• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

I ventured back to the Discussion 2000 - and look what i found.

mona

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 23, 1999
Messages
2,334
First of all I didn't know whether to add this on to the old thread so I made a new one.. sorry jb!!
The American's have just watched a 60 minutes special on Ecstasy. Here's what some of them thought.
A thread posted by Pyro called :
"Send your letters into CBS -- my parental reaction -- my thoughts on government/media"
http://www.bluelight.ru/ubb/Forum12/HTML/003927.html
I thought it was a good thread to read. There's not many over there anymore, I thought I'd point this one out.
mona.
 
Mona,
Just read the thread (being a big fan of 60 mins and ecstasy) and it was great! The first two letters were very inspirational, and I can't believe 60 Mins would have such shoddy reporting.
'studes 'suggest' ecstasy causes brain damage'
Saying of someone who died from an OD after 5 pills, at least 2 times the normal dose.
What rubbish! The thread was interesting, and I suggest many other Australian readers have a look!
------------------
Keep On Rockin in the Free World!
 
yep, that was a very interesting thread....let's just hope that the australian media doesn't pull a stunt like that.
while media coverage for ecstasy here is *far* from honest or un-bias, i have recently read/seen some good pieces. particularly impressive was channel 9's 'Sunday' show which did a cover story on E and the death at Happy Valley about a month or two ago. did anyone else see this? they announced via voice over during the article that they would attempt to be fair to both sides of the debate, and they were quite good in that regard...at least they ADMITTED that little was known about long term effects of mdma rather than bullshitted or manipulated viewers. they maintained there respect as a journalism product.
and the recent article in the saturday age that johnboy pointed out was also decent and respectable, although they neglected pointing out the use of testers. in fact, i haven't heard or read anything about them from any media source.
that's all from me for now :p
chow
BuckE
------------------
"In a closed society where everybody is guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity." Hunter S. Thompson, 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas'
 
IMHO I'd say 60 Minutes is far from the pinacle of unbiased journalism, when Ray Martin was one of the star reporters of your broadcast then you know that someone like John Safran isn't going to get his viewpoint on there.
------------------
Feed Your Head.
 
'studes 'suggest' ecstasy causes brain damage'
Saying of someone who died from an OD after 5 pills, at least 2 times the normal dose.
The biggest myth of them all, that you can die just from taking too many pills....
No one ever dies of an MDMA Overdose. - Its always another cause and a 1/2 or single pill, would also have killed them.
PLEASE DON'T PASS ON THIS CRAP ABOUT ODING ON ECSTASY.
I know your just trying to find something to blame for that death, but taking 5 pills is NOT IT.
4-8 pills a night is quite a common doseage for people in the UK and I have not seen a reported Ecstasy death in 4 years!
Its amazing what a little education does to stop theses problems and a little tolerance from law enforcement.
Jase.
[This message has been edited by Jase (edited 27 April 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Jase (edited 27 April 2000).]
 
heres a great letter to CBS i got off the dancesafe mailing list...
: Sent to CBS.
:
: Re: Ecstasy Spreads of 4/25/2000
:
: Depressing indeed to see CBS present such a titillating,
: destructive report.
:
: How can you report the dangers of ecstasy" when you show a
: guy who tests the pills saying that one third of the pills
: are not ecstasy. Did you verify that those medical problems
: you reported were caused by E or by something else? Are you
: aware that at least one European country - Switzerland, I
: believe - is considering labeling E as a soft drug, along
: with cannabis.
:
: You may recall that the beginning of the end of Prohibition
: began on New Year's day 1927 in New York City "with scores of
: emergency admissions to New York's Bellevue Hospital. There
: were forty-one deaths there that day, and the Department of
: Health announced there had been 750 such deaths in New York
: alone during 1926." according to Ed Behr in his book
: "Prohibition: Thirteen Years that Changed America" on page
: 221.
:
: Your report is a modern day version as "reefer madness", the
: film is largely responsible for the illegal drug predicament
: we are in now - the MS, ALS and AIDS patients arrested and
: denied the only meds which work for them, the 700,000
: marijuana arrests we have now each year, the $19 Billion
: federal anti-drug budget, etc, etc.
:
: It would help immensely - and be in the 60 Minutes tradition -
: if you would do a report comparing the drug war to
: Prohibition. It would be long - perhaps done in several
: installments, but would would be a favor to the future of the
: Republic.
:
: For your further reference:
: Ed Behr continues on page 222: "At their most harmless, the
: bootteggers' wares were diluted; in the majority of cases,
: the chemists found liquor made of pure grain to which
: coloring and flavoring had been added; moonshine - from corn
: meal, molasses, fruit, vegetables or sugar - presented graver
: risks. In some cases denatured alcohol had been redistilled
: to remove the poison. But in others the hooch was outright
: poison - wood alcohol. "Of 480,000 gallons of confiscated
: booze analyzed in New York in 1927,
: 98 percent contained poisons," said a Prohibition Bureau
: report. The New York Telegram collected over 500 samples of
: liquor from four hundred speakeasies. Fifty-five of them were
: found to contain significant traces of wood alcohol, and
: lesser poisons were found in seventy more."
 
Everyone has a right to the truth -- Let's say 60 minutes did cover the whole truth dealing with ecstacy, showing how there is little risk involved compared to the other drugs it was compared to, etc. Do we really want kids to know the truth? I'm sure if everyone knew the truths, then there'd be a lot more people using ecstacy. Sure, even if they say it's dangerous people will still be using.
It's such a confusing topic. Who is to decide if taking ecstacy (or drugs as a whole) is right or wrong? The government and media are sure pointing to the WRONG. Maybe we should put up with a bit of biased reporting, although not to the level of 60 minutes. I still think that everyone should be a bit frightened about taking drugs - we don't want to encourage kids to be taking it at too young an age, before they are mature enough to make logical decisions for themselves.
How much truth and how much lies is the right mixture to tell the community? The whole truth will be good for us who use, but let's just hope some conclusive results on the long term effects of ecstacy use are released, and lets hope our Es are cleaned up, without some of the crap people put in them.
I've been saying "kids" , but i hope you all know who i mean, it'd prolly be for the 15+ age group upto early 20s i'd say... If 60 minutes did say the truth about estacy saying the risks are what us bluelighters know they are (the real truth), then I could say many more "kids" would be trying it out, and also people from all age groups. But I'd say quite a few people who start dabbling with ecstacy, would probably also try speed, maybe cocaine, etc. I'm not saying it leads to a destructive path of drug abuse, but it does introduce people to other drugs as well, which are quite a lot more harmful.
cya.
 
i think that the best kinds of journalism, especially when dealing with sensitive social issues like drugs, is the sitting-on-the-fence approach. that way shows like 60 minutes can cover stories relating to things like ecstasy in a manner which is completely truthful, revealing facts but not promoting nor debunking E use. truth is, E use can be potentially dangerous, and long term effects of E are as yet undetermined but potentially damaging -- these issues should never be neglected but handled in a way that doesn't "tell" you what to do. Most of journalism relates to the simple philosophies of essay writing, where an argument is raised and exams are used to back it up. that means selecting arguments and neglecting those which threaten the point of view. if you get rid of that philosophy, you get "factual" journalism, rarely used in issues like drugs...so we're stuck with reading, watching and hearing views that oppose our own in favor of popular consensus and propaganda. we SHOULDN'T take drugs. we SHOULDN'T take E. we SHOULD believe everything they tell us. that's why i respect articles like the one on the Sunday show that make it clear that the choice is ours; that we need not be bombarded with in-yer-face, out-of-our-ass journalism
buckE
------------------
"In a closed society where everybody is guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity." Hunter S. Thompson, 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas'
 
I think the best way the media can handle ecstacy, is to not handle it at all.
Ecstacy is becoming so popular now - and I have to say no drug is good for you, or healthy in anyway, especially one which plays with the chemicals in your brains, and which long term effects are unknown - all it needs is more publicity to increase the userbase .
Think of how cigarettes and alcohol slowly crept into school, and each year, you see how the younger years are picking it up much earlier,, then the use of pot slowly reached down to younger groups,, I can see that ecstacy is the next drug to follow,, especially because of its enormous publicity..
Ecstacy is great - but I doubt anyone thinks that younger people should be using it.. Ecstacy use is one person's own decision, but when you are younger - your parents choice is against drugs - and you can't disrespect your parents by bringing drugs into your house.
it'd be good if people had to get a license to buy ecstacy, had to read a lot about it, and pass a test. It's a beautiful experience, and I really don't think that many people DESERVE to use it. They would need to proove that they are aware of all the dangers, show that they are mature enough to experience something so great.
I hate when things get too commercial - ecstacy is becoming commercial. Now 'everybody' will be using ecstacy, and it will be just like alcohol, so people will look for other things to try. coke maybe ?
Sorry if i'm blabbing on too much, and not making much sense ;p But this is a very touchy subject - were we destined to use drugs? or were our bodies made to work the way they do, without any artificial interference? We see what our bodies posess inside with a few artificial additives, and maybe we're just too lazy to unlock our true selves ,, naturally..
cya
 
You can philosiphise as much as you want on that matter Raphsta, and you can complain about ecstasy use becoming 'commercial' and you can suggest a whole myriad of solutions to the problem.... but it's never going to happen.
Can't you see that it's a cycle? It'll keep happening for years and years to come, each time with a different drug. The best we can all do is try and educate ourselves into the 'safest' way of using these drugs, because yes, ultimately, everyone knows 'drugs are bad mmkay?'.
We can't force others to educate themselves, nor can we indoctrinate people with what WE 'think' is right, because there will always be an answer back. Someone will always have something else to say... and when it comes down to it, we can't do an absolute thing. Ultimately WE are the baddies here, not the media, and anytime we try and justify our position in society, we're going to be looked down upon and scorned for what we believe in.
So maybe this was a little melodramatic. I guess I just wanted to point out that when push comes to shove WE are responsible for US. That's all. When we start believeing that we can change what the majority thinks is when we become the media.
News stories like the one shown on 60 Minutes will never cease to be produced, they're embedded in the structure of our news medium, because it's what people want to see. I personally have never seen 60 Minutes in Australia as more than a tabloid news magazine show that insists on presenting stories which have been highly sensationalised for the direct intent of sucking in the unlikely viewer. The people who watch 60 Minutes week in and week out are going to believe what 60 minutes say when they state that ecstasy has caused so and so numbers of OD's.. I mean why shouldn't they? It's the news right? The news is meant to consist of cold hard facts right? WRONG. The news is nothing but a stage show dedicated to good visuals and accompanying 'scripts'. Packer and Murdoch don't care what kind of drivel we get spun at 6pm every night, so long as we remain a marketable commodity, they'll continue to throw us all the crap they so desire.
This is what the masses want. The news is merely a reaction to what the masses want to see. It's tailormade every day to appeal to at least 4 of our senses and most of the time we fall for it. In the instant that WE don't, there are at least another 3 million who did.
People don't want to learn the facts, they want to pity the poor girl who died, they want to scorn the community that lead to that young junkie's demise...why not? It's easier right? It easier to just swallow it all without a second thought rather than question what's been presented. The people who accept these fallacies as cold hard facts, in my opinion, aren't worth the energy I may spend trying to eductae them otherwise. To them, I'm (we're) always going to be just a druggie who is advocating the use of something that get's me high every weekend.
It's sad, but I've come to realise that some people just don't want to learn, and the more we try and educate, the worse we end up looking, and with each generation of 'responsible' users comes a generation of (excuse the lack of scientific terms) sheep.
Educate yourself, educate the people who are willing to learn, because if you start trying to stuff everything you believe is right down the throat of that person who'll never learn...then ultimately you're just as bad as the media.
Indoctrination is a word the media in Australia doesn't take lightly (and I'm sure the US doesn't look too fondly upon it either)but it's a word that sadly springs to mind when matters such as these surface in our community.
Everyone believes what they know is right, it just comes down to who has the widest reachable target audience and the largest revenue dedicated to 'spreading the word'.
That's what I think.
mona.
PS: Raphsta this wasn't aimed solely at you, after reading your post I got a though, ran away with it and this is what happened
smile.gif
 
Philophise? nnoo, i don't even know how to do that!
wink.gif

As Ecstacy gets more widespread, the age of users will slowly get lower and lower.
I don't think any of us should be fighting to make ecstacy use socially acceptable (?), we're all trying to make it safe for everyone , right? and we're hoping that everyone is mature enough to use something so powerful. But we need to keep ecstacy away from those who aren't mature enough, it'd be good if 60 Minutes wouldn't say how wide spread ecstacy use is - so people will think "hmm, well everyone's doing it, i might as well do it". That's not a good reason to justify using it. The media, by showing how widespread ecstacy use is, is in a way encouraging it's use - but not giving those potential users any safety guidelines. They'll just go out and drop a pill, not knowing anything about it. Except for the people mature enough, which care enough about their bodies to research ecstacy before putting foreign cohemicals down their throat.
I'm probably repeating myself, but aaahwell! ;P , if the media takes us through sites like dancesafe, bluelight, showing us how to use ecstacy safely, that too will encourage use to a larger extent, but will encourage safer use of the drug, in a way encouraging.
Need to a find a midpoint between both of these.. Balanced reporting is what we need - or as I said previously, no reporting at all.
Hmmm.. brainstorm! maybe if drug dealers could hand out printed material from dancesafe or similar to their 1st time customers.. hehe, thats gonna happen.
wink.gif

BLAH!
If i don't make any sense, or say something u dont like,, don't be mean pleasE!
wink.gif

ciao
 
Mean???? Why would you think I could be mean??? I'm not Johnboy ya know! (just kidding jb, don't take offence
wink.gif
)
I was actually refferring to how you you said something about 'were we designed to take drugs or not?' blah di blah. Just clarifying.
Cheers,
mona.
 
i am reminded of that old cliche, "the quickest way of getting a teenager to do something is to tell them not to do it".
to that i would add "... and don't tell them why not"
the "just say no campaign" failed because parents were urged to tell their children that drugs were evil and bad, but discouraged them from explaining why people take drugs.
even an eight year old child can see the idiocy of mr mackays "drugs are bad, m'kay" approach. its a lot like sex, puritan families just tell children that sex is evil, which screws them up for life, because they the feel that this natural urge they cant deny is an evil feeling, therefore they are evil.
children should be discouraged from sex for very obvious (to us) reasons, eg early pregancy, not yet emotionally mature to deal with it etc. if a child has these things explained to them they can not so much make a decision for themselves, but rather at least feel that their parents are being honest with them and telling them the whole story.
its the same with drugs. "just say no" is insulting to a childs intelligence. sticking your head in the sand and denying they exist is ludicrous. a child told only that they are bad will wonder why this is so. parents often deny children things for seemingly irrational reasons, and when a child wants to rebel the most obvious method is by doing something "evil" which if the child has no understanding of why it is bad, seems all the more attractive.
i have thought long and hard about how i'd approach the subject of drugs with my children. here is how i'd talk about heroin to a child, i'm only using heroin as an example because i have put the most thought into it.
your body contains lots of chemicals that take care of various jobs in your body. some chemicals break up your food, some make you run fast, some make your cuts heal.
a very important chemical in your body is endorphin. its there all the time but you never notice it till you really need it.
endorphin's job is to make you not feel pain, its the bodies natural pain killer.
when you hit your knee on the table leg you know how it hurts a lot to begin with but after a couple of seconds it doesnt hurt so much, right? and even though you hit it quite hard, within a couple of minutes it doesnt hurt much at all.
this is because as soon as you hurt yourself your body sends heaps of endorphins to your knee to make the pain go away. this happens all the time. there is always a level of endorphins in your body making sure you feel ok.
the reason i told you all this is because you asked me why people take heroin. heroin is a chemical very very much like endorphins. it was invented to be a string pain killer for when people are badly hurt.
but people soon found you could make yourself feel even better than normal if you took heroin. this was because heroin is like a huge amount of endorphin all at once and as well as stopping you feel pain, endorphin makes you feels comfy and happy.
the problem with heroin is its too good. its basically cheating. and cheating makes you lazy. when somebody starts using heroin their body gets lazy because it doesnt need to make endorphins, heroin is doing all the work for it. if you keep taking lots of heroin the body's endorphin making bits shut down completly.
this is very bad, do you know why? well think about what happens if you stop taking heroin? theres no endorphins in your body... what happens when you hit your knee? there's no endorphins to make you feel better, so your knee is going to hurt for a very long time.
when this happens you soon realise that your endorphins were there all the time, masking pain you never knew existed till now. and you feel every single bit of pain, times a hundred...
once you hurt the bodies endorphin system it is almost impossible to make it better again. this is why people get addicted. they have changed their bodies. they will get sick and die if they stop taking it.
but unfortunately heroin makes you sick in other ways too... etc

this is what i'd tell my child, this is what i'd like all children to hear... im sure theres a good rational way of explaining MDMA to a child but i haven't thought that hard about it yet... maybe someone would like to give it a go?
[This message has been edited by johnboy (edited 29 April 2000).]
 
I wasn't saying you were being mean Mona! I know you never would be mean to me!
wink.gif
I was just telling everyone not to be mean to me..I dunno why, but it's just what I was thinking at the time. I keep forgetting that we're not here to put each other down, but to help each other UP!
This board turns to black instantly, although sometimes theres a bit of brown -- but u can't always be having the pure stuff..
JB, thats an excellent way to approach children with that topic. Can't wait to here your approach to MDMA once your brain goes "!" .. But that description is just perfect for children - as well as maybe a few examples of heroin users, saying it gets you high, but it doesn't take u anywhere higher in life, just lower.
cya
-- I want a message icon with a smiley face poking it's tongue out! ;p .. !!!!
..I just had to edit my post, coz the paragraph about JB's post - sound like i'm sucking upto him big time.. which i'm not.. I like didn't know anything at all about heroin, and now i know a bit about it in kiddy terms,,, it's vewwy norti! ;p
[This message has been edited by Raphsta (edited 29 April 2000).]
 
Re JB's explanation (which was excellent
smile.gif
) - One critisism: Easy way out? that argument won't go far *reaches for a panadol* damn now i'm just being picky
 
Just on a lighter note if any one in australia wants to watch a show on a current affair type of show watch Frontline. Very funny.
Its not about excasty but it is still a funny look at the behind the sceenes look of a 60 minutes type show.
 
I love Frontline. They show us episodes of Frontline all the time at uni (I do communications, used to do journalism, that's why my post is so jaded
smile.gif
)
mona.
 
*sneaks in forum in search of sensible discussion*
johnboy I really like how you illustrated endorphins to heroin and how it creates dependency. I've wondered what elements of a chemical/compound differentiate between one that creates dependency and one that does not.
My ecstasy speech to my little crumbsucker would be something like this: MDMA affects the chemicals in your brain that induce pleasure and euphoria (stop drooling junior) by releasing them at turbo speed, and if you use it too much, the mechanisms that deliver this chemical can become damaged - similar to lying a firehose on the ground and turning it on full blast - the nozzle would jump about, striking the ground, damaging it. The water running through it is like your brain chemicals, when the water runs out, you run the risk of burning out the pump itself.
So junior... find this stuff.. buy it... then bring it home to Daddy and I will dispose of it properly
smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Brock (edited 30 April 2000).]
 
here's annother great letter to 60 minutes that found its way onto the dancesafe mailing list:
"Dear 60 Minutes II:
I don't get much of my news of the world from television anymore.
The main reason for this is that there are too many shows like your recent one concerning MDMA ("ecstasy"). Even though the peole at MAPS gave you perfectly good references with which to carry out your claim that you wanted to do a "balanced" presentation, you seem simply to have ignored
them.
To begin with, MDMA is NOT "sweeping the country," nor is it "new." If you had been paying attention through the last sixty years of drug prohibition, you would have noticed that prohibition supporters *always* claim that whichever drug they are trying to demonize this season is "new," and that it is "sweeping the country." To repeat these tired, old, hysterical claims as fact was just the first of many egregious faults in
your reporting.
You also uncritically repeated the mysterious statistic of 40 supposed deaths in Florida over the last three years. (How many deaths were there in that time in Florida due to alcohol? to tobacco? to any other unbanned drug?) But you didn't bother to give your viewers any way to check on the validity of that statistic, largely because, as you should know, there isn't any. It's just another prohibitionist scare claim.
You report that MDMA use has "been skyrocketing" in the aftermath
of its being banned, as if this were somehow unusual. *Every* drug that is
banned enjoys boosted consumption, as prohibition reform advocates keep
trying to point out. This is *not* an argument for prohibition enforcement,
it is an argument *against* it.
You repeat, and even highlight, the ludicrous claim of cop drug spy Mike Stevens that MDMA "is no different from crack or heroin." All this comment really shows is that Mr. Stevens, like most cops, knows absolutely
nothing about pharmacology, yet you quote him as if he were some kind of expert on the subject. No doubt, *he* thinks he is, and even more, wants us to think of him as one, but anyone with any real knowledge about the real effects of banned drugs like MDMA would never make such a statement.
You also report that "profits are attracting many to the Ecstasy trade," as if this, too, were something new and different, something
peculiar to MDMA. But this, too, is just what *always* happens when prohibition kicks in: the value is inflated astronomically, creating a huge subsidy for the very market which the prohibitionists claim (with a
straight face!) that they are trying to stamp out. And you just let them get away with it. For shame.
Further, your string of quotes from Wilkie Wilson about the biochemical effects of MDMA, while all technically accurate, amount to
almost a case study in misrepresentation. I, personally, know enough about biochemistry to see how his statements mislead the average person, but, unfortunately, most of your views probably do not. You present him as if he were an impartial and trustworthy "expert," but he clearly has an agenda to
promote, and his hysterical rant about "a generation of depressed people, "because of a drug which people obviously take to make themselves feel *better,* is nothing short of ridiculous. Yet you let him make it without a
whiff of analysis of question.
In short, your piece continues the shameful tradition of journalism in modern America which slavishly helps prohibitionists market their agenda, and all of the distortions of reality on which it is based, instead of pursuing anything that can really be called objectivity, or "balance."
Disappointedly Yours,
Patrick L. Lilly
9 Normandy Cir.
Occupied Cheyenne Cañon
near Colo. Spgs., CO 80906"
 
Top