Swiss Banker
Bluelighter
Browsing randomly through the literal cornucopia of "New Oxy" attack threads, one comment rather insistently demanded my attention. I hope the original author will forgive what must by necessity must be a lossy paraphrase from memory:
After a long Bluelight posting hiatus, my reaction to the number of Bluelight threads pertaining to the new formula and the seemingly singular focus of these posts ("Defeat, defeat DEFEAT!") probably mirrors that of many merely casual Oxy users of convenience who couldn't really be bothered once things got even remotely difficult. More directly: "Why the hell bother?" Surely there were enough alternative sources for OxyContin (or opiate based painkillers in general) on the market of an instant release nature (whether designed that way or not) to sate the market's thirst for a class of opiates that had endured Phase III trials? It actually takes very little reflection to identify the appeal here-- so much so that the more conspiratorially minded demographic of Bluelighters might wonder after some degree of intentionality herein. Or not.
The most interesting secondary observation that struck me on reading the several hundred replies to various "New Oxy" threads was that users who had lighted on a particular administration method had very little desire to switch- even in the face of greater "costs."
There are of course cultural and taboo barriers over and above drug use in general along the continuum between oral administration, insulfating, smoking, rectal administration and inter-venous administration. It is often said of heroin, for example, that it wasn't until street purity rose enough to permit the kids in the suburbs to snort it effectively that the drug "took off" again after the so called "Vietnam Spike." I've heard this blamed on Frank Lucas' direct importation of Golden Triangle Heroin from Thailand, but the timing is difficult to reconcile considering that Lucas was sentenced to 70 years in 1976, and though he only served 5, it seems pretty clear he was no longer involved in the trade in any real way in 1981. Yet if you believe the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the United States, between 1983 and 1993 the purity of street heroin bought in quantities of a gram or less nearly doubled from 22% to 42%. (A bioavailability of 50-60% via insulfation versus 30% orally no doubt contributes). For the more Tipper Goresque among you, perhaps the movies "Trainspotting" and "Pulp Fiction" are the more likely cause for the drug's resurgence.
While this explains a sort of barrier to entry (if you will excuse the pun) between insulfation and rectal or inter-venous use, it doesn't explain the resistance of insulfators of Oxy to oral administration (in the form of the many chewing, juice, tea, coke, and other solvent solutions that reportedly result in 90%+ API recovery into a liquid form). Why, in short, do people love sniffing the stuff so much over drinking impregnated orange juice (for example) that they would endure multi-day, Dremel, Pedi-Pet, microwave-freezer methodologies that feature manually complex and intensive grinding procedures as prerequisites? The answer, I suspect, says a lot about the nature of opiate addiction, the power of social networking and why the goals of anti-abuse engineers are entirely unrealistic.
The reality, I suspect, is that both the repetition and actual process of the ritual of preparation mandated by anti-abuse technologies only strengthens the psychological connection between user and drug. In this context one might see, for example, High Tea as a complex delivery methodology for flavored water and fractional portions otherwise substandard sandwiches. Both the popularity of the High Tea ritual (and its exorbitant price in the more ritual intensive establishments offering the service) suggest the importance of ritual as a component here. As an aside, this revelation has prompted me to explore funding a start-up "Opium Tea House," though regulatory due diligence has so far been discouraging.
In this connection, Purdue is an interesting company, not just because it is structured as a private organization and tends to be secretive (it has one of the sparsest inventories of SEC filings of any firm its size in the United States, for example), but because of the means they chose to implement anti-abuse. Am I giving the marketing and research group at Purdue too much credit if I posit that Purdue designed their anti-abuse OP pills with just the sort of deterrents that would prevent novice users (those who had not yet made the psychological association between preparation rituals and the effects of the opiate, and, suspiciously, the type most likely to be younger, and suffer ignorance related overdoses) from trying the drug, but not require a shift from established administration routes- except perhaps in the case of IV users (which the company has likely identified as at high risk for lawsuit prompting overdoses or other after-effects of serious usage)?
But this only occurs to me because all you have to do is look at Bluelight to see that, like software piracy, once one clever Bluelighter figures it out (and given the level of chemistry knowledge I've already seen openly displayed), that's the ballgame (and also why Bluelighters should stop whining about the multitude of New Oxy threads).
Anyhow, if I were Purdue, that would certainly be the way I designed anti-abuse R&D programs.
But that's probably just because I'm an evil fucker.
After a long Bluelight posting hiatus, my reaction to the number of Bluelight threads pertaining to the new formula and the seemingly singular focus of these posts ("Defeat, defeat DEFEAT!") probably mirrors that of many merely casual Oxy users of convenience who couldn't really be bothered once things got even remotely difficult. More directly: "Why the hell bother?" Surely there were enough alternative sources for OxyContin (or opiate based painkillers in general) on the market of an instant release nature (whether designed that way or not) to sate the market's thirst for a class of opiates that had endured Phase III trials? It actually takes very little reflection to identify the appeal here-- so much so that the more conspiratorially minded demographic of Bluelighters might wonder after some degree of intentionality herein. Or not.
The most interesting secondary observation that struck me on reading the several hundred replies to various "New Oxy" threads was that users who had lighted on a particular administration method had very little desire to switch- even in the face of greater "costs."
There are of course cultural and taboo barriers over and above drug use in general along the continuum between oral administration, insulfating, smoking, rectal administration and inter-venous administration. It is often said of heroin, for example, that it wasn't until street purity rose enough to permit the kids in the suburbs to snort it effectively that the drug "took off" again after the so called "Vietnam Spike." I've heard this blamed on Frank Lucas' direct importation of Golden Triangle Heroin from Thailand, but the timing is difficult to reconcile considering that Lucas was sentenced to 70 years in 1976, and though he only served 5, it seems pretty clear he was no longer involved in the trade in any real way in 1981. Yet if you believe the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the United States, between 1983 and 1993 the purity of street heroin bought in quantities of a gram or less nearly doubled from 22% to 42%. (A bioavailability of 50-60% via insulfation versus 30% orally no doubt contributes). For the more Tipper Goresque among you, perhaps the movies "Trainspotting" and "Pulp Fiction" are the more likely cause for the drug's resurgence.
While this explains a sort of barrier to entry (if you will excuse the pun) between insulfation and rectal or inter-venous use, it doesn't explain the resistance of insulfators of Oxy to oral administration (in the form of the many chewing, juice, tea, coke, and other solvent solutions that reportedly result in 90%+ API recovery into a liquid form). Why, in short, do people love sniffing the stuff so much over drinking impregnated orange juice (for example) that they would endure multi-day, Dremel, Pedi-Pet, microwave-freezer methodologies that feature manually complex and intensive grinding procedures as prerequisites? The answer, I suspect, says a lot about the nature of opiate addiction, the power of social networking and why the goals of anti-abuse engineers are entirely unrealistic.
The reality, I suspect, is that both the repetition and actual process of the ritual of preparation mandated by anti-abuse technologies only strengthens the psychological connection between user and drug. In this context one might see, for example, High Tea as a complex delivery methodology for flavored water and fractional portions otherwise substandard sandwiches. Both the popularity of the High Tea ritual (and its exorbitant price in the more ritual intensive establishments offering the service) suggest the importance of ritual as a component here. As an aside, this revelation has prompted me to explore funding a start-up "Opium Tea House," though regulatory due diligence has so far been discouraging.
In this connection, Purdue is an interesting company, not just because it is structured as a private organization and tends to be secretive (it has one of the sparsest inventories of SEC filings of any firm its size in the United States, for example), but because of the means they chose to implement anti-abuse. Am I giving the marketing and research group at Purdue too much credit if I posit that Purdue designed their anti-abuse OP pills with just the sort of deterrents that would prevent novice users (those who had not yet made the psychological association between preparation rituals and the effects of the opiate, and, suspiciously, the type most likely to be younger, and suffer ignorance related overdoses) from trying the drug, but not require a shift from established administration routes- except perhaps in the case of IV users (which the company has likely identified as at high risk for lawsuit prompting overdoses or other after-effects of serious usage)?
But this only occurs to me because all you have to do is look at Bluelight to see that, like software piracy, once one clever Bluelighter figures it out (and given the level of chemistry knowledge I've already seen openly displayed), that's the ballgame (and also why Bluelighters should stop whining about the multitude of New Oxy threads).
Anyhow, if I were Purdue, that would certainly be the way I designed anti-abuse R&D programs.
But that's probably just because I'm an evil fucker.
Last edited:
