Oddly enough, I'd had a similar discussion ongoing with a fellow staff member about this subject. I can't speak for him, but his intent was that the risk of false positives is potentially very dangerous, and he extended his point into how quickly false positives are acted upon without a follow thru of verifying their findings
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
My point was that harm reduction on BL is focused on the health risks you may not be aware of when choosing to use drugs. I have a hard time extending 'harm reduction' to legal questions (like drug tests) when the possible legal consequences of your choice to use drugs is generally well known before you even think about using. But my last thought was that this perhaps falls to a varying definition of 'harm reduction'. It may be worth stepping back at this point and evaluating our site
"About FAQ" which outlines why we're here and to what extent we define, and pursue, harm reduction.
'Long-time BLer' actions are clearly guided by his/her own conscience... his/her own best judgement of how the goal of 'Harm reduction' might be best served. Surely, conscience should always be preferred to a slavish devotion to a rule book.
So when a site rule apparently breaches the site's overarching 'Harm Reduction' principle... how is that handled ? Recriminations.. or discussion ? Surely the latter is preferable.
Is there a danger that 'rule compliance' is being pursued at the expense of Harm Reduction ? Perhaps Harm Reduction is a glib rhetoric ... ?
First, thank you for putting together a thought out response, a useful counterpoint for discussion. I would have to state, however, that while individuals can act out of their own conscience in deciding what is appropriate to ask or respond - as a site we don't have that individual's freedom. We have to also keep in mind the bigger picture of what such discussion does to endanger our site - either in changing the public perception (and then changing the reality of what we are), or in providing content that can present legal issues for us.
I assure you, as a site, we first and foremost do not wish to entertain content that will threaten our existence, and we will aggressively pursue the policing of that content (for example, the sourcing issues). Where to draw that line.....well, it's different than it would be for an individual. I think we can agree on that.
Back to the site's reputation and the perception of us. While we try to answer a broad scope of drug related questions and give them as much depth as possible, if we were to open the doors again to drug testing questions (and I'm not saying we can't) there is the fear that we become a resource for beating such tests. Do we suffer by those doing the testing seeking to stop this information here? Do we suffer from people who followed what was discussed but still failed and seek retribution from us in some manner? And yes, there is the question on helping deal with false positives (assuming we allowed drug testing questions) - tell me, knowing our membership, how many false positives are we looking at versus how many people simply trying to beat the law?
Speaking of the law, let's not speak on the law. The reach to address US politics is not meant for this discussion. It's a big one, and one well worth having, but not here. Not now. Please.
Putting aside, for a moment, the debate on if HR extends to drug tests, lets look at the practicality of the matter. Right now, we offer information on drug use. Aside from any new research chemicals, there really isn't a lot of innovation or changing technology (and so we become a site of recycled question and answers) - the facts are borne out of time tested and true experiences. Drug tests, on the other hand, are continuously evolving with new mechanisms and characteristics. While I would agree our membership is probably one of the most well versed on the latest testing systems (
) the fact is that answers would have difficulty keeping up with the changing test - would you agree? But I'm confident there are similar sites, with similar memberships (perhaps even some common members) where drug testing discussions are ongoing. They are willing to engage with the inherent legal ramifications (it's possible we're over cautious on that count), and they make the effort to stay on the leading edge of what works and what doesn't. For now, that doesn't fall under our area of content.
We don't strive to be the end-all-be-all for drug information nor your web reference. We have our niche, focused on saving lives and educating people about the harm they might inflict upon themselves. For now that doesn't extend to drug tests. Is that as black-and-white as the 'no sourcing' rule? Probably not. It's probably more of a really, really, really dark shade of grey
So the discussion can be open, as recognized by this open sticky statement.
From a site operation perspective, we rely heavily on the decisions of the forum mods to build their forum content in ways that address member needs, but do not endanger the site. In this instance, I sit strongly with the mods and their stance on this issue. But I'm only one of 6 admin....more importantly, I'm only one of over 120k members. But as a member, that's also my view.
)
