phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
Some good points MrIbis, but I ask you, how many legit businesses refuse to supply information on the contents of their products? If they are in any way toxic - and all drugs are - then it's compulsory in Australia. Sometimes you have to search for it, but it's nearly always there. And whether it's considered good business or not, any business has the responsibility to correctly inform customers of potential dangers that exist with their product/s. Those who don't often get sued. Why should legal high suppliers be exempt?
Sure, it can be said that big business gets away with some things, but if you look to similar enterprises that produce products for human consumption, you'll see most, if not all western based companies comply to strict regulations not only in terms of product safety, but also product manufacture and preparation. Some of the companies marketing legal high products give no info on these things. That needs to change IMO and I'd put money on that happening in the not so distant future.
Speaking of which. I'm afraid to say your statements regarding business hold no ground for me. I could have exploited the legal drug market years ago - in my early teen years when I discovered many psychoactive plants growing in NZ and had people hassling me to make this and that. another opportunity arose again in the 70's when I was first informed of MDA - a drug that remained legal in NZ for nearly ten years after that and which no-one I met in NZ had ever heard of at that time. I could still produce a plethora of unscheduled drugs if I were so inclined, some of which have never appeared on this board. But as I've always done, I choose not to, for many reasons. So, to me, exploitation as per this example, is just that, and just because money is tied up in a business is no excuse in my books.
I'll also ask; how many pharmaceuticals are marketed for which there have been no clinical trials? As an example, 4-MMC hasn't even been tested on rats afaik. We live in a world of accountability and that's what should be seen as most important to those considering defending the stance many of these companies have taken.
While that may be so for many, I believe it's still worthwhile trying to reach these unreachables. I can count many personal successes in this regard. Generally, these people may take longer to get through to, but in many cases it eventually sinks in. It's often after a mate or sibbling has a fall that go-hard users suddenly come to their senses. For others, seeing a bunch of cool people doing their drugs in a responsible manner is all it takes. Sure, there'll always be those who fall by the wayside and continue with a nonchalant attitude, but there's lots who, if shown 'the way' by someone they trust, go on to limiting their risk taking and instead spread the HR word.
To address your abc points
a) testing the products and providing information (now outlawed in clubs etc)
Having been someone who once strongly supported the benefits of reagent testing, and spent much time developing reagents, I can only say that the kits worked better back then than they do today, simply because the range of substitutes and masking agents is so great today. The kits are presumptive tests, far from infallible, and I have pages upon pages detailing hundreds of compounds which also react, some almost identically to the sought after illicits. So, for me, test kits have had their day, unless of course another approach to reagent testing was developed, perhaps also involving spectroscopy. An alternative; portable HPLC, RAMAN or GC/MS devices, while a great idea, as indicated, is plagued with red tape. An alternative hospital based system is what some of us are now aiming (and hoping) for.
b) using the media to our advantage and stopping major police sweepings at major public gatherings in which drug taking is a given
I'm not sure how this would be done effectively. We can continue doing what's already being done here but to significantly limit success of such operations is beyond the scope of this forum. Even the relaying of news warnings is often unsuccessful in preventing people from getting busted - disseminating this info widely has some serious hurdles. It's also limited because newspapers articles often aren't truthful. I can recall where it was announced Police would be targeting certain festivals yet nothing eventuated. Although I still see it as a worthwhile practice, IMO, BL can only reach and influence a small portion of party goers in this way.
c) telling those who want to know the 'good news' about our lord and saviour - harm reduction.
Sure, it can be said that big business gets away with some things, but if you look to similar enterprises that produce products for human consumption, you'll see most, if not all western based companies comply to strict regulations not only in terms of product safety, but also product manufacture and preparation. Some of the companies marketing legal high products give no info on these things. That needs to change IMO and I'd put money on that happening in the not so distant future.
Speaking of which. I'm afraid to say your statements regarding business hold no ground for me. I could have exploited the legal drug market years ago - in my early teen years when I discovered many psychoactive plants growing in NZ and had people hassling me to make this and that. another opportunity arose again in the 70's when I was first informed of MDA - a drug that remained legal in NZ for nearly ten years after that and which no-one I met in NZ had ever heard of at that time. I could still produce a plethora of unscheduled drugs if I were so inclined, some of which have never appeared on this board. But as I've always done, I choose not to, for many reasons. So, to me, exploitation as per this example, is just that, and just because money is tied up in a business is no excuse in my books.
I'll also ask; how many pharmaceuticals are marketed for which there have been no clinical trials? As an example, 4-MMC hasn't even been tested on rats afaik. We live in a world of accountability and that's what should be seen as most important to those considering defending the stance many of these companies have taken.
While that may be so for many, I believe it's still worthwhile trying to reach these unreachables. I can count many personal successes in this regard. Generally, these people may take longer to get through to, but in many cases it eventually sinks in. It's often after a mate or sibbling has a fall that go-hard users suddenly come to their senses. For others, seeing a bunch of cool people doing their drugs in a responsible manner is all it takes. Sure, there'll always be those who fall by the wayside and continue with a nonchalant attitude, but there's lots who, if shown 'the way' by someone they trust, go on to limiting their risk taking and instead spread the HR word.
To address your abc points
a) testing the products and providing information (now outlawed in clubs etc)
Having been someone who once strongly supported the benefits of reagent testing, and spent much time developing reagents, I can only say that the kits worked better back then than they do today, simply because the range of substitutes and masking agents is so great today. The kits are presumptive tests, far from infallible, and I have pages upon pages detailing hundreds of compounds which also react, some almost identically to the sought after illicits. So, for me, test kits have had their day, unless of course another approach to reagent testing was developed, perhaps also involving spectroscopy. An alternative; portable HPLC, RAMAN or GC/MS devices, while a great idea, as indicated, is plagued with red tape. An alternative hospital based system is what some of us are now aiming (and hoping) for.
b) using the media to our advantage and stopping major police sweepings at major public gatherings in which drug taking is a given
I'm not sure how this would be done effectively. We can continue doing what's already being done here but to significantly limit success of such operations is beyond the scope of this forum. Even the relaying of news warnings is often unsuccessful in preventing people from getting busted - disseminating this info widely has some serious hurdles. It's also limited because newspapers articles often aren't truthful. I can recall where it was announced Police would be targeting certain festivals yet nothing eventuated. Although I still see it as a worthwhile practice, IMO, BL can only reach and influence a small portion of party goers in this way.
c) telling those who want to know the 'good news' about our lord and saviour - harm reduction.
