dokomo said:
I totally disagree that it is an easy principle to apply. We unfortunately don't live in a black and white world, and science does not have complete knowledge of many of the substances that are discussed here.
Of course you can't apply the principle of harm reduction to substances which have an unknown degree of harm. That's nonsensical. That's not what I'm talking about though. I
am talking about applying the principle to substances where we
do know the degree of harm, like cannabis.
dokomo said:
There are always gray areas that must be specifically addressed based upon a range of data, both empirical and anecdotal that you cant apply a simple template to.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, maybe give me an example? But if I do get what you're saying, then I disagree. The simple template is "how can I reduce the harm associated with drug use". You have to know how much harm a drug causes to do this of course. In the case of cannabis smoking, while the evidence isn't 100% proven, there exists a substantial body of data that shows that smoking cannabis causes a degree of harm to the lungs. I'd hardly call the risk to your lungs from smoking weed "gray".
You'd also have to know the harm associated with alternative drug use. Again in this case, we have a fair bit of evidence that eating weed causes less damage to the body than does smoking it.
In cases where we do know something about the risks involved, like cannabis smoking, then applying the principle seems trivial.
dokomo said:
You think that this is a contradiction, an example of hypocrisy? Of course it is!
I don't think it's hypocrisy to not apply the principle of harm minimisation to substances that we
don't know the harm of. You
can't apply the principle. End of story.
It is hypocrisy to not apply the principle equally in cases where we do know something about the potential for harm, i.e. IV alcohol and cannabis smoking.
dokomo said:
Of course it is! But that is the world we know, a world full of imperfect manifestations of perfect abstract forms. Hypocrisy and contradictions are the norm because humans are fallible and are incapable of being entirely unbiased, just, and all-knowing. So, even if you're right, it doesn't matter...
I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here again. I agree that humans are fallible, but I don't think that many people, once aware of their hypocrisy, are unable to do something about it. So I think it does matter what I'm doing here.
PureLife said:
But you seem to just not understand, all the things you listed can be safely done.
I'd like to know what definition of "safe" you're using that can possibly apply to injecting fentanyl.
Under the definition that this board uses, no drug use is safe. From the
Bluelight FAQ:
Bluelight FAQ said:
Bluelight (
www.bluelight.ru) is an international message board that educates the public about responsible drug use (with a focus on MDMA) by promoting free discussion. We advocate harm reduction and attempt to eliminate misinformation. Bluelight is funded by private donations and maintained by a team of volunteers.
Bluelight does not condone or condemn the use of illegal drugs. Bluelight is a place for people to ask questions and educate themselves about drugs so they can make more informed decisions regarding their personal use. Other programs that advocate complete abstinence have had limited success, so Bluelight anticipates that people will continue to use illegal drugs regardless of the potential health or legal consequences. We want to encourage people to take personal responsibility for the choices they make regarding their drug consumption.
Harm reduction is the practice of taking reasonable measures to minimize the risks from drug use. Common harm reduction activities include encouraging people to exercise moderation in their drug consumption and to understand the purity or dose of the drug they are consuming.
There is no such thing as safe drug use, but if someone is educated in the general principles of harm reduction, they increase the odds that their drug use will not lead to short-term disasters or long-term negative consequences.
Beyond harm reduction, Bluelight also seeks to educate the public about drugs by summarizing whatever information is known about a subject. Bluelight aims to deliver accurate information in an easy to understand manner that emphasizes safety. We also try to eliminate misinformation whether it exaggerates or understates the danger. If facts are unavailable, then honest anecdotal stories can provide useful information so people have an idea of what to expect.
Since Bluelight seeks to reach the widest possible audience, we take a balanced approach that allows the discussion of both the positive and negative aspects of drug use. We believe that education and harm reduction are more effective than using scare tactics or exaggerating negative claims. Anyone looking through our site will be able to find examples of irresponsible behavior, but we believe it does not glorify recklessness but instead reinforces the idea that people need to be more cautious. Everyone is encouraged to candidly discuss past experiences and ask any questions they might have.
PureLife said:
Injecting alcohol can not be safely done.
I agree. I have never argued that it could be safely done. It's ridiculous to think it's safe.
PureLife said:
I agree with your point. I'm not sure you understand my point, but I don't want to repeat myself.
PureLife said:
It would destroy your veins at the rate of flow,
Again, I agree that his veins are not going to like this. I'd like to see some evidence that this will
definitely destroy them though. And again it's besides the point. We both agree that this is bad for his veins. Everyone here does. My post was about trying to minimise the harm associated with this dangerous activity. So was yours. Why are we arguing?
PureLife said:
Its just not practical but you fail to see that for some reason
I do see that it's not practical. I'm sure the OP knows it too, but if the OP is thinking of doing it, then I am providing information that will help minimise the potential harm. Pretty simple.
PureLife said:
and wish to raise an argument on totally different topic.
It was a relevant argument, if you understood it.
PureLife said:
Honestly when you look over a lot of the threads in the drug forums, the questions being asked are simple non-life threatening questions. They involve no immediate destructiveness to the body. If they do, things like this happen. People lash out, and tell the OP not to do it, and the negative effects.
The principle of harm minimisation applies to all cases where harm can be minimised. Not just to cases where harm can be reduced from definitely life-threatening to probably life-threatening. Do you agree with the principle? If you do then apply it to all cases. If you only apply it to certain cases then you are a hypocrite. On the other hand, if you're not criticising IV alcohol on principle, then it's the end of the discussion. You're being arbitrary. But don't claim you're doing it on principle.
PureLife said:
Of COURSE he takes the TWO OR THREE people that agree with him, and goes against the 15 or 20 other peoples advice. It doesn't make sense. Then again, ignorance doesn't make sense to me.
This site isn't to convince people not to take drugs. That's for your parents and the government. This site is to reduce the harm associated with drug use.
OK, this site is a bit more than that, the other contradiction is within harm minimisation itself. Giving people information on how to
minimise harm in the short term, eg. how to shoot heroin safely,
increases the potential harm to them in the long term, ie. risk of addiction.
I'm working under the principle of minimising short term harm. I assume that's what a lot of users come here for. The best way to decrease long term harm isn't through a forum like this, it's through saner drug policies. Eventually there'd have to be a change in the culture as well, ie. increasing the acceptance of drug use would decrease the isolation of say heroin addicts, which would decrease the amount of harm they suffer. To that end this site is also important.
The other thing that would have to change would be the society itself, I mean my hypothesis is that people turn to drug use, and especially self-destructive drug use because they can't find any other way to feel happy in our society. I'd lay the blame for that at the feet of such warm-hearted institutions as the individualist market based economy, and the patriarchal family, among others, but that's another thread.
ClubbinGuido said:
2inchdolphin said:
I mean why inject smack? There isn't a huge difference between smoking it and banging it, so why expose yourself to that risk? It doesn't matter (I've given reasons why someone might want to do it in previous posts anyway). People are going to do it, so let's help them do it in as safe a manner as possible.
There is a huge difference. Believe me. I'm a heroin user.
OK, so there's a huge difference. Doesn't matter. The OP thinks that there is enough of a difference between drinking alcohol and IVing it to warrant trying the latter. End of story.
ClubbinGuido said:
Enough of this bullshit. There is no fucking point in injecting alcohol and its fucking idiotic to draw a comparison to other drugs and the methods of using them.
Doesn't matter what you or I think. I wouldn't IV alcohol, nor would I IV heroin. That's irrelevant though, because the OP wants to do it.
ClubbinGuido said:
The harm reduction purpose of Bluelight manifests itself in the posts that are telling you not to I.V. alcohol. Its dangerous. Your better off shooting a mystery bag of heroin with a used needle and cooking up the shot with puddle water.
I've never said don't tell him not to do it. I said don't be hypocritical about it. There is a difference. Some people here understood that difference. Some people didn't. You apparently didn't.
ClubbinGuido said:
Don't piss on our heads and tell us it's raining buddy. Your only stirring up shit with a post like that.
Please don't hurt me with your big internet muscles.
triiper said:
2inchdolphin, you do NOT have to write an essay about this.
I've enjoyed this thoroughly. I hope you got something out of it.
triiper said:
i sorta read what you're saying and you just keep repeating yourself in different words, and you do that about 20 times. not only that, what you're arguing is straight up retarded. you have this weird logic that isn't actually logical (you just back up your arguments with logical facts that don't really apply).
Apparently you didn't. That's unfortunate. At least some people understood what I was saying. Are you sure it's "Your logic is retarded", as opposed to "
I can't understand your logic"?
triiper said:
what the fuck. you must be a seriously pissed off individual in real life.
No, I'm just passionate.
triiper said:
if i were you i would learn more than i preach, cause you're gonna get nowhere like this.
Plenty of people understood what I was saying. Maybe one day you will too.
.
