• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Forensic Science Update: Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate (GHB)

Oh and I am a layman btw. So that's the only way I do treat people. I am not a clinical physician, or any sort of health professional. I'm sure a few are reading this, but I am also sure that none of them can be fucked entering a so called debate like this.
 
johnboy: you can use any information you like.. but dont get offended when visual observations are discredited as inaccurate for determining the chances of survival.
 
Where is drplatypus? He is busy writing up his papers on this very subject. Either that or in the Emergency ward monitoring another OD. Hmmm but if his observations there are so easily discounted, then how can he write his paper? I'd better ring him and let him know that ghostcorps won't believe him! ;)
 
yes, you had better let him know that is is virtually impossible to diagnose a patients chance of survival or brain damage with eyeball observations only. unless of course they have a gaping bullet hole in theire forhead that is.... id have figured he knew that.. but oh well.. glad to be of assistance.

Of course im sure he would be all to happy to explain to you that when working in an ER you must treat every case as worst-case untill blood tox is returned (in the case of an apparent OD). and furthermore than often case such OD are lucid before such results are returned.
 
Last edited:
You edited your post after I had replied to change its intent. check the timestamps. I was in not referring to specific observation of individuals via GCS, I was talking of your dismissal of any anecdotal evidence I may bring.

BTW What exactly are your medical qualifications?
 
johnboy said:
You edited your post after I had replied to change its intent. check the timestamps. I was in not referring to specific observation of individuals via GCS, I was talking of your dismissal of any anecdotal evidence I may bring.

BTW What exactly are your medical qualifications?
Click to expand...

I edited my post to clarify my intent. My point did not change as I was reffering to the anecdotal evidence of yrouself and anyone determining the GCS in a GHB overdose victim. I was ensuring you understood that the GCS is determined visually. And any such evidence you receive from people hanging around in an ER is anecdotal untill prober invasive tests are performed
 
Look let's just finish this.

How about I admit that maybe if in an ideal clinical situation if a person, with no other drugs in their system, is given a known dosage of pharmaceutical grade GHB they will possibly be at less risk of harm than the same person given a known dosage of pharmaceutical grade MDMA if you admit that this is never going to happen and bares no relationship to the real world.

Agreed?
 
johnboy said:
Look let's just finish this.

How about I admit that maybe if in an ideal clinical situation if a person, with no other drugs in their system, is given a known dosage of pharmaceutical grade GHB they will possibly be at less risk of harm than the same person given a known dosage of pharmaceutical grade MDMA if you admit that this is never going to happen and bares no relationship to the real world.

Agreed?
Click to expand...

Ill agree.. but where you use use the word "possibly" I am far more definative.

As for your caveat "if you admit that this is never going to happen and bares no relationship to the real world." I insist on disagreeing as i bears alot of weight in the real world.
 
But as soon as you introduce real world factors like unknown dosages and other drugs, which are the reality for the average user, there is no longer any relationship that you would would want to bet your life on.

Every weekend at least 100,000 people in Sydney use MDMA (police estimates). If MDMA was more dangerous than GHB in real world conditions we would be seeing very different headlines than we are seeing now.

The media will always distort and exaggerate but they reporting what is happening. Yes we need to be realistic, but from both ends. GHB is riskier for the average punter to use than just about any other drug when they use it in real world situations.

That is the message we need to get across. Talking to the average punter at Two Tribes about LD50s is a waste of everybodies time.
 
unknown dosages and if infact the drug is what it was claimed are factors related to all street bought drugs. Certainly there is a much greater risk in pills than poweders or liquids.

yes the media hypes it up.. it wasnt long ago that MDMA was an epidemic.. killing ravers everyweekend.. what ever happened to that?
 
Certainly there is a much greater risk in pills than poweders or liquids.
Click to expand...

I'll let someone else refute that. Anyone really. It's a gimme :)

So otherwise we are in agreement?
 
so your implying.. let me get this right.. that pills have a greater reliability as far as substance and strength than powders and liquids?

please say your not trying to imply this...

otherwise i think somewhere above we can thread together a common ground :)
 
No. It is you who seem to be saying that one type of illegal drug is more reliable than any other. A powder that can be cut by anyone is reliable? A liquid that can be diluted is more reliable? Odd.

No illegal drug can be considered reliable but at least with pills you have to be high enough up the food chain to interfere with a drug before it ends up in the pill press to adulterate it.
 
think about it ghostcorps imagine all the differnt concnetrations a liquid could have. im not saying pills are reliable either but we do have many more methods to make pill use a safer process.
 
^^ Yes

Lets forget the pharmacology for a second. Let's view it as simply the unknown dosage factor which is relative to risk. I know there are those who religiously practice safe dosage trials with new batches of G chems. I applaud this attitude, and so perhaps this argument does not apply to them.

But - and neither being a Dr or an expert on drug emergencies - I would suggest that the mean dosage for pills or caps is probably very seldom that which exceeds a "critical" or life threatening dose. Can the same be said of G chems when offered as a single dose?

When an unknown strength tablet has tested positive to MDMA, a user who is conscious of harm reduction can choose to take a small amount, being fairly confident that the dosage will not be too much. Indeed, this is in some ways limited by the amounts of MDMA which can be contained in a portion of a tablet. Therefore the user can - unless his/her test kit has been fooled and the active isn't MDMA - assume with reasonable confidence that a portion dose is less than that which may cause problems.

Quantity can also be measured-estimated in the same manner when talking about a cap or bag of powder. If you measure out 120mg of pure MDMA, then no matter how pure, it is only 120mg MAX.

But G compounds are a completely different story... ...and if MDMA was sold in liquid form, similar concerns would no doubt also exist. If MDMA was sold as a dissolved solid, it would be possible to place roughly the same amount of MDMA in 1ml of H2O, as GHB. Without a doubt, that would be a serious concern.
 
phase_dancer said:
^^ Yes

Lets forget the pharmacology for a second. Let's view it as simply the unknown dosage factor which is relative to risk. I know there are those who religiously practice safe dosage trials with new batches of G chems. I applaud this attitude, and so perhaps this argument does not apply to them.

But - and neither being a Dr or an expert on drug emergencies - I would suggest that the mean dosage for pills or caps is probably very seldom that which exceeds a "critical" or life threatening dose. Can the same be said of G chems when offered as a single dose?

When an unknown strength tablet has tested positive to MDMA, a user who is conscious of harm reduction can choose to take a small amount, being fairly confident that the dosage will not be too much. Indeed, this is in some ways limited by the amounts of MDMA which can be contained in a portion of a tablet. Therefore the user can - unless his/her test kit has been fooled and the active isn't MDMA - assume with reasonable confidence that a portion dose is less than that which may cause problems.

Quantity can also be measured-estimated in the same manner when talking about a cap or bag of powder. If you measure out 120mg of pure MDMA, then no matter how pure, it is only 120mg MAX.

But G compounds are a completely different story... ...and if MDMA was sold in liquid form, similar concerns would no doubt also exist. If MDMA was sold as a dissolved solid, it would be possible to place roughly the same amount of MDMA in 1ml of H2O, as GHB. Without a doubt, that would be a serious concern.
Click to expand...

BINGO ! :)
 
phase-dancer: If you have a look at the FAQ provided on this site, all the saturation points have been conclusivly drawn. As i mentioned earlier.. there is no physical possibility of having more than 1g of G in 1ml (approx) of water. this is a scientifically demonstratable property. Therefore safe dose testing is easy... even at full 100% saturation..it would take 10mls! to reach a danger level as described by Erowid. So consider, whats safer? 10 mills of 100% concentrated GHB dissolved in water? or 10 pills of unknown origin?

as for the safety of pills.. you dont need to be the cook or the pressing operator to mess with them... all you have to do is lie or have been lied to. As in the case of the PMA deaths in Adelaide. Powders are a far safer form, as anyone with half a clue can tell if a crystal has been cut or do a tongue test (MDMA, KEtmiane, Cocain, Meth have very unique tastes.. if you dont reciognise what you are tasting.. dont buy it.). GHB tastes very much like GHB. besides which, Im yet to come across a batch that has been cut with draino.
 
Last edited:
GCS 4

Goodness! all this chat about GHB and I've been missing it!
I'm going to have to print out this thread and pour over it; a superficial glance suggests there are still alot of people in denial, and I will compose a detailed answer when I get a chance
A few points...
The Glasgow coma score (GCS) is a 15 point assessment of level of conciousness. 15 is normal. 8 is a coma. The lowest possible score is 3, which is 1 point for eyes not opening, not even to painful stimulus, 1 for not having any verbal response (even a grunt or a groan) not even to painful stimulus, and a final 1 point for not moving at all, not even to painful stimulus. With a GCS of 3, you are in deep shit. If you have a GCS of 3 in the field (ie outside the emergency room) you will probably die. If you have a GCS of 3 IN the ER, you STILL have a good chance of dying. If you don't die, you will be brain damaged in smart time- not because of any drug neurotoxicity but simply because you can't get oxygen to the brain. To say that you can assume that you'll come good following a GCS of 4 following a sedative overdose is a monumental gamble- you might survive but the chances are that you'll never make the Uni Chess Team!
I'm beyond caring if people choose to use G. People make stupid choices all the time- hell, someone voted this government in=D. But to argue that its' use is safe is rubbish, and gives the wrong impression to people who might be considering using it. Is G so good that the world can't do without?
I doubt it. Use something else. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank all the amateur doctors in this thread who try to use the medical literature to justify all sorts of behaviours- great material for my undergrad classes! There is no conspiracy in the medical profession when we say that G is a dangerous drug- it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top