Mixmag - "Methoxetamine = roflcoptr" - *MUST READ*

[Dan329]

That may be so, but it's not just a little favour we're talking about. T
here are a million and one dodgy vendors, but it's the article it's self that's caused the problem here, as a professional journalist I can't believe he was taken for a fool by said vendor.

Dan x

 

[Marmalade]

same here. I get you. and stopping the guy from selling in such an irresponsible way is the main concern, and priority atm. he's negligent first and foremost.

but mixmag are ultimately the biggest cocks tho imo. it's their magazine, they allowed it to be published, and ultimately they're responsible also, for providing a massive platform for an idiot with a stupidly named product and website, that had largely been a failure and unheard of, until they promoted it

I'm really interested in the situation between vendor and journo tho, regardless of Mixmag being the main culprits with shared negligence, since it seems a downright stupid and risky piece [and pal] to put your integrity as a journalist on the line for.

 

[Tronica]

Hi folks... I've been watching this thread for a few days now. Unfortunately I was away on holidays when this all began so I'm coming in a lot later than I would have liked.

There's a lot to respond to, but first I'd like to praise everyone here for the investigative work you've done. I've also noticed Vader's thread in response to potential MXE firsttimers that may have been tipped off by the whole thing, and I think it's a great piece of harm reduction and something BL should be proud of. I also think it's great that people are going to the efforts they have to understand what has happened here.

IMHO what has happened here is either an unfortunate error or some type of collusion (more on this later). In either case, the Mixmag article has assisted Cope Russell's business of selling a psychoactive compound that requires some care and research prior to use to a mass market, and as everyone has mentioned, this sensational treatment may hasten the prohibition of MXE in UK for no good reason other than the profits of one man. It may also lead to unnecessary harm and maybe even death... Hopefully, for those newcomers that do look it up will find Vader's warnings and will be better informed...

When I first found out about this, I contacted Adam Winstock (runs Global Drug Survey). We skyped on the issue. He put me in touch with Duncan Dick, Deputy Editor of Mixmag. Duncan wrote an email to Solide which he has forwarded to me. He has given me permission to post it here, and I quote it below:

Dear A B,

My name is Duncan Dick and I am the Deputy Editor of Mixmag, responsible for commissioning the recent feature on Methoxetamine.

I am writing in response to your recent posts on Bluelight.ru and emails to Alex Miller / Dr Winstock etc. implying that the article may be some form of marketing on behalf of a website.

I would like to assure you that this is not the case. The use of the term 'roflcoptr' to refer to Methoxetamine came from the people the journalist talked to - that was how they refer to it, so that's how we referred to it. As you know, street names can vary hugely, even from person to person - one person's usual name for a substance can make someone else cringe.

That the spelling is the same as a website is entirely coincidental (unless of course that was where the users our journalist talked to bought it and that's why they call it that, which seems fair enough).

I should also add that our sub editors and I felt that the drug was named after the internet acronym rather than the gif / meme http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=roflcoptr - hence the dropping of the 'e'. This may be open to debate but was a style thing rather than anything sinister, I can assure you.

That our decision to drop the 'e' in the name may indirectly benefit a website or company is unfortunate, but certainly not our intention. In retrospect, I wish we had stuck with a more generic name - but as I say, the Roflcoptr name was the one that the group of users we interviewed used, so that was what we went with.

The name 'Cope Russell' means nothing to me - I've never met him/her, never worked with them and they have no connection to Mixmag that I am aware. The same goes for the company involved.

I would like to add that Mixmag has a history of commenting on drug trends amongst clubbers for nearly two decades and a reputation for integrity in this area that we have worked long and hard to build. I personally have been heavily involved with the Mixmag Drug Survey, conducted each year by Dr Adam Winstock and his team to the highest ethical and professional standards for three years.

I hope that this has set your mind at ease. I understand that drug use can be an emotive subject, but please, if you have any concerns about the reporting of drugs in Mixmag please feel free to contact me directly.

Please contact me if you have any further questions.

Yours Sincerely,
Duncan

Duncan JA Dick
Deputy Editor
Mixmag
[email protected]

As you can read, Duncan does not believe there is a connection or relationship between Ben Beaumont-Thomas and Russell Cope. If we have evidence to the contrary, I believe we should notify Duncan for his information as it may affect his views on the situation.

Regardless of whether this incident was coincidence or collusion, my communications with Duncan of Mixmag demonstrated to me that they have learnt a thing or two through Bluelight's intervention and that they want to do the right thing. I personally don't see why we shouldn't support Mixmag doing the right thing as they have access to a different and important audience to Bluelight - an audience that could benefit from harm reduction information. Indeed, I think our actions as a community could change the content of their next article on drugs - they will likely be a lot more careful, which has to be a good thing.

(long post... will continue in next post on implications for Drug Studies support of Global Drug Survey)

 

[parttime crackhead]

I'm assuming that email wasn't sent in the last couple of hours, since then there's been some reasonably strong evidence put together.

What I found is available here: http://mixmagarticle.blogspot.com/

 

[badandwicked]

Crazy thread, loving it.

 

[Tronica]

As you know, Drug Studies (lead by me) has supported the Global Drug Survey. GDS is promoted by Mixmag and the Guardian. Throughout this thread, everyone has bagged Mixmag for its involvement in this unfortunate event and by association, Global Drug Survey has come under attack too. Bluelight's support of these projects has come into question. I'll address some individual points then sum up...

to be fair, it wasnt just mixmag, it was a survey designed by Global Drug Survey and Mixmag in partnership with the Guardian. it's purpose seems to of been in good faith, and fairly extensive. I don't think the Guardian will be happy campers if MixMag have exploited the situation, particularly in advance of the results being published.

One thing I wanted to straighten out is this idea that the unpublished results of the GDS were somehow being used by Mixmag in this article. I know this is not true. Adam Winstock and his team are currently analysing the results. Nobody else except the researchers have access to the data. The only connection between this incident and Global Drug Survey is that Mixmag promoted the survey and Mixmag also commissioned the article. If there is any evidence to the contrary, could someone please point it out to me?

From what I understand (please correct me if I am wrong), Drug Studies is looking to really progress and become a valuable resource for legitimate researchers, and from what I can see, hosting market research for organisations with such intimate relationships with RC vendors doesn't really fit with the new direction of that forum.

I think this goes too far. The accusation is that Global Drug Survey as an organisation is intimately linked with RC vendors. My take on it is that it is possible (though not yet proven beyond doubt) that the commissioned writer of an article published in Mixmag colluded with the director of an RC vendor, the only connection to Global Drug Survey being that the same magazine supported the survey's recruitment. I think it would be grossly unfair to somehow paint GDS with the same brush as Cope Russell. Again, please tell me if I've missed something here...

The fact that there is an overt relationship with the Grauniad/Mixmag to promote recruitment was enough to make me (and others) nervous about how the results will/would be used. I generally encourage people to avoid any contact with the media when they're looking to speak to us - whether that be done under the guise of research, 'sympathetic investigation' or wanting to 'hear both sides of the story'. They're just not capable of behaving responsibly. Ever. It falls outside of their remit.

I put this directly to Adam Winstock in our conversation. I asked 'how do you deal with the media, who are so often irresponsible when it comes to drugs reporting?'. His response was that he chooses exactly who he deals with, he only deals with journalists that he has had a positive relationship with, he does not just respond to any random journalist. He said that he spent hours negotiating terms with the Guardian. He chose them because they are the least likely to sensationalise and because they are geniunely interested in accurate reporting. And he will choose which stories he works with them on, after considering how the information could be used.

That said, you can never control what happens once you release information and how it will be used by second parties. Clearly even if a well-balanced story is released by the Guardian, the UK tabloids can use it and spin it their way.

If tambourine-man's comment is entirely true - that is, that no media organisation can ever be trusted to report anything accurately - then no drugs researcher should ever speak with the media and no drug user should ever speak to a researcher and there should be no dialogue between public media and drug users, period. Then I'll have to quit my job as a research fellow in drugs, and my role as Director of Research here, the aim of which is to facilitate such dialogue. There would be no more point in this career at all if this were true.

I have a different view. I see that this area is problematic and things do go wrong (eg. sensationalised reporting of research results). But, if I don't participate, who else will? Someone who is anti-drug on a crusade to bolster prohibition? I figure we have to get out there, to get the word out about harm reduction and about the injustices of drug prohibition. I think we have to try. And I'm proud of the efforts shown in this thread to investigate one piece of injustice.

To conclude, I don't think this incident should lead us to withdraw support for Global Drug Survey. To me the connection is tenuous. Furthermore, I have a collegial relationship with Adam, and he is actually a decent guy and he is genuinely interested in issues from the drug user perspective including harm reduction and drug law reform. So I think we should continue our support as well as continue to be critical so as to improve the work of Global Drug Survey, Mixmag and any other organisations working in this area. We can have genuine input into research and know that we are making a positive difference. For example, we would likely be able to negotiate access to a draft of the next Global Drug Survey so we could provide feedback to improve the survey content prior to its release. If there is interest, we could make it happen. It's good for us as we get to make the survey more accurate, and it's good for the survey as they are keen to improve its content.

Bluelight is not a dictatorship though. Please feel free to disagree with me; I'd like to hear your responses.

Probably more to be said, but I'll close for now.

 

[Tronica]

I'm assuming that email wasn't sent in the last couple of hours, since then there's been some reasonably strong evidence put together.

No, the email was sent a couple of days ago. I will alert Duncan to this evidence. Thanks again

 

[Dan329]

Thanks Tronica, keep us posted x

 

[Transform]

*sniffs* Smells like shit just behind that fan over there if you ask me.

I'm assuming that email wasn't sent in the last couple of hours, since then there's been some reasonably strong evidence put together.

From this I conclude that Mr. Beaumont craftily slipped in the ad after speaking to his friend, who might have even persuaded him to write the article. I don't think one could receive roflcoptr as a tipoff and not think it was a simple typo without either being negligent or it being a deliberate error in favour of the only place on the internet calling it this.

I think it's worth at this point making a peace offering to our friend Russell.

What I'd like to see is roflcoptr shut down and auto redirected to erowid or wikipedia's pages. The page should not be linked to anyone selling the drug - as a possible first landing place for new users it needs to serve good information first, then they can decide to buy if they want to, by searching for methoxetamine.

I, and probably most others, am more than happy for you to continue selling under a name not linked to the brand. Your prices are acceptable and I'm told your shipping is good too. Hell, your gonna be stuck in my head so you might even have a customer here.

I will withold from publishing what I've dug up while I wait a couple of days for a response, and will of course remove all I've published here if you're so kind as to do the right thing. I urge others to do the same.

If any bluelighters would like to continue digging in private, please contact me.

 

[tambourine-man]

What I found is available here: http://mixmagarticle.blogspot.com/

(sorry transform can't pm ya, will explain tomorrow x)

Dan x

Well done.

(I assume you're posting under a pseudonym)

That blog needs promoting.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

Dear A B,

My name is Duncan Dick and I am the Deputy Editor of Mixmag, responsible for commissioning the recent feature on Methoxetamine.

I am writing in response to your recent posts on Bluelight.ru and emails to Alex Miller / Dr Winstock etc. implying that the article may be some form of marketing on behalf of a website.

I would like to assure you that this is not the case. The use of the term 'roflcoptr' to refer to Methoxetamine came from the people the journalist talked to - that was how they refer to it, so that's how we referred to it. As you know, street names can vary hugely, even from person to person - one person's usual name for a substance can make someone else cringe.

That the spelling is the same as a website is entirely coincidental (unless of course that was where the users our journalist talked to bought it and that's why they call it that, which seems fair enough).

What a weak as piss defence. In your quest for 'integrity' did you not bother to, well, just use google really? It's a search engine. Produces quite interesting results sometimes. Did you question your 'journalist' over his sources? Do you print, irresponsibly, any shit from anyone without bothering to check any back-story? As you have a history (long and proud??) of commenting on drug issues did you not think to check what might really be going on? Or as a top editor did you just go "roflcoptr guffaw, I see a job on The Sun beckoning"?

And yeah, your story certainly made a few of us cringe.

I should also add that our sub editors and I felt that the drug was named after the internet acronym rather than the gif / meme http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=roflcoptr - hence the dropping of the 'e'. This may be open to debate but was a style thing rather than anything sinister, I can assure you.

"A style thing"? Jesus, the sad thing is you may actually believe that.

That our decision to drop the 'e' in the name may indirectly benefit a website or company is unfortunate, but certainly not our intention. In retrospect, I wish we had stuck with a more generic name - but as I say, the Roflcoptr name was the one that the group of users we interviewed used, so that was what we went with.

There's that weak as piss defence again. Unfortunate? Do me a favour. "The group of users we interviewed"? Did you not get suspicious that this homogenous group all referred to a drug by a stupid name that you, as a long and proud contributor to issues on drugs in journalism, had never heard of? Did you question your journalist on his sources? Can you spell S-H-I-L-L?

The name 'Cope Russell' means nothing to me - I've never met him/her, never worked with them and they have no connection to Mixmag that I am aware. The same goes for the company involved.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

I would like to add that Mixmag has a history of commenting on drug trends amongst clubbers for nearly two decades and a reputation for integrity in this area that we have worked long and hard to build. I personally have been heavily involved with the Mixmag Drug Survey, conducted each year by Dr Adam Winstock and his team to the highest ethical and professional standards for three years.

I hope that this has set your mind at ease.

No. Try again. In light of the uncomfortable evidence that's now put before you. Dick.

Duncan JA Dick
Deputy Editor
Mixmag

 

[swedger77]

This adds nothing but:-


Best thread on Bluelight for ages.......its like an episode of Midsummer muders on LSD


Brilliant work by everyone who has been digging.

 

[parttime crackhead]

Well said SHM.

 

[Myshkin]

Have to agree that Mixmag comes out of this pretty terribly. The tone of the response is defensive to put it mildly.

Also, I'll add to the plaudits for the diggers here. Mixmag's editorial staff could learn an awful lot from you about properly researching an article.

 

[Na'vi]

It's fantastic and refreshing to see such a high level of dedication to the harm reduction cause, kudos to everyone who has been spent their free time digging and getting involved! I've been following the thread for a while now, the progress you guys have made is both impressive and inspiring I'm not so talented with the whole digging up information business, but if I'd be happy to help in any way that I can. Shoot me a PM if there's anything I can do.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

I suppose it should be pointed out that, as its just an internet acronym, pretty much anyone could use the term 'roflcopter' on the internet. Though of course its not so omnipresent as 'LOL' or indeed its shortened form 'ROFL'. In fact, in contrast to those two, it's pretty rare.

But anyone could use it. Like here.

It’s a Facebook group where anyone can share new ideas, inspiring trends and information about the upstart people and projects that are re-shaping our future. It could be a greentech startup that won its next round of funding; a new 3D TV; an eyeball-shaking music video; a dataset on the UK advertising industry; the latest news on the future of the FSA; a discussion being continued from one of our events; something lolerific/roflcopter-worthy – pretty much anything that excites you, and you think will excite others.

http://www.badidea.co.uk/2010/05/announcing-the-launch-of-future-human-club/

That's Ben Beaumont-Thomas in May 2010 announcing the creation of his new web magazine.

I'm just saying. Anyone could have a thing about the word 'roflcopter'. Even Ben Beaumont-Thomas, the well-known journalist and friend of Russell Cope.

Means nothing.

 

[Vader]

I should also add that our sub editors and I felt that the drug was named after the internet acronym rather than the gif / meme http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=roflcoptr - hence the dropping of the 'e'. This may be open to debate but was a style thing rather than anything sinister, I can assure you.

Actually, it's not really an internet acronym with any history of use. The definition on urban dictionary is "Roll On the Floor Laughing and Coming On my Pants Trying to Resist it", which seems a pretty contrived set of words to fit those letters, and that definition has 10 thumbs up, which isn't typical of a widely used term. Not a single user on this internet forum had ever heard the acronym. And yet, apparently, the Mixmag staff are well acquainted with it. Hmmm.

The use of the term 'roflcoptr' to refer to Methoxetamine came from the people the journalist talked to - that was how they refer to it, so that's how we referred to it.

Well, yeah, the person he talked to has been his friend for ten years and sells it by that name. That you were referring to it by that name because he does is exactly what we were asserting in the first place.

I think this goes too far. The accusation is that Global Drug Survey as an organisation is intimately linked with RC vendors. My take on it is that it is possible (though not yet proven beyond doubt) that the commissioned writer of an article published in Mixmag colluded with the director of an RC vendor, the only connection to Global Drug Survey being that the same magazine supported the survey's recruitment. I think it would be grossly unfair to somehow paint GDS with the same brush as Cope Russell.

Yeah, that was a mix of angry overreaction and ignorant talking-out-of-my-arse. I take it all back.

 

[Danny Weed]

That response from that editor is pure bullshit.

 

[Br0kenRabbit]

Surely it could be argued that the site is clearly not a genuine research chemical vendor, stocking only one research chemical instead of a varity stocked by pretty much every other vendor you can find. Also despite the fact he has the usual "not for human consumption" and so on, its very obvious that he is making light of the chemical with all the joke style information on the site and colourful design. Its clear that he intends to sell it for human consumption IMO.

 

[maxalfie]

I find it strange that the group of folk they spoke to all called mxe Roflcoptr.
We have folk from all over the country here on Bluelight and quite a few have tried and posted about mxe and yet none of them called it roflcoptr even though they all from different towns and cities etc.
So where exactly are this group of people from who seem to be the only ones calling mxe by that daft name?