Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1999
- Messages
- 84,998
TL;DR: all drugs fuck people's lives. We should treat them all the same. Don't take meth. If you do, be careful.
Firstly, I should say that I have quit methamphetamine, have generally found it a drug counterproductive to what I want to achieve in life, and have a very strong resolve to never touch it again. I should also say that I have been in this same situation before and inevitably picked up again. So I don't have any doubt about meth's addictive potential. But I've struggled just as hard and suffered much more loss in life thanks to old fashioned speed and cocaine at different times in my life. I'd prefer to be addicted to smoking meth than shooting speed or coke again. But really, I'd prefer to steer clear of stimulants all together.
That said, I think that the discussion of meth on Bluelight is often unbalanced and confusing. On the one hand there are posters like @agnosia (who I use just as an example, there are many others) who claim meth does not really exist or is so weak and incapabe of delivering a decent high that it is not worthy of the title 'drug'. Such posters on the 'meth is weak' side often subscribe to the belief that modern P2P production methods or cutting products used by Mexican producers result in some other substance different to what 'real' meth was when produced by bikers using pseudoephedrine.
On the other there are others, including Moderators like @mr peabody, who maintain a steady stream of material designed to convince us that meth is the most toxic, addictive, and dangerous drug ever invented and that addiction to it is basicaly gauranteed and hopeless as it turns users into violent, psychopathic monsters devoid of humanity. I have read posts by young people quite terrified their life has been destreoyed because they had one try of meth. Or worried that they cannot take prescribed stimulants for ADHD because "Adderall is the same as meth, and meth turns people into monsters".
In my view, both these extreme arguments are unhelpful unless you are a fully paid up Abolitionist member of the Drug War. Both play in the climate of toxic fear that surrounds drug use and contribute to the shaming and stigmatisation of drug use and drug users. The meth is not real meth argument says that mysterious toxins in meth will kill you and that they are both ubiquitious and cannot be tested for. It also implicitly argues that because modern meth is cut and weak it is not that dangerous. There is no evidence for any of of those things. Lots of people are getting plenty high of meth and consequently getting into all kinds of behavioural, emotional, physical, and legal problems.
The abundant violence, abandonment of children and family, criminal negligence, lying, self-prostitution, pimping of others, theft, fraud and endless other reprehensible heviour committed by all of us and revealed across thousands of posts and threads involved many other substances besides methamphetamine. In my own life, I've only experienced such things in my family and friends amongst people addicted to weed and opiates. Though, I've told many lies myself and committed tax and insurance fraud while on amphetamines.
The meth is the devil's own drug argument is hyperbole and overlooks the fact that there are many many people who use meth occasionally and recreationally with few problems or else manage long term addictions without becoming monsters or psychpaths. There are numerous members of Bluelight who fall into both categories. At the same time there are many recovered andrecovering addicts and users here whose lives were utterly destroyed by everything from weed (realtively uncommon admittedly) to opiates (very common), to precription drugs including AP's (very common), to MDMA (very common). And let's not forget coke especially crack. In fact I would venture to say, that there are more people on BL who regret the damage caused by other drugs than there are people who ruined or are ruining their lives their lives thanks to meth.
Given the mission of Bluelight is Harm Reduction and not promoting abstinence or deliberately scaring the fuck out of people who get involved with drugs I think we need to be a bit more balanced in how to present and discuss the realties of methamphetamine. It certainly is a powerful drug with specific risks and is more than capable of destroying lives. But probably no more so than many other drugs that are not similarly misrepresented or stigmatised here.
We are trying to provide a fact-based alternative to The War on Drugs, not collaborating with it. The drivers of addiction and the problems that it causes are not found purely in the substances people take. They are just as much in the socio-cultural and psychological conditions of people who run into trouble with those subsntance. If a high proportion of people in a given context have big problems with drugs, it's llikely to be just as much about that place and it's leadership (whether a household, a community, a city, or a country) than it is whatever they are taking.
Also, if you want my advice. Don't Fuck with Meth. Or Opiates. Or Coke. Or Benzos. Or Alchohol. None of them ever did me any good. But you're not me. Which is lucky for you.
Firstly, I should say that I have quit methamphetamine, have generally found it a drug counterproductive to what I want to achieve in life, and have a very strong resolve to never touch it again. I should also say that I have been in this same situation before and inevitably picked up again. So I don't have any doubt about meth's addictive potential. But I've struggled just as hard and suffered much more loss in life thanks to old fashioned speed and cocaine at different times in my life. I'd prefer to be addicted to smoking meth than shooting speed or coke again. But really, I'd prefer to steer clear of stimulants all together.
That said, I think that the discussion of meth on Bluelight is often unbalanced and confusing. On the one hand there are posters like @agnosia (who I use just as an example, there are many others) who claim meth does not really exist or is so weak and incapabe of delivering a decent high that it is not worthy of the title 'drug'. Such posters on the 'meth is weak' side often subscribe to the belief that modern P2P production methods or cutting products used by Mexican producers result in some other substance different to what 'real' meth was when produced by bikers using pseudoephedrine.
On the other there are others, including Moderators like @mr peabody, who maintain a steady stream of material designed to convince us that meth is the most toxic, addictive, and dangerous drug ever invented and that addiction to it is basicaly gauranteed and hopeless as it turns users into violent, psychopathic monsters devoid of humanity. I have read posts by young people quite terrified their life has been destreoyed because they had one try of meth. Or worried that they cannot take prescribed stimulants for ADHD because "Adderall is the same as meth, and meth turns people into monsters".
In my view, both these extreme arguments are unhelpful unless you are a fully paid up Abolitionist member of the Drug War. Both play in the climate of toxic fear that surrounds drug use and contribute to the shaming and stigmatisation of drug use and drug users. The meth is not real meth argument says that mysterious toxins in meth will kill you and that they are both ubiquitious and cannot be tested for. It also implicitly argues that because modern meth is cut and weak it is not that dangerous. There is no evidence for any of of those things. Lots of people are getting plenty high of meth and consequently getting into all kinds of behavioural, emotional, physical, and legal problems.
The abundant violence, abandonment of children and family, criminal negligence, lying, self-prostitution, pimping of others, theft, fraud and endless other reprehensible heviour committed by all of us and revealed across thousands of posts and threads involved many other substances besides methamphetamine. In my own life, I've only experienced such things in my family and friends amongst people addicted to weed and opiates. Though, I've told many lies myself and committed tax and insurance fraud while on amphetamines.
The meth is the devil's own drug argument is hyperbole and overlooks the fact that there are many many people who use meth occasionally and recreationally with few problems or else manage long term addictions without becoming monsters or psychpaths. There are numerous members of Bluelight who fall into both categories. At the same time there are many recovered andrecovering addicts and users here whose lives were utterly destroyed by everything from weed (realtively uncommon admittedly) to opiates (very common), to precription drugs including AP's (very common), to MDMA (very common). And let's not forget coke especially crack. In fact I would venture to say, that there are more people on BL who regret the damage caused by other drugs than there are people who ruined or are ruining their lives their lives thanks to meth.
Given the mission of Bluelight is Harm Reduction and not promoting abstinence or deliberately scaring the fuck out of people who get involved with drugs I think we need to be a bit more balanced in how to present and discuss the realties of methamphetamine. It certainly is a powerful drug with specific risks and is more than capable of destroying lives. But probably no more so than many other drugs that are not similarly misrepresented or stigmatised here.
We are trying to provide a fact-based alternative to The War on Drugs, not collaborating with it. The drivers of addiction and the problems that it causes are not found purely in the substances people take. They are just as much in the socio-cultural and psychological conditions of people who run into trouble with those subsntance. If a high proportion of people in a given context have big problems with drugs, it's llikely to be just as much about that place and it's leadership (whether a household, a community, a city, or a country) than it is whatever they are taking.
Also, if you want my advice. Don't Fuck with Meth. Or Opiates. Or Coke. Or Benzos. Or Alchohol. None of them ever did me any good. But you're not me. Which is lucky for you.
) But I think I mostly agree with your assessment that meth generally isn't a very safe drug. By and large people really suck at using it responsibly, plus it's neurotoxic in proportion to body temperature, and—if coupled w/another cause of tachycardia, it's cardiotoxic. Then again, methamphetamine hydrochloride is a very stable substance. So in that sense, there is something safe about meth. But yeah I can't recommend it to those who've never used it, due to some people's propensity to handle the drug's effects very poorly indeed.