most jurisdictions in the world.

not in most. but in some.

This exception, as fas as I know, has been in place for about ten years and there have been zero legal repercussions for Bluelight and I can't see how there ever would be.

i can't see how people can possibly be against a reasonable level of gun control in the u.s. but some people are not

Even if there was, is Bluelight now in the business of taking no chances?

if bluelight was in the business of taking no chances, i don't think there would even be a bluelight.

That isn't really the Bluelight I remember.

bluelight has changed a lot for me in the 10 years i've been here. i haven't always agreed with everything the owners have done but bluelight is here, bigger and busier than ever.

One major question that people have about testing kits is how to get them when they are unable to have things mailed to them. Yes it is easy to find suppliers online that can mail kits to you but what about people who have nosey parents opening their mail? That is one reason we always had retail supplier discussion of kits in the Aus forum. Many retail shops that stock testing kits don't advertise it online and many also change their mind about stocking them. So up to date discussion of availability is important.

thanks for taking the time to lay out a considered argument. this is the first time somebody has actually quantified why just pointing people to google may not be sufficient.

thanks for the feedback.

alasdair