fairnymph said:
You are getting way too riled up about this. Where did I EVER comment on what you were trying to accomplish or put words in your mouth?
That comment was because many of the things that you were pointing out, I've already dealt with here. And I am not suggesting that you should not bring up something that has already been touched upon. Rather, that you did not appear to know that I have mentioned them.
For example: you quote a brief mention that I made about this invisible group, and then said you could not see how I arrived at that conclusion. If you had read my justification, I would have expected you to refute my "total market verses the 'positives' ability to support it" observation. It's not just a casual opinion (or wishful thinking), there is a gross variance that can not be accounted for.
fairnymph said:
Let me put it more clearly for you. There is simply nothing we can do that will really be effective. That is what I truly believe. It doesn't MATTER what the message is. It won't work.
I think the best we can do, as I have already stated and as I have personally always done, is inform people of the dangers and encourage harm reduction measures (getting adequate sleep, drinking enough water, eating regularly, taking the appropriate supplements).
That still sounds like it is addressing use maintenance, while attempting to encourage avoidance.
My focus is on developing coping mechanisms to avoid the problems which people get into.
For example, Dr.J is a BL member and works with AIDS patients who also have a methamphetamine dependency. He is seeing meth related health secondary effects at their very worst.
The problem is: A growing trend within the gay community (and beginning to appear in the straight community) is to use meth at weekend long sex parties. The problem is that many of these people are contracting AIDS as a result of them There are a couple of reasons for this:
- Unsafe Sexual Practises -
These are people who know the dangers that the HIV virus poses, they also know that they are in a high risk group (i.e., having casual sex). Why are they not practising safe sex?
- Condom Failure -
Males have a set of mechanisms which regulate satiety after orgasm/ejeculation. This regulatory mechanism effectively discontinues further interest in sex. There are of course slight variations from individual to individual, but this involentary trait exists in all human males, and is neurological in nature. Methamphetamine is capable of both suppressing this mechanism (the result being a constant, hightened sexual arousal which is not decreased by ejeculation), and delaying ejeculation/orgasm.
The result is very long periods of sexual activity. But condoms were never designed to withstand this kind of use, and they break long before the sexual activity subsides
How can this be addressed? These people already know about HIV (yet are making life threatening decisions regardless. The ones who are using condoms are not checking for breaks (although they have seen them break while doing this over and over).
Information is simply not enough. These folks need to know why they are making bad decisions while having meth/sex.
So why are they making poor decisions? I have reason to believe that when the pleasure/reward system is stimulated that it takes priority over many other brain centers. This is a natural function of mammals, and is survival strategy.
Methamphetamine acts on this same center, and appears to produce the same response. In this case, the pleasure priority "appears" more of an urgency than does the abstract notion of preventing infection.
I am planning on addressing these issues by first describing that methamphetamine handicaps one's decision making processes in favor of pleasure gratification. And go into detail what exactly someone can expect to experience while this is occurring. Along with coping strategies to avoid getting blinded by one's pleasure center being over stimulated.
Second, offering alternative sexual practises which do not place one at risk of passing or acquiring an infection. If the user were to develop an association between the meth experience and the alternative sexual practise, they have a much lower risk of contracting HIV.
That is very different from providing management information, or illustrating the dangers of the drug (in the hopes that someone will avoid using it). Instead, it attempts to shape (or reshape) one's usage habits.
Please keep in mind that I am also planning on including the latest health related data.
Obviously, not everyone is going to follow these future guidelines. But it is my intention to provide as comprehensive as possible: sets of problem area, each including a weighted risk factor for each impact type: Behavioral/Toxicological/Chronic Use/Tolerance; coping mechanisms to address the specific issue; medical and sociological concerns.
At the very core (and threaded through the guidelines as a theme) will be the importance of spacing one's drug session by at least a few weeks.
That is an example and thumbnail sketch of what I am aiming for. I am not sure if that was what you were referring to as not working. But, I don't see how such a conclusion can be arrived at beause what I am proposing has never been attempted before in the drug (at least not that I am aware of).
Behavior shaping was an incredible success in addressing the AIDS crisis.
The guidelines need to be informative, suggestive and fun (if it isn't fun, no one is going to read it).
fairnymph said:
I have NEVER told someone 'just stay away from meth' (in response to queries about it), so you're wasting your time if you are accusing me of doing so.
That wasn't my intention and I am sorry if you thought I was implying that. I have only seen two approaches offered to address the meth problem: asvoidence (which I refer to as "Just say no") and drug continuance management harm reduction (essencially health strategies which maintain a level of health, while allowing on going drug usage).
Maybe I missed something in your post. But when I read it, I didn't see anything different. That is why my response was sterotypical.
fairnymph said:
YOU are the one who seems incapable of reading and comprehending the posts here. I offered a very balanced and straightforward view and you chose to shit on it without hesitation. You clearly have no desire to discuss but only to push your own opinion.
I and many others here have serious experience in these matters. You can ignore them all you like but you will only be hurting your own ends.
I honestly have no desire to fight. You and many others may have experience with both the drug, and with others who's lives have been crushed by using it. I can sympathize with both of these.
But most of the people who have approached me in this thread have offered nothing in the way of a solution. And part of the reason for that has to do with what we are defining as "the problem."
In my "rant" I discussed the long term consequences of a rapidly growing population of methamphetamine users. In my view, the problem isn't those 50 people that you know, or those 5 that someone else knows. To me, the problem is what this will all look like in 10 to 15 years.
Some people preach the gospal of avoidance. Others show harm evidence to underscore the need for avoidance. And the government (if it has its way) will have 20% of the population in prison in 20 years.
These may be somewhat reducing the rate of new cases of methamphetamine use, but the are failing. The epidemic is far out of control, and has just begun to spread in South America (Brasil).
I've spent a portion of my career working in epidemiology, and I am thinking of this problem in those terms. We need to think outside of the box.
My sense of tenacity, and my approach, appears to be irritating a lot of people. I think that part of what irritates many of the people is that I am not espousing a fanitical anti-meth stance, and they are translating this into a pro-meth stance. In reality I've made no judgement at all. That is the only way to be opened to the full spectrum of potential solutions.
