Just wondering if anyone has experienced or has tips on what to do. The supply in SC is awful. It’s either dealt weak, extremely difficult to find, and expensive as hell. What is going on. I can hardly escape the border of sickened most days with a decent money supply. It’s really getting frustrating. That’s the main reason I get frustrated most days. I plan to get off one day but it’s all about timing and I want to get over this one little hump. I’m just stuck and annoyed tho cuz I need to get through my day to day tasks and work right now.
-
OD Moderators: Keif’ Richards | negrogesic
Opioids No good fetty in SC
- Thread starter tilerh
- Start date
That "one day" isn't really something you get to pick if you aren't literally your own chemist/supplier, and even then it can still be tricky to acquire precursors. Maybe now's the time to hop off and head to a sub clinic if there's one in your area?
jasperkent
Bluelighter
Yeah, I was going to say there's no such thing as "good" fetty.
ShulginsReincarnation
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2024
- Messages
- 281
People will do this when they feel the time is right, but in the meanwhile it would be advisable to get help from someone who understands the concept of integrative harm reduction therapy which allows the root causes of the addiction to be addressed. Success rates are much higher if this route is taken as opposed to the traditional rehab route, but this may end up being needed if the person realizes they would be better off by going. 50-75% of "addicts" recover without any treatment at all...
@ShulginsReincarnation I'm not trying to jump down your throat. I read this statistic you posted and it threw me for a loop. Can you elaborate and also explain where you're hearing this? Thanks man
I'm not @ShulginsReincarnation, but I can vouch that the mental healthcare workers who roll alongside police in the city I live in will also tout this statistic, though they mostly work people off of spice specifically as opposed to opioids or other drugs. I've never asked them for a source, but I have heard it repeated by professional harm reduction workers at least that most addictions that do occur end up being resolved by changes in material conditions, and while withdrawal can be unpleasant, it is just something they go through and then are not hooked. The problem is people who deny their addictive personalities and then become re-addicted later on, according to the boots-on-the-ground harm reduction workers I've spoken to. I did ask them about their educations too, the lowest I ever encountered was a masters degree in psychology, though some were MD psychiatrists and some were just social workers. During covid, many larger cities would bus their more unstable homeless people to Maine, creating a kind of unhinged problem that Maine did its best to fix by having these "mental health units" and deescalation units roll around with police.
ShulginsReincarnation
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2024
- Messages
- 281
Thank you for that as you did save me a lot of explaining, though there is a lot more to it all of course. I am going with my personal experience of about two decades myself, so I am not able to cite any better source than my own self which may not say a lot as a random BL member of course. However, plenty of doctors such as Andrew Tartarsky for example will be more than happy to back my statement as well.
@Keif' Richards As I said, I don't have any specific studies or anything, but I do have personal experience of about 20 years working with drug addicts and am currently working to start an "alternative" harm reduction based organization to facilitate the successful treatment of drug addicts based on the model I referenced if that means anything to you. I will be sure to record my findings for the record in the future, but for now I suggest simply looking into IHRT (and Andrew Tartarsky is an excellent source of information to begin your research. He explains the why's behind the reason IHRT is far more effective than abstinence only based models for recovery.) I encourage you to branch out from there once his teachings get your mind going on the topic.
There is plenty to learn, and we are just at the beginning of understanding why this model works so well. We are also at the beginning of our understanding of why it doesn't work as well (everything always will have room for improvement.) But, this model is only beginning to go mainstream; EUDA uses it as their model for how to treat drug addiction throughout the EU as well if that adds any trust in what I have mentioned already.
ShulginsReincarnation
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2024
- Messages
- 281
Here is something I stumbled across for you as well now that I have had a free moment: https://www.thecleanslate.org/over-...-even-though-less-than-25-will-get-treatment/
I read through that a little bit. Just like the author was saying, I'm not a statistician myself either. I'm not going to be able to form an opinion without staring at that for a very long time. I do feel it is a little misleading in how it's presented. I'm not saying it's necessarily inaccurate, I am just saying that it is presenting the information in a way that supports their stated point as opposed to the reality. I'll elaborate.
One of the graphs they show shows these major dips (more people recovering) at a specific point that is labeled I think 45-62 and then there is the huge drop at 62 and over. This supports the idea that most people (who are still alive) with addiction issues will begin to slow down or quit basically as they are becoming senior citizens.
I don't doubt that this is true. If you make it that long and you're still healthy, like a lot of things, work, sex, exercise, you're gonna see people slow down to a fraction of what they once were. I can totally see a senior citizen just saying they're tired of using drugs and that they prefer staying home and watching television. I think that's a pretty accurate idea.
The issue I have is that I see age 50 as kind of the golden number, beginning of the end for addicts who make it that far. They're either too unhealthy to be effective at getting money, they're incarcerated, they've gone insane from wet-brain, they can no longer make money off of their sexuality etc. If you ask me, 50 for an addict is the 80 for a non addict. You'll meet Crackheads in their late 60's and you can also still meet people who fought in World War 2. They both exist, but they're not common.
I'm not saying life doesn't matter after 45. Still, I think most people at 45 are going to wish they had lived a life before they turned 45. No normal person is going to be satisfied to look back on decades of being a junkie and be excited to just now be starting to experience life. Are you going to go to college to be able to start a career by age 50? You could, sure, but that's not what most people dream of. You're not likely to start a family at 45 either. Again, I'm not saying life has no meaning after this point. You have to say that there is a lot of missed meaning in a person not getting clean until age 45... and by the way, that graph shows this 45 years as the earliest point, so I'm assuming this precipitous drop they're alluding to happens after 50, maybe later.
People don't want to be in a nursing home by the time they get to see their kids sober and off the streets for the first time. For people with dedicated addicts as children, most of them will have written their kids off by 40 at the latest, most much earlier. For those people, that 50 year mark is not going to matter so much.
One of the graphs they show shows these major dips (more people recovering) at a specific point that is labeled I think 45-62 and then there is the huge drop at 62 and over. This supports the idea that most people (who are still alive) with addiction issues will begin to slow down or quit basically as they are becoming senior citizens.
I don't doubt that this is true. If you make it that long and you're still healthy, like a lot of things, work, sex, exercise, you're gonna see people slow down to a fraction of what they once were. I can totally see a senior citizen just saying they're tired of using drugs and that they prefer staying home and watching television. I think that's a pretty accurate idea.
The issue I have is that I see age 50 as kind of the golden number, beginning of the end for addicts who make it that far. They're either too unhealthy to be effective at getting money, they're incarcerated, they've gone insane from wet-brain, they can no longer make money off of their sexuality etc. If you ask me, 50 for an addict is the 80 for a non addict. You'll meet Crackheads in their late 60's and you can also still meet people who fought in World War 2. They both exist, but they're not common.
I'm not saying life doesn't matter after 45. Still, I think most people at 45 are going to wish they had lived a life before they turned 45. No normal person is going to be satisfied to look back on decades of being a junkie and be excited to just now be starting to experience life. Are you going to go to college to be able to start a career by age 50? You could, sure, but that's not what most people dream of. You're not likely to start a family at 45 either. Again, I'm not saying life has no meaning after this point. You have to say that there is a lot of missed meaning in a person not getting clean until age 45... and by the way, that graph shows this 45 years as the earliest point, so I'm assuming this precipitous drop they're alluding to happens after 50, maybe later.
People don't want to be in a nursing home by the time they get to see their kids sober and off the streets for the first time. For people with dedicated addicts as children, most of them will have written their kids off by 40 at the latest, most much earlier. For those people, that 50 year mark is not going to matter so much.
ShulginsReincarnation
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2024
- Messages
- 281
All very good points, and this is just one model of addiction that is to be considered known as the "aging out" model. And, while I do appreciate your points, I do also often times see people aging out of addictions due to a combination of factors. It is also more likely that people age out if they've experienced more substantial consequences in their younger years as a result of their addiction(s,) so it is difficult to say whether or not there are other factors at play here. I know, for myself, as I got older I used less and less but I am just one person of course. The main theory behind aging out is that the pre-frontal cortex doesn't really develop fully until the late 20s to mid 30s, so that is something to be considered as well. And, by no means is the link provided the best source of information due to its bias as you stated.
However, the above was just a viewpoint I came across that I thought would be nice to share as the disease model is dying hard right now as more and more people who have struggled with addiction themselves point out the inconsistencies they've seen over the years. Now that most people have internet in the developed world, its becoming very clear that these findings are not isolated cases. We are not "special," and as a matter of fact we are now forming our own offshoots of more traditional recovery practices and the group seems a lot more cohesive as a result. Everyone's experience with addiction is different, but for many people the older models for addiction just don't seem to match our experience and the methods of treatment that has been and is currently being deployed is failing us thus our push for change. So far so good, and it seems many leading neuroscientists and doctors are coming up to bat for us. Many of whom are former addicts or even current drug users themselves! Interesting times we are living in here what with the internet allowing us access to all of this information
chippermonk
Bluelighter
I gather that your argument is that describing excessive use of drugs as a disease is not accurate, at least not by our common definitions of "disease". Fair enough, perhaps. Then how would you describe it? It definitely isn't a healthy behavior. Sounds like you would call it a free choice that individuals make, and say that most people quit on their own, so no reason to have treatment except for immediate detox.
I think @Keif' Richards makes a good point though that waiting for a natural "age out" to happen results in many people quitting too late to avoid a lot of damage. Speeding up that process of aging out sounds like a good idea. Doing so in an effective way is what we all want.
I think @Keif' Richards makes a good point though that waiting for a natural "age out" to happen results in many people quitting too late to avoid a lot of damage. Speeding up that process of aging out sounds like a good idea. Doing so in an effective way is what we all want.
ShulginsReincarnation
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2024
- Messages
- 281
Mmm, no absolutely not. You have entirely misunderstood my point as most people do upon introduction to the school of thought I am a part of regarding addiction. @Keif' Richards reply didn't help much either due to the way he worded his take on things which were based more so on the biased article I discovered that does absolutely no justice in terms of explaining my specific views. I posted that because it discusses the subject of the aging out model which someone had requested more information on; it doesn't reflect my views in their entirety which I can't possibly fully elaborate on in one post (a two or three hour lecture, sure. But, in a post on BL that takes me 10 minutes to write? Surely not.) There seems to be this narrow minded thinking that there are only two ways to view addiction which isn't true at all. There are about a dozen theories of addiction that I know about that are discussed today, and I don't really care to explain all of them here because I don't have the time or patience to do so to be quite frank. I am too busy trying to change the very thing that is driving this misled understanding that most people have on this matter to explain such relatively trivial things. This is especially true considering the fact that the information about such is widely available on the internet for those who care to take the time to educate themselves.
My belief (to keep this short) is that addiction is a learned behavior that is often driven by some type of initially trauma which leads to an individual self-medicating with a substance or substances which are habit forming to some individuals with a predisposition to such. My thoughts about this, as I said before, are based on two decades of experience dealing with a wide variety of people who are either actively using or in recovery. I've heard plenty of stories enough to form my own opinion which was done independent of the opinions of the various other professionals I have more recently come across who share the same or very similar views on the subject.
Obviously, addiction is a bad thing but it serves a purpose and identifying the reason why people use is the key to helping them successfully recover. It is a disorder of the mind, not a "disease" (and, to further drive my point home, I suggest looking in the DSM-V-TR where you will discover no such diagnosis of "addiction," but rather "substance use disorder." Addiction doesn't function the same as any other disease known to man, so I can't agree with this view (though I can appreciate that it has helped lead us to where we are today in our understanding of what it actually is by helping fund the various studies that have been done looking into the matter. If the disease model never gained widespread popularity, then we would still be looking at it as a moral failing of some sort.) Addiction starts as a choice, but it becomes a compulsive habit which is why we must find out why the individual first chose to use and what problem it is solving for the individual whether internal or external. The disease model came about because alcoholics anonymous pushed this view onto society, much as they pushed a Christian-oriented view of how recovery must occur. Their take on both the disorder as well as recovery was widely adopted by medical professionals, and now more progressive schools of thought are being labelled as "crazy" and "misinformation" and "dangerous" because it questions the status quo (much as AA did back 90 years ago when it was founded.) In the recovery groups I am a part of, we regularly discuss how AA/mainstream views of addiction kept us sick and how we are so grateful to have finally begun our path to recovery after questioning everything that had been forced on us for years and years and years by medical "professionals" and those in the legal field as well. Yes, that is right: the disease model kept us sick.
I highly suggest you look into what addiction actually is based on your comment, but I completely understand your skewed view on what I said due to the context. You are just one of millions of people I hope to encounter with such a view as this will be the only way to ensure the world finally heals from this horrible misunderstanding of what addiction is and how it is to be resolved. Sadly, many people will keep their conservative viewpoints on the subject and that is their right. They have the right to be wrong, and that's something I have to accept for what it is...
That is part of my healing journey...
Last edited:
chippermonk
Bluelighter
Sorry my views seem so skewed to you but I'm grateful for your kindness in permitting me to be wrong.
A small suggestion: could you trim your argument down to a more manageable size so that those of us with a shorter attention span can manage to read them? That was all I was trying to get you to do in my earlier post. I actually wasn't even necessarily disagreeing with you. I just wanted a more succinct statement.
A small suggestion: could you trim your argument down to a more manageable size so that those of us with a shorter attention span can manage to read them? That was all I was trying to get you to do in my earlier post. I actually wasn't even necessarily disagreeing with you. I just wanted a more succinct statement.
ShulginsReincarnation
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2024
- Messages
- 281
I see, I see. I wasn't exactly sure what you were getting at there with the way it was said. I honestly cannot truncate my point I was making into bite-size pieces though as it loses its meaning. I suppose this is the dilemma I often heard spoken about by those in recovery wherein they speak of not being able to explain themselves to those who have never had such a habit. Now, this is just me making an assumption at this point, but would it be safe to say you've never had to deal with substance use disorder yourself? I only ask because it makes a world of difference when trying to explain things it seems. If not, I would recommend sitting in on a wide assortment of recovery meetings to see what I am talking about. There are insights beyond what you will be able to see/hear in them of course, but you'll notice the different approaches and it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even a former "addict") to be able to discern the fact that the older models of addiction are keeping people miserable and sick.
I wish I could do better in offering a summary, but at this time I don't have such available.
Thank you for your patience with me; the holidays stress me out a bit as is let alone the fact that I have a tonne of legal issues to deal with right now due to poor decision making on my part. That all on top of the project I am dedicated to finishing in a short time frame is a bit much. So, I do apologize for the misunderstanding and I am glad you clarified your stance.
..........
The TL;DR/I don't have time to do so version:
chippermonk
Bluelighter
I agree, that initial trauma can lead to self medication and drug use disorder. I would think that a good drug treatment program would have a component of therapy to help address that problem ( granted, there are some really lousy treatment programs out there)
You're right, I have never had a full drug-use disorder syndrome or been in drug treatment, though I have suffered with depression and anxiety and taken drugs over the years, it's just that I have done it with a lot of self control somehow. Actually, my therapist told me that she was surprised that I didn't have an addiction in light of some trauma I have gone through. Some sort of luck I guess. But the whys and why nots of human response are complex.
Anyhow, yes, we clearly need a better model of help and treatment that addresses people's traumas. Good luck with your holiday stresses. Ugh!
You're right, I have never had a full drug-use disorder syndrome or been in drug treatment, though I have suffered with depression and anxiety and taken drugs over the years, it's just that I have done it with a lot of self control somehow. Actually, my therapist told me that she was surprised that I didn't have an addiction in light of some trauma I have gone through. Some sort of luck I guess. But the whys and why nots of human response are complex.
Anyhow, yes, we clearly need a better model of help and treatment that addresses people's traumas. Good luck with your holiday stresses. Ugh!
LucidSDreamr
Bluelighter
Disagree.
It’s not as good as opium derived opiates but pure fentanyl or pharmaceutical fent is definitely a decent drug to get off on.
It’s a shame to see that street level fentanyl is now trash.
At a certain point isn’t those going to hurt the gangs and cartels business because people are just going to straight up quit.
ShulginsReincarnation
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2024
- Messages
- 281
The gangs and cartels business models adapt very well to these type of things, thus the reason we are beginning to see nitazenes popping up across the world. This is no longer just an issue that the USA is dealing with; the EU is currently having problems with it as is the UK. EUDA announced earlier in 2024 that the EU should be prepared since the Taliban has banned opium production because we don't want the EU to become as bad as North America has with regard to the fentanyl epidemic. They did not mention that there would be a nitazene problem rather than a fentanyl problem, but that is what we are beginning to see on a much smaller scale than the fentanyl issue the US has been having.
The lower levels of these street gangs may suffer due to an increase in gang related violence in order to maintain territory as users begin to attempt to source more quality drugs maybe, but at the end of the day the bottom line of the cartel isn't going to be affected whatsoever. If anything, the cartel will just shift its focus on pushing other drugs to replace the profits not coming in from fentanyl if people quit as you say. The drug problem will never go away; consumer preference will just change is all. No drug addict that I know (aside from maybe myself) has ever gone, "damn, these drugs aren't what they used to be... guess I'll just quit while I am ahead..." I mean, like I said, I was already reconsidering my life choices around when the markets began to shift (not opioids per se, but just generally the drugs markets have gone to shit since I was a young person actively using without a care) so the timing was just right in my case. But, for most drug users, they aren't going to just up and quit using drugs because the quality of them is shit; they just shift to other substances usually.
P.S. Besides, I actually just pulled a statistic to prove that the decreased number of prescriptions written by medical doctors in response to the drug problems in the US actually have no effect on the rate of drug use and that it has actually continued to go up in the States. So, not only did people keep using drugs, but more people started using drugs when the good ones got taken off the market. Drug policy and use patterns in the USA is backwards in this way though for whatever reason you want to pick out of the dozens in the hat lol
The reason is because the Sinaloa Cartel, who was by far the largest mass producer and importer of fent, has a new leader after El Chapo was taken down; his son took over his empire.
He made a public statement that they will stop all fentanyl production and sale, and will even punish dissenting members of their cartel with death. I presume because fent was bringing down too much political heat on their operation from the US feds.
This announcement was made in 2023... and sure enough we started seeing fentanyl drought and shortage threads like this one popping up on bluelight about 6-9 months later. The middlemen ran out of their stock of fentanyl. They weren't kidding. The largest producer and importer of fent quit doing it last year. Of course there are other smaller cartels which will fill that hole, but it will take some time for the supply the stabilize.
That's why we are seeing fent droughts and people complaining about low quality fetty.
ShulginsReincarnation
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2024
- Messages
- 281
Yes, correct. Thank you for sharing good information on the subject.