Ethics of 25x-NBOMe availability

[weadazoid]

why are NBOMe's singled out..... if I was to order encapsulate and eat gram or 500 mg apb I imagine I would be in for a bad time... Back in my Raver days I was capable of taking close to that much of fine MDMA and still have a good time.

look, maybe it is because I am older wiser.. you name it but 25i is a fantastic thing IMO. some one on Erowid nailed it in a description it is a psychadelics psychadelic....

RC's are out there, I read about this silly stuff that was supposedly 4 or 5 times more powerful then cocaine the other day, with massively awful side effects. My guess is it aint a hot seller.


People who sell NBOMe's as LSD are idiots they are to blame, as is anyone who thinks more then 2mg of any NBOMe is safe for ever an experienced psychonaught like myself.


I am pretty sure NBOM'es popularity is on the rise because 2C-I is now illegal, do you really think the chemists will stop..... they are filling a need, the next analogue that goes public may indeed be worse then the NBOMe's


leave them alone ... please

 

[Anon0631]

I just think that people haven't stopped to think about the positives.

When I started taking psychedelics, there was only LSD available unless it was September/October and then you had the enviable choice of acid or mushrooms. If you wanted to trip, you took what you could find.

Now thanks in no small way to Sasha Shulgin and the Internet, we have the choice of dozens of compounds to explore. We are able to have conversations comparing (for instance) the subtle differences between 4-ho-DPT and 4-aco-met. And this is seen as a bad thing?

The problem isn't the substances, it's the fact that dealers are bastards (particularly the sort you have acess to in your teens and twenties) and that can be dealt with through decriminalisation. So stop trying to ban things and join the fight against the war on drugs. That's your real enemy.

 

[Mugz]

I just think that people haven't stopped to think about the positives.

When I started taking psychedelics, there was only LSD available unless it was September/October and then you had the enviable choice of acid or mushrooms. If you wanted to trip, you took what you could get.

Now thanks in no small way to Sasha Shulgin and the Internet, we have the choice of dozens of compounds to explore. And this is seen as a bad thing?

The problem isn't the substances, it's the fact that dealers are bastards (particularly the sort you have acess to in your teens and twenties) and that can be dealt with through decriminalisation. So stop trying to ban things and join the fight against the war on drugs. That's your real enemy.

well said

 

[FnX]

OP: I disagree. I think every single drug known to mankind should be available legally and freely, accompanied with proper information and education about effects, hazards and everything. If ALL drugs were legal, you wouldn't be making this post.

 

[psood0nym]

^I agree to a point, with the caveat that such education is both compulsory and demonstrated, and the rights are limited and contingent on responsible use -- in short, a monitored and revocable license to buy recreational drugs at a limited rate (to curb addiction and resale to the unlicensed, similar to pseudoephedrin purchasing rate limits in the U.S).

Some form of drug laws are necessary to protect innocent non-users from the ignorant, the reckless, and teenagers, no matter how oppressed, babied, and disrespected that makes responsible users feel. We can try to insist using is a victimless crime because we're doing it to ourselves but that can never really be true as long as we are members of an integrated society, see: intoxicated operation of vehicles or heavy machinery, violent drug induced psychotic states, quality of life reductions resulting from involuntary association with addicts (esp. for children), etc. Indignant idealizing about what we think we as responsible adult citizens should have as a right to do voluntarily to ourselves fails to account for the unavoidable fact that the irresponsible exist and innocents involuntarily and invariably suffer the consequences of their practicing their rights.

Along these lines of irresponsible use: "Psy Acid" : Teens rushed to hospital (NBOMes sold as LSD).

We can say about NBOMes something similarly analogous to "Guns don’t kill people; people kill people." But we can't get away from the fact that guns are profoundly more biased toward killing people than something like party balloons. The ethics of it goes beyond an idealized and oversimplified consideration of individual rights and responsibilities to practical concerns about what WILL eventually happen out in the world pretty much no matter what.

I like NBOMes, and very much appreciate having access to them, but there's a respect in which selling them on blotters to anybody with a credit card and recommending "careful research" is sort of like selling nitroglycerin in a spray paint can and rationalizing it's OK because you've labeled it "don't shake." They're inanimate objects devoid of intent, sure, but they nevertheless independently possess an inherent bias towards seriously fucking up over less potent and less dangerous drugs that cannot be denied. It's this substantial inherent bias that gives them a distinct status that any ethical consideration hoping to be comprehensive needs to account for. I'm not really arguing against the existence of NBOMes or guns or similar products necessarily: there's a place for bad ass dangerous products and a justification for taking personal risks and even risking danger to others for the sake of improving quality of life (think air shows, auto racing, or even an innocent Sunday cruise). I am arguing, though, that in considering the ethics of all technologies and their use it's important not to forget to weigh the potential good they can do against the unintended but definite bad we know they eventually will do.

 

[Anon0631]

I agree with much of this. The question of course is whether the market will find a stable state of self regulation. The LSD market did. The gun market didn't.

As for the argument that there will always be irresponsible people, are they born or made? Can we un-make them?

 

[B.mans]

I think the comparison with guns is not valid, as guns' only purpose is to hurt while with NBOMEs this its just a side effect from (irresponsible) use.

 

[psood0nym]

I think the comparison with guns is not valid, as guns' only purpose is to hurt while with NBOMEs this its just a side effect from (irresponsible) use.

That's why I said "similarly analogous" and not just analogous. The point I was stressing between NMOMes and guns is the one italicized in my last post, namely their inherent bias towards causing harm independently of intention. Intent doesn't factor into it in my view because objects don't have intentions, yet something like nitroglycerin stored in a spray paint can or arsenic in a soda bottle for convenience is still very dangerous (again these are not direct analogies to NBOMes, they're illustrative "sorta likes" used to make overwhelmingly obvious the property of inherent bias towards harm). Consider that a gun only ever intended for skeet shooting and never hunting or self-protection is still more likely to cause an accidental death than a paper cup because of its inherent bias towards harmful errors -- errors that, even if unlikely, are hugely consequential because often they only need to happen once.

As for the argument that there will always be irresponsible people, are they born or made? Can we un-make them?

Perhaps, but with great difficulty as people tend to only learn after making the relevant mistakes themselves, and mistakes with ultra potent physiologically dangerous drugs or guns are BIG mistakes they may not get a chance to learn from. That's why we have a license system that takes steps to help make sure it's mostly only people who have proven they can drive and know the rules of the road that are out there controlling 2 tons of steal hurtling down pedestrian crowed streets (driving being another domain where small errors are often especially costly).

I think a license system for buying rate-limited quantities of recreational drugs would be more even more effective at reducing harm in the domain of drug use than for driving cars in the domain of road safety in some ways, though, as there's no direct impediment to a person with a revoked license getting in their car despite it but there would be a clerk behind a bullet proof window demanding a license between an unlicensed drug user and drugs. Over time such a system would dramatically shrink the extent of the violent black market and help prevent NEW addicts from being created by limiting rate of purchase starting from the very first experience of drug use, thus further reducing demand for black market sources going forward. Sure an addict could ask a friend to buy legally for them, but that friend could only buy limited quantities themselves and risks penalties for buying for the unlicensed, and so between them only one of them could consume beyond the limited rate. A license system has all the advantages of legalization while also working to reduce overall harm from drug use as those in power demand, which ought to make it more palatable for actual implementation than decriminalization or laissez-fair legalization.

 

[Anon0631]

I personally see that as over legislating but I'm not saying anybody here is wrong or right, we are just throwing around ideas.

Alcohol is addictive, toxic, promotes manic and even psychotic behaviour and yet we do a fairly good job of controlling it's damage to society with moderate legislation and not so moderate tax disincentives. In this case the consumer doesn't have to have a license, the vendor does. Although there are casualties both direct and indirect, the vast majority of consumers gain positively from its availability.

Another good example is paracetamol (tylanol, APAP). It's actually pretty easy to permanently damage your liver or even kill yourself with it and the toxic/lethal dose isn't that much higher than the therapeutic dose. However consumer education and controls on manufacture and supply mean that it's rare for someone to have a problem with it.

Dealers can do a lot to limit damage. When I give NBOMe blotters to friends, I include a little note in the baggy with suggested doses, ROA and overdose warning. The blotters are also clearly printed with substance and dose. If dealers aren't able to take this responsibility, then decriminalisation of drugs should take supply out of their hands and place it in those of regulated, accountable businesses.

 

[psood0nym]

^Off topic so I'll NSFW it:

NSFW:

I don't really disagree, but the point of that over regulation is to sell it to those who demand a system that actively tries to reduce recreational drug use i.e., to make it palatable to the majority that supports prohibition. The motivation is to get all recreational drugs made legally accessible in some limited form as soon a possible to get people accustomed to it as the new norm and see directly for themselves that it reduces harm relative to prohibition. We have to actually implement concrete changes to make a case for legalization rather than insist on theories, but in the near term those changes have to be limited to be acceptable. It's much easier and safer to start from such an over regulated system and inch toward the less regulated system we'd actually like to see, making adjustments as circumstances permit, than to convince a fearful majority to make what they perceive as a blind leap from prohibition to that less regulated system.

 

[FractalStructure]

Man up, take responsibility and only idiots get sold fake drugs- acid or otherwise. Psychonauts who know their shit tend to stick together, and not suprisingly tend to get legit LSD. Fuck- if you're clued up and in to psyches there are dozens of people trying to find you right now so they can turn some of those fucking tabs they have into some cash to get some dinner. If you actually get sold 'fake LSD' you're a moron or just the unluckiest guy in the world.

This is the attitude that will hurt the Rc scene. It's not about money, and when it is, things get banned. I agree with the OP, the abundance of nbome is actually leading to lots of negative media attention, including state bans, which don't just include 25i, they tend to throw in 29 unrelated hallucinogens as well. If that's your sort of thing...

 

[1ofthewizards]

any legal drug that is active at microgram levels should be banned or better yet like you said, sold at prohibitively high prices. Somebody is going to overdose on this stuff very soon and give the whole RC scene a bad name. Then authorities will start cracking down on all RCs regardless of whether they are dangerous or not

 

[GreenMachine]

i am genuinely surprised and disappointed in the BLers flaming the OP in this thread. the 25i situation in america at least is becoming a pretty big problem within our scene, if you dont realize that, it totally bewilders me as to why you are posting in PD on a harm reduction forum.

OP i agree with you 100%. of course some of us dont have this problem if you have the connections and test your goods, but that vast majority of trippers out there dont. not only is 25i more dangerous than LSD, i just dont think it has the love you get with good L. i dont think LSD will go away, but i sure as shit prefer it over 25i and i would think most people do as well. its not even about 25i specifically, its the issue of adulterated drugs, and it seems like things are going the way of the ecstasy pill.

i am so grateful for places like BL and erowid, as well as harm reduction groups like dancesafe and the bunk police that actually put the boots on the ground and make a difference in the psychedelic scenes. i dont know how it is abroad, but in america it has gone from the majority of "acid" or "doses" sold being real LSD, to the majority being 25i. there have always been DOx, but it is not NEARLY as prevalent as 25i IME. i also sincerely doubt very much bromo-dragonfly is ending up on the "streets".

dont call some a custie because he/she cares about these things, thats exactly the attitude thats letting this bullshit fuck up the good things we have going.

/endrant

 

[isetpeopleonfire]

I feel this 100 percent. Because of the extremely profitable industry, people think they can just pass it off as LSD to kids who wouldn't know the difference. But overdose on this is quite possible, and convulsions are likely if given out like I've seen. I was at a renegade and some asslick was giving out bumps of 25I-NBOMe claiming it was regular 25-I. Needless to say, there were 6 seizures and 4 hospitalizations. And I guarantee you more people then that lost their mind for a night. It's WRONG!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVdEINfm7H4

 

[Reverend Random]

any legal drug that is active at microgram levels should be banned or better yet like you said, sold at prohibitively high prices. Somebody is going to overdose on this stuff very soon and give the whole RC scene a bad name. Then authorities will start cracking down on all RCs regardless of whether they are dangerous or not

Yeah. Except LSD of course.

Substantial edit to add some food for thought. I disagree with Bluedolphin's sentiments about education. Did you test your acid the first time you tried it? I sure didn't. Along the line did I get educated, but you live and learn. And in some cases, people don't live to learn. And that's not only sad, it's good for no one. Literally no one in the whole chain of supply and demand benefits from this. I am not saying there are easy solutions to this, but what would it hurt to just ask anyone involved to educate and inform everyone as much as possible. Simple slogans like ' Bitter = Spitter' are things that people will memorize. In a similar vein: swallow, don't keep it in your mouth, cause that's just plain gross.

There are no easy solutions to this, but even people who pass a NBOMe on as acid, should know that it's bad business for them if some kid dies and the whole series will be banned in the end. But then again, maybe they're just out for a quick buck and don't give two flying fucks. Couldn't tell ya.

But it's obvious there's an issue with these superpotent psychedelics out there and I'd be the last to say I had an easy solution, but the one thing I do believe in is INFORMATION and EDUCATION. I also feel that Bluelight could maybe place a simple warning about NBOMes being sold as LSD and their risk profile is bigger than with acid. But then again, I don't know what their thoughts are on the topic.

 

[GreenMachine]

also i think the only realistic way to deal with this is to educate those who are taking these drugs. if you know what to look for and/or have a test kit its pretty easy to avoid adulterated blotters. i feel very lucky to have started tripping before this whole new wave of RCs took over. obviously a drug is not inherently bad, they all have their place. there are RCs that i love, but the truth is they are dangerous as a class just because of the lack of information about them. at least LSD has had a good half century of use with a good bit of research and tons of anecdotal evidence to look at.

with the law becoming more realistic about marijuana, maybe more harm reduction groups will be willing to set up at festivals and other gatherings where people will be taking these drugs, typically bought from strangers. almost every festival/show/party i end up at these days our crew is testing the whole weekend, and whether its doses or molly, the majority seems adulterated with RCs. even if these drugs are not that bad, the users are still missing out on the magical experience provided by good old LSD and MDxx.

or maybe the solution will be a new chemist mass producing large amounts of cheap, clean, strong LSD.

 

[my3rdeye]

I saw a vendor selling nbomes on a hoffman print, complexed of course. Thats just wrong. I saw another smarter guy though selling 5 mg DOM blotters and it said the substance and dosage on the back of each hit. It baffles me that people would not label dox compounds and sell them as what they are because that stuff would fly off the shelves in my neighbourhood. I place the blame at these people laying blotters with RC's that are clearly made to be resold on street as acid.

 

[Morninggloryseed]

If these things were sold labeled, pure, and with directions on how to use/instructions..... at every corner drug store just like paint thinner, tobacco, and alcohol...... there would not be ANY issues with people selling it as LSD because the LSD would be down the isle in the 'INDOLE' section.

 

[Reverend Random]

Special aisles for indoles...hmmm.

 

[stillmind]

Wow, I'm kind of floored by the snobbery, basic lack of compassion and sheer disconnect from reality in many of these responses. The vast majority of consumers out there lack the connections and knowledge of most of us on BL. One could argue that's their "fault", but I question how many of us had those connections and knowledge when we first tried psychedelics. It's undeniable reality that many if not most first-time consumers will be young and naive. Unleashing a drug that can be procured far more cheaply and easily than another drug with far greater brand recognition and an infinitely better safety profile is an obvious recipe for disaster.

I don't have any easy solution - I think it's unrealistic to expect the vendors to self-regulate here - but let's not underestimate the scope of the problem. The scrutiny and regulations being brought to bear on RCs as a result of the attention these ODs are getting will ultimately affect everyone in this community, no matter how well-connected or knowledgeable you are, and regardless of whether you personally use this particular compound.