• Welcome Guest

    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
    Fun 💃 Threads Overdosed? Click
    D R U G   C U L T U R E

Harm Reduction Vs. Enabling: Where is the line if there is one?

Damien

Damien

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
15,948
Location
714, CA, USA
I've been thinking about how "harm reduction" is different than enabling and I'm wondering where is the line if there is one. I was thinking about the classic situation of a parent(s) allowing their child(ren) and maybe their friends to drink alcohol to an excess in their home under their supervision because "they are going to do it anyway" and if they are under their watch they are in a "controlled" environment.

Growing up I always thought this was un-wise and also enabling the children to do what they please. There were points in my life where I challenged my parents' authority and tested their boundaries. If they had put their foot down, I would've backed down but often they didn't and I learned how to stretch my boundaries to eventually get what I wanted or at least avoid a lot of flack for it.

On Bluelight You can learn to shoot up heroin as safely as possible. I'm sure this has to spur people, who if they never had the knowledge would not have ever tried IV heroin, to actually try it. I think we are, in some way, enabling people to shoot IV heroin.

I've had a night to think about this more since I've started this post and I think I've come to some kind of conclusion. We might enable people to do some thing that they would've never done without the knowledge we provide, but that doesn't mean that they didn't make the choice to do it. I'm a believer of personal responsibility and I think that even if you're being enabled, you still have to take responsibility for the decision you made.

I think I'm just coming to terms with the fact that "harm reduction" isn't the solution I thought it was when I first started researching it. While I think that it is others' responsibility to make wise decisions I don't want to be one that makes it easier to make unwise decisions e.g. try cocaine the "safe" way.

Thoughts?
 
A lot of my friends had their parents be "chill parents" and let them drink under their supervision in the house. To be honest Ive noticed that those who were allowed to drink didn't get into some deeper issues, where as those who were forbidden to drink or do anything else, turned out to be the ones with some strong drug issues, or large users.

Its really the whole cliché rebellion that goes on in American teenage youth. Hell i know when i first started out at 13 i felt like a total badass for going against what my parents told me to do. (It later on became about my own personal findings/addictions, but thats another story). The American teenage youth is so tied to the cliché though, that personally i think enabling in a small way (like supervised usage in the home) is in a way, good. The ones who i knew who had this sort of situation had their boundaries. I.e. only drinking and pot usage was allowed, only if the parent knew etc etc, and they were fine with it. They rebelled as they explored more into the drug world, but they didn't get the satisfaction that i know that the others who did rebel felt. That satisfaction that the rebells felt pushed them further and further and further until they were too far to really get back out, and i think that putting on major restrictions is in a way trying to make the kid explore and get into "trouble".

I think that harm reduction is a good thing. Yes in a way it is enabling, but in our times, and as cliché as it sounds, you ARE going to find out. Hell, even my cousins from the country know a lot about drugs without the help of anyone except for their surroundings. If we can just help by telling you how to use correctly you're helping them out indefinitely. We aren't telling them where to score these drugs, were not telling them to use these drugs, were just letting them know how to be safe if they do use them. I do see how its enabling as it is putting the idea in their head, but its not egging them on to use. If someone cant make their own decision on whether they want to use or not, then they shouldn't be using at all, and even harm reduction wont help that much.

At the end it is down to the person themselves and like you said, self responsibility. There is nothing "safe" about drugs, and thats NOT what were trying to put in their head by harm reduction. Were giving them a safer way, not a safe way. If you cannot distinguish between safer and safe then like i said before, you shouldn't be using drugs and even harm reduction wont help that much.

Much like you said though, it all comes down to putting decisions into your own hands, and harm reduction is just something that can guide those who are unsure. It can help those who think something safe isn't really as safe as they thought, or it can teach those already engaged in usage to be safer and not think that everything is so "safe".

Its up to you to decide really.

(sorry if that sounded all fuzzy, my head is still out there from smoking all day, and ill revise this later on, i just wanted to get my ideas out before they were gone lol)
 
hmm this is interesting. I know I'm just a lowly greenlighter (lol) but I'd like to weigh in on this.

It would be cool if it was possible to get pecentages of who is BENEFITED by "harm reduction" and who is NEGATIVELY INFLUENCED. For instance, like you said, if someone reads about shooting IV is that a good thing?? Had that info not been avaiable would they have a) not tried IVing heroin, therefore reducing chance for addiction or b) tried IVing and fucked themselves up... if we could know for sure how many people would pick a) over b), then we'd know for sure... (sorry, just thinking aloud..)

From my expierence, the kids with "cool" parents who let them do drugs and drink in the house end up drinking and doing drugs more than their peers. (I only did things at friends houses (mostly weekends) because my parents didn't allow it.) However, those same kids also knew how to be chill about it, and seemed more responsible with their doses and such. So its kind of a trade-off in that regard.

I kind of agree with Thizzer... if you look at alcohal abuse in Europe, a lot less teens are abusing vs. in America, because it is included in their culture and info. is readily avaiable to them. That's just one example, but it makes a good point I think.

Truthfully, I could argue different pros and cons in both directions. But thats just my 2 cents on it :)
 
harm reduction and enabling definitely overlap a ton and that makes bluelight one giant enabler. and that's even assuming that bluelighters actually held fast to the harm reduction spirit, which we most certainly don't always do.

We aren't telling them where to score these drugs, were not telling them to use these drugs, were just letting them know how to be safe if they do use them.
Click to expand...

that's what the forum guidelines say but like i said above, it's not unusual for people to deviate from the guidelines. i often see bluelighters encouraging each other to use drugs. not necessarily "egging them on", it's much more subtle. for instance, there is often an underlying assumption that using drugs is the good, normal natural thing to do and sobriety is a hardship to be endured.

not all drug forums on the internet are based on the concept of harm reduction, at least not to the extent that bluelight is. although they often refer to harm reduction, their existence is made out to be for the purpose of drug discussion and harm reduction is simply one of the outcomes that can be achieved when drug discussion is permitted. do you think that is preferable?

as for where the line is between harm reduction and enabling, it's arbitrary. it's wherever you decide to draw it.
 
You definitely make your own decisions. When I came here the second time, this time as a pillhead instead of an etard I learned a lot that I even pass on to others.

I know people that will do roxi 30s all day but won't touch an OC because "its the same as heroin". If these same people were on here and saw that oxycodone is in both does that mean that they'd use OCs too? Does that mean that they'd stop using roxi cause its the same thing? I'd say a little of both really and that's because of personal choice.

Does a place like this help people get fucked up? Yes. Does it save lives and perhaps prevent someone from becoming an addict? Yes. Sometimes you take the good with the bad and IMO in this case the good out weighs the bad.
 
I work for a needle exchange that follows the Harm Reduction model and quite honestly, I've yet to have anyone come to use the exchange to get needles so they could try shooting up dope or coke for the first time; it just doesn't happen. People aren't lured into shooting up for the 1st time because they've found out they can get clean needles legally and for free at the needle exchange; every client I've worked with had already been playing arm darts for at least a few months prior to coming to the exchange.

As for "enabling" either way.... even if I agreed with you and said that you're right, exchanges do enable IV drug users, we're turning the masses into dope addicts, it wouldn't matter to me because Harm Reduction isn't only about the addict who comes in to exchange dirty needles and walks out with new one. It's more aimed at preventing the HARM those addicts do to the community; hence Harm REDUCTION.

When IV drug users don't leave their dirty works uncapped on the sidewalk, in the grass of a park, in the sand of a playground, in garbage cans, by the side of the road, or anywhere else that they might toss used syringes after they're used, and give them to us to dispose of properly instead... well that's a win / win for the addict as well as the community. I'd say even more for the community.

When IV drug users are able to find Bupe / Methadone Maintenance through our office and they're able to stop buying, using, selling, and everything else that goes along with buying Opiates / Opioids illegally to inject, that's a win / win for everybody; the costs of treatment are lowered; the number of addicts incarcerated for minor drug offenses goes down; the crime rate is reduced; the number of addicts participating in the distribution of narcotics shrinks; it's only positives for society as well as for the addict.

But probably the biggest positive Harm Reduction has on the community in terms of needle exchanges is lowering the rate of HIV and HEP C transmissions to newly infected people by way of a dirty syringe with either virus present in it. It's not just addicts sharing dirty needles who wind up catching HIV or HEP C when either virus is present in a syringe shared from person to person. Many addicts are involved in the sex trade in one way or another, be it via prostitution, adult films, working in "Massage Parlors," and other avenues I'm sure I haven't imagined or learned of yet.

Tens of thousands of new cases of HIV / HEP C have been contracted by spouses from husbands (and occasionally wives) who had been with another partner sexually and had one or both of the viruses passed on to them because they failed to wear a condom. Make it hundreds of thousands- actually millions- of new cases of HIV HEP C have been contracted by people in one way or another due to the use of dirty syringes.

Harm Reduction isn't really about reducing the harm to addicts; It's about reducing the harm illegal drug use and the use / sharing of dirty syringes does to the community.

http://nationsocialretardation.blogspot.com/
 
Sure, some people decide to do certain things they wouldn't have normally done - or heard about- if it weren't for BL. But you could say that just about any medium that discusses things in-depth. We try to present un-biased fact based information about drugs, with the goal of informing the user to make the best decision for themselves.
It is true that most of us are pro-legalization, but it's not because we "really like drugs a lot." Being pro-legalization doesn't mean you're pro-drug use. It's about letting the user make the ultimate decision, whatever it may be, after they have been informed about the potential consequences. Personally, I see harm reduction and legalization as two topics that go hand in hand. And I could certainly see that when some people hear someone say "harm reduction and legalization" they immediately think "this guy is pro-drugs and an enabler." That's far from it.


I'd rather have someone decide to shoot after reading about it on BL, rather than deciding to shoot after seeing it in a movie or seeing a user do it IRL.
 
The goal of a Harm Reduction site shouldn't be simply to provide information about the safer ways to do drugs. It should be to actively encourage the least harmful ways to do drugs. That includes telling people they shouldn't start using a needle. It includes publicly chastising people who glamorize reckless drug behavior. It includes actively promoting an atmosphere truly centered around Harm Reduction and not drug use. How can you feel guilty when someone decides to shoot up when you told them it was a bad idea?

In that, Bluelight fails in my opinion.
 
I don't like the way some make drugs seem like the best thing ever.
For example; some talk about how fabulous they're feeling on drugs, that being clean is boring, they'll never give it up, all people who don't do drugs are missing out, you get my jist.
This happens A LOT in DC especially.
The bottom line is - yeah drugs can make you feel like king of the world, but fall into their traps and you'll wish you never began.
Sometimes BL makes me feel like I shouldn't give up my drug use that WILL inevitably lead to the end of me if I don't bring it to an end, because I'll be 'missing out'.
Yes - I should know better than to not come here (or to particular parts) if that is the case, but it also benefits me greatly especially in TDS.
BL has its positives for Harm Reduction - huge amounts. But some little things have got to be changed I think..
 
It should be to actively encourage the least harmful ways to do drugs. That includes telling people they shouldn't start using a needle.
Click to expand...
I think we do that. At least I know I do.

It includes publicly chastising people who glamorize reckless drug behavior. It includes actively promoting an atmosphere truly centered around Harm Reduction and not drug use.
Click to expand...
We do that as well. We've told countless people that what they're doing has the risk to cause a great deal of harm, if not death. That narutokun(sp) kid comes to mind, and there have been plenty of others.

How can you feel guilty when someone decides to shoot up when you told them it was a bad idea?
Click to expand...
You can't feel guilty about it unless you didn't mention the risks.

In that, Bluelight fails in my opinion.
Click to expand...
As a whole, no I don't think BL fails. Of course we have some threads/posts that border encouraging drug use, but you can't say that they ruin all of the good we've done and continue to do. It's impossible to police and enforce everything, and we are volunteers after all. And I don't know if taking an overzealous approach(getting rid of the "how high are you?" "best sex drug" etc. threads), with no leeway, is the best route. IMO, that would stifle discussion and turn members away.
 
phrozen said:
I think we do that. At least I know I do.
Click to expand...

I've had the opportunity to pop in and read a thread or two in the Drug-related over the past few years. I can tell you that "We," if you're referring to Bluelight Staff, doesn't do this. When they do, it's so infrequent it's not worth mentioning.

We do that as well. We've told countless people that what they're doing has the risk to cause a great deal of harm, if not death. That narutokun(sp) kid comes to mind, and there have been plenty of others.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between telling someone something is dangerous and creating an atmosphere where harm Reduction is the goal. All of the Drug-related forums are far more focused on the process and result of using a drug than on promoting responsible drug use. Harm Reduction encompasses more than telling people they could die by eating 200mg of Oxycodone with no tolerance. It's the responsibility of staff to assure that the focus of their forum remains safe and responsible use. It's their responsibility to make posters of their forums aware of the alleged goals of the site. I can count the times I've heard a Moderator talk in-depth about moderate drug use, outside of Ecstasy Discussion, on two hands since I've joined this site, and I can count on one hand the number of Moderators I'd consider dedicated to Drug Harm Reduction more than a fairweather fan would be to a sports team.

And I don't know if taking an overzealous approach(getting rid of the "how high are you?" "best sex drug" etc. threads), with no leeway, is the best route. IMO, that would stifle discussion and turn members away.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. Those threads have their place in certain forums. In others they do not.
 
I agree with you that certain mods are more concerned with harm reduction than others are. But that's just the nature of the beast. For the most part all of the mods are current/former users, who decided, for whatever reason, that they wanted to give something back by donating their time. They're not harm reduction(or addiction) professionals. They haven't studied the harm reduction paradigm in school, or anything close to doing that. Hell, I doubt they even share the same definition of harm reduction that you're putting forth, at least not in that strict sense. Does that(their background) excuse them from blatantly going against simple harm reduction principles? No, it doesn't, but I don't think they go against those principles to a degree where it brings down the overall atmosphere and message of the site. Can we do a better job at harm reduction? Yes, of course we can. But again, we're non-professional volunteers. You know how difficult it is to pick just one mod that's both knowledgeable and willing to put in the time and effort necessary. Let alone a mod that can do that for months on end without burning out, and with the same enthusiasm and calm demeanor they had during their first week modding.


I don't know man, maybe I'm too complacent or maybe you're too idealistic.
 
Maybe, but I don't think Moderators have to be professionally trained in Harm Reduction to promote it better. I don't even blame them for not doing so. It's not like they're really motivated or encouraged to on Bluelight. Members look to Staff for leadership. Staff looks to Senior Staff for leadership. You can't blame the whole group for the faults of a few.
 
I think there are different levels of harm reduction and that effects whether it's enabling someone or not.

In regards to the drinking, I grew up in a house where drinking was just considered a normal activity that anyone could participate in. A lot of my friends found it strange, perhaps it has to do with my both my parents being immigrants-- my mother is French and I don't remember a day I didn't see her smoke a cigarette or have a cocktail, and my father is English, and I don't remember a day I didn't see him have a drink. But I started drinking wine when I was nine and got drunk with my father for the first time in middle school. Subsequently, I've never had a drinking problem or really any issues with alcohol. I went through the getting trashed phase, but not to extent most of my friends did, and I was always much more responsible. Alcohol just has just never had an appeal to me, and I've never gotten particularly excited about drinking. For me, I'll drink if I'm out at a bar or a club, or if it's a house party, but I'm not going to get shit faced and most of the time I end up just having a few beers or so and just getting buzzed.

That said, in regards to harm reduction-- if someone goes out and buys a drug and has it on them, I don't think it's bad in any way to educate them on the safer ways to to consume it. To give someone advice on scoring drugs or how to get $ together to score drugs, is enabling. But if that person already has that drug on them, they're going to consume it anyway, and I would feel better knowing they knew the no-nos on IVing or the best way to do lines to avoid an OD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top