Methamphetamine Myth Maddness

[Invalid Usename]

I would like to continue a post, which I made earlier, regarding the lack of sound scientific information available within the Methamphetamine using community. And I would like to determine if there are others on this forum who would be interested in composing a set of guidelines for safe drug use.

To reprint what I've said earlier:


I am appalled by the overall harm reduction community's attitudes towards Methamphetamine. It has almost completely ignored the drug and the harm reduction needs of its user community. And further, has continued the messages delivered by the prohibitionist movement by labeling the drug as "evil."

This lack of attention (malice, actually) has resulted in a user community left to basically fend on its own. Were there should be a fully outlined model for safe drug use, there is only a "just say no" message presented. And as we all know, "just say no" does nothing to eliminate the problems involved (the drug is there and "it" and its associated issues simply do not go away). Even worse, this "just say no" stance has resulted in a Methamphetamine drug culture full of misinformation invented by people without any idea of what they are talking about.

Even in the treatment community, I have seen countless errors about the drug in published information (I don't mean in the medical research community, but rather those mom & pop drug rehab centers). When it comes to Methamphetamine, people do not seem to think that they are held accountable for inaccurate information, so long as what they do present assists in painting a picture that Methamphetamine is an "evil drug."



If one looks at the meth using population from a public health model, something interesting reveals itself. Granted, it is difficult to do because it is not as though the population of Methamphetamine are out in the opened publically. But we can still gleen something from that which we do not see in cases like this.

Based on the number of drug busts, and the overall avilability of Methamphetamine, there must be a rather large segment of the population who use the drug. If it were true that Methamphetamine creates usage problems in the majority of those who use it, then we would be seeing lives being shattered at an alarming rate. Basically, that group of people would become visible to the public by viture of their lives being shattered by their Methamphetamine use.

But, we are not seeing this occur. In fact, based on the market availability, market demand is high, and there are relatively few who claim to be out of control.

Based on the absence of this negative impact, it would seem that the vast majority of those who are using the drug lead functional lives. And I suspect (but have to proof) that the reason for that goes back to the personality types that I was speaking about earlier. That those who aquire a meth usage problem have a tendency towards obsessive-complusive behaviors (or similar issues involving closed-loop based behavior expression).

It would be interesting to see a study on this (personality trait verses psychological addiction potential). But I doubt that in the current prohibitionist environment that such a study could be funded.

__________________
Legalize, regulate, educate!

World without myth,
AMEN


EDIT:

May 16, 2005
I am adding this because far too many people feel a compulsion to hit the respond button at this point, to put together a post trying to convince me of the error of my ways.

But if you have only gotten to this post, or the following one, I am absolutely certain that you do not know what I have in mind, because it is revealed later on. And is only fully described through page 3.

If you are interested, at least find out first what this is all about and post your comment on that. Your comment will look far more elegant when appearing at the bottom of this thread as a result.

 

[lifeisforliving]

Good topic for discussion.

I've recently used methamphetamine for studying purposes. It was successful and was helped a great deal (made it possible) having GHB for coming down and getting sleep.

I would like to see guidelines for using it effectively while avoiding known toxicity levels.

I'd also like to see a comparison between amphetamine and methamphetamine pharmacologies. Why exactly is meth so much more devastating to the brain? Is it the drug itself or is it the sleep deprivation and lack of nutrition?

 

[Invalid Usename]

I've come to the conclusion that the most powerful thing about methamphetamine is the hype and mythos which has been built up around it. And for some reason everybody and their brother loves to toss their two cents of opinion in on it, without having any real facts.

The common notion of methamphetamine and addiction is full of misinformation, and ideas based on what "seems" correct. But, contrary to popular belief, methamphetamine does NOT produce a physical addiction. Discontinued methamphetamine use does not produce physical withdrawal symptoms. That is not to say that some people do not have a difficult time discontinuing their use of the drug, but rather, that the problems which they are facing are "learned" rather than physiological in nature.


A lot of the horror stories that I see in this forum regarding meth are from secondary sources. Tom knows Dick who heard about some friends of Harry who's life fell apart because they were using meth. Therefore, everybody who uses meth will have their life fall apart as a result.

The fact is that people who tend towards obsessive-compulsive personality traits should not use recreational drugs, because they will not use them *recreationally*. Addiction to a non-addictive substance (such as meth) is a personality trait, and that form of drug addiction is simply the expression of that personality trait within a specific life drama. These kinds of people tend to be attracted to high risk behaviors: gambling, sex, drugs, auto racing, etc. And act out their personality trait through these high risk life theaters.

The common bond between them and their drama is the perception they are out of control and under the control of something external (whatever the specific drama that they have linked themselves up with is).

I think that the obsessive neigh-sayers are essentially from the same obsessive personality type, but unconsciously recognize the dangers which these theaters pose to them. So they become obsessive about telling others how "the devil is gonna get ya" if you take <fill in the most demonized drug of the day>. If they were obsessed about religion (rather than about drugs), you'd find them on street corners handing out religious tracts, and telling you that you will go to hell if you do not buy into their pictorial beliefs.


People only get into trouble when they start using a drug in non-recreational situations. Once someone begins incorporating non-medical drug use into their everyday life they've crossed the line from recreational drug use into true drug abuse. I tend to include that definition when using drug *B* to come down from drug *A*, and think that it is problematic to use a second drug to facilitate a drug "come-down."

Lots of people talk about how terrible it is to come down at the end of a meth binge. Generally, they have either never used meth (and are simply parroting the demonized drug myth bard), or they can't seem to make the connection that if you go for days at a time without sleep that you will "crash."


I am certain that some will take my comments here as inflammatory. Or that I am somehow challenging the "status quo" by placing under the microscope claims considered to be "common knowledge." But there is already a body of knowledge within the medical community regarding this substance, and it is my intention to differentiate between myth and fact.

My motive for wanting to do this is simple, there are just too many victims of bad information. And it seems that no one is attempting to elevate that problem. So if I have angered anyone (see: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=200319&r=47), it is only because I am picking on a tendency to assert opinion which is devoid of scientific facts.


__________________
Legalize, regulate, educate!

World without myth,
AMEN

 

[Invalid Usename]

Good topic for discussion.

I've recently used methamphetamine for studying purposes. It was successful and was helped a great deal (made it possible) having GHB for coming down and getting sleep.

I would like to see guidelines for using it effectively while avoiding known toxicity levels.

As I see it, there are several distinct areas which need to be addressed in the safe use of methamphetamine. I would like to suggest that these can be broken down to the following areas:

1. Behavorial factors -
   That continued use reinforces teh stimulation of the pleasure/reward centers of the brain, and results in a "learned" dependency.
   
2. Toxicological factors -
   That there is a threshold at where a certain bloodserum level of the drug can produce a toxic effect. And that, depending on the bloodserum level, can effect organ function up to the point of organ failure.
   
3. Chronic use factors -
   That long term continued use has a different impact profile than does occasional use. And that the problems faced by chronic users differ from those faced by occasional users.
   
4. Tolerance factors -
   Drug tolerance is a much more complex issue than appears on the surface. Especially when taking into account aspects of toxicology.

I think that the absence of something as basic as the notion of a drug LD50 (the dosage where 50% of the test subjects die) within the meth using community says a lot. It is not possible for a community to believe that it has a defined idea of safe drug use when the factors involving an LD50 (Lethal Dose 50%) is missing from its lexicon of drug information. Yet, knowing what dosage can potentially be lethal, and how body weight plays a factor in determining that, and understanding that a drug overdose can occur at a far lower dosage than the LD50, is critical to basic understanding of a specific substance.

I'd also like to see a comparison between amphetamine and methamphetamine pharmacologies. Why exactly is meth so much more devastating to the brain? Is it the drug itself or is it the sleep deprivation and lack of nutrition?

I would also like to see this laid out in a form so that those without a strong scientific background can understand it. Perhaps if enough qualified people are willing to join in on this proposed project, we can collectively assemble such comparisons.

 

[twominds]

Very interesting article. Misinformation, unfortunately is not just restricted to Meth amphetamine. Its a common trend for uneducted so called 'experts' to create their version of what is supposed to be fact. They have such a vital responsibily too. There are so many points to discuss but out of time.. Will continue this discussion soon..........

 

[MaliceNwunderland]

My motive for wanting to do this is simple, there are just too many victims of bad information. And it seems that no one is attempting to elevate that problem. So if I have angered anyone (see: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=200319&r=47), it is only because I am picking on a tendency to assert opinion which is devoid of scientific facts.
[/B]

Dude I was the only person you attacked in that thread so you don't have to add the "angered anybody" bit.

Nobody else provided medical literature to support their claims, but you didn't like my take so you started shit.

Truthfully I base most my claim on the limited info available and my own empirical observations and testings. (Isn't that science?) I've known more than 1 persons that have been compulsive oral hygienists that have had serious dental problems from meth/coke use. That's really the only thing I want to illustrate.

 

[Scapegoat]

Does anybody have reliable and non-biased information of how many regular users of methamphetamine become addicted, and how many of the addicted become "out of control" meth-heads? I'm quite curious to finding out this, as I've never really seen anything like that. (Apart from the claims that all regular meth users are out-of-control addicts, of course.)

PS. Invalid, I'm really glad somebody decided to address methamphetamine-related misinformation.

 

[Invalid Usename]

Does anybody have reliable and non-biased information of how many regular users of methamphetamine become addicted, and how many of the addicted become "out of control" meth-heads? I'm quite curious to finding out this, as I've never really seen anything like that. (Apart from the claims that all regular meth users are out-of-control addicts, of course.)

PS. Invalid, I'm really glad somebody decided to address methamphetamine-related misinformation.

I would absolutely love it if someone, without an NIDA funded axe to grind, would provide an unbiased study of this. So far, the only study that I could find which even comes close to this is this one produced in 2004 by the University of Amsterdam which deals with long-term amphetamine use and self-regulation:
http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/uitermark.amphetamine.html

It is a sociological work and deserves examination.


Thanks, BTW.

__________________
Legalize, regulate, educate!

World without myth,
AMEN

 

[Ultra(m)]

I agree with you Invalid.
Myths about any drug, can be extremely dangerous.

However it appears that while many people take an overly negative approach to meth, do you think it is possible that in response to these people you perhaps have slipped into too much of a positive approach? I say this with no disrespect in mind. Only that of all the scientific research I have ever seen has given little hope that meth has a very large "safe use/abuse" threshold.

I think that this is an interesting topic, however now that you have made your allegations, and you have disagreed with the general consensus, the burden is on your shoulders to bring us some proof to your claims.



An old article, but one that stuck in my mind. What do you think?

This Is Your Brain on Meth: A 'Forest Fire' of Damage
July 20, 2004
By Sandra Blakeslee, New York Times

People who do not want to wait for old age to shrink their brains and bring on memory loss now have a quicker alternative - abuse methamphetamine for a decade or so and watch the brain cells vanish into the night.

The first high-resolution M.R.I. study of methamphetamine addicts shows "a forest fire of brain damage," said Dr. Paul Thompson, an expert on brain mapping at the University of California, Los Angeles. "We expected some brain changes but didn't expect so much tissue to be destroyed."

The image, published in the June 30 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience, shows the brain's surface and deeper limbic system. Red areas show the greatest tissue loss.

The limbic region, involved in drug craving, reward, mood and emotion, lost 11 percent of its tissue. "The cells are dead and gone," Dr. Thompson said. Addicts were depressed, anxious and unable to concentrate.

The brain's center for making new memories, the hippocampus, lost 8 percent of its tissue, comparable to the brain deficits in early Alzheimer's. The methamphetamine addicts fared significantly worse on memory tests than healthy people the same age.

The study examined 22 people in their 30's who had used methamphetamine for 10 years, mostly by smoking it, and 21 controls matched for age. On average, the addicts used an average of four grams a week and said they had been high on 19 of the 30 days before the study began.

Methamphetamine is an addictive stimulant made in clandestine laboratories nationwide. When taken by mouth, snorted, injected or smoked, it produces intense pleasure by releasing the brain's reward chemical, dopamine. With chronic use, the brains that overstimulate dopamine and another brain chemical, serotonin, are permanently compromised.

The study held one other surprise, Dr. Thompson said: white matter, composed of nerve fibers that connect different areas, was severely inflamed, making the addicts' brains 10 percent larger than normal. "This was shocking," he said. But there was one piece of good news: the white matter was not dead. With abstinence, it might recover.




Ultra[m]

 

[Invalid Usename]

Dude I was the only person you attacked in that thread so you don't have to add the "angered anybody" bit.

Nobody else provided medical literature to support their claims, but you didn't like my take so you started shit.

Truthfully I base most my claim on the limited info available and my own empirical observations and testings. (Isn't that science?) I've known more than 1 persons that have been compulsive oral hygienists that have had serious dental problems from meth/coke use. That's really the only thing I want to illustrate.

I attacked lots of people in that thread, and I ain't gonna stop there, either.

Science is evidence based. If you want to prove your point, then you either need to provide supporting evidence which has been produced by a valid scientific study (more than one study if the assertion is radical), or you need to set up your own scientific study: a test group, a control group, monitoring their behavior, hygene and dietary habits during the study, professional dental monitoring during the life of the study, etc. After that, the study needs to go before a scientific peer review (in essence, it must survive being picked apart by other experts in the field), and so on.

An opinion, especially one which is based on so little observation, is just an opinion. There could be all kinds of factors limited to your realm of observation. Also, you tend to use the terms "meth" and "coke" interchangably, which is an error as they are not the same substances.

Have you had the substance analyzed to determine what secondary compounds are in them? If not, how do you know that you are not observing the effects of specific contaminants common only to a source in your area? How do you even know that it is this specific substance which is producing the effect, and not something else that they are doing (or using) which is causing the problems?

Truth and fact does not equate with opinion or personal observation.

People (everybody) needs to think about what they are saying and the impact that it may have. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. There is a great deal wrong with marketing one's opinion as being a fact.

 

[Invalid Usename]

I agree with you Invalid.
Myths about any drug, can be extremely dangerous.

However it appears that while many people take an overly negative approach to meth, do you think it is possible that in response to these people you perhaps have slipped into too much of a positive approach? I say this with no disrespect in mind. Only that of all the scientific research I have ever seen has given little hope that meth has a very large "safe use/abuse" threshold.

I think that this is an interesting topic, however now that you have made your allegations, and you have disagreed with the general consensus, the burden is on your shoulders to bring us some proof to your claims.

It isn't my intention to falsely present methamphetamine as a harmless substance. There is a window of use which can be characterized within a safety range, and it is that window which I would like to outline within this project.

But in terms of the burden of proof, that rests on science (not me). I intend to present nothing but a scientifically valid guidelines.

In terms of the article you posted, the problem presented there is common with most of the clinical data presented. It deals with chronic usage. There are a great number of reasons why methamphetamine should not be used on a day to day basis. First, as I mentioned earlier, once someone has crossed the line from recreational use, and has incorporated non-medical drug use in their everyday lives, they have crossed the line from recreational drug use into true drug abuse.

The article only shows [again] why there is a strong need for usage guidelines. The folks referred to in that article fall far outside of that safety window. I would also like to point out that almost all such studies involve people whose drug use is out of control. Or whose neuro measurements are taken during a recovery period, rather than well after a successful recovery period.

So, this falls under several of the areas which I've outlined that need to be addressed: Behavioral, toxicological and chronic.

Is it possible for there to be chronic use without behavioral or toxicological issues? Yes, but NOT in the recreational sense. As the dosage must be limited and monitored, and the usage must have a medical basis to it.


As time goes on, I am hoping that we will be able to put informational meat on these 4 areas of concern. And it is my hope that I will not be the only one contributing to the task.

 

[Mettray]

If one looks at the meth using population from a public health model, something interesting reveals itself. Granted, it is difficult to do because it is not as though the population of Methamphetamine are out in the opened publically. But we can still gleen something from that which we do not see in cases like this.

Based on the number of drug busts, and the overall avilability of Methamphetamine, there must be a rather large segment of the population who use the drug. If it were true that Methamphetamine creates usage problems in the majority of those who use it, then we would be seeing lives being shattered at an alarming rate. Basically, that group of people would become visible to the public by viture of their lives being shattered by their Methamphetamine use.

But, we are not seeing this occur. In fact, based on the market availability, market demand is high, and there are relatively few who claim to be out of control.

I would just like to offer something about my own experience here. I'm not seeking to demonize meth; besides, give me a demon and an angel and you can guarantee I'll be sucking the demon. In lots of ways, I welcome the dark, though I've never tried meth, since it doesn't seem like a drug I would really enjoy. But I can't completely identify with the passage above.

I have been a rather loud and open drug user for at least 5 years, if not longer. I tell people about new substances I've tried, I 'turn people on' to new things and trip-sit (but never sell), I have lots of drug paraphernalia in my room and with me when I travel, etc. (However, for personal safety reasons, I only ever have very small possession amounts around.) I travel to hostels around America a lot, and hang with the drug users. (I have an internet job that allows me almost complete mobility.) So, I have met a lot, a LOT, a LOT! of drug users. I have done loads of drugs with loads of different people from around the world. Nobody has ever had reason to hide any kind of drug use from me (which is not to say it's never happened, but).

Now, every person I've met who was an open, mostly-daily methamphetamine user has been completely out of sorts. This is only MY experience, but I understand why the stereotypes develop, because my experience matches it. I've met maybe 20-30 meth heads (versus at least 500 pot smokers) and they are almost always impossible to interact with. Usually my experience will be that they'll glomp onto me and talk UTTER NONSENSE (paranoid conspiracy theories, but also just whatever random shit) until I can get away, which can sometimes be, like, an hour if I'm smoking on a hostel balcony (I have a hard time telling people to just leave me alone). Also, something that has been very consistent when I have talked to meth users is that they repeatedly tell me that they are not on meth. I don't know if it's paranoia, guilt, or a combination of the two, but someone obviously tweaking will just insert into the conversation, again and again, 'I'm not tweaking. I don't do that.' And I'll be like, 'Okay, whatever.' And they still keep saying it. One time this guy in a hostel told me, 'I think my brain is all messed up from all the crystal meth I've been doing.' I said, 'Well maybe it's time to take a break from meth.' And then he started ripping the bottom of his shirt hem and said 'WHAT THE FUCK, I don't DO THAT SHIT, OKAY????' And then he ran away.

Now, I understand that hostels are not necessarily the best places to look for well-to-do drug users of any kind, but I've met thousands of artists, businesspeople, and generally on-top-of-it users of almost every other drug, including heroin. I've also been in business environments from offices to food service to teaching, and the couple open meth users I've known have quickly disappeared from their jobs.

I'm not saying that successful, productive people who use meth daily don't exist. But I've met a lot of drug users, and I haven't yet met those meth users. I understand that there is a social stigma attached to the drug such that some people must hide their use completely and function fine, but again, since I am so open about my polydrug use, people don't usually hide that kind of thing from me.

I don't mean to sitgmatize the drug. I think everyone ought to get their kicks however they want, as long as they don't harm others blah blah. If meth is your drug, that's cool by me. I guess I'm basically saying that the meth users that I have happened to encounter, which is I think a fair number, actually do fall into the usual stereotypes.

Of course, plenty of people, when they meet me, are truly shocked that I do so many drugs and function 'normally.' I may very well be ignorant about meth in the way that those people are ignorant about drugs in general.

Just offering a perspective.


love
mettray

 

[Invalid Usename]

How much damage will using meth once a week cause? I never stay up longer than 24 hours...

I'm not sure if (for the sake of the idea of composing a guidelines) it is condusive to answering questions like this directly. It is not that I don't think it is a good question to ask, or that I do think that an answer is warrented. I'm just concerned that the thread will end up getting lost in a simple question and answer mode, and never get around to composing the guidelines needed.

Let me say that limited use, as you are asking about, does not fall under either the behavioral, tolerance or chronic use areas. So the primary area of concern is toxicological, as the potential danger becomes exceeding what is required for recreational use.

By allowing for a period of time (a week to several weeks) to elapse in between drug sessions, your brain is given enough time to return to a normal stasis point away from the drug's effect. Since methamphetamine directly stimulates the pleasure/rewards centers, repeated usage becomes a kind of learning process which prepares the brain to "expect" further stimulation (this falls into the behavioral area).

To prevent this drug/brain interaction from becoming a learned habit, it is necessary to have a period of readjustment so that the brain may return to its normal state, uninfluenced by the drugs effects on the pleasure/rewards circutry.

I strongly suspect that folks with obsessive-complusive disorders (or that have a tendency toward them) get locked into a behavioral problem early on. And Monday (the first day of no drug use) never seems to arrive for them.

There was an article in Neuroscience Review last year which touched upon this briefly:
http://www.neuropsychiatryreviews.com/jul04/npr_jul04_addiction.html

Although it is somewhat obscured when reading the article, Dr. Volkow is actually speaking about patients who may be predisposed to psychological addictions. The article's focus is on cocaine, but the neurological areas and mechanisms involved are the same with methamphetamine.

Some people are more vulnerable to developing behavioral problems in conjunction with recreational drug use. This is just as true of alcohol abuse as it is of drug abuse.

 

[Invalid Usename]

Re: Re: Methamphetamine Myth Maddness

Now, every person I've met who was an open, mostly-daily methamphetamine user has been completely out of sorts...

Again, my intention is to develop a safe usage guidelines for the drugs use. Not to come out with a justification for laize afaire usage.

The fact that these folks you've met are chronic users says that they have issues in the following areas: behavioral (they are locked in a learned pleasure/reward loop), chronic (usage is on going, and they do not use the drug recreationally), tolerance (they very likely require larger dosages to feel a desired effect) which leads to toxicology issues (sustained, larger dosages can have adverse negative health effects).

It is safe to say that "chronic use" immediately equates with "drug abuse" as their drug use has crossed the line from recreational drug use, and they have incorporated their drug use into the normal daily routine.

These guidelines which I have in mind addresses this, and if these folks had a set safety guidelines (and followed it) they would not be using the drug regularly.

It's really simple: limit use to planned occasions, use as low a dosage as possible to obtain a desired effect, allow for a week to several weeks in between drug sessions, and if cravings seem very strong after use completely eliminate the use of the drug because you may predisposed to acquiring a usage problem.

 

[101]

Re: Re: Methamphetamine Myth Maddness

Originally posted by invalid user
If one looks at the meth using population from a public health model, something interesting reveals itself. Granted, it is difficult to do because it is not as though the population of Methamphetamine are out in the opened publically. But we can still gleen something from that which we do not see in cases like this.

Based on the number of drug busts, and the overall avilability of Methamphetamine, there must be a rather large segment of the population who use the drug. If it were true that Methamphetamine creates usage problems in the majority of those who use it, then we would be seeing lives being shattered at an alarming rate. Basically, that group of people would become visible to the public by viture of their lives being shattered by their Methamphetamine use.

But, we are not seeing this occur. In fact, based on the market availability, market demand is high, and there are relatively few who claim to be out of control.

Ok Im glad that your not spreading misinformation and all (you know bullshit) but there were 11 meth lab busts in my city (population of 13 thousand or so) in less than a month. I personally know several chronic meth users (since no ones an "addict" anymore and all) that dropped out of highschool to pursue their meth career. I only know where 2 of them are now; but if I wasn't so sure you would argue the meaning of the word "ruin", I would say that meth ruined their lives.

Btw, meth has higher fat solubity than regular amp.

 

[Invalid Usename]

Re: Re: Re: Methamphetamine Myth Maddness

Ok Im glad that your not spreading misinformation and all (you know bullshit) but there were 11 meth lab busts in my city (population of 13 thousand or so) in less than a month. I personally know several chronic meth users (since no ones an "addict" anymore and all) that dropped out of highschool to pursue their meth career. I only know where 2 of them are now; but if I wasn't so sure you would argue the meaning of the word "ruin", I would say that meth ruined their lives.

Btw, meth has higher fat solubity than regular amp.

Have you come here to fense with me, or have you come here to contribute something to the proposed safety guidelines?

Or maybe you think that having no information whatsoever is far safer. I mean, by all means, lets just sit around and chant:

Dat methfedmean! She be da bad mammy! She dun do come n' take you out your bed. Den you gots noten buut hurten afta dat!

Uhh Huh! Uhh Huh!8(

Read what I said about chronic use. If your friends would have followed the guidelines which I have in mind they would not be chronic users. Because chronic use and safety do not belong together.

Anyway, 11 meth labs, 13,000 people and you only know a couple of people who have had problems? So, how many people exactly would you say those 11 meth labs were supporting?

BTW, illegal meth labs are a major public health hazard.


Incidentially, if you have evidence regarding "higher fat solubity" kindly post an authoritative scientific reference to a study demonstrating it.

 

[Mettray]

Re: Re: Re: Methamphetamine Myth Maddness

It's really simple: limit use to planned occasions, use as low a dosage as possible to obtain a desired effect, allow for a week to several weeks in between drug sessions, and if cravings seem very strong after use completely eliminate the use of the drug because you may predisposed to acquiring a usage problem.

Sure, sounds reasonable. I've never met anyone who does that.


love
mettray

 

[Invalid Usename]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Methamphetamine Myth Maddness

Sure, sounds reasonable. I've never met anyone who does that.


love
mettray

Any how many people do you know who were cautioned with that information before using the drug?

If that were pounded in every new users head as gospal (the way that safety guidelines are with MDMA users), I believe that most of the horror stories would never exist.

No matter what you do, some people will misuse a drug (safe guidelines or not). But at least we can all try to put something together.

 

[Mettray]

^It's a good idea. I've never used so I can't really contribute. Maybe you can start by sharing your experiences with meth?


love
mettray

 

[Invalid Usename]

Folks, for what it is worth, this thread is intended to begin a dialog of what should be included in a drug safety usage guide. And in creating this thread I am asking for contributors.

Anyone who has misinterrupted my doing this as suggesting that the drug is safe, then I would like to ask you, exactly WHY would I be attempting to create a safety guidelines in the first place? Huh?

Now from this point on, could we please have contruibutions rather than attempts at taking pot shots at strawmen?