• 💊 OTHER DRUGS 💊 Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Notable Threads 1 Notable Threads 2
    Dangerous Combos Addiction Support
    Emergency Services Benzo Guide v.1
    Addiction Stories Scary Case Studies
    Biology, Pharmacology & Drugs 101
  • Select Your Topic Then Scroll Down
    Alcohol Bupe Benzos
    Cocaine Heroin Opioids
    RCs Stimulants Misc
    Harm Reduction All Topics Gabapentinoids
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums

Methamphetamine Myth Maddness

Hi Mettray,

Several people have posted from the standpoint of sleep issues. Although sleep in and of itself IS an issue, my personal focus on it has less to do with sleep from the fatigue standpoint, and more to do with limiting the reinforcement effects of methamphetamine re-dosing over the total session..

Each time re-dosing is performed, a behavior network specific to stimulating the pleasure/reward centers is reinforced. A central concern I have in developing these guidelines is to prevent the user from acquiring dependency patterns. So I'm trying to establish session limits with the intention of minimizing usage cycle networks from forming.

The length of time someone stays up is a separate issue, but has definite importance also. I expanded on the topic somewhat in the first draft of my paper on Methamphetamine induced Hallucinations and Psychosis. It still needs some work, though.

.
 
Last edited:
Invalid Usename said:
This is also why I find so many studies flawed. If we focus solely on studying the pathology of alcohol use in those who develop a dependence, then the study result "appears" to demonstrate that alcohol is a highly addictive drug. But we know that is not the case, and it does nothing to provide a clear understanding of the drug's impact on the whole of the population.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this statement? Or I could be reading this wrong...I've not had my coffee yet LOL

Where is the study that says alcohol is not an addictive substance? It may not be addictive to everyone, however for some people it completely takes over their lives. I've witnessed this personally with members of my family. I'm interested in reading the study, could you please post a link if you have it? :)
 
PurrrinInOk,

How in God's name did you arrive at this conclusion? "Where is the study that says alcohol is not an addictive substance?"


The post was in response to Glory Hole, and is a meta comment regarding population studies, epidemiology, and flawed application of data.

Here, maybe this will help:

This is also why I find so many studies flawed. For example, if we focus solely on studying the pathology of alcohol use in those who develop an alcohol dependence (a pathological cross section of the alcohol using population), then the study result "appears" to demonstrate that alcohol is a highly addictive drug (because we've only observed pathology). But we know that is not the case (i.e., alcohol does not produce a problem across the whole of the driinking population), and it does nothing to provide a clear understanding of the drug's impact on the whole of the population (because our test sample was specialized [pathological] to begin with).

Unfortunately, it is this very kind of data that is the focus of all of the studies. And it is the results of these studies which are used in developing drug policy laws.


If you look at what I said within the context of the discussion that I was having with Glory Hole (multiple posts worth), and the whole post (NOT just the paragraph) you'll understand it better. :)


Anyway, please don't take this as an opening to debate alcohol use and abuse. It's off topic, I'm not interested, and I only used it as an analogy to point out something about the flaw in taking a specialized study and applying it across a whole population.

.
 
Last edited:
paradoxcycle said:
MaliceNwunderland; the thread you are referring to was closed because I asked everyone (including you) to refrain from the personal insults and take your argument to PM and you completely ignored me. Do not bring your beef with IU to this thread. If you have a problem with him, take it to PM or e-mail. If I have to step in again I will not hesitate to hand out formal warnings. [/B]
Click to expand...

I've washed my hands of this guy and his crusade to prove meth is as healthy as Flintstone's vitamins. I don't really care.

...but for the record I didn't insult anyone in that thread. I just resented the fact that IU was trying to paint me as a know-it-all, when if he had ever actually interacted with me on BL he'd know that is not how I act at all.

I made no further remarks in this thread after that first one, which was more of a rib than anything (which IU seemed to take in stride.) So if anyone is rekindling any beef it's you.
 
I haven't read all of these posts yet, but i thought i would point something out if it hasn't been already. there is a growing trend of its use among my college and post-college friends. my college friends use it because its fun, but my post-college friends use it to gain an advantage in the fast-pased capitalistic society we live in (oh in america that is)

I have heard of many women using it to climb the corprate ladder and work late days and my guy friends have found that they can work more hours, make more sales and basically just make a lot of money for 22-24 yr. old. all because they are able to work longer and more efficiently
 
That is a very good point to bring up bowdenta.

That some people are not using methamphetamine in the strict recreational sense. But rather, are using it to extend and/or enhance mundane functionality.

lifeisforliving has also mentioned that he has used it for studying before finals. Which further underscores this population of users.

It also helps to put a little more meat on the bones on the undocumented user population: functional, invisible, totally off of the radar.
 
The problem is no one goes out there planning on becoming an addict.

IU I dont understand your view on meth- most probably because I dont think there are a large proportion of users who can use responsibly.

From my own observations, most people who have regular access to meth end up with a problem. Not only are there huge problems associated wtih its use- its very addictive. This combination is probably why there is so much hate for meth, even among the drug using community like here at BL.

IMO The only possible material you could provide IU are tips on how to avoid getting an addiction... Actually even that I am unsure of- as its likely to be of no benefit to users, and may unintentionally encourage meth use.

Remember, your entire cause, although well intentioned, is based on some assumption that meth addicts over represent the real meth using community.. have you spent enough time with users?

Anyways good luck.
 
My theory on there being a large group of periodic and functional users is based on two factors:
  1. That the methamphetamine confiscated in drug busts constitutes roughly 5% or less of the total market (so far, you never hear of the meth market drying up for any length of time).
  2. That the population with management problems (I refer to them as "positives") is unable to be the sole consumers to be able to support the existing methamphetamine market. They are far too small a group, and the market is far too large.
So my theory is concerned with one thing that we can see: the "positives" and the underground black market.

And something else that we can not see, except indirectly: the invisible users (who I refer to as the "invisibles"). These folks are kind of like the "dark matter" of the methamphetamine using population and appear to fund the bulk of the methamphetamine market.

I am asserting that the invisibles are functional because once they've lost their ability to be functional, they would become marginalized within society (due to personal tragedy: no job, no home, no savings, no family, etc.), and would have a high likelihood of showing up as a "positive" at some point there after.

The rate at which they would show up would be variable, but when dysfunctional all roads lead to the "positives" (due to health care, arrests, domestic disturbances, etc.).

One other option for dysfunctionality (sp?) is to seek treatment (with the support of gamily, friends, employers, etc.). But there again, there is not a large enough population combined with the "positives" to account for the large market. And hopefully, anyone in treatment is not a methamphetamine consumer (or at least has greatly limited consumption.


So I am not without some degree of evidence concerning this "invisible" group. It just isn't possible to have data showing usage patterns and cross section profiles. :)

IMO The only possible material you could provide IU are tips on how to avoid getting an addiction... Actually even that I am unsure of- as its likely to be of no benefit to users, and may unintentionally encourage meth use.

I have a feeling that this may partly depend on how methamphetamine use is presented in the guidelines. This case is a bit different. Many of the existing harm reduction guidelines are geared towards keeping yourself healthy so that you can continue using the specific drug.

But, due to methamphetamine's drug dependence potential, the goal of this set of guidelines so you still have a life to come back to. So, the guidelines will not demonize the drug or its use. But it will not avoid the potential dangers either. And it is these exact dangers which have prompted the need for a set of guidelines in the first place. :D

I intend to include all of the available toxicology and pathology regarding the drug, and will utilize it to explain what exactly we are trying to avoid.


Anyways good luck.

Thanks very much, I really appreciate your saying that. :)
 
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are basing these statements on. There isn't good scientific or really any published info on the degree of use amongst users and how it is affecting their lives. With this in mind, I think the nearly completely unanimous chorus from both the drug community and the rest of society speaks for itself -- there are VERY few meth users who lead functional lives and are not seriously addicted.

I don't think meth necessarily destroys lives. I have used meth, on and off (never with any set regularity) and not become addicted -- however, I do have what I believe is dental damage from my use, and I suspect I have worsened my pre-existing mental conditions (anxiety/OCD). And this has been with relatively safe, sparse meth use.

My main reason for no longer using meth is not so much what has resulted from my personal use (which I consider relatively minimal and I'm thankful for that), but what I have seen result from every single other meth user's use. I have no idea why I am the only person who is the exception to this. If anything I feel I have been too positive about meth in my advice to others as a result of this.

I know roughly 50 people who have used meth, very well. Probably another 50-100 more who are simply acquaintances. I do not know a SINGLE person amongst these, who has used meth more than 3 times, who can control their use of it. NOT A SINGLE PERSON. This is what is so scary about meth.

I have long advised many things about meth use -- not doing it regularly, taking supplements and other measures to reduce harm/toxic effects, etc. I will always advise this. But it is also my responsibility, as someone very knowlegdable about meth's effects, to inform potential users that IT IS EXTREMELY LIKELY that they will not be able to control their use.

You mentioned, IU, at some point, that you feel that the 'just say no'/'meth is evil' mantra has led people to think it's okay to use it, and I really don't think that's the case. A majority of people know how seriously dangerous and addictive meth can be. But they think they can handle it, and the bottom line is, most people can't. I'm not suggesting we try to scare potential users, but I think we should be showing them all the myriad of serious negative effects that can and usually do result from meth use, so they have a full, evidence-based understanding of what they are getting themselves into.
 
fairnymph said:
I'm not sure what you are basing these statements on. There isn't good scientific or really any published info on
Click to expand...
Here is where I explain in detail how I have arrived at this conclusion:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=3110409#post3110409

This is actually easier to calculate than the number of HIV infected persons who are undiagnosed.

Although that user population is invisible, their economic impact is visible.

How many of the 50 people who you know, have kept down a job and remained functional in their lives?
 
Originally posted by fairnymph
But it is also my responsibility, as someone very knowlegdable about meth's effects, to inform potential users that IT IS EXTREMELY LIKELY that they will not be able to control their use.

Will you please do me a favor and try to get a better understanding of what it is exactly that I am trying to accomplish? AND what I am claiming and not claiming.


Originally posted by fairnymph
You mentioned, IU, at some point, that you feel that the 'just say no'/'meth is evil' mantra has led people to think it's okay to use it,

DING! TIME OUT!

I suspect that there are a lot of possible reasons why people are ignoring the "Just say No" message. I'm not even going to tackle that issue.

The fact is that 1% of the worlds population has tried meth in their lifetime. That exceeds the numbers for both cocaine and heroin use combined. And that population is increasing at an incredibe rate!!!

The Message isn't working!

So what exactly do we do about this? Shout louder? The message is going out loud and clear. Keep throwing people in jail? That is a war of attrition. And at the rate in which this is growing, if we just keep doing what we have been, we'll end up with 10% of the population behind bars.

Originally posted by fairnymph
A majority of people know how seriously dangerous and addictive meth can be. But they think they can handle it, and the bottom line is, most people can't. I'm not suggesting we try to scare potential users, but I think we should be showing them all the myriad of serious negative effects that can and usually do result from meth use, so they have a full, evidence-based understanding of what they are getting themselves into.

I just said that a few posts above this one...

And that is not enough. People who decide to start using the drug need a set of guidelines of use which will help them avoid acquiring a drug dependence. And it needs to be drilled into them until the word "meth weekend" means several weeks (or more) worth of abstinence inbetween sessions.


fairnymph,

I have said this over and over through out these posts: if we don't do something to prevent people from using the drug on a regular basis, we may end up with so many dysfunctional people residing in our health care systems that it could collapse in 10 to 15 years.

Think of what would have happened to C. Everett Koop had gone along with the Reagan crowd and told everyone to just abstinence from having sex outside of a committed relationship? What would the population's HIV profile looked like 10 years latter?

Instead, he offered the suggestion that if someone is not going to abstain from casual sex, then to use a condom. And because of that, people began changing their sexual practises.

Now granted, someone else would have proposed that suggestion and change would have occurred. In the case of meth use, I don't see anybody coming up with anything that is working.

I am trying to produce a very comprehensive guide to meth use. Honest, straight forward, hightlighting all of the dangers and benefits, addressing all of the variations, and drumming it in that limited use and long recovery periods inbetween use is absolutely vital.

People need to understand the dynamics of what occurs during a meth session. They need to know what is changed after a meth session. They need to understand what exactly occurs during the weeks of non-use (session recovery period), and how the brain restores itself back to a stasis point. And they need to feel responsible for themselves in enforcing this recovery period.

We can talk about bad and evil all that we want. It's NOT controlling user population growth!


I've said this over and over through out this thread. But people insist in fighting with this "methamphetamine candyman" (strawman). It is obvious that very few can get past the cultural quasi-religious doctrine and see the current drug epidemiology, and its potential long term effect on society.

It's going to take me some time to do what I have in mind. I also need to determine exactly "who" these people are that are ("invisibles") not showing up radar, and what they are doing. I currently am going with the notion that these people are generally functional, otherwise they would eventually become known publicly in some way. I certainly hope that they are, otherwise this problem could be far worse than our statistics show.


Regarding the impact of use, I've already started writing on that:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201632&r=33

I am planning of writing a collection of such papers to include with the guidelines, and reference them as needed through out it. But demonstrating pathology alone, isn't going to change usage patterns in those deciding to try the drug.

It doesn't help that that the FEDs are a bunch of bumbling idiots, and discredited themselves by promoting and providing false research into MDMA. And because of that, it is all that much harder to sell the "evil drug" message. Besides, that marketing has never worked, and it continues to not work. You can poitn to the people who are not using it, and I can point to the rate of increase in the drug's use.

We need a paradigm shift. In an ideal world, rather than becoming prision guards of a new generation, the FEDs should be trying to find buffering agents that could be added to methamphetamine and avoids the majority of the problems (that is scientifically possible, we already do that in traditional medicine now). And they could have "enforced" their being added in a "regulated" market. But the FEDs blew the possibility of regulation a long time ago, and the existing legislators like to use this problem to show off how "macho" they can be.

This legislative "tough love" is simply creating a more robust prision industry in the US, and ignore the possibility of finding real solutions to something that could very well break the bank. :\

Here is what you meatheads in Washington are planning next:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201986


.
 
Last edited:
Will you please do me a favor and try to get a better understanding of what it is exactly that I am trying to accomplish? AND what I am claiming and not claiming.
Click to expand...
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?

The Message isn't working!
Click to expand...
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).

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.

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.
 
fairnymph said:
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.
Click to expand...
Premise: Invalid disagreed with your argument.
Your conclusion: Invalid does not wish to discuss the argument, and instead wants to push his/her own point of view as absolute truth(something you seem to do quite often)

^^^
Flawed logic. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are not engaging in discussion(or have no desire to).
 
We're three pages into this discussion. Can we all just move this along? If you don't like meth, and don't want to discuss harm reduction with meth, please just go away from this thread.

There is some good discussion in this thread, let's see the work that Invalid Username is going to do before condemning him or his attempt to make this work.

Thank-you.
 
I like this thread. There is no use demonising a drug and exaggerating(sp?) it's evils. Many peopleuse MethAmp responsibly. Unfortunately I am not among those people. Just because I found myself horribly addicted to Methamp doesnt mean everyone else will. Infact I think it could be valuable for recreation and study as it was in the beginning for me.
Since quitting I have only used it once (a paradox, I know) and have felt vey little desire to return to it on a regular basis.
However Methamp can become highly addictive and can cause psychotic episodes (which led me to quit, not the ridiculous amounts of money i spent on it). It can lead to health problems which can be solved by correct nutrition and safety guidelines.
Although in my view, Methamp can be very dangerous i see no need to exaggerate the dangers or prevent people from access to real information regarding dose and safety.
 
We're three pages into this discussion. Can we all just move this along? If you don't like meth, and don't want to discuss harm reduction with meth, please just go away from this thread.
Click to expand...

If it were just that simple but when fairnymph starts posting all hell busts loose 8(

Just my opinion and off topic... continue on
 
Hobby:

Invalid didn't get my argument! THAT is what annoyed me. He responded to me as he has to the majority of comments, even though mine were very different. How is that engaging in discussion if he can't even respond to what *I* have said?

The point is that I'm not supporting the 'just say no' method, as I made abundantly clear. I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth.


blah: I can see that you posted, but as I have you on ignore, whatever you say falls on deaf ears. God I love the ignore feature, BL has been so much better without your presence. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top