I appreciate your contribution, it's just that when people resort to drinking their piss to get 10% higher, they might as well just piss in their own faces and get a novelty kick instead.
Asking questions and discussing ideas is how everything works. Being dismissive and facetious isn't productive and only communicates that the topic makes you squirmy.
There is nothing new or weird about mining urine. Labs extract growth hormones from the urine of pregnant ladies. Phosporus can be extracted. Urea is a very useful resource. We piss out so much drugs, that you can test waterways for drugs and they come back positive.
Any Internet resource describing the properties of a drug describe how it is excreted and as what. Many drugs we take to get high are excreted in urine, often the majority of being unchanged, plus sometimes even more of it broken into metabolites which are also high quality psychoactive drugs. Like meth. You piss out both meth and amphetamine. For many drugs, the amount is quite significant.
It's not some desperate fruitless act chasing trace amounts, like some poor sod doing a third wash on his bloody cottons. If one could access it, it can really add up. Yesterday, I took about 1300mg of Vyvanse. Generally, 30-40% is excreted as unchanged dextroamphetamine. If you're tummy contents were more acidic, up to 75% cam be excreted unchanged. This equals a potential of 390-975mg of pure pharmaceutical grade dextroamphetamine.
Do you think it's weird to be curious if your body can effortlessly produce a whole gram of the finest, most pleasurable and safe amphetamines available?
So. For drug users, especially those not on a trust fund, it is a question worth pondering, whether you think it's gross or not.
If it is a terrible idea, discussing it can help make that clear. If there was an efficient way--say hypothetically, if you could excrete all of the drug in one cup of well hydrated clear urine, you'd have a glass of basically water, with a tiny bit of sediment from your body, not from a sewer. It will be sterile, have nearly no flavour and if you drink it, you'll get very high. For free. Wondering if this is feasible isn't just normal, it's clever.
Having the discussion allows exploration of hazards, potential alternatives. It might answer, are there benefits? How much potential benefit? How much urine? Is it risky, is it worth the risk? Is there a way to extract the drug from the Urine?
If people wonder about this, they may experiment with or without any good information or angles or risk assessing they didn't think of.
One aspect of harm reduction is to reduce shame and stigma. Another is access to accurate unbiased information. Yet another is breaking isolation. This discussion may feel unsavory, but it fulfills all three of those aspects.
So what anyone on the thread who dropped by for a guffaw is doing, is the same as if you did it to any other member's question about any other topic. It is an invalidating gesture and can create an environment that doesn't feel safe, where a person with a harm reduction need, is wary to post their question in case it's dumb and they will be ridiculed or labelled desperate, pathetic, or "addict" as a derogatory term--on a drug foru of all places.
And all because the topic of pee feels a bit squicky. In a community of people who put unknown quantities of mystery muck in our veins, noses, lungs, and stomachs as a matter of routine.
Consider this: If it's so awful, like really far round the bend addiction, then it's even more detrimental to respond glibly or derisively. It sends a message as to how blue light perceives and will respond to those who are desperate and dependent.
Drug users already get that all over the place. I have the impression that blue light is a bit of a haven where people can be transparent without fear of reprisal. I'm not that familiar, maybe I'm the one misunderstanding.
I get that this is a internet forum, not a therapy office, and I get just as crotchety about how "safe" people expect spaces to be, and I also enjoy levity and figure people benefit from a little laughing at themselves. But that's not the same as someone asking a question, phrasing it urgently and then lots of people swinging by to add a punchline or say it's a dumb idea. I don't know if you noticed, but you did both. You also didn't even own the fact that you chose snark, prefacing your insult with "I appreciate your contribution" as though that San tifies being mean spirited after.
I know people talk this way often, wrapping insults in denials, but saying you're not doing something doesn't mean you aren't doing it. Likewise, opening with "appreciation" doesn't negate what you follow it with. Like if I said, no offence but your a toxic cow, I didn't really expunge the offence, just sought to salt it with denial. Dishonest mollifying clauses and empty disclaimers aren't magic charms that erase a person's intent or consequence, they just tell you something about the person who uses them.
Maybe this thread is an important topic, maybe it's not. It is possible lots of impoverished drug users get the idea to drink their urine and weren't smart enough to ask anyone about it. Either way, anyone reading the thread, or any thread, learns about how things work around here. A lot of people prone to heavy drug use are pretty risk averse to being shamed or ridiculed and are acutely attentive to red flags in the way people are treated in comments and what goes unchallenged and is therefore normal. (not to mention creating normative permissions).
I think about these things because I have a background in trauma treatment and trauma informed care, as a peer support worker. It's surprising the amount of positive or negative effect that results from even small things.
(I also have a hundred drug questions, myself, that I worry are stupid
)
And here I was thinking, about thirty years later, that I'd lived and there's no reason to carry on because I'd seen it all!
www.vice.com
