Speak Your Mind on the OD Rules

[Naptown Wicked]

He's not "illiterate"(which btw means something completely different than what you're implying here) in the least. blindedbythelight posted in this thread expressing his concern in plain and coherent english, proving he has no trouble doing so with the rest of his posts..

Main Entry: il·lit·er·ate
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)i(l)-ˈli-t(ə-)rət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin illiteratus, from in- + litteratus literate
Date: 15th century
1: having little or no education; especially : unable to read or write <an illiterate population>
2 a: showing or marked by a lack of familiarity with language and literature <an illiterate magazine> b: violating approved patterns of speaking or writing


How does that mean something different than what I was trying to say?? AND I also said "by the MODS standards" he was illiterate (at least that post).

And my point was that I did not see what was so incoherent about the post that the guy couldn't get the help he needed. I mean I wouldn't want to go to a doctor or something and be denied help because I used improper grammer when describing what was wrong with me. This is a harm reduction site not an English/literature class

 

[pinpoint]

^shut the fuck up smarty pants


nobody likes a smartass

 

[Naptown Wicked]

^shut the fuck up smarty pants


nobody likes a smartass

wow. dude I apologize i wasn't meaning to be a smart ass, just "speaking my mind". I've read every page of this thread and read a lot worse things than what I wrote! I was unaware that my opinion wasn't wanted. Won't happen again.

 

[delta_9]

And my point was that I did not see what was so incoherent about the post that the guy couldn't get the help he needed. I mean I wouldn't want to go to a doctor or something and be denied help because I used improper grammer when describing what was wrong with me. This is a harm reduction site not an English/literature class

Well, my point is that if he can post clearly and legibly when he's complaining about something, he can do it when he needs help with something It's not that hard.
I post when I'm fucked up all the time yet I still manage to post properly.
And your opinion is wanted, that's the whole point of this thread.

 

[sixpartseven]

What is with the pompous attitude with some of the moderators? "Rare opportunity being given to you?" You are aware that this is just a web forum about drugs right? Maybe we can discuss some of the mods holier than thou attitude towards their members?

What pompous attitude? We dont make the rule in the BLUA that says no open discussion on forum policies or issues with staff. We are going against that and letting it happen anyways. How is that "holier than thou"?

Youve been here for less than a month and you are already pretending to know how BL runs. I suggest you get more acquainted with BL before saying such ridiculous things.

Restricting access to information that could reduce harm because you are morally opposed to the practice in question is contrary to harm reduction principles.

Like Ayjay, harm reduction is my profession and watching you guys perpetuate exactly the same myths as our opponents (eg: talking about it = condoning / promoting it), is extremely frustrating. But like you say Ajay, I do believe this one's become pointless.

Any of the mods have a professional background in alcohol and other drug / health or related fields per chance?

We arent restricting access to any information. Ive said this a thousand times and you and ayjay keep wanting to ignore it. All the information is already out there. There is nothing left to discuss when it comes to shooting suboxone or subutex.
We arent restricting access to it, we are just disallowing further discussion of it.

And I guess youre right, this is becoming pointless. As GM said, we arent changing our minds on this subject.

 

[Nickatina]

I suggest you get more acquainted with BL before saying such ridiculous things.

Thems sounds like fightin words...

Anyway on the topic of the tweaker who thought he was dieing, theres nothing we can do for you regardless of whether or not your thread was closed. If you are that far into a binge or managed to OD by that much you MUST seek medical attention. A tweaker should have fluent typing, not incoherent.

 

[Flexistentialist]

Should I start allowing threads in Drug Culture about the smartest way to rob someone at gunpoint? I'm sure there are certain ways of doing it that would minimize the chances of you getting shot or stabbed by the intended victim. What about huffing gasoline? Will I be working against Harm Reduction principles when I close that thread? After all, there may be someone out there that might actually try to drink it, or even worse, inject it.

That's a dumb analogy that doesn't work at all. The fact is, Bluelight's Mission statement aligns with the principles of harm reduction. There's nothing in the Mission statement about "helping someone rob a bank."

Lets start at the beginning, because I'm not sure that you guys have ever even considered the definition of harm reduction. Here's one from the
UK Harm Reduction Association

Has humanist values: the drug user's decision to use drugs is accepted as fact. No moral judgment is made either to condemn or to support use of drugs. The dignity and rights of the drug user are respected, and services endeavor to be ‘user friendly’ in the way they operate. Harm reduction approaches also recognise that, for many, dependent drug use is a long term feature of their lives and that responses to drug use have to accept this.

Here's one from the Harm Redcution Coalition

Affirms drugs users themselves as the primary agents of reducing the harms of their drug use, and seeks to empower users to share information and support each other in strategies which meet their actual conditions of use.

These are just two definitions, there are heaps more out there. One of the fundamentals of harm reduction is that you can't make moral judgments about someone's drug using behaviour, and then expect to reduce harm for them.

You guys have made a moral decision that injecting subutex is "bad" and so therefore no new threadsd can be started on the topic. No matter how you want to frame it, that constitutes restricting discussion about the topic, and that decision is made on moral grounds - this is against the principles of harm reduction.

Harm reduction is about providing unbiased factual information. The person who want's to sniff petrol get's told of that harms that can come from that. There is no safe way of sniffing petrol. There is still a benefit in explaining that to someone.

Preventing new topics about injecting subutex means that there'll be no new innovation from bluelight regarding preparing these pills for injecting. By discussing various techniques of preparing them (and there's a lot more to it than just "use a wheel filter") people learn safer ways of doing it. You guys are stopping this from occurring because you have a moral position against injecting opiate treatment.

Call that position whatever you like - but do not call it harm reduction, because it is the exact opposite of a harm reduction approach.

If you can find a definition of harm reduction somewhere that supports your position, I'll be more than happy to hear about it.

 

[pinpoint]

We arent restricting access to any information. All the information is already out there. There is nothing left to discuss when it comes to shooting suboxone or subutex.

You guys have made a moral decision that injecting subutex is "bad" and so therefore no new threadsd can be started on the topic.

Flexistentialist, do you realize how dumb you look? you clearly aren't reading anybody elses posts and keep regurgitating the same argument over and over again in varying forms.

 

[Flexistentialist]

Did you read my last post? Here's the bit that's relevant for you:

Preventing new topics about injecting subutex means that there'll be no new innovation from bluelight regarding preparing these pills for injecting. By discussing various techniques of preparing them (and there's a lot more to it than just "use a wheel filter") people learn safer ways of doing it. You guys are stopping this from occurring because you have a moral position against injecting opiate treatment.

 

[brutus]

^^ Do you honestly believe that there will be some ground breaking innovation regarding the proper way to iv bupe? Besides, there's already a thread about how to inject the shit.

 

[Flexistentialist]

^ We'll never know, now with these new guidelines. If someone comes up with a new method of filtering subutex or extracting out the naloxone, or someone's got a question about solubilities in various substances, or a thousand other possibilities, and they want to post about it, that thread would be closed because it's encouraging "abuse", and they would be told to UTFSE. That is because discussion about the topic is being restricted because the mods have a moral position that says injecting some drugs is "wrong".

Like I've said over and over again, call that what you like but don't call it harm reduction.

 

[brutus]

How many threads about injecting bupe have you personally seen that ask an intelligent question? All of those threads are redundant and/or idiotic, that's why the mods don't allow them.

 

[Flexistentialist]

Idiotic threads get closed because they're idiotic threads, not because the mods have made a blanket moral judgement that injecting one drug is acceptable, while injecting another is not.

The mods have also clearly outlined their moral position on this topic. They occasionally fall back on "but it's already been discussed" line, however all through this thread are examples of the mods moral position that says injecting subutex / suboxone is wrong because it's bad. It's their moral position that has made it into the guidelines, not the "it's already been discussed" line.

 

[brutus]

I still don't see how you're saying that the reason why the mods say injecting bupe is bad solely because of their moral judgment. The mods say not to inject buprenorphine because it is not as safe to inject as other substances and even still then, there's a thread about how to inject it. I would call that harm reduction.

 

[Sportfisher39]

Idiotic threads get closed because they're idiotic threads, not because the mods have made a blanket moral judgement that injecting one drug is acceptable, while injecting another is not.

The mods have also clearly outlined their moral position on this topic. They occasionally fall back on "but it's already been discussed" line, however all through this thread are examples of the mods moral position that says injecting subutex / suboxone is wrong because it's bad. It's their moral position that has made it into the guidelines, not the "it's already been discussed" line.

Here is someone who has nothing else in life to do but repeat themselves
A HUNDRED TIMES
Get over it or go somewhere else.
You think your making a point?
Even I quit reading your dribble
Yes its gotten annoying

 

[firsty]

^+1 ( to wiggi)

it has nothing to do with morality. everything that can be said about it has been said, any new posts are just going over whats been covered 1000 times before.

and if you make a groundbreaking new innovation to reduce the harm of shooting suboxone, i'm sure the OD mods will let you post it.

everyones against you on this, man. game over.

 

[ccm]

Mods,
If there is a "groundbreaking" new way to fix Sub, will you let that in? Jesus wept!

Okay, so it is the mods "moral" position.

Put on your big boy pants and get over it - or, a friendly suggestion- start your own website about how to fix Sub.

Imma say what everyone else has been saying, but louder:

THE INFO ON SUB IS HERE FOR THOSE THAT NEED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ccm]

Main Entry: il·lit·er·ate
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)i(l)-ˈli-t(ə-)rət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin illiteratus, from in- + litteratus literate
Date: 15th century
1: having little or no education; especially : unable to read or write <an illiterate population>
2 a: showing or marked by a lack of familiarity with language and literature <an illiterate magazine> b: violating approved patterns of speaking or writing


How does that mean something different than what I was trying to say?? AND I also said "by the MODS standards" he was illiterate (at least that post).

And my point was that I did not see what was so incoherent about the post that the guy couldn't get the help he needed. I mean I wouldn't want to go to a doctor or something and be denied help because I used improper grammer when describing what was wrong with me. This is a harm reduction site not an English/literature class

What delta 9 meant, and what you apparently missed, is that the word "illiterate" is also used as a slang term. Kinda like how "retarded" is used, which is not to mean a person with an intellectual disability, but as just dumb in general.

 

[sixpartseven]

^ We'll never know, now with these new guidelines. If someone comes up with a new method of filtering subutex or extracting out the naloxone, or someone's got a question about solubilities in various substances, or a thousand other possibilities, and they want to post about it, that thread would be closed because it's encouraging "abuse", and they would be told to UTFSE. That is because discussion about the topic is being restricted because the mods have a moral position that says injecting some drugs is "wrong".

Like I've said over and over again, call that what you like but don't call it harm reduction.

Ill tell you what. If you come up with a new, safer way to inject suboxone/subutex, we will make an exception to the rule just for you. Until then, youre wasting your breath.

The definition of harm reduction that you posted says:

Has humanist values: the drug user's decision to use drugs is accepted as fact.

Thats all I need to quote to show you that that definition doesnt apply to this situation.

This argument (shooting suboxone/subutex) has nothing to do with that. It has to do with people abusing and not taking seriously, valuable resources for getting off drugs. Why dont they just go shoot heroin instead of wasting space in a clinic just so they can shoot suboxone/subutex, which, by the way, SUCKS when IVed? Its not only a waste of potential patients time, its a waste of the person IVing it's time too.

We dont make a moral decision that "injecting subutex is bad," that is over simplifying our view point to such an extent that it is way off. If that were our viewpoint, wed disallow discussion on IVing heroin because its bad. We'd disallow discussion on IVing Oxycontin because its bad. We'd disallow discussion on taking xanax for anxiety because the potential for addiction makes it bad. To be frank, thats just stupid to even say that. We made a moral decision that we wont support people who misuse buprenorphine treatment. By supporting that, we are then, in fact, not giving any support to the people who cant get on it because their local clinic has them on a 4 month waiting list. We cant please everyone, so we have to please the people who need the help the most, which just happen to be the majority. Even before these new rules, topics on IVing bupe were few and far between. Not supporting potential bupe patients is more of a disservice to harm reduction than not supporting the IV use of suboxone/subutex.

And why are you stuck on this "we cant start new threads on the topic" issue? Even if we did allow the discussion of this topic, if you started a new thread, we'd close it anyways because there are already a shit ton of threads on the topic that are still open, one of which I wrote myself (the FAQ on, oh my god!, you guessed it... SHOOTING SUBOXONE!) where you can go and discuss it, not to mention Phrozens Suboxone/Buprenorphine mega thread (both threads can be found in the ODD too, by the way, and just so happen to be the only two threads in that section). If you come up with better methods for preparing it than what I wrote out, I would seriously love for you to post them there so I can update the FAQ. Why do you need a new thread for it when its already available?

Youre arguing for nothing, you do realize that, right?

 

[pinpoint]

^good post

well anyways, to get back on the real topic, what if we could somehow lock out OD to users with less than x posts [where x=number determined by staff] therefore weeding out the kids who are coming in on their first day to ask 'dood how much oxycodeinez do i take 4 my first time?'.

i mean, really, there is BDD, which for some reason is not used as much by the new kids that are always asking BASIC questions. so by limiting OD by user's length of membership or post count it'd probably save us all a lot of time.

just an idea.