[10] Face the Facts by Anonymous

dr seuss

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
18,002
Location
all around you!
A reasonably educated Bluelighter would already know that doing drugs is like playing with fire- you always get the chance to be burned, but you'll get warm too
indeed.

reminder to everyone - if you think you have something else to contribute to this collection of essays, please by all means write one & submit it. we're always looking for more :)
 

PuristLove

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 11, 2000
Messages
1,694
All and all, this essay seems to go against what bluelight is really about: information, and letting users make the choice. This essay, to me, seems to be more preachy and say 'you should do this, you should not do this' whilst BL stance has always been: these are the facts, take it or leave it.
Actually, it seems to me like that is exactly what this essay was saying... these are the facts, do with them what you will, but don't kid yourself or convince yourself that those dangers are "just propoganda"
 

Kyo

Bluelighter
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
117
Location
Norway
The article claims that the Peter Jennings documentary focused too much on the positive side of mdma and not enough on the risks. I think that Mr. Jennings really did a good job on showing a different side of the drug than what we normally get from the media. As far as I know he told about the research available and that it really isn`t very good or enough of it. He also kept a strong focus on the goverments demonisation of drugs in general, wich in my opinion is a very big problem.

If anyone has any scientific material that shows damage from moderate use of mdma please please give me a link, this is something I`m really interested in. But the fact that a lot of the users who abuse heavily doesn`t really get fucked up, really gives me doubt that moderate use can give me much harm.

And yes there are some side effects to drugs if used a lot, but there is side effects to every substance we eat/take for pleasure, it doesn`t mean that the benefits of the drugs doesn`t outweigh the side effects.
 

Shimmer.Fade

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
4,554
Location
Germany
Kyo said:
But the fact that a lot of the users who abuse heavily doesn`t really get fucked up, really gives me doubt that moderate use can give me much harm. [/B]
Much harm? Sure it depends on what you consider much harm. Even moderate MDMA usage can potentially cause multiple problems mainly associated with depression/anxiety. Even moderate usage of MDMA can bring out and exaserbate these symptoms. When you take MDMA the flood of chemicals in your head can hardly be good for it, and I would actually go so far as to say that you are damaging/altering your brain.
 

UnSquare

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
10,063
Location
Antahkarana
Future Alliance Of Crap Theories

Catch-22 said:
And when you're dead, none of that knowledge you held matters, and that's a fact.
More facts in that esse'
than in Carl Cox's backcatalogue.
8)

Oh, and I'm addicted to alprazolam,
and I'd certainly care if "my world came crashing down."
That's a fact, son.
 

Brian Oblivion

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
2,353
Location
Atlanta, GA
If I may:
Shimmer.Fade said:
Even moderate MDMA usage can potentially cause multiple problems mainly associated with depression/anxiety.
There is no evidence to link MDMA and depression/anxiety (or panic attacks, for that matter). For example, by population ratios, it appears that the number of depression/anxiety/panic attack afflicted MDMA users is more or less equal to the percentage of persons likewise afflicted who do not use MDMA (i.e., the non-recreational drug population).

What complicates matters is that many people who have a pre-existing disorder often attempt (unconsciously) to self-medicate. This is the case with many types of drug abuse (alcohol, amphetamine, MDMA, opiates, etc.). A person suffering from any one of these symptoms would be especially attracted to MDMA due to the emotional feelings that it produces.

Given the rather large population of MDMA users worldwide, if MDMA were inducing these symptoms we would be seeing a large number of incidents of these disorders in this population. The fact is, that we don't. And the percentage of MDMA users suffering from these symptoms tends to be equal to the number of suffers in the non-drug user population.

Shimmer.Fade said:
When you take MDMA the flood of chemicals in your head can hardly be good for it...
That is simply conjecture (like saying, "it 'seems' true, therefore it 'must' be true").

There are many chemicals which flood your brain every day. There is no reason to assume, based solely on the notion that MDMA enters the brain, that it "must" produce damage.

I am NOT stating that MDMA is absolutely safe. What I am saying, is that the TRUTH regarding MDMA, and possible adverse health effects, can only be established through honest scientific study (in other words, actually "know" what the issues are, as opposed to creating myths which "seem" right).

Up until recently, almost all "scientific" MDMA research has been done using government funding, funding from agencies which benefit from negative test results. And the research methods used were basically designed to guarantee toxicity (by using massive overdoses as the base dose standard in the test subjects).

More recent studies, using recreational dosages on the test subjects, have found little or no neurotoxic effects from MDMA. There is much more study needed using ethical research methods, but we are currently far from being able to conclude that MDMA is neurotoxic (except in very large, "non-recreational" doses).


EDIT: BTW, taking a mouthful of pills in one night is not a recreational dose.

.
 
Last edited:

Kyo

Bluelighter
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
117
Location
Norway
well this saves me allot of time :) Brian`s post describes my feelings pretty good, just better than I would have managed with my poor english skills.

But shimmer.Fade if you could back up those statements with facts and or research that would be appreciated. As far as I know the people who get depressed/anxiety problems are heavy users, or they already had some sort of problem and they shouldn`t be doing drugs in the first place, but they do drugs because of their problem :(
 

Ximot

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
3,447
Location
South East Asia
I was addicted to antidepressants for awhile, and also to cannabis for a long time (don't like it much anymore, though it took years to find out) and I guess I do rely on alcohol socially, and on occasion to wind down in the evening from a taxing day...


and I do like coke... and I have had periods in my life where I would do coke or speed or meth for a few days in a row, or for a few weeks every so often... or e.... I just can't see myself actually getting hooked... there are phases where things look bleak without the stuff, and yet this just wears off and life just takes over, the drugs just don't mean that much... and yes, I have also tried opium and heroin. opium, whew, that was a close call, I thought, after just one week of smoking and eating it every day!! Bust what's the point? better break the pattern before it becomes the only thing you do. I was not in my usual setting, though, when I had my short fling with opioids... if I had been, who knows... I consciously don't seek access to it in my regular life...

the meth thing was 3 or 4 years ago... the speed thing even longer... meth and speed highs are so artificial, when I come down after a day or two I feel more like "never again" than like "gimme more" ... but then then that's me, I listen to my body... and the devil coke is simply too expensive, it is very addicting while it's there, I mean come on, isn't it nicer to use that money for a nice trip abroad? I don't run out scoring more when it's gone...

speaking of trips... hehe, I am addicted to the idea of delving deeper into the realm of the unconscious... the abstract... the whatever... I don't want to get into semantics regarding that... but the psychedelics are clearly what I am most attracted to, though the experience is never simply "fun" or in any way easy...

there is no one substance that I must have... but I'm just hooked on the whole RC thing... something "new" - ah now THAT is interesting%) even that, I don't alway have time for... I read about it way more than I actually spend time doing it ;)

I tend to be be fascinated with a substance for awhile... but to get addicted??? nah, the novelty wears off, and then it's time to move on.

oh, and I think since I managed to quit cigarettes (and I mean "quit", not "give up") I think I'm running a low risk of letting sth new take over so dramatically. Cos they were tricky. Till I got to know myself. And aw how I was fooling myself into believing I was enjoying them. (Thanks, Alan Carr!).


blah

what am I trying to say and why do I post it in this odd thread???

ehm...

self-knowledge... and just keeping it all in perspective maybe is what my grain of salt was gonna be in this here soup
 

bogka

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
6
I think what's covered in the essay is a little obvious and that it's better suited for a younger reader than myself.

David said:
Seriously though if everyone live a peacefully long exsistence we would still be trying to learn how to make fire.
Uh, yeah, O K. If it wasn't for the discovery of fire our primary goal as humans would still be our own survival. If it wasn't for fire the average life expectancy of humans would probably be somewhere around 20 years instead of 80. If it wasn't for fire we would still be more concerned about whether or not a bear is going to eat us tommorow than with using drugs. In fact, it is because of fire that humans are able to live long and peaceful lives.
 

eze451

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 19, 2003
Messages
840
Location
melbourne, australia
^ baseless speculation..... if we hadnt discovered fire when we did, who knows wat else we may have discovered instead, or how else we may have evolved....

sorry for the off-topic thoughts
 

David

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
6,366
Location
Hot desert Arizona
bogka said:
Uh, yeah, O K. If it wasn't for the discovery of fire our primary goal as humans would still be our own survival. If it wasn't for fire the average life expectancy of humans would probably be somewhere around 20 years instead of 80. If it wasn't for fire we would still be more concerned about whether or not a bear is going to eat us tommorow than with using drugs. In fact, it is because of fire that humans are able to live long and peaceful lives.

Why are you trying to rationalize sarcasm? How many people do you think died trying to create fire? How about trying to create anything we've discovered? With-out a need, and the risk, no discoveries can be made. MDMA might turn out to be the miracle depression drug we've been looking for. It might even become the next thing to provide insight into how our psyche works. Hell it might even cure cancer, well maybe not. Get the idea?

If you limit research, you limit progress. If you limit knowledge, you limit the truth.

Sorry, it's a bit off-topic.
 

Leprechaun

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 12, 2000
Messages
1,546
Location
Vic Australia
I recommend never taking any risks in your life! Atleast you won't know what your missing out on! =D

The closer you are to death, the more you want to hang to life. (Most of the time) :)
 

Dj_TranceMadness

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Messages
605
MaliceNwunderland said:
Living life has been proven to cause death.
That may sound all nice and dramatic, yet the truth is that u don't have a choice to be born or not but you do have a choice as to what you do with you're body
 

Chubba75

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
3,308
Quite dissapointed with this recent addition... c'mon Bluelight, lets get some positive harm-reduction.
 

xXTOKERXx

Bluelighter
Joined
May 22, 2003
Messages
5,378
Location
UK
this is really poor...

i mean, its not like a drug user doesnt know this? even addicts deep down know this...

i spose its a bit of a reality check for some...

but i pretty much could compare it to driving a car...

Let's face the facts. Drugs are dangerous. People take them and sometimes they die. Sometimes they end up addicted or brain damaged, or pass up dreams they once had or give away lives and loved ones. These are facts.
People drive cars, sometimes they crash, and some times they die, other times they survive with injuries, and sometimes even after a crash they drive again...

Responsible drug use is not safe drug use. There is no such thing as safe drug use. Responsible use increases your chances of surviving, but it certainly does not make you invincible. You can very responsibly test every pill you put in your body, know for certain it's MDMA and only MDMA, drink your water, take your 5-htp and still have some weird reaction that puts you in the hospital and ends your life. It's a fact
Respsonible driving is still not safe, one crash and it can end your life, thats a fact.

ome drugs are more dangerous than others. Opiates, cocaine and amphetamines are much more likely to hurt or kill you than ecstasy, psychedelics and cannabis. All drugs were not created equally. They have different properties and effects, and some of them are more addicting, or more neurotoxic, or more dangerous than others. This isn't a misconception, or propaganda, or an unfair stigma. It's a cold, hard fact.
Driving more powerful cars are generally more unsafe than others, compared to say driving a Range Rover which are not really that fast.. again this is a fact.

i could go on, but the point is there pretty much common sense facts rather than a well written essay portraying peoples views on how durg use should be handled..
 

diegoblunt

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
5,985
Location
The Mother Ship
Sure I don't like the misinformation, absolute terms and dramatisation of this essay ...but people should go easy on the annonymous poster, some of his/her points are valid, until they begin to lose their way ... but anyway, the point of my post was to point out that in the "about this project guidelines" there is this comment:
Sometimes perspectives will be clearly anti-drug while a different author might encourage responsible drug use.
Everyone is entitled to a different perspective. No single person or groups perspective is more or less correct than any other, it is simply another viewpoint. Appreciate this viewpoint as you do all the other perspectives on this site and then make up your mind regarding its validity. Don't immediately discard it just because it attempts to strike at something so core to most of our belief structures.
Drugs are dangerous. People take them and sometimes they die. Sometimes they end up addicted or brain damaged, or pass up dreams they once had or give away lives and loved ones. These are facts
You should have stopped there ;)
 

PuristLove

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 11, 2000
Messages
1,694
The first step in any harm reduction program is finding out the truth, and facing it. Sometimes even obvious truths are ignored. Sometimes they need to be pointed out.
 

Partykid12

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
2,447
Location
Ball-more, MD
I don't see how Opiates are more dangerous than Ecstasy. It might be more addictive but when we are talking about physical dangers... I think that Ecstasy takes the role of most dangerous (when comparing Ecstasy and Opiates). I also thought that Ecstasy and Amphetamines were just as dangerous as one and other...
 

PuristLove

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 11, 2000
Messages
1,694
I believe a comparison between deaths caused directly by opiate overdose and death caused by ecstasy overdose would quickly reveal a far greater number of opiate deaths than mdma.

As far as neurotoxicity goes, opiates are almost completely non-toxic while the toxicity of ecstasy is still in question.

And, of course, amphetamines and opiates are both physically addicting substances while ecstasy is only "dependancy" inducing.
 
Top