melburn_madness
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2003
- Messages
- 405
They say that the media reflects society and society reflects the media.
When we all woke up on Monday 8 March, the media informed us that there was a GHB problem. They have given us news like this before. In 1995, we were informed there was an ecstasy problem. We were also told there was GHB problem in 1996. Many have scoffed at these assertions. Has GHB been as much or as little of a problem as it has always been before 11 people fell over at an event? Is this sort of incident an indicator of the problem or is it simply a single event anomaly where a few people were concurrently irresponsible?
Whether GHB is a “problem” or not is a matter of perception. The people who least think there is a problem are the people taking G. For them, it either works, and they have a great time, as is intended when you take a recreational drug or they overdose, get picked up by event medical staff and/or the ambulance service, and wake up in hospital 6-12 hours later. It is a bit like the old clichéd t-shirt “I don’t have a drinking problem…I drink, I fall over, no problem…”
But is it a problem for everyone else? Many people who use drugs would argue that their recreational activities aren’t a problem as long as they are aren’t affecting anyone else. True to some degree, but the problem with GHB seems to be that it is affecting others in ways that are not so obvious.
It is a widely held belief that if you get drunk and drive your car, you are dangerous and can hurt someone. That, combined with the legal penalties, is why most people don’t do it. That is an obvious example of how drug use is dangerous to society. However, less people would realize that alcohol costs Australian society several billion dollars in health care costs per year, is one of the largest risk factors in cardiovascular disease, has a major effect on the destruction of relationships, and is one of the single largest factors in domestic violence. Even if they did know this, they probably wouldn’t change their drinking habits until there was an event where alcohol directly affected their health or lifestyle in a significant way.
So let’s apply the same argument to GHB. Many say GHB is a safe drug. It depends again on your perception of safe. It does have a low death rate compared to other drugs such as heroin, alcohol, and tobacco. Many think there have been no GHB related deaths but best evidence suggests there have been several in NSW in the last few years. Clearly part of the low death rate is the quality of medical care provided to those who overdose on GHB. GHB overdoses are relatively simple in their management (provided they are not complicated by other factors such as the use of ‘amphetamines’). There have been no reported deaths from GHB overdoses where first aid or ambulance services have been accessed in a timely manner by bystanders or friends of the overdosed patient.
But is it enough just to save everyone who overdoses on GHB? In simple terms, they live and are probably missing about 10 hours of their life. However, this is not the only cost. What of the friends who had to drag them out of the club or party and ring 000? What about the club who has to allocate several security guards and/or a medic to look after the overdosed patient until the ambulance comes? What about the hospital staff who are allocated to watching this patient for hours until they wake up, to ensure there are no complications? What about the event which may entertain thousands but never runs again because of increased police scrutiny, negative publicity, and insurance premiums which suddenly go through the roof?
If we are measuring the GHB problem in terms of death and disability, then there is a far lesser problem. Friends will continue to drag their mates out of events, ambulances will continue to come and collect overdosed punters, and hospitals will continue to save their lives when they are unable to breathe for themselves.
But what if your mates decide they are sick of dragging you out of a club every few weeks and stop inviting you out? What if it was your mother or father or child who was critically ill and needed the ambulance or hospital bed which was allocated to monitoring a GHB patient who will wake up in a few hours and walk out the door as though nothing had happened? What if your favorite event decided to pack it in because the insurance costs imposed upon them because of previous negative outcomes made the event financially unviable? These are the costs of GHB that people often seem to overlook.
The costs of GHB use apply to both the user and society. The costs of managing a single GHB overdose to the taxpayer is in the thousands of dollars when you consider the cost of ambulance transport, hospital staff and health infrastructure. It also means a great deal of health infrastructure is tied up on patients who have essentially created their own medical emergency. A major Sydney hospital has reported a twelve-fold increase in GHB overdoses between 2002 and 2004. It is not uncommon for them to have 4-5 GHB overdoses in the department at any given time. DAWN monitoring data from the US reports that GHB has now surpassed MDMA for hospital emergency department visits, and numbers in that country go well into the thousands.
Event promoters are also growing increasingly wary of GHB and its effect on their business. Despite their best efforts, in many cases promoters only have limited control over people’s personal choice and at best can support harm minimisation messages and engage quality on-site medical services. While these measures clearly have an effect on minimising GHB related harm, they may not prevent incidents of intense load on health resources. It also opens the question: is it the promoter’s job to manage the effects of your actions?
Society in general has always been disapproving of youth culture. We experience it, our parents experienced it, and their parents experienced it. Governments, reflecting the will of the general voting public, will form policies based on what they either think society wants or needs. Sometimes this is driven by social reaction to isolated events. People have to accept that that is the way that government and society can work.
If you examine the current media coverage, the underlying issue is that people overdosing on recreational drugs, are causing a strain on health care and making events unsafe. If you think this is a knee jerk reaction, you may be right, but it is the sort of reaction that prompts governments and business into action and policies.
Now, imagine what will happen if a major daily paper runs a story about someone’s child dying from traumatic injuries or an asthma attack or drowning because all the critical care beds at the nearest hospital were taken up with GHB overdoses. The government of the day is likely to be crucified if they don’t do something dramatic and decisive in the eyes of the people – so they will. Think this is fantasy? Well, every weekend, hospital staff breathe a sigh of relief that this is not the weekend that it happened which means NEXT weekend might be THAT weekend.
Most people in the health and drug and alcohol areas have taken a strong stance against the use of GHB and GHB precursors. This is not because we believe that GHB is a morally unsound drug, it is because it is much harder for us to apply harm minimisation strategies effectively to this drug. In comparison with many other recreational club drugs, GHB and its precursors carry a larger number of risks compared to the recreational benefits.
Education only has a limited effect on managing GHB related harm. The substance itself carries a number of variables, which make responsible use difficult. While dosing can be taught for many drugs to control negative effects, there are virtually no ways of telling purer GHB from its precursor drugs 1,4-Butanediol and Gammabutylactone (GBL), especially prior to ingestion. 1,4-BD and GBL metabolise in the body to GHB through different pathways and at variable potencies. GHB potency, unlike pills, cannot be tested, so each dose is in essence a gamble to see if the dose and potency you believe you purchased is in fact correct.
The other disconcerting thing for people in the drug and alcohol and health areas is the large amount of misinformation circulating about this group of drugs. While there will always be dubious information circulating amongst users of any substance, much of the information about GHB is not only incorrect but clearly dangerous. Commonly held views including all GHB overdoses will just sleep it off and that crystal methamphetamine is an effective antidote to GHB overdose are not only extremely dangerous but have been directly linked to GHB related deaths.
The patterns of GHB usage are also changing. GHB is increasingly being used at house parties and private functions, which don’t have the benefit of the on-site medical services found at larger clubs and dance parties. This compounds the risk for those who overdose on GHB because they have less access to professional advice and assistance. The majority of GHB related deaths have occurred not at clubs and events but at people’s homes.
Harm minimisation as a principle involves people having freedom of choice to do what they want with their bodies, but this is contingent on clear understanding of risks and how to avoid and manage them. The rate of GHB overdose and harm in Australia is indicative that harm minimisation is being less effective than would be optimal for this particular family of drugs. As harm minimisation seeks to overcome issues of irresponsible usage patterns, we can only provide so much support and information to keep these issues under control before government and society in general will consider this problem of such gravity that it will take actions to control it which will be considered by many to be restrictive, harsh, and punitive.
The real tragedy in this whole debate is the divisions being created. GHB users often blame those who overdose for being irresponsible and uneducated. Others point the finger at GHB users and blame them for attracting negative publicity to the dance music and youth culture. All in all, everyone is trying to protect what they believe is important. Users wish to protect their freedom of choice to use drugs they find attractive. Others in the community wish to preserve their culture with minimal governmental and societal interference.
If the patterns of GHB usage continue, the results cannot be good for users, the dance industry, or youth culture in general. Deaths have occurred and will - at this rate - continue to occur. The impact on society is hard to see, but will become blindingly evident as we have more high profile events linked to GHB use. More people are using G and appear to have less information on doing so. This combined with the unstable nature of the drug poses a formidable challenge for those involved in health, harm reduction and dance event management. Ultimately the only people who can make a real impact on this situation are those who may chose to use (or not use) GHB.
Buck Reed is Chief Medic at home nightclub and CEO of UniMed, a volunteer organisation which provides medical coverage to many of Sydney's major dance parties and events. He has responded to over 40 GHB overdoses in the last 12 months and is involved with various harm reduction strategies being developed for GHB.
Reported on Wednesday, Mar 24, 2004. 15:01 by Buck Reed
Link
A good read
When we all woke up on Monday 8 March, the media informed us that there was a GHB problem. They have given us news like this before. In 1995, we were informed there was an ecstasy problem. We were also told there was GHB problem in 1996. Many have scoffed at these assertions. Has GHB been as much or as little of a problem as it has always been before 11 people fell over at an event? Is this sort of incident an indicator of the problem or is it simply a single event anomaly where a few people were concurrently irresponsible?
Whether GHB is a “problem” or not is a matter of perception. The people who least think there is a problem are the people taking G. For them, it either works, and they have a great time, as is intended when you take a recreational drug or they overdose, get picked up by event medical staff and/or the ambulance service, and wake up in hospital 6-12 hours later. It is a bit like the old clichéd t-shirt “I don’t have a drinking problem…I drink, I fall over, no problem…”
But is it a problem for everyone else? Many people who use drugs would argue that their recreational activities aren’t a problem as long as they are aren’t affecting anyone else. True to some degree, but the problem with GHB seems to be that it is affecting others in ways that are not so obvious.
It is a widely held belief that if you get drunk and drive your car, you are dangerous and can hurt someone. That, combined with the legal penalties, is why most people don’t do it. That is an obvious example of how drug use is dangerous to society. However, less people would realize that alcohol costs Australian society several billion dollars in health care costs per year, is one of the largest risk factors in cardiovascular disease, has a major effect on the destruction of relationships, and is one of the single largest factors in domestic violence. Even if they did know this, they probably wouldn’t change their drinking habits until there was an event where alcohol directly affected their health or lifestyle in a significant way.
So let’s apply the same argument to GHB. Many say GHB is a safe drug. It depends again on your perception of safe. It does have a low death rate compared to other drugs such as heroin, alcohol, and tobacco. Many think there have been no GHB related deaths but best evidence suggests there have been several in NSW in the last few years. Clearly part of the low death rate is the quality of medical care provided to those who overdose on GHB. GHB overdoses are relatively simple in their management (provided they are not complicated by other factors such as the use of ‘amphetamines’). There have been no reported deaths from GHB overdoses where first aid or ambulance services have been accessed in a timely manner by bystanders or friends of the overdosed patient.
But is it enough just to save everyone who overdoses on GHB? In simple terms, they live and are probably missing about 10 hours of their life. However, this is not the only cost. What of the friends who had to drag them out of the club or party and ring 000? What about the club who has to allocate several security guards and/or a medic to look after the overdosed patient until the ambulance comes? What about the hospital staff who are allocated to watching this patient for hours until they wake up, to ensure there are no complications? What about the event which may entertain thousands but never runs again because of increased police scrutiny, negative publicity, and insurance premiums which suddenly go through the roof?
If we are measuring the GHB problem in terms of death and disability, then there is a far lesser problem. Friends will continue to drag their mates out of events, ambulances will continue to come and collect overdosed punters, and hospitals will continue to save their lives when they are unable to breathe for themselves.
But what if your mates decide they are sick of dragging you out of a club every few weeks and stop inviting you out? What if it was your mother or father or child who was critically ill and needed the ambulance or hospital bed which was allocated to monitoring a GHB patient who will wake up in a few hours and walk out the door as though nothing had happened? What if your favorite event decided to pack it in because the insurance costs imposed upon them because of previous negative outcomes made the event financially unviable? These are the costs of GHB that people often seem to overlook.
The costs of GHB use apply to both the user and society. The costs of managing a single GHB overdose to the taxpayer is in the thousands of dollars when you consider the cost of ambulance transport, hospital staff and health infrastructure. It also means a great deal of health infrastructure is tied up on patients who have essentially created their own medical emergency. A major Sydney hospital has reported a twelve-fold increase in GHB overdoses between 2002 and 2004. It is not uncommon for them to have 4-5 GHB overdoses in the department at any given time. DAWN monitoring data from the US reports that GHB has now surpassed MDMA for hospital emergency department visits, and numbers in that country go well into the thousands.
Event promoters are also growing increasingly wary of GHB and its effect on their business. Despite their best efforts, in many cases promoters only have limited control over people’s personal choice and at best can support harm minimisation messages and engage quality on-site medical services. While these measures clearly have an effect on minimising GHB related harm, they may not prevent incidents of intense load on health resources. It also opens the question: is it the promoter’s job to manage the effects of your actions?
Society in general has always been disapproving of youth culture. We experience it, our parents experienced it, and their parents experienced it. Governments, reflecting the will of the general voting public, will form policies based on what they either think society wants or needs. Sometimes this is driven by social reaction to isolated events. People have to accept that that is the way that government and society can work.
If you examine the current media coverage, the underlying issue is that people overdosing on recreational drugs, are causing a strain on health care and making events unsafe. If you think this is a knee jerk reaction, you may be right, but it is the sort of reaction that prompts governments and business into action and policies.
Now, imagine what will happen if a major daily paper runs a story about someone’s child dying from traumatic injuries or an asthma attack or drowning because all the critical care beds at the nearest hospital were taken up with GHB overdoses. The government of the day is likely to be crucified if they don’t do something dramatic and decisive in the eyes of the people – so they will. Think this is fantasy? Well, every weekend, hospital staff breathe a sigh of relief that this is not the weekend that it happened which means NEXT weekend might be THAT weekend.
Most people in the health and drug and alcohol areas have taken a strong stance against the use of GHB and GHB precursors. This is not because we believe that GHB is a morally unsound drug, it is because it is much harder for us to apply harm minimisation strategies effectively to this drug. In comparison with many other recreational club drugs, GHB and its precursors carry a larger number of risks compared to the recreational benefits.
Education only has a limited effect on managing GHB related harm. The substance itself carries a number of variables, which make responsible use difficult. While dosing can be taught for many drugs to control negative effects, there are virtually no ways of telling purer GHB from its precursor drugs 1,4-Butanediol and Gammabutylactone (GBL), especially prior to ingestion. 1,4-BD and GBL metabolise in the body to GHB through different pathways and at variable potencies. GHB potency, unlike pills, cannot be tested, so each dose is in essence a gamble to see if the dose and potency you believe you purchased is in fact correct.
The other disconcerting thing for people in the drug and alcohol and health areas is the large amount of misinformation circulating about this group of drugs. While there will always be dubious information circulating amongst users of any substance, much of the information about GHB is not only incorrect but clearly dangerous. Commonly held views including all GHB overdoses will just sleep it off and that crystal methamphetamine is an effective antidote to GHB overdose are not only extremely dangerous but have been directly linked to GHB related deaths.
The patterns of GHB usage are also changing. GHB is increasingly being used at house parties and private functions, which don’t have the benefit of the on-site medical services found at larger clubs and dance parties. This compounds the risk for those who overdose on GHB because they have less access to professional advice and assistance. The majority of GHB related deaths have occurred not at clubs and events but at people’s homes.
Harm minimisation as a principle involves people having freedom of choice to do what they want with their bodies, but this is contingent on clear understanding of risks and how to avoid and manage them. The rate of GHB overdose and harm in Australia is indicative that harm minimisation is being less effective than would be optimal for this particular family of drugs. As harm minimisation seeks to overcome issues of irresponsible usage patterns, we can only provide so much support and information to keep these issues under control before government and society in general will consider this problem of such gravity that it will take actions to control it which will be considered by many to be restrictive, harsh, and punitive.
The real tragedy in this whole debate is the divisions being created. GHB users often blame those who overdose for being irresponsible and uneducated. Others point the finger at GHB users and blame them for attracting negative publicity to the dance music and youth culture. All in all, everyone is trying to protect what they believe is important. Users wish to protect their freedom of choice to use drugs they find attractive. Others in the community wish to preserve their culture with minimal governmental and societal interference.
If the patterns of GHB usage continue, the results cannot be good for users, the dance industry, or youth culture in general. Deaths have occurred and will - at this rate - continue to occur. The impact on society is hard to see, but will become blindingly evident as we have more high profile events linked to GHB use. More people are using G and appear to have less information on doing so. This combined with the unstable nature of the drug poses a formidable challenge for those involved in health, harm reduction and dance event management. Ultimately the only people who can make a real impact on this situation are those who may chose to use (or not use) GHB.
Buck Reed is Chief Medic at home nightclub and CEO of UniMed, a volunteer organisation which provides medical coverage to many of Sydney's major dance parties and events. He has responded to over 40 GHB overdoses in the last 12 months and is involved with various harm reduction strategies being developed for GHB.
Reported on Wednesday, Mar 24, 2004. 15:01 by Buck Reed
Link
A good read
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
