There’s certainly a few interesting issues raised in this thread.
It has been stated that I have a vested interest in seeing these products analysed. I don’t know that I’d say that’s the case, although as a chemist, a researcher and a HR supporter, I've certainly pushed hard for sophisticated forms of pill testing to be available to the public.
As such, one of my biggest concerns with this project was the possibility of media involvement. In particular, the media can only work within the conceptual frameworks of the dominant institutions within a society, which is why we always see drug use portrayed in certain ways (e.g., vilification of certain substances while normalising others). In doing so, true harm reduction is ultimately precluded. My concern is that media involvement with regard to the current situation will only lead to further vilification of recreational substance use.
Firstly, I’d say from experience that, to date in Australia, front line harm reduction has not been precluded by substance vilification through media portrayal. In some instances effectiveness may have been reduced by the introduction of groups preaching a more prohibitionist message, however,
real harm reduction outreach groups continue to work around the country - and effectively. Indeed, medics and related teams have endorsed aspects of harm reduction and are arguably less intolerant on the whole towards HR as a concept than they once were. Such pragmatism was required to facilitate their own effectiveness, just as groups such as RaveSafe have done for years. The HR Volunteer/ Peer Helper concept is also alive and well, and considered an important component of the patron safety strategy for many events.
As a result of recent upsurges in government directed media sensationalism, what might change in the future is how these groups are presented; how they are named, identified etc. But their principle objective of intervention to reduce harm will still be preserved, and will remain the focus. Within that paradigm, dissemination of accurate information is essential, as is a non-judgemental stance.
So, while the government message to the masses appears to only condemn drug use, in fact, front line government sponsored agencies often don't censure or condem recreational use outright. As I see it, the more media vilification that occurs, the more the argument relating to the importance of harm reduction outreach is upheld.
That people are willing to ingest the products without knowledge of the effects indicates that for some the consequences of the law are seen to be greater than the consequences of possible bad reactions to these new substances.
Zeal without knowledge is the sister of folly
Let me remind you that before the advent of harm reduction, this was often the only choice available, as info on sensible use practices was either non-existent or could not be validated other than through experiment. The advent of Harm Reduction/ Minimisation intended to change that and I believe it has, significantly so.
Sure, there are many who blindly take drugs without having the foggiest idea what's in them, but if you ask users if they want to know what's in the cap/ pill they're taking, most will say yes. This is well demonstrated by the numbers of people wishing to get their pills tested whenever Enlighten was doing onsite testing. Yes, we still have a great proportion of users consuming unknown substances seemingly without fear, but the fact is that more users today
are aware of possible dangers to their health, and as such, even though they may bow to temptation, they're often still interested in knowing what the risks are. Harm Reduction has reached many, and because there will always be new 'recruits' and those who've missed previous messages, it’s vitally important HR continues to be emphasised and reviewed so as to meet current and future trends.
Blindly assuming that the products in question (neorg. range) are either safe, pure or prepared in ideal environments is foolhardy, as a shiny looking website is never any guarantee. And that's all you really have. If the products had a stamp of approval from the Israeli pharmaceutical guild or equivalent body, then perhaps you could feel somewhat secure. And so, as per the above proverb, whether we classify ourselves as responsible users, medical practitioners, or professionals/academics working in the field of drug use, we should never stoop to accepting that silence is preferable over information. While most of us feel it's impossible to credibly influence proposed legislative changes or prohibitionist idealism, I believe we all have a moral duty to, at least try to reduce harm through providing credible knowledge and opportunity for discourse.
In relation to the thread title, it's also interesting to note that while some disagreement has been voiced in regards to making public the analytical results of the neorg. products, there were few if any objections raised by users when pill testing services were proposed and this proposal presented to authorities. Such a service would have meant these and similar products would have been analysed the moment they had surfaced, thereby servicing the drug using community, medical workers and LE, as all test results under such a scheme would be made public. If ecstasydata.org could
comprehensively analyse each and every tablet, then this information would also be available to authorities.
So, what's the difference between the outcomes of the neorg. test results, and those from a hypothetical Enlighten or Ecstasydata model where results from sophisticated analytical methods would effectively be shared between all the above mentioned departments?
As the introduction of new compounds is expected to increase dramatically over coming years, the distinction between good drugs bad drugs will not be as black and white. There’s almost a ‘semantical void’ between indications for drug use/treatment. At one end we have pharmaceutical therapy, and the other, abuse. In-between recreational use and prescribed use there’s little (in a title) to further define the self perceived social, medical or psychologically basis for people using drugs. To expand on this will be essential in order to change the mindset of those currently opposed to any and all non-prescribed drug use.
Portraying psychoactive drugs as health products may seem on the surface as a deceptive ploy, yet I believe this term is quite appropriate
if the description is not misleading, and the profiles of the substances are well known and regarded as relatively safe, as is done with health products.
So, I see current media vilification of recreational (for want of a better word) substances as being essential in shifting the paradigm towards a more acceptable basis for use of these drugs. As indicated, this won’t include any and all substances, but instead provide a framework for the introduction of new legislative classes of drug as was done in New Zealand. However, unlike NZ, I believe when this occurs in Australia it will inevitably involve approval bodies such as the TGA together with medical, legal and sociological advisors. There’s not a medical doctor out there that wouldn’t regularly see the impact of alcohol on health and wellbeing. Even, if for many, there’s a sharp moral objection to normalizing recreational drug use, few can argue that a safer, legal alternative is not desirable.
While some may see this thought as too simplistic, I’m convinced that in identifying these and similar products, the process of reform will be hastened. Will this involve further scheduling as a consequence? Or media sensationalism? Undoubtedly. But any alternative to increasing awareness among the general population, is, IMO, doomed to failure, and will, from legal, social and health perspectives, probably also involve higher numbers of user casualties.
As I’ve said before, the moment reform is on the drawing board, many academics will come out of their respective department forced closets. deconstructionist’s own dilemma of maintaining professional – personal segregation is a perfect example of how others have had to move in order to retain their position. The present problem of many therefore, is how to retain credibility within current academic directives while expressing personal opinions.
To paraphrase Graham Chapman;
Get it out in the open, I know I have....
