To inform or not to inform

[raven3davis]

"Man those tabs were good, they were definitely heroin based"


I know everyone here has probably heard someone say something completely false about drugs. SWIM hears shit like this all the time. The last bogus thing he heard was "DOB, man that shit sucks, it just decomposes to lsd-25." That one really got me! SWIM wishes it decomposed to lsd-25, because he has two hits of shitty DOB blotter that he doesnt even want. So I know everyone has heard something like this. My question to you is, what do you do when you hear something like that. In the past I have argued with people and told them that there is no heroin in tabs etc, but no a days I have given up. When I hear people say things like that I'm just like, ohh cool man. The only exception is if it is one of my good friends. First of all, most of my good friends dont say shit like that, and if they do, they know that I am knowledgable and if I tell them differently they will listen. Some people you just cant argue with and it isnt worth it sometimes. I would like to inform people that what they are saying is complete bullshit, and that these kinds of rumors are what give drugs a bad rep, but normally the kinds of people who say stuff like that are not knoledgable and they will argue with you all day long. So what do you do in these kinds of situations? Have you ever heard a completely bogus myth? Are you like me, and does it depend if its a friend or what?

[BrugmansiaBrujo]

Yea, heard a thousand bogus tales over the years. Like "hey, I
got these great mescaline microdots". That's not possible, no way
to get an average 400mg dose of mescaline in a microdot (a large gelcap
or two maybe, but not in a microdot), most likely they were LSD.



SWIM always tries to educate the myth teller, but SWIM will not beat
his head against a brick wall either. If the myth teller does not want
to listen to logic and reason, SWIM abandons the attempt to
educate. But SWIM always at least tried to educate first.



Send any unwanted DOB blotters to SWIM, SWIM likes anything


Edited by: BrugmansiaBrujo

[Nagognog2]

I always liked the one about how peyote buttons have strychnine in their fur, and that's why you have to remove the fuzz from them (actually it's just cotton and might get stuck in your throat).

[Chaote]

It realy depends on the situation, like when i was in high school if something came up in class that was wrong, like whatr hash was, i would correct it, remeber telling my socioalogy class how to make hash, including my teacher, i generally do it if it is going to a mass audience less so if it is one person

[raven3davis]

HAHA I heard another good one today. Someone was saying how acid makes your brain drip down your spine! He also was telling about a story of someone at a party with sheets of cid in their pocket who is permafried because the cops came and he ran out into a sprinkler. Now he is a glass of orange juice or something like that. I have heard that myth so many times. Everyone seems to know someone who has turned into a glass of orangejuice from taking too much acid Yea right. I didnt even bother trying to argue with the kid I just laughed and said, wow thats crazy. Sometimes its tempting, and it the situation permits I will set someone straight but normally I just listen and think to myself "yea right." If I know the person will listen to what I have to say I might open my mouth but some people just wont change their pattern of thought no matter what you tell them. I have heard about mescaline microdots too but have never had anyone try to sell them to me. What are they normally, just LSD or are they high powered pheneyhylamines like DOM or something? Obviously mescaline cant fit into a microdot but there are quite a few chemicals that can. Im just interested what it normally is that people try to market as "mescaline microdots."

[BrugmansiaBrujo]

The microdots SWIM was offered (and took) were almost certainly LSD,
because they were running around in 1974, well before most any of the
new chemz were invented. SWIM supposes they could have been STP,
but they felt just like acid, so that's SWIM's guess.



They were pretty good at the time, SWIM wishes he had a 100 or so of them now.

[Nostradamus]

I just laugh when people would tell me weed with crystals on it is laced with coke.

[Nagognog2]

I've seen the so-called mescaline microdots. Took samples to the lab. Usually they were LSD. Then in the late '70's came a flood of DOB. Rarely would I find DOM (STP). The DOB's were especially disturbing as they caused some really nasty anxiety attacks and delusional psychoses in quite a few people. The biggest distributor of these little purple trips to the hospital was also the biggest cocaine dealer in the area where I was. Shows the mentality behind this flood. $$$$$$$$!!

[Creeping Death]

I try my best to teach people who dont know something new. I dont argue about it though. Not for very long anyway.

"Weed rotts your brain".

[Benga]

I inform when I can, but most people want to hang on to what they heard....


strychnine as a bonding agent for LSD blotters, causing aching joints and what not...that was a good one, heard it all the time


and coke related lore... always source of amazement : "I only buy cocaine that comes in rock form, it's more pure", "this coke is leaf based, not synthethic, I only buy leaf base because it's less speedy", " if you look at the coke, you can tell if it's leafbased or not".


"Freebase is less "dangerous" than crack"


"crack is instant addiction : smoke it once, you're hooked"


a weird one, from Dutch (!)smartshop leaflets : "if you want to stop a mushroom trip, drink lots of orange juice, vitamin C stops the trip"


Baudelaire smoked a lot of hash ( thanks to Gauthier, he did try the dawamesk, cannabis "jam", a couple of times, and was rather turned off). I must say i find the tendency to want to try and relate famous people and substance use often misplaced and annoying...though this is worth pointing out for some people, these list that circulate linking a name to a substance are way too simplistic and ideological for me


...

[antigenesis]

Once upon a time my mom found my diethyl ether and I got grounded for
many months because the police chief told her that it was an ingredient
in crack.



Also, I have tried to argue against people that say weed gives you
brain damage, that LSD stays in your spinal cord, taking LSD 3 times
and you need a spinal tap, and that if you take LSD 10 times or
someshit you're legally insane.



If there is one pet peeve of mine its stupid people that resist being educated!!!


Edited by: antigenesis

[raven3davis]

Yea the whole lsd and spinal cord myth seems to stick with lots of people. I have heard several variations too. Anywhere from, LSD stays in your spinal cord forever and can be detected in a spinal tap, to LSD causes your brain to bleed down to your spinal coard. I think people make that shit up maybe because acid gives them back aches. It has done the same to SWIM, but he didnt start making shit up because of it. Yea SWIM agrees that is one of his big pet peeves too. Thats why he has pretty much given up on some people. It would be nice if everyone actually wanted to learn something about drugs and educate themselves about the drugs they take but some people just dont. What I want to know is why these people still take the drugs if they believe these myths? I mean If I really though LSD made your brain bleed then there is no chance in the world I would actually take it. Too bad most police arent very informed either. I remember the dare officer saying shit like "LSD is given to children as candy" just total bull. I wonder if they actually convince themselves to believe this stuff or are they just blatantly lying to trick kids into thinking drugs are the worst thing ever.

[Benga]

and then there's the whole one drug leads to another theory. If you take this you will end up taken this...


While there are some elements of truth in that, it's just not the way it works : again simplistic as hell.


People might try other substance because :


They'recurrently in adynamic where they want to take substances, experiment with the effect of drugs : it's not the drug that's leading to and to...swim's fist drug experiences were alcohol and tobacco.Thencannabis. Does this mean alcohol leads to cannabis ?


most products areillegal, hence users have to deal withpeople with profit in their mind, no control, no information, that are profit motivatedand will give you access to something else.


luckily this prohibitionist drug myth is starting to fade away, as people get more information, but it's still sticky, especially for older generations

[Benga]

and then, though this might be shocking to some of you, I think the whole "soft drug-hard drugs" logic has lead to people forging certain strange "morals", codes,about substances which are sometimes somewhat odd...


I won't go into this here (check the "if drugs were legal" thread if you want my fuller opinion) but I believe all drugs should be legalised, and substance use dealt with as a social and eventually medical problem, and not a legal moral one. The hard drug soft drug logic was useful in the fighting against prohibition, but what of it ?


Some drus are physically addictive, some are psychologically addictive, some both...all drugs have the potential to screw someone up in one way or another, it all depends on the way the substance is used and the user himself...


anyway, just to say that i find the "i'll do this butstay clear of hard drugs" ( in which MDMA, RC's, cocaine, opiates may or may not be included) sometimes a little odd, and based on folklore rather than facts

[thegod1]

I've heard a lot of myths,I don't even bother to explain the truth no more, it normally doesn't get anywhere.

Benga, I think there is a difference to "hard drugs" and "soft drugs"... In my oppinion and swim's personal experience, Cocaine for example has more potentialof fucking up someone's life than marijuana. Not only because its addictive, but it can cause a lot of otherproblems if you let it. ButI do agree that all drugs can ruin somebodys life if they let it.

[dirk]

Originally Posted by benga

a weird one, from Dutch (!)smartshop leaflets : "if you want to stop a mushroom trip, drink lots of orange juice, vitamin C stops the trip"

Don't dismiss this one out of hand, It's a very usefull myth to have when you have a nervous first time tripper on your hands.


If they get to a state whenthey are saying


"I want it all to stop NOW!"


you thensay


"OK, we''ldrink some orange juice, it will take some time to kick in, but works best if we get ourselves to a safe, calm environment and try to calm down as much as possible"


It's worked for me when I was sitting a first timer, five minutes later (even without drinking any OJ), everything was totaly cool.

[Benga]

Originally Posted by dirk

Don't dismiss this one out of hand, It's a very usefull myth to have when you have a nervous first time tripper on your hands.If they get to a state whenthey are saying "I want it all to stop NOW!" you thensay


"OK, we''ldrink some orange juice, it will take some time to kick in, but works best if we get ourselves to a safe, calm environment and try to calm down as much as possible"It's worked for me when I was sitting a first timer, five minutes later (even without drinking any OJ), everything was totaly cool.

I kind of figured that it was a psychological measure, so that people tripping think there is a simple way to stop the trip, and i'm sure it can help, as autosuggestion can be quite strong as well (well I just drank a liter or OJ so i'll be coming back down")


However it is still false information, and that's what i find disturbing for a smartshop leaflet... And if someone just ended up thinking it would work ---and it didn't--- that would be pretty hellish, in the "am I stuck or permafried" way...


SWIM's first acid trip, before internet info : knew all about effects of LSD from reading, except duration, comedowns... when he got home at 5amafter maybe 8/ 9 hours of tripping and having toked up, went to bed and found he was still "there", it began being rather scary, and no one around to mention this with... ended well, but still, would have been better off with real duration info...


Security blankets I can understand, but i stillthink it would be more responsable, and safe, to stick to facts when informing people. Mushrooms are a lot of fun and insightful, yet you should know what you're going into, it's not like having a beer...


bEdited by: benga

[Benga]

Originally Posted by thegod1

Benga, I think there is a difference to "hard drugs" and "soft drugs"... In my oppinion and swim's personal experience, Cocaine for example has more potentialof fucking up someone's life than marijuana. Not only because its addictive, but it can cause a lot of otherproblems if you let it. ButI do agree that all drugs can ruin somebodys life if they let it.

I agree with you on that. Yet I still don't think this "potential to ruin's someone's life" is clear enough to draw a clear line between substances. all have their drawbacks which are linked to the nature of the substance itself, mode type of use and the user itself. so called soft drugs can be used in a "hard" way and so called "hard" drugs can be used recreationally.


On the example of cocaine, how much of this life ruining potential comes from actual prohibition ? If the substance was available for a reasonable price, garanteed purity and with real information and advice/councelling in pharmacies, would we face an epidemic of screwed up IV users shooting every 10 minutes or would this lead to another form of more responsable use ? Even if it was the first option, I still think that this would be a better way to deal with the substance and its addiction problems than prohibition, for reasons of health andpublic safety (addiction + high cost = crime, lucrative smuggling and selling = crime). And addiction to any substance i see as a health (mental or physical) and social problem, and I believe it should be treated as such.


Who wants to become an alcoholic ? what is the appeal ? and whenit does happen, is this a crime to which the solution would be alcohol prohibition, or a health and social one ?


in a way, i believe prohibitionist thinking is more often than not based on distorted analysis, hypocrisy and moral values stigmatising substance use, whereas i think substance use is just one way a certain aspect, driveof human personality expresses itself, and is only negatives when medico-social problems arise. And one of the things i regret about hard-drug / soft-drug distinctions is that they maintain a form of prohibitionist logic, instead of rethinking the problem in a more realistic way.


bEdited by: benga

[Nagognog2]

"Marijuana is the match. Heroin is the fuse. And LSD is the bomb!" - Jack Webb as Sgt. Joe Friday in the TV series Dragnet

[big-lester]

Originally Posted by thegod1

I've heard a lot of myths,I don't even bother to
explain the truth no more, it normally doesn't get anywhere.

Benga,
I think there is a difference to "hard drugs" and "soft drugs"... In my
oppinion and swim's personal experience, Cocaine for example has more
potentialof fucking up someone's life than marijuana. Not only
because its addictive, but it can cause a lot of otherproblems if
you let it. ButI do agree that all drugs can ruin somebodys life
if they let it.

you do have a point there, but for example here in holland mushrooms
are classified as harddrugs, along wiv coke, and i don't think
mushrooms can ruin your life, at least not in the way coke can.

[thegod1]

Mushrooms are illegal here in the UK to. But im not going with the law and what they say, im saying this on my oppinions an facts on drugs. I don't think mushrooms can ruin your lifeeither, or maybe in very rare cases.


I think Benga is definatly right about it being down to the user and if their responsble enough to control their drug use... But I do think some drugs hold more of a chance of addiction/crime than others.
I get what your saying about "soft drugs used in a hard way" but if it was marijuana someonesbeing dependent on, there isn'ta risk of OD'inas with some other drugs.


I understand that no drug is perfect but I think drugs that have a higher chance of deathshouldn't be looked as the same as marijuana.

[Benga]

Originally Posted by thegod1

But I do think some drugs hold more of a chance of addiction/crime than others.
I get what your saying about "soft drugs used in a hard way" but if it was marijuana someonesbeing dependent on, there isn'ta risk of OD'inas with some other drugs.


I understand that no drug is perfect but I think drugs that have a higher chance of deathshouldn't be looked as the same as marijuana.

true, but drug classification are not based on actual physical qualities of substances. It is much harder to OD via insufflated cocaine than with benzo's for instance. when you're given a box of pills, if you take the whole box you will die. The same thinking should apply for heroin.


besides, most of the heroin od's don't come from the user becoming greedy but from lack of product quality control ( potency, cuts), lack of information and unsafe using conditions. I believe heroin and cannabis should both be legalised for different reasons, cannabis because in most circumstances use is relatively harmless and heroin precisely because it is a dangerous, addictive substance. This means that use should be made safe, by taking distribution out of the hands of criminals.


Unless you believe that prohibition can actually erase drug production and trafficking, drug use and the urge to use psychoactives (which i believe is totally unrealistic), it's time to realise that drug use is not a criminal behaviour, or morally wrong, and to supervise this use by official distribution of quality products at a controlled price(in order to suffocate the blackmarket), offer information on safe and safer use and, if usage becomes a problem (which should be less frequent in a total legalisation situation), offer help, counselling, as one would do for any health or social problem, which is what problematic drug use is, no more, no less...


this is what is happening anyway (shooting houses, governement issue substances, quality control/testing, safe-use kits), but they only forget to stop considering drug use as a criminal behaviour, and leave it in the hands of dubious, money oriented criminals ( no official distribution of quality, affordable products), which not only generates unsafe local situations, but international ones as well (narcoterrorism etc...) this should change... it would save livesEdited by: benga

[thegod1]

I don't believe prohibition will solve much, if anything. To be honest, I don't think there is a "cure" to stop drug-overdose's, drugcrimesect... If they would legallise ALL drugs and sell them at say the local pharmacy (or somewhere like that), people wouldn't have to worry about cut's or the product and prisions wouldn't be filled up pointlessly with people caught on drugs, But it would make people have a simple source, and since it would beso reliable I think some people might go over-the-top with buying them. Also, people who don't know much about drugs might buy them thinking there safe (because there sold legally) and end up killing themselves.

WhatI think would be good (if they were legalised) is thatsomeone would have to get a "prescription" for the drug and only giving safe doses, but they would have to "earn" the prescription but doing some sort ofschooling covering the drug they wish to use. Too good to be true though.


But anyway this is off topic sorry Raven3Davis...

[Benga]

Originally Posted by thegod1

I , But it would make people have a simple source, and since it would beso reliable I think some people might go over-the-top with buying them. Also, people who don't know much about drugs might buy them thinking there safe (because there sold legally) and end up killing themselves.

I think the whole "going over the top" idea just comes from the current prohibitionist mentality : drugs are illegal, expensive, and somewhat difficult to obtain... hence the excitement, mystique...


do people actually "go over the top"buying alcohol ? or in the Netherlands, do (Dutch) people go over the top with cannabis, buying as much as they can ? no, because what's the point ?


It might happen in the first few months, and there will be accidents at first, but then things will settle down, i don't see why they shouldn't... problem is it's very hard to come out of prohibitionist mentality, thinking. If drugs are legal, cheap, available and with quality control, it would be out of the criminal market, and hopefully the appeal of the "drug mystique" will die as well. It will no longuer be a rebellious thing to do, not more cool than consuming alcohol actually is... and people will really understand drugs, and their dangers... If your neighboor is struggling with addiction, but not marginalised, you will understand addiction better : a health and eventually social problem, if it degenerates to the point that addiction has social impacts ( problems with kids, job, whatever...)


As for peope killing themselves from lack of knowledge, unsafe products and unsafe using conditions, well that's just what legalisation is about : good quality, safer products sold at a reasonable price, at places where you can get all the advice, councelling, and all the info you need ! much safer than the current situation.


Truly, total legalisation will probably lead to temporary abuse, stupid behaviour for a few months, but this has no reason to last : once drug users no longer have to consider drugs as something "cool", "rare" or whatever, what would all the fuss be about ?


you wouldn't be calling your mates to tell them you have heroin anymore than you're calling them now to tell them you have a pack of beer and 20 camel cigarettes...I think using drugs is potentially dangerous and should therefore be dealt with in a reasonable way : making it safer, and not a criminal activity, or part of a criminal market. it's not morally wrong to use substances, this is what prohibitionism fails to accept....Edited by: benga

[whirlybird]

Whenever SWIM hears somebody mention a myth thought to be true, they always try to educate the un/misinformed. SWIM just tries to make it logical. Of course, this will not work with illogical people, but don't ya feel obligated to at least try to explain and educate? SWIM thinks we have all been guilty of buying into myths like these at some point of time, and the only reason anybody no longer believes in those myths is because they were logically disproven to them with credible resources. However, when somebody believes what Billy Bob's pet turtle's mom said is a credible resource, there is more than likely no way to convince them otherwise. SWIM does very often get frustrated trying to debunk drug myths, especially when in a room with 20 people that all swear by it. The more popular a myth is, the harder it will be to disprove it to somebody that wants to believe it simply because they know more people that believe the myth than don't. SWIM just shrugs their shoulders, says oh well, and leaves it at that. Luckily, most of the drug myths make the drug out to be more dangerous than it is, so the people that are so quick to believe them and get scared away from the drugs are probably not ready to do them anyway. So SWIM says give it a shot, try to inform people of the truth. But when their heads are just too think to get through, just let it go. No sense in beating a dead horse. Well, maybe for fun, but you get the point.