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

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

news 26/04/2004 : Internet drugs replacing ecstasy

I agree with what you have said johnboy, and if it is to be covered by the media then it is best to have a balanced perspective. I hope that it is made clear that isolated circles are using these chemicals, and not mainstream ravers who are ditching ecstasy by the hundred.
 
I agree most users of RCs tend to be more educated drug users who found RCs following their own path and researching. Having the media report on the "new" drug craze could point people not inclined to try RCs to seek them out and try them. Remember GHB used to be a research chemical too.
 
GHB was originally an anaesthetic, research chemicals refer to Shulgin's creations more than anything.
 
I think research chemicals should include anything not quite mainstream and possibly still legal as well as the more exotic stuff. I would include drugs such as DXM, "GHB" (BDO & GBL) as RC too, I know on RC mailing lists these chemicals were discussed reguarly.
 
Why? They're not REASEARCH chemicals... These chemicals are used in research, not just for their recreational purpose, but their abilities to be used in certain chemical reactions when used during research.
 
GHB, DXM, GBL etc are not research chemicals, remember research chemicals are simply not drugs people take on the weekend recreationally. A research chemical is a new chemical which has very little information known about it as it has not been studied to the degree chemicals like DXM, GHB etc have been.

What are research chemicals?

"Research chemicals" literally refers to chemicals which are still being researched. Another term for them is "Experimental Chemicals" which may better communicate the unknown risks associated with ingesting them. When used to describe psychoactive drugs, it refers to new substances which haven't been thoroughly studied. Many are very new, while others may have been around for years but haven't been formally studied, used by many people, or much data accumulated about their use. Very little is known about them, and much of what is known is based only on first hand reports.

Little if any research has been done on the toxicology or pharmacology of these drugs. Few, if any, human or animal studies have been done. Unlike better known drugs such as ecstasy, which has been taken by millions of people over 20+ years, or marijuana which has been used by billions of people over millennia, research chemicals are new and may only have been used by a few dozen people for a few months. The risks involved with research chemicals are far far greater than with most other drugs, since they're unknowns.

It should also be pointed out that while this FAQ refers only to chemicals, the same answers apply to new or unstudied plant drugs as well. In fact, the risks of ingesting research plants are even greater, because plants contain many chemicals and the levels of different chemicals can vary greatly between different samples of the plant.


Source: Erowid
 
Last edited:
Ever wondered what happens in the sub-editing process of a newspaper? Well compare what is below, which is what the journo handed into his sub-editor, with the final article that started this whole thread:

EDIT: Removed due to legal advice. Meh. But Shaun Davies has agreed to provide a summary of the article to point out the differences. It will be posted here shortly. Stay tuned.
 
Last edited:
A very interesting contrast, and originally a much stronger article in my view.
 
I just thought seeing as though the article talks about internet drugs we my want to include those too. Even if technically stuff like DXM isn't an RC a lot of places that sell DXM also sell RCs and its not quite for legitimate research =D
 
Contrast of articles

Hello justifiably angry forum users.

Johnboy asked me to post a comparison of the article I wrote for the Australian and what was eventually published. Sorry I took the original text off - didn't really want Uncle Rupert sueing me for the five bucks in my wallet.

The main difference, in my opinion, was the removal of several quotes from Dr Cameron Duff from the Centre for Youth Drug Studies at the ANCD.

The quotes were as follows:

"Use of these drugs appears to be restricted to certain subcultures. I don't think we're seeing use among the mainstream of clubbers."

“Now that middle class people are using ecstasy in nightclubs, those in the underground scene want to redefine themselves as pioneers".

“There’s a demand among these people for a cleaner high. What’s passed for ecstasy in Australia these days is very unlikely to contain much MDMA.

“These are designer drugs which are probably being diverted from scientific industry. They are very pure.”

Cameron's quotes contextualised the issue nicely and it was a shame that they were removed.

However, I don't think they were edited out with malevolence - rather, due to Johnny Howard's surprise visit to bloodbath city in Iraq space was rather tight in the Australian yesterday and the subs had to pick and choose from the information I gave them.

Two other notable differences. The original text gave a very brief biography of Alexander Shulgin (no mention of PIHKAL, i couldn't fit it in a news story). The Australian's eventual text added a vague mention of deaths in the US - referring to the three fatalities caused by 2c-t-7 in 2000 and 2001.

I presume Channel Seven's rather bizarre claims were inspired by the stories of these deaths, which are available in all their gory glory on erowid.com. I think the report they issued was stupid and innacurate.

Speaking more broadly, I've been really interested to see the debate that has been taking place on Bluelight.

Being largely responsible for this whole mess, I guess I've got a bit of explaining to do.

Research chems are on the verge of breaking into the mainstream internationally. I was recently in London, and 2c-i and 2c-t-2 are being sold in clubs alongside ecstasy and ketamine. It's not just the psychonauts anymore - it's only a matter of time until the crazy caning rave kids discover these drugs too.

I've known about these substances for several years now and actually published a large piece on them while living in the UK. However, this was in an underground publication and detailed my own experiences of 2c-t-7 - not really appropriate for the mainstream media.

Mass coverage is about to break (the Guardian published a huge page 3 feature on research chems in February this year). I decided to be the breaker in Australia. I figured I know a lot more about these substances than regular journos and I think that, in longer format, I will be able to present an interesting, informative and balanced view of them.

There's a lot more I could say regarding my reservations in publishing the story and my disappointment after seeing what Channel Seven reported. I'm also aware that this is a tricky debate, and some people may believe I should not have published at all. I'm more than happy to enter into any dialogue, positive or negative, so long as the discussion is constructive.

I will be publishing a feature on this issue and I truly do want to take a balanced and unsensationalised approach.

Shaun Davies
 
I've lodged an official complaint with channel seven in that they have violated the television code of practice. they legally have thirty days to reply to me.
 
To the journo...

It's refreshing to hear that stuff, and you as a journalist have a unique opportunity to give the real story about these and other drugs...I hope you use it well within whatever constraints you are under. :)
 
Thankyou for your reply Shaun, it's great to know that dedicated, unbias and informative journalists like yourself still exist.
 
Thankyou Shaun. ;)

For you avid psychic explorers: You will always be able to enjoy Peyote, San Pedro and a plethora of natural brews containing a fascinating array of mind altering chemicals.

Just make sure you enjoy them responsibly!

Know what your ingesting.
Know your dose.
Know you body.

This information is not too difficult to collect. :)

L
 
wow. Thankyou _journalist_ I think you have explained your possition quite well. I think this is the first positive post from your ranks. We have had a few journalists "grace" us with their presence, however yours is the first open minded and informed response I have read.
 
inevitable and irrelevant really – considering that for mankind, every invention of importance has taken ~2 generations to implement on a wide scale – think LSD for the closest example.

these are evolutionary catalysts and the forthcoming regulatory backlash notwithstanding, we have not even began to see the wave for what it shall become, god bless Sasha, Myron, David, good beekeepers everywhere et al.

or what p_d said.

Shaun, good on you for having the nads to speak your mind.
 
Last edited:
Personally I reckon 2ci is perfect for a club environment actually, and don't think it will replace md** but it will sure be a prominent part of the market in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if they start combining small amounts of 2ci with mdma instead of the standard MDMA + MDA or MDMA + Amphetamine. anyhoo....

Peace Out
 
moving right along...

Thanks to everyone who posted positive replies to what I wrote before, I'm really glad that everyone seems to understand my position. As I said in the last post, I'm happy to discuss any negative aspects of what I am doing as well.

I interviewed Johnboy tonight and he had a number of interesting things to say in relation to drug laws and the emergence of research chems. Will be transcribing and contextualising those comments into the wee small hours. Thanks Johnboy.

I want to know - is anyone who uses research chems prepared to speak to me on a confidential basis about their experiences and motivations? Hopefully someone with a broad awareness of the issues involved who feels they can articulately justify their reasons for taking drugs.

As a journalist I am pretty much obliged to interview someone with a zero-tolerance approach to drug use for the article for the sake of balance. If you agree to an interview, your views will be placed in contrast with these views. Just so you know.

I know that mainstream media coverage does not often present a balanced view of these issues, but that doesn't give me an excuse to commit the same sin.

Drop me a line if you're prepared to talk. My email address is [email protected]

Shaun
 
I wish you the best of luck in your journalistic endeavours and hope that a suitable party is willing to step forward; however, I’d just like to take a moment to remind the forum of what has already been covered in this thread. Whilst ‘scumjournalist’, I’m sure has the best of intentions, we have been given the rare privilege to see what impact the editorial process can have on the final slant of an article.

This is especially true in reference to the use and misuse of quotes. Both the original article and Seven’s RIDICULOUS rubbish are prime examples. It is also important to remember the agendas at work beneath the pages of every news publication. Now have a think about the incidence of a rational view of drug use as compared to the zero-tolerance view as presented in any publication…

Having said all this; if Mr Journo is actually capable of jostling with an editor in order to get a somewhat two sided view over to the sheeples, it would indeed be a refreshing change. But how much good could it possibly achieve without extensive argument against the entire war on drugs; an exercise in futility that would never see the light of day in any news paper.

I do not wish to be seen as burying my head in the sand on this issue; but for all parties concerned I think this particular case would have been best dealt with in a ‘no news is good news’ fashion. We are yet to see wide incidence of RC’s as a component of club drugs and little to nothing showing up in police raids; as it stands….or at least as it stood; I think the likelihood of having such things scheduled in the near future was quite low. Now: every dumb kid knows what to look for on the internet and our arses are basically bare. For this item to disappear from public domain would be by far the best solution for the present in my eyes.

Perhaps if such garbage as has recently been spewed forth about GHB starts to appear in the media regarding RC’s then it will be time to provide unbiased info, but for now I’d love it to just go away.

My $0.022
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top