• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |

The sad state of PD

Roger&Me said:
the quality of this forum has been inversely proportional to the popularity of the so-called "RC market" imho. back in '06-'08 it was just a small group of particularly dedicated people, the signal to noise ratio was much higher. also back then we still had real experts posting, like f&b. most of them have stopped posting in part because they realized that anything pharmacologically interesting they posted ended up quickly being hijacked and exploited by greedy RC vendors.
Click to expand...
I tend to prefer reason and evidence to "real experts" (no disrespect to f&b et al).
Bluelight is the single largest drug-focused site on the web, with a huge membership.
of course the amount of "signal to noise" ratio is going to change.
We have had major influxes of posters from other forums, as well as a whole new generation of users.

I must say I tire of the "good old days" argument.
Things have changed. Deal with it - that's what BL is about; offering harm reduction advice in an increasingly dangerous drug market.

Be the change...or move on.
A forum is only as good as its posting members.

Laika said:
This is a pretty pretentious thread
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
^ Agreed, the forum should continue to change. If you're not happy with the direction it's going then take the initiative to help guide it, it's really as simple as posting a thread.

buildersoftime said:
(I think you're doing economists a disservice by equating their discipline to "price discussion".)
Click to expand...

You're right. Obviously it was a very curt generalization.. but it's not meant to lay out the format for BlueLight, only illustrate that each section has it's own direction and advanced or beginner topics can be discussed within. Since BL's main goals are to help people take drugs in a safer manner however, we have more focus on the actual physical/mental effects of the drugs themselves. An "Advanced Geological Discussion" wouldn't get much attention... it's better to have it grouped into another forum even if it's not the direct target audience you are hoping for.


That's my take on the current situation at least. There's always room for new growth but even decade old arguments can be engaging if you and other posters don't fall into the habit of repeating the same dribble everyone else does.
 
I think that one of the main problems that many of us suffer from, including me is that by the time you're through telling 15 kids not to overdose, or that there's no such thing as a dirty acid (no matter what Gerry Garcia might have said), you kind of subconsciously assume that everyone's an idiot. I'm not saying this is fair or justifiable but it happens nevertheless. And it ruins what might have been a suitable environment for involved discussion.

I know that bluelight is a HR forum and I accept that this is more important than any lofty intellectual sensibilities I might have. And that would be OK if there was somewhere else to engage on the level I want but there isn't. Critical thinkers don't hang out with the pseudo-spiritual drug worshipers over at DMT nexus or the Shromery, they're here. But apparently they're only interested in talking about neuroscience and pharmacology.

It's a shame.
 
^ you really believe that? You signed up last month!
There are hundreds of people here of great intelligence and expertise in a number of fields.

Your attitude seems very defeatist, and i'd say just plain incorrect.
Keep looking around - you might find what you seek.
Otherwise....the Internet is a very vast network of information.
Be creative. Keep seeking. Complaining only compounds the perceived "problem" (not that I agree there necessarily is one - how are kids supposed to get a decent drug education??)

We're not all born with "the facts", and there is a lot of propaganda to be countered, hence the elementary level of some threads/posts/contributors.
Just go with it.
 
^ I've been here for years. I just changed my username for opsec reasons related to the fall of Silk Road.

And I don't think this thread is defeatist. I think it's doing what everyone keeps telling me to do which is to be the change.

And by the way. I'm in total agreement with you about the education issue. I just don't think it's working here as well as it could be. If I were to Google 'NBOMe dose' I might well be directed to a thread where the majority of posts are recommending dangerous actions.

EDIT: here's an example to illustrate my point. A year or two ago, it was common for someone (me included) to recommend a moderate starting dose to a greenlighter wishing to experiment with NBOMes. This is the spirit of HR. You can't stop someone from taking a drug but you can inform what they do with it. Often Coolio would reply to the thread saying that in his opinion the recommended dose was way too low. Someone who stumbled across the thread now would see that a veteran member with loads of posts under his belt, waded in with his superior knowledge. What they wouldn't know is that he had a reputation for being reckless and ended up dying of an overdose.
 
Last edited:
Maybe on another forum.
I've been scared off the stuff from this subforum.

By the way, what is a "formally trained sociologist"?
You have a degree in sociology?
 
A formally trained sociologist is the analogous to a formally trained neuroscientist. I guess it could mean anything from high school to PhD. Personally I'm 20-odd years from my degree and I'm engaged in research on drug markets.

This is something else I have an issue with. Academics interested in drugs won't admit they also use them. And drug users on forums like this won't admit they're also academics. Personally I'm more of an interested party than a fully fledged academic but I am very definitely engaged in formal research.
 
^ I think that's a pretty huge generalisation, especially on bluelight.
I have a social sciences background myself, but I wouldn't be so brash as to equate my arts degree to the various disciplines of neuroscience.
 
spacejunk said:
^ I think that's a pretty huge generalisation, especially on bluelight.
I have a social sciences background myself, but I wouldn't be so brash as to equate my arts degree to the various disciplines of neuroscience.
Click to expand...

So you think that someone with a BSc in neuroscience is by definition more qualified in her field than you are in the arts? Why? You've both studied for the same amount of time.
 
buildersoftime said:
So you think that someone with a BSc in neuroscience is by definition more qualified in her field than you are in the arts? Why? You've both studied for the same amount of time.
Click to expand...

Hardly a convincing argument.
I'm not ragging on my lit degree, but it's not in the medical hard sciences field.
Not even close.
Time spent studying does not equate to equal qualifications when applied to something like pharmacology, biochem, etc etc
I accept this and learn what I can from people who are working in those disciplines.

It's like sending a school teacher off to be a theatre nurse for the day.
Both professions I highly regard; but far from the same thing.
We all have our different experiences, educations and understandings working together here. That's what makes bluelight a community.
 
Apart from the fact that I don't agree with you that the hard sciences are somehow a more valid form of qualification than the social sciences, I fail to see why it would qualify its practitioners to have a dedicated forum on bluelight while other disciplines need to make do with the focus forums.

I'm not arguing that they're the same thing, just that one shouldn't be more privileged than the other
 
I dont really post in here much for a coulple different reasons but its not because I dont enjoy psychadelics its more just a matter of:

-I dont like talking about them if im not going to be taking any
-I feel like everyone reacts differently and you more or less have to find out first hand what yours is, no point debating about it
-The explosion of RCs overtaking conversations about traditional psychs.

Not that I dont find anything about any RCs redeeming, theyre just not really as fun for me.

And fwiw, there is nothing about this forum that makes it better or worse than other forums. You have people who write extremely good posts, and people who think they only write extremely good posts. Plus the people new to psychs, and you can get an air of superiority pretty fast. The last time I said anything in here was trying to make a claim that using psychs at age 17 was not bad long term and its like who fuckin cares?

just my 2 cents
 
Well, look at it this way; social analysis fits across the board.
Start a thread in any number of subforums regarding drug culture, prohibition, ritual, ethnobotany - whatever - and see where it leads.

If we are talking about the relative safety (or things that ring alarm bells) with new substances (of which something like 300 new, untested drugs hit the consumer market last year.)
Where do we turn when we want advice on potential toxicity, carcinogenic properties of these drugs? things that nobody without appropriate academic background (or studies) can tell you about; going by the shape of the molecule or similar reactions in related substances.
It is a brave new world of drug use, and it is actually pretty frightening.

Studying human behaviour patterns is great. I lean that way myself, and have a socially analytically mind.

But I don't discount the absolute necessity of science to play it's role in the nature of human understanding - and in this case, safety and harm reduction.
 
I would argue that pharmacologists and criminologists are equally useful when trying to prevent drugs from harming society.

The pharmacologist can talk about neurotoxity of 4-substituted amphetamines while the criminologist cares about the environment of prohibition causing a situation where relatively dangerous and legal drugs such as PCA are taken in preference to relatively safe and illegal drugs like MDMA. Both disciplines rely on concepts and theoretical analysis tools which aren't available to the non-specialist public. In the case of the pharmacologist it might be SAR while the criminologist may use the theory of criminal innovation.

In the age of the internet. The lay critical thinker has the ability to learn about either or both disciplines and can, as a result take part in the discussion as they see fit. There's no need for exclusivity, just self policing. Unless you want to limit the membership of Neuroscience and Pharmacology to those who can demonstrate a minimal educational level of achievement? Say an MSc in organic chemistry? I don't think this would be appropriate though.

Like you I see science as necessary and I defend the scientific method fiercely. But I also recognise the humanities have equal value and require equal expertise. There's nothing either inferior or superior about an expert economist when compared to an expert neurologist. One body of knowledge is not easier to come by than the other, nor is it less useful to society.

Bringing this thread back on topic, the more I think about it, the clearer it seems: the neuroscientists and pharmacologists can keep their exclusive forum and alongside it, reinstate ADD for the other disciplines who wish to have intelligent conversations with an emphasis on critical thinking. I would still choose to visit the focus forums to tell people that it's probably not a good idea to drink 12 bottles if robitussin while their parents are at the cinema but I'll also have acess to a forum where I can talk about the the role of the internet in the phenomenon of 'designer drugs' without interruption from an argumentative 12 year old pretending he used to sell acid to the grateful dead.
 
Last edited:
Roger&Me said:
back in '06-'08 it was just a small group of particularly dedicated people, the signal to noise ratio was much higher.
Click to expand...

The golden era~
Was discussing this last night & actually the night prior as well.


If you don't like a thread then don't fucking post in it. It's not that hard. Like a thread? Then post in it. If something can be reported, then by all means report that shit so mods can' address it as soon as possible. People want to bitch all the time, but if you're not doing your part then pls stfu. I can only speak bluntly for myself, though I'd be surprised if PD staff doesn't feel the same way.
 
buildersoftime said:
Apart from the fact that I don't agree with you that the hard sciences are somehow a more valid form of qualification than the social sciences, I fail to see why it would qualify its practitioners to have a dedicated forum on bluelight while other disciplines need to make do with the focus forums.
Click to expand...

Neuroscience and pharmacology is the most direct link to recreational drugs, that is, they attempt to explain the mechanics on how they work.

That said, in some ways it's surprising there isn't a "drugs and society" or "drugs and the law" type of forum, where one can discuss non-medical but lofty aspects of drugs, including legal reform and other political issues, economics, sociological issues, that kind of thing. I know there's a "drug culture" forum but it's pretty light, and there is also a "current events and politics" but that's pretty general. "Drugs and the media" comes closest to this sort of forum that I see, and that's just links. (Perhaps I'm missing something... there are a *lot* of subforums...)

It definitely is my opinion that drug addiction is far more than just the mechanics (ref: "Rat Park"). Sociologists (among other disciplines such as psychiatry) could provide some useful data in this regard, that could help reform drug laws more meaningfully etc.
 
electrodevo said:
It definitely is my opinion that drug addiction is far more than just the mechanics (ref: "Rat Park"). Sociologists (among other disciplines such as psychiatry) could provide some useful data in this regard, that could help reform drug laws more meaningfully etc.
Click to expand...

I would disagree and see that drug addiction ultimately is just mechanics. It's just mechanics on a level that's quite a ways beyond our understanding at this point, so psychiatry and other subjective methods are currently the most effective ways to treat it. But they're not the exact cures that could be possible with a higher understanding of neuroscience and pharmacology, and are imperfect as a result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top