On the Demonisation of Methamphetamine on Bluelight

[Jabberwocky]

I think it's the way people behave on the drug here on BL that gets it demonized so much. Not the drug itself. Meth users are usually sleep deprived and close to psychosis when they come on here and have hard to read posts, delusional thinking, shadow people, are in the psych ward, are complaining their meth is shit, picking their faces, asking if they can inject the contents of a needle that's been under their bed for a week. And that's just a fraction of the posts.

If BL'ers and visitors enjoyed the drug at home, did their thing, enjoyed the high and just had sex or played on their phones it wouldn't be so bad. But they come on here in a very delusional and frightening state and then post what makes no sense to others. Meth posts are all over the place in their content and most sound as if they are on the edge of madness. standing on a precipice where the slightest breeze will just blow them into the abyss.

The drug itself is not the problem. It can be beneficial to many who use it properly and don't stay up for days on end. It is so frowned upon on here because of the erratic behavior it produces in users that go off the rails ( no pun intended ). One only has to read the posts of people that are close to psychosis to understand that. And unfortunately the meth posts of uneducated users are becoming more and more prevalent on here.

Any drug used to excess is horrible to watch. Regardless of the pharmacology of it. heroin decline and benzo decline is also just as bad as meth. The users of other classes of drugs just don't seem to post as much when they are in a deep downward spiral. Meth users are so amped up that the idea of coming on BL is what they concentrate on and the posts don't usually end well. So it gets demonized more than it should because the users put it out there for all to see.

I think all of that is very true and I often cringe at what over-amped and sleep-deprived stimulant users say and do on Bluelight. But I think you are painting all of them with the same brush based on the over-animated antics of a few. Not everyone makes a big to-do about what drug they are on and lots of amped people post politely and constructively on BL. As for the few who repeatedly lose the plot in public, the ones I can think of are actually poly-drug addicts with underlying psychiatric issues. We also have no shortage of assholes and fuckwits who post prolifically but have never tried meth and likely never will.

Which brings up the point that BL is not just for the tea and cucumber sandwiches twin set and pearls type of self-controlled drug abuser or recovered/ing addict. It’s not a site about sobriety, although it incorporates a lot of helpful stuff for people wanting to achieve or maintain sobriety. It’s supposed to be one of the few places people in the depths of addiction can find non-judgemental acceptance and, if asked for, advice on getting out of the trouble they are in. Personally, I found a great deal of value in my recovery by being able to be my authentic self here when I was high without needing to try and self-censor what I was going through. The support of other stimulant users, some of whom frequently manifest as being batshit crazy, ultimately enabled my own recovery.

I think it is serving the tweaked out, the despairing, and the temporarily insane where BL potentially makes a far greater contribution to the problems caused by drugs. We know there are negligible resources available to help stimulant abusers use safely and to recover or become sober even in the most developed and benevolent countries. You can find solutions to opiate constipation, discuss the impact of terroir on your buds, or go into battle with whatever ideological axe you have to grind in any number of places.

There has been a lot of discussion about the need for a dedicated stimulant forum to contain the kind of tweaky weirdness you find distasteful but the view seems to be that there is not enough of it or it is not worthy enough to warrant its own sub forum.

 

[Jabberwocky]

If a teenager asked someone how to have safe sex and the answer was "Don't do sex, it's evil " that would probably end up hurting the teenager even more than telling them how to use a condom.

I'll admit I am guilty of this type of advice when it comes to heroin.

A lot of us are grizzled veterans of the drug world and have developed our own biases against certain drugs. I've introduced people to heroin in real life who went on to OD. I have a deep remorse. It's very difficult for me not to tell people simply not to do it.

And then we can look at some of the past drama of BLers ODing and people blaming other people for 'introducing' them to it.

I do agree though that we shouldn't have any biases here about any drug, but I don't think we should stop people from giving the "just say no", because it technically is something that should be considered when trying any new drug.

Bit off topic but applies to meth as well I guess.

Personally I've seen more bias against heroin here on BL compared to meth, but I don't visit meth threads very often.

I think this is a great discussion

 

[simstim]

True. But one does expect that on a drugs forum ostensibly committed to harm reduction moralistic kinds of judgment are suspended unless specifically asked for. In the context of Bluelight we are supposed to be a judgement-free zone, other than excising our judgement to determine whether things said about drugs are truthful and practices proposed by individuals are the least harmful. We don’t seek to prohibit. Rather we seek to offer guidance as to how to minimise harm in pursuits that we all know are harmful.



This is self-evidently true. As I have shared, I have had different experiences of drugs with differing degrees of harms suffered. But depending how one measures the negative impact of drugs I can point to many teenagers whose pot addictions have de-railed their life prospects to a far greater extent than some stimulant abusers I have known. This is not to say one drug is more or less dangerous than another, but at the individual level their are bad combinations of specific drugs and specific psychologies. Which is why, after all, we have drugs of choice and don’t all get addicted to the same stuff.




No hard feelings at all. But I don’t think I’ve hidden my own most intimate experiences of stimulant use and stimulant addiction either from BL or from myself. It’s precisely because of my personal experience as a (former hopefully) methamphetamine user that I felt I could write the original post in this thread. And across the last two years or so when I have been most active on BL, the majority of my posts on meth in the harm reduction forums have been to discourage its use. Although there have been a couple of tweaked out exceptions to this most notably featuring transexcapades or inter dimensional AI’s. I don’t claim to be paragon of virtue or consistency.

But in drugs, as with religion, I dislike one-sided evangelism (either for or against) and the absence of nuance or respect for one’s opposite number in a debate or discussion.


You’ve reiterated my argument nicely here. It seems we are in agreement.

If you look through the Basic Drugs and Other Drugs forums for newbies making posts about wanting to try meth, I think you’ll see some loud voices (not least my own) saying don’t do it and giving practical reasons why. But in many cases these new posters persist in their plans or outright reject ‘don’t do it’ advice from the outset. The only option for us then is to give tips on taking it as safely or least dangerously as possible.


In Australia the best available data suggests 10 % of the adult population has tried meth. However only 1 % of the population had done so in the last year. And only 0.4 % of Australians use meth on a weekly or daily basis. Furthermore between 2009-2015 there were only 1649 deaths in Australia where methamphetamine was found by the coroner to be a contributing factor. However. Of these deaths there were various primary causes: the most were due to accidental drug toxicity (43.2 %), natural disease (22.3 %0, suicide (18.2 %0 other accident (14.9 %0 and homicide (1.5% ) BUT In the majority (82.8 %) of cases, substances other than methamphetamine were also detected, most frequently opioids (43.1 %) and hypnosedatives (38.0 %).

Though these numbers represent a lot of individual tragedy, they are hardly the horror story made out in the kinds of selective re-posting of ‘worst of meth’ media coverage that inspired the original post.

I don't doubt the 0.4% statistic for weekly or daily usage. I'd like to offer up however that it's relatively low abuse rate in Australia is due to it's high cost and apparently low supply.

If you could commonly get a gram of meth there for well under $100/gram, as is common here, i think the usage rates would go up significantly.

I started with meth in the early 2000's and not only was it more expensive then, it was harder to find. I had never met at the time, for instance, a single African American person who had even tried it. They only commonly had available to them crack at that time. At least where I live.

Now I live in a very black neighborhood and when I first got here was amazed at how cheap and common meth is today. Even among African Americans which I had never even encountered using meth prior to 2018 or so. Granted I pretty much quit meth for like 15 years so I didn't see the integration happening first hand.

It only makes since economically to me to use meth over crack. Not only is it more potent but the duration is hours not minutes. $20 easily gets you high all day with meth while if you're a light smoker of crack $20 might last a half hour... If you're lucky.

I used to think the people I knew who smoked crack and had never tried meth were insane for doing so. Who the fuck wants to spend hundreds of dollars chasing a 5 minute crack high when you can do one fat line of meth and be up two days.

Crack is still a HUGE problem in my neighborhood though and I'd say probably still more popular...

 

[Nurse Ratched]

I think all of that is very true and I often cringe at what over-amped and sleep-deprived stimulant users say and do on Bluelight. But I think you are painting all of them with the same brush based on the over-animated antics of a few. Not everyone makes a big to-do about what drug they are on and lots of amped people post politely and constructively on BL. As for the few who repeatedly lose the plot in public, the ones I can think of are actually poly-drug addicts with underlying psychiatric issues. We also have no shortage of assholes and fuckwits who post prolifically but have never tried meth and likely never will.

Which brings up the point that BL is not just for the tea and cucumber sandwiches twin set and pearls type of self-controlled drug abuser or recovered/ing addict. It’s not a site about sobriety, although it incorporates a lot of helpful stuff for people wanting to achieve or maintain sobriety. It’s supposed to be one of the few places people in the depths of addiction can find non-judgemental acceptance and, if asked for, advice on getting out of the trouble they are in. Personally, I found a great deal of value in my recovery by being able to be my authentic self here when I was high without needing to try and self-censor what I was going through. The support of other stimulant users, some of whom frequently manifest as being batshit crazy, ultimately enabled my own recovery.

I think it is serving the tweaked out, the despairing, and the temporarily insane where BL potentially makes a far greater contribution to the problems caused by drugs. We know there are negligible resources available to help stimulant abusers use safely and to recover or become sober even in the most developed and benevolent countries. You can find solutions to opiate constipation, discuss the impact of terroir on your buds, or go into battle with whatever ideological axe you have to grind in any number of places.

There has been a lot of discussion about the need for a dedicated stimulant forum to contain the kind of tweaky weirdness you find distasteful but the view seems to be that there is not enough of it or it is not worthy enough to warrant its own sub forum.

My paintbrush only paints those who put their portraits out there. I don't believe I have ever painted any of your posts . Not once. You seem to be a responsible user. Most times anyway. Tweaky weirdness. That's putting it quite mildly. Tweaky weirdness would be fun to read. Most meth posts on BL are not that. They are deep soul crushing misery of the way the poster feels at the relentless grip meth has on them. They are full of horrible thoughts of themselves and the abject misery they are in. It is quite palpable and they are locked in a death grip with the battle between the meth and their mindset. Maybe I read them with a clearer mind than most however that is debatable.

As far as there not being enough meth posts to constitute it's own sub forum. Take a look around without the rose colored glasses on. There are numerous threads in BDD and OD. Most actually belong in DC but don't get moved. Your'e a mod. If you think it needs it's own space push TLB on the subject.

 

[unodelacosa]

I don't think we should stop people from giving the "just say no"

No, of course not; I'm an avid proponent of free speech. I don't think we should stop people from exercising that protected speech; I'm very opposed to censorship. However, my opinion is that to teach teenagers to “just say no” and not to think for themselves is counterproductive at best; and blatant propaganda at worst.

But hey, that's just how I see it. People get panicky when young people die and this too frequently leads to shit legislation and a misguided public perception of a social issue. You can tell because society has tried (and failed) to fix the issue with law enforcement and prescribing it a criminal role. Just like with alcohol prohibition; drug prohibition is a miserable failure, and like it or not, society has to face down the figurative “demons” that we find in drug abuse problems and compulsive behavior pattern disorders coupled with the medical dangers of tolerance/dependency cycles.

I reject the term “addict”, which is a wonky allegory, as the term's etymology reveals it literally means "spoken for". Hence: “dict” in its root, as in “dictionary”, “dictate”, and “diction”. So the term implies a weird kind of anthropomorphic regard for the otherwise inanimate objects our inherited society has drawn arbitrary lines around and labelled “illicit drugs”. This is not a Sadie Hawkins dance; no one is “spoken for” by a pile of white powder or whatever their drug du jour happens to be. That's just silly nonsense. At the same time, I can't help but also recognize the ubiquitous nature of the word and I'd be foolish not to acknowledge that the word has transcended its roots and become a shorthand way of describing what I long-windedly call dependency/tolerance cycles coupled with compulsive behavior pattern disorders. Or for the British-English speakers: compulsive behaviour pattern disorders.

 

[negrogesic]

There is nothing safe about meth.

Well neither is any drug discussed here. And, with no offense intended, I would agree with @Perforated that some of the articles you've posted in OD/BDD are verging on sensationalist. Plus, generally speaking, these forums are for open discourse and question asking rather than article perusing. My fear would be a new user might see an excess of these pamphlet-like posts and find it off-putting.

In any event, we are certainly not here to tell people to not use drug x or y. This isn't a site promoting drug abstinence, its a harm reduction site.

We are also not here to judge drug users for their particular drug choices.

So again the real meat of the issue at hand is this: do stimulant users feel unwelcome or reluctant to post here?

I hope stimulant users feel welcome, bluelight would be a slow boring place without them.

 

[mr peabody]

I lost 3 of my children to meth.

 

[unodelacosa]

I lost 3 of my children to meth.

If this is true, then that’s all the more reason to consider your opinions on this matter to be heavily biased. You clearly are not in any emotional state to be making decisions regarding other people’s liberty when you’ve got a personal vendetta against methamphetamine.

If this isn’t true, you’re a worthless troll.

Neither reality is a good look. Many of us have lost loved ones. It’s not an excuse to lose your mind with Draconian drug laws.

 

[Kaden_Nite]

I used meth. Used it quite sparingly. Got tired of it and moved on. No big deal.

Where's my federally funded television campaign?

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

Maybe if I used it, then I would defend it more. As this is a website primarily about drug use, then there would be people defending its use. So your bias is strong.

But even here, there are all kinds of disasters told of what people become after meth use. And there are plenty more on the internet. Perhaps 10% of people don't think it's that bad. I tend to bet on the majority of opinions, which are against the drug. Neurotoxicity, malnutrition, psychosis, acts of violence, criminal underworlds, and severe depression await you.

I don't think that anyone is saying that genetics doesn't play a role in addiction.

Safe to say that illegal meth use doesn't do any good for people. I don't think many doctors at all prescribe desoxyn. They face great scrutiny if they do. Probably at least a citation. But if they do, they don't go beyond 25mg in split up doses throughout the day, orally, to treat severe ADHD/narcolepsy. No smoking bowls of meth.

The science is real. I can't think of any more to the matter.

 

[4meSM]

Meth has only been found to be significantly neurotoxic in high doses, and specially in non-tolerant users (or lab animals). Long term abuse has also been associated with neurotoxic effects but this scenario pretty much always involves hyperthermia, chronic malnutrition, prolonged sleep deprivation, etc... All of those things are very bad for the brain, it's not just the meth.

I think the term neurotoxin is a bit of an overstatement, kinda makes you think that meth is similar to sarin gas or something like that. Otherwise we might as well start calling alcohol, MDMA (and most empathogens), many research chemicals, GHB (in low doses), antipsychotics and a bunch of other drugs neurotoxins too. I'd rather have a more nuanced discussion about their potential neurotoxic effects though.

Benzo/gabaergic WD can be very neurotoxic too, it isn't even in the same league as meth or mdma. Long term benzo use has also been associated with an increased risk of dementia and cognitive deficiencies, but people don't consider them to be neurotoxic.

 

[deficiT]

If this is true, then that’s all the more reason to consider your opinions on this matter to be heavily biased. You clearly are not in any emotional state to be making decisions regarding other people’s liberty when you’ve got a personal vendetta against methamphetamine.

If this isn’t true, you’re a worthless troll.

Neither reality is a good look. Many of us have lost loved ones. It’s not an excuse to lose your mind with Draconian drug laws.

Where exactly did he say he was making decisions about peoples personal liberty? Also, he's a fuckin moderator, what reason would he have to lie, he's clearly not a troll. Your comment is dickish.

 

[deficiT]

We should not be taking a moralistic or sensationalist view on any drugs here, but at the same time, we have to be realistic.

For example, with heroin and fentanyl, the primary risk is in overdose. This should be talked about. When it comes to meth, the primary risk is exacerbating mental illness and developing a deadly lifelong addiction. This should be talked about. These are just examples.

All drugs are not the same, and to treat them as if they are, is dangerous, idealistic, and counterproductive. But at the same time, we shouldn't be moralizing to the point that certain drug users don't feel welcome here.

 

[Xorkoth]

Is this demonization, especially when coming from veteran (ab)users from respective substances? Someone coming along, stating: "I could try meth/heroin, what should I do..?" To say "well, just do it responsibly" is pretty bad and naive advice, if you ask me. "Don't do it because it's the devil" is not the way to go either. I think it's possible to give informed/informative advice on this. If that means that highly potent opioids, or stimulants as powerful as meth, or full agonistic noids, or long acting benzodiazepines, or antidepressants, or ..., don't come away as shiny as some folks want them to, so be it.

Sometimes there are threads, where lots of advice is given on how to do something (which of course is relevant and harm reduction too!), but really nobody is addressing the elephant in the room, asking: Is there a chance that you actually not going to do it? If so, don't fucking do it! Regarding meth (as well as other things), that would be the best advice, I think, but:

This is a good point. My approach to advice about opiates is a sliding scale of harm reduction based on where the person is at. If they're posting "I'm thinking of trying opiates, should I?", my advice is always a strong no, along with an illustration of why with my own experience. This is the first and best advice anyone can give about the question of whether someone should try recreational opiates. Then once someone has already done it or stated they're going to anyway, after I've made my attempt and said my piece, I'll start to give them advice for how to dose safely, what to avoid, try to get them to avoid the needle, try to get them to stick to safer opioids, let them know about fentanyl, etc. Harm reduction is a moving target.

I don't consider my stance that opiates are going to lead to bad places for a large percentage of people who get into them, and therefore you should not even go there, to be demonization or prejudice against opiate users. As an opiate addict myself, it is my informed opinion and what I feel is the best harm reduction advice. But I'd never try to make an individual feel bad or stupid for deciding to try them. After all, I did it. And I regret it.

Ultimately there is a difference between a drug being seen in a negative light on this site, and users of that drug being seen in a negative light. We certainly don't ever want anyone to feel discriminated against or looked down on here for their choices.

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

Meth has only been found to be significantly neurotoxic in high doses, and specially in non-tolerant users (or lab animals). Long term abuse has also been associated with neurotoxic effects but this scenario pretty much always involves hyperthermia, chronic malnutrition, prolonged sleep deprivation, etc... All of those things are very bad for the brain, it's not just the meth.

I think the term neurotoxin is a bit of an overstatement, kinda makes you think that meth is similar to sarin gas or something like that. Otherwise we might as well start calling alcohol, MDMA (and most empathogens), many research chemicals, GHB (in low doses), antipsychotics and a bunch of other drugs neurotoxins too. I'd rather have a more nuanced discussion about their potential neurotoxic effects though.

Benzo/gabaergic WD can be very neurotoxic too, it isn't even in the same league as meth or mdma. Long term benzo use has also been associated with an increased risk of dementia and cognitive deficiencies, but people don't consider them to be neurotoxic.

So inextricably related to negative activities and negligence.

 

[CFC]

I don't get the aggro directed against mr peabody. He posts up a few articles and offers up those points of view. People can choose to read them or not and there's plenty of other opinions liberally spread around for users to read. I haven't seem him go into threads to shame people directly or try and demonize anything, and that's not the impression I get from him at all, even if his specific opinion about meth seems strict to some.

It's nice to read an open discussion about the different opinions y'all have on this topic though. For myself, I think you have to look at forums in their totality, not just focus on this or that particular user to generate your impression of a website's attitude. For me, BL is and generally always has been open-minded and 'liberal' with regards to the use of almost all drugs - indeed the tendency has been to argue we don't 'demonise' enough over the years (with perhaps an exception being inhalants, most of which provide very limited avenues for any of us to offer HR advice).

Anyway, carry on

 

[Jabberwocky]

I don't get the aggro directed against mr peabody. He posts up a few articles and offers up those points of view. People can choose to read them or not and there's plenty of other opinions liberally spread around for users to read. I haven't seem him go into threads to shame people directly or try and demonize anything, and that's not the impression I get from him at all, even if his specific opinion about meth seems strict to some.

It's nice to read an open discussion about the different opinions y'all have on this topic though. For myself, I think you have to look at forums in their totality, not just focus on this or that particular user to generate your impression of a website's attitude. For me, BL is and generally always has been open-minded and 'liberal' with regards to the use of almost all drugs - indeed the tendency has been to argue we don't 'demonise' enough over the years (with perhaps an exception being inhalants, most of which provide very limited avenues for any of us to offer HR advice).

Anyway, carry on

Just to be clear. I don’t have any personal aggro towards @mr peabody, value many of his posts on different topics, and feel a great degree of empathy towards the drug-related family tragedy he hands suffered. I just have a general beef against anyone who is evangelical about anything with no room for nuance. Especially when they are prolific about it.

 

[julianreiss]

So inextricably related to negative activities and negligence.

Anyone care for a mild dose of immortality I thought not, every breath we take is one more less b4 we all shuffle off this amazing beautiful and mindblowing coil,Nature does not waste one iota of DNA which would seem to to affirm the fact that if our body has the capacity to synergize with
certain chemicals both natural and synthetic then they should be taken and explored obviously with care and respect. My philosophy or creed which I
am always falling foul of is,the best drugs are the ones that don't make you feel like you need more,like LSD DMT and most psychedelics and not Crack
Smack and definitely Alchohol,but that's just my own preference and everybody should have the right to take anything they want,what we need is unbiased information on all psychoactive substances so we can make less harmful choices and try and be respectful of everyone else to do the same.
{footnote METH helped me give up CRACK the only drug I regret taking, that and 1 and a half Nutmeg so there is no right or wrong just try and stay safe
and sane and if you find a your not enjoying a certain drug then try to avoid it ) I mean they are not called recreational drugs for no reason.
Love and Peace
Take Care or Just Take it.

 

[unodelacosa]

Meth has only been found to be significantly neurotoxic in high doses, and specially in non-tolerant users (or lab animals). Long term abuse has also been associated with neurotoxic effects but this scenario pretty much always involves hyperthermia, chronic malnutrition, prolonged sleep deprivation, etc... All of those things are very bad for the brain, it's not just the meth.

I think the term neurotoxin is a bit of an overstatement, kinda makes you think that meth is similar to sarin gas or something like that. Otherwise we might as well start calling alcohol, MDMA (and most empathogens), many research chemicals, GHB (in low doses), antipsychotics and a bunch of other drugs neurotoxins too. I'd rather have a more nuanced discussion about their potential neurotoxic effects though.

Benzo/gabaergic WD can be very neurotoxic too, it isn't even in the same league as meth or mdma. Long term benzo use has also been associated with an increased risk of dementia and cognitive deficiencies, but people don't consider them to be neurotoxic.

Thank you. I point this out all the time. Drinking ethanol kills brain cells every time one hits the proverbial sauce. But many/most people drink moderately their entire lives, and whatever technical brain damage occurs is negligible and goes unnoticed. It's obvious some people can't handle alcohol intoxication nor the temptation to drink themselves to death, but we don't just outright ban it for everyone because some people can't handle their alcohol. Its value as a recreational drug is acknowledged, because having tried doing away with all forms of recreational inebriation in the past, lawmakers across the country recognized the epic 12-year failure that was alcohol prohibition. Rockefeller, a loud vocal advocate of prohibition eventually took a 180 on this position, recognizing the failure and the rampant drunkenness in the streets of bootlegged America.

I don't think many doctors at all prescribe desoxyn. They face great scrutiny if they do. Probably at least a citation.

You should check your facts. Just a cursory search of the internet says there are some 16,000 scripts per year written for Desoxyn. Also, they don't face any real scrutiny like that unless there are complaints and/or malpractice suits filed against them. This, coupled with rising prices on malpractice insurance, unfortunately has the effect of making doctors afraid of prescribing particular hot button items like Desoxyn, and now pretty much any opioid drug or morphine derivative. They're all terrified to prescribe to patients who often legitimately need it.

Now in the case of prescribing methamphetamine.hcl, you're talking about prescribing a medication to a person for the treatment of a specific ailment. It's proverbial apples and oranges to compare medicinal use to the recreational use of crystal meth. No offense, but I think you're being very close-minded and judgmental about a drug that I'm guessing you've either honestly never used or the few times you did, you did it wrong and severely sucked at it (or had some dirty, cut, garbage crank) and you got the wrong impression.

I tend to bet on the majority of opinions,

Yeah, I’ve always felt that knowing when to buck the trend is a seriously valuable skill if one can acquire it. A lot of great people in history have done this, you know…

which are against the drug.

Yeah a couple of good smear campaigns filled with propagandic FUD and scare tactics will do that. Faces of Meth and The Montana Meth Project spring to mind…

Neurotoxicity, malnutrition, psychosis, acts of violence, criminal underworlds, and severe depression await you.

“Criminal underworlds”? LOL You're not serious, right? Man, listen you've been watching too much TV. If meth were that fucked up for everyone, guess what? No one would use it.

Meanwhile I guarantee you one could put together a documentary called “Faces of Alcoholism” and it would be every bit as ugly, guaranteed. My grandfather was a rabid alcoholic who drank and smoked until he had throat cancer by his 50s. After a tracheotomy was performed on him, he continued to drink and smoke Pall Malls through the surgical opening in the front of his neck. At 59-yrs old he had a heart attack in his Hell's Kitchen apartment in New York City while taking a bath. He was found five days later when the smell made its way finally to other tenants. The funeral was closed-casket, but my grandfather could have been the poster geezer of a Faces of Alcohol and Tobacco campaign. Booze and smokes are among the “socially approved” drugs and according to "the majority of opinions" you "tend to bet on", these are ok and officially approved for slowly killing yourself while bleeding all your money to the corporate interests of Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol, and the modern Health Care Industrial Complex™.

No thanks. The outcomes you listed above are only corners you've painted yourself into and assume it applies to everyone else.

Not that everyone should just have a go with some crystal meth all willy nilly, either. Precautions need to be taken and dangers understood to avoid pitfalls and such. But honestly sensationalism plays a big part in the problem being blown out of proportion. I mean, “neurotoxicity, malnutrition, psychosis” are things that only happen if you abuse stims like meth without regard for your own well being and health. And if those aren't stereotypes of a meth user, then certainly calling “acts of violence” a side effect of methamphetamine is a laughably obvious example of stereotyping. The knowledge hasn't caught up to everyone fully yet so it's still kinda like how cannabis was in the 1940s where everyone still believed all the hysteria from the previous decade's Reefer Madness films…

So odd that your username is alphamethylphenyl(ethylamine) when we’re discussing n-methyl-alphamethylphenylethlamine.

 

[unodelacosa]

Where exactly did he say he was making decisions about peoples personal liberty?

You’re right. I’m making the assumption that @mr peabody is a supporter of the global prohibition of recreational meth use. I could be wrong, and he might indeed support full legalization, but I really doubt it. Apologies if I was wrong about this assumption.

And yes, I realize from a very technical standpoint, he does not directly make decisions about people’s personal liberty so much as he seemingly writes biased arguments online to persuade others into his pro-prohibitive stance on recreational meth use. He’s entitled to do this, of course, and I’m entitled to point out that one individual’s personal tragedies do not make that person’s opinions any more legit or valid. If anything it points to a bias.

I also have a bit of a pet peeve with what @mr peabody did in the convo by dropping in a one liner with a shocking personal tragedy in response to be criticized for writing odd, anti-meth-obsessed propaganda posts on here. It’s bullshit to hide behind something like that as much as it’s bullshit to blame inanimate objects like crystalline drugs for the deaths of others.

Also, he's a fuckin moderator,

So? Who isn’t around here? Hell, you’re a Sr. Moderator yourself, for chrissakes. I mean it isn’t plainly obvious the whole process that Bluelight goes through I guess to vet out its moderators. And as if rogue moderators don’t exist and moderators somehow couldn’t possible be liars or trolls. I mean, is it a volunteer role or a paid gig? My guess is it doesn’t pay, b/c I can’t imagine this site monetizes easily based on the traffic data published (I’m not criticizing; I’m impressed with the site’s longevity and applaud them for this while knowing how hard website administration can be).

I don’t know @mr peabody personally; all I know is he has a badly skewed view of certain topics over which I would think a mod should strive to be more neutral on a forum such as this… I’ll also freely admit I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about fully regarding the running of Bluelight, so to reiterate the earlier point, someone bearing the label “moderator” on a web forum means very little to me, and I mean no offense by that. Just being honest.

And please don’t misinterpret my tone here – I’m not trying to be a dick when I say any of this. Just please don’t throw your tragedies into an argument in an effort to win the argument. It’s a weak argument to make in the first place, and it’s simply in my nature to be skeptical of others. If people are gonna get their feelings hurt, then they especially shouldn’t throw that shit out there, but they’ll win that sympathy from others and think it bolsters their argument while it actually weakens their cause.

what reason would he have to lie,

I’d say he has an agenda. If a lie could further that agenda, why would I not at least suspect it? I didn’t say outright that he was or wasn’t telling the truth. One of those two outcomes is the case though, and I addressed both cases. No need to get butt-hurt and no need to get butt-hurt for him.

he's clearly not a troll.

It’s not super clear to me. Have you seen his posts? (Sorry to be discussing you all in the third person here, @mr peabody, regardless of our ideological differences, and despite the fact that you may well feel offended by my shared opinion here this evening (or whatever time it is wherever you guys are, respectively), it is absolutely not my intention to be rude or be a dick to you. I have strong opinions, but I don’t feel like my comments are particularly… I don’t know… dickish.

Your comment is dickish.

Well damn. I guess never mind that last part then. Dickish comments, wow… Look, they’re really not intended to be, and it mildly bothers me you think that about my comments, but I won’t lose sleep over it or anything. Evidently I offend a lot of people on this forum and I genuinely feel badly that I’ve provoked that sentiment, but I’m sorry, I just can’t get down with a “Big and Dandy” Circle Jerk® of “drugs are bad, mmmkay” proportions, “Just Say No” mindlessness, and “there’s nothing safe about [XYZ drug]” statements… or similar, reactionary, emotional, and otherwise close-minded sentiments. I’m not calling any person these things as if that’s simply their nature, but the same way you were careful to word it thus that I’m not being dickish but rather that my comment is dickish is the same way I regard poorly thought-out, emotional reactions, vendettas, unchecked tragedy-informed biases, and sentimental defenses of same as being bereft of logic, reason, and accountability.

Yeah maybe you’re right, @deficiT and I come off as a total prick. I don’t know. I can’t figure out how to finish this comment without sounding like a douchebag to myself now, so who knows? Perhaps I have an odd chip on my shoulder listening to people claim it’s impossible to use meth responsibly when my own very life is a testament to this not being true. And it frustrates me that I can’t easily prove this point without revealing personal details about myself I’m not willing to share… and anyways, I have to go now and feel like I don’t have the time to smooth over my wording and refine my point and, more importantly, tone.

@mr peabody Sorry I’m reluctant to believe your story, but in all sincerity and assuming your deeply, troublingly sad story is truthful (for the record I believe you about 95% of the way; but I don’t release skepticism easily), then my heart really does go out to you and any other surviving family members.

I highly recommend the book, Drug Use For Grown-Ups by Dr. Karl Hart