Can You Get High From Second Hand Ice Smoke

10.one The comedown
10.2 Risks associated with the different methamphetamines
10.3 Sensation of risks associated with different methamphetamines
x.four Risks associated with methods of administration
10.5 The take chances of police force enforcement
10.6 Relevance of risks and preventing harm

10.1 The comedown

All users groups readily associated the comedown from drugs as a negative aspect to the experience. All also clearly identified the symptoms of a comedown equally including a range of the following:

• depression
• feeling scattered
• anxiety
• brusk temper
• nervousness/ paranoia
• existence unmotivated and
• experiencing difficulty sleeping.

Despite this, consistent across all user groups was the perception that comedowns themselves are not perceived as a risk. Instead, the effects are usually seen simply as a 'hangover'. For social users these hangover effects are something to exist managed until they laissez passer. This was usually achieved by other drug use, predominantly cannabis and/or booze, or simply sleeping information technology off and getting through it. The quotes below illustrate this view that comedowns are something to be managed rather than be considered risks:

Nevertheless, for functional and dependent users, the effects of a comedown are often what prompts the next hit. Effectively, this means they exercise not feel a comedown. The quotes below contain examples the experiences of past functional and dependent users in these circumstances:

Examples from functional users:

Examples from dependent users:

Top of page

ten.2 Risks associated with the different methamphetamines

Nigh of the perceived risks are seen to apply across all methamphetamines, simply are considered to exist exacerbated when using ice. It was believed to be harder to manage the short term risks of ice, too as having greater potential for recreational use to get an addiction.

In contrast, speed and base of operations, are seen to be significantly lower risk to employ. The intensity of the high is not as great as ice, and users claim some maintenance of control over their thoughts and deportment despite the disinhibitory effects. In short, while speed and base may increase confidence, users did not believe they were probable to identify themselves in as risky or extreme situations as they may do while on ice.

Speed and base are also not considered to take as great a potential for addiction. This perception was based perceptions that speed and base have been around for a relatively long time compared to ice and many people make apply of the drugs without showing whatever appearance of dependency. Further, speed and base are not perceived to have the physical dependency of something like heroin. In contrast, water ice has been positioned to have the aforementioned potential of addiction as heroin. These views were consequent across the majority of groups whether they had used ice or not.
Top of page

10.iii Awareness of risks associated with different methamphetamines

Sensation of risks was relatively consequent across all groups regardless of the form of methamphetamine used and frequency of utilize. Risks are commonly divided into three categories: societal, mental health, physical. Both brusk term and long term risks are establish in these iii categories.

Societal risks

Societal risks are defined by situations that involve interaction with others. Short term societal risks are situations where the effects of a comedown could influence the user'due south interaction with others, such as:

• arguments with friends or family when feeling scattered, depressed, tired and and then on
• lack of productivity and / or motivation at piece of work and experiencing Manic Mondays, Terrible Tuesdays and Woeful Wednesdays and
• some younger users fearing their parents finding out.

These situations are readily identified as simple short term effects of using drugs rather than actual risks. Social and functional users run into these effects equally something that is accepted equally part of the comedown and able to exist managed in much the same fashion equally a hangover from alcohol is managed.

Long term societal risks are identified as situations where drug employ has impacted in other areas of life outside of the social behavioural context. These long term risks include:

• loss of family and/or friends
• lack of money, potentially leading to poverty
• loss of employment and becoming unemployable
• existence stigmatised as a 'junkie'
• having to detect other means than legitimate employment to support a drug habit, for example, theft
• inflicting violence on others including sexual or physical assault and
• incarceration in gaol or treatment centre.

Elevation of folio

Mental health risks

Mental health risks are those that relate to the private's state of mind. Short term mental health risks are often perceived to be symptoms of a comedown, and therefore something to manage. These included:

• depression or anxiety when coming downward
• anxiety, stress or other emotions related to lack of sleep (difficulty in sleeping) and
• the potential for doing 'crazy' or extreme things during use of the drug.

Psychosis was identified as the master long term mental health run a risk. Users believed this to be acquired by either long term use of methamphetamines over many years or an extended catamenia without sleep. Other long term effects include the loss of all ability to reason and the take chances of suicide caused by extreme depression.

Physical risks

Physical risks are those that affect an individual's body. Users of all methamphetamines identify that there were brusk term physical harms associated with their drug employ, including:

• teeth grinding and through this, teeth decay
• loss of weight, which was a business concern more than for males than females
• loss of vitamins and nutrients that was detrimental to the torso
• harm from the other ingredients used to 'cut' the methamphetamine and
• the potential for blow or violence for oneself or from others

The long term concrete risks identified were like to the short term risks, just more farthermost. Users identified that frequent use over the long term could cause:

• continued weight loss to the signal of looking malnourished
• rapid ageing
• loss of concrete appearance in terms of developing acne, looking gaunt, having pale skin
• for ice users, the potential to develop scars acquired past scratching their pare and
• potential for increased blood pressure, heart problems, and stroke (more so for dependent users)

The risk of sexually transmitted infections through unsafe sexual practices, especially HIV and hepatitis, was considered both a short term and long term adventure²³. This was perceived as more relevant to the gay community than heterosexual users.
Tiptop of page

10.four Risks associated with methods of administration

The one area of potential concrete harm from use where awareness was not consistent across behavioural contexts and target audiences, was the specific risks associated with different methods of administering the drugs. Whereas almost respondents were knowledgeable about the risks associated with injecting, in that location appears to exist but limited awareness of the risks of smoking methamphetamines, and nearly none on the risks of snorting or swallowing.

All users identified that when injecting drugs, at that place is potential harm from blood borne diseases such as Hepatitis C and HIV. Similarly, the majority were enlightened of the potential for vein damage caused by injecting. In dissimilarity relatively few recognised whatsoever potential for the transfer of contagions from smoking methamphetamines with others, and while the possibility of lung damage was noted, this was not considered to be more likely than if smoking cigarettes or marijuana. Those who reject smoking cigarettes and marijuana tend to believe that inhalation of any substance could cause damage, and those that do fume cigarettes and/or marijuana exercise not feel that smoking methamphetamines was likely to cause whatever more damage than these two substances.

Few, if any, identified the potential harm to teeth, pharynx or tummy lining from ingesting methamphetamines, peculiarly base of operations. In fact, among regular social users of base of operations, ingestion is considered a safety fashion to use the drug and actually enhances its appeal for use. While information technology is thought that some caution may exist needed if someone were to swallow ice, this is more associated with belief that water ice is simply more unsafe to use than other methamphetamines than whatsoever knowledge in regards to the physical damage swallowing could cause.

Snorting was a method of administration associated with the use of powdered speed rather than any other methamphetamine. This method of assistants polarised users. While all assume that the method of use could cause damage to nasal passages and headaches, there are those who like the physical deed of snorting and will do and then regardless of these effects. For others, these effects merely cause them to reject the method of assistants even if powdered speed is available. Figure 8 summarises the risks associated with different methods of administration and the awareness of these risks across user groups.
Superlative of page

Effigy 8: Risks²⁴ and awareness associated with methods of assistants

Text version of Figure 8

List of methods with associated risks/awareness:

• Injecting
  • Risk of: blood borne diseases; Hep C, HIV; and vein damage
  • Awareness is high beyond all groups
• Smoking
  • Risk of: lung impairment; and transfer of Hep C, other diseases.
  • Low awareness of the possibility of disease and the extent of lung impairment
• Swallowing
  • Risk of: damage to throat/stomach lining; and damage to teeth.
  • Sensation is: depression, specially among regular users of base of operations who swallow; and perceived every bit a condom style to utilize.
• Snorting
  • Risk of: damage to nasal passage; and headaches
  • Awareness is: considered likely; polarised method of assistants.

Superlative of page

10.5 The take a chance of law enforcement

Police enforcement is considered more of a 'nuisance' than a risk or deterrent. It tends to impact more on ravers, gay men, regional and rural users, and functional users whose occupation involves driving, such as taxi and truck drivers, than other target audiences.

Regular attendees of raves, dance parties and festivals readily identified that there tended to be a greater police presence at these events than there used to exist, and gay men claimed that there was often regular police force surveillance of sex on site venues, and areas such as parks where sexual behaviour commonly occurs. Respondents from regional and rural towns indicated that often the law in their local town would have a 'crack-down' on drugs. This usually involved a greater police force presence around social venues such as pubs and clubs on a Friday and Sabbatum nighttime, and around the locations of suspected dealers for a short period of time. Functional users such as taxi and truck drivers indicated that police force roadside drug testing would probable affect on their drug employ if it were introduced in the state where they lived. This is due to the potential for loss of licence, and therefore their income.

Across all of these target audiences, the risk of constabulary enforcement tends to prompt a alter in strategy of use rather than not using at all. Common practices include:

• taking drugs before inbound the venue or at home
• only carrying a limited amount if there is demand to have some to the venue
• ensuring that the drugs tin exist disposed of readily, such as having loose pockets so they are easy to empty, should the police go far or
• hiding drugs in difficult to search places such as underwear and
• non driving under the influence – get a cab instead or have a designated driver, much like the practise is with alcohol (more than applicable to social users than functional users).

Often these strategies result in potentially risky drug taking practices. Some respondents claimed that in order to avert having to just dispose of the drugs when constabulary arrive they would eat all that they had on them, or at least much of information technology. At times, this resulted in taking two or three times more than they had originally planned. Often, they had set aside these drugs for utilise throughout the night or weekend or for others. Others indicated that in a haste to use the drugs before the constabulary arrived, they would take less intendance when administering. The main instance provided was of injecting apace and not taking as much care to follow needle hygiene and other harm prevention practices that they would unremarkably.

Notably, the concept of community enforcement rather than law enforcement is a strategy that appears to have been used relatively successfully in some Indigenous neighbourhoods. The case given was of 'The Cake' in Redfern. The community decided, several years ago, that ice was not allowed within the confines of the neighbourhood. If residents of The Block want to sell, purchase, or utilise ice, they take to go elsewhere. Residents of The Block ensure that any offender is discouraged from doing so again should they alienation the community rules. Ice users on The Cake are the lowest of the low. This approach was implemented due to increasing levels of violence in the customs in regards to use of the drug. Indigenous respondents claimed that information technology has been a significant deterrent. Top of page

x.6 Relevance of risks and preventing harm

While all users might be aware of a large number of risks, the perceived relevance of these to themselves strongly relates to the behavioural context in which they use methamphetamines. Social and functional users but see the brusque term risks identified in section 10.3 every bit relevant to them. They tend to have the perception that long term risks only occur to people who use methamphetamines very frequently over a longer period of time, that is, to dependent users.

Social and functional users do not perceive the long term risks they place every bit applicable to themselves as they conspicuously differentiate themselves from dependent users by the cocky imposed parameters they place on their drug use. These parameters permit social users, in particular, to claim that they apply responsibly, and responsible employ will minimise long term harm. Merely stated, they practice non meet themselves as at adventure of addiction or other long term adventure as long as they stay inside certain cocky-imposed boundaries, such as:

• managing the frequency and the amount they are using
• are conscious of the type of drug and on what occasions they use information technology
• monitor the accepted impact their drug employ has on other areas of their lives
• are witting of the coin they spend (oft they have a planned amount) and
• simply use what and when their friends are using, and in the same quantities.

The quotes below illustrate this perception that responsible use is the primary means of ensuring that the long term risks that accompany dependency do not occur.

What is perceived as responsible use is shown past the examples given in the quotes below.

As a event of this perception, social and functional users talk about ways they 'manage' their drug utilize then that it does non get a problem and how they are able to overcome short term effects, rather than any 'harm minimisation' practices they apply.
Top of page

Social users

Social users encounter short term physical risks as really the merely risks necessary to manage as these are those that they identify every bit relevant to themselves. The potential for teeth grinding and decay is managed past ensuring that they chew gum or something similar while using. Loss of weight is managed by ensuring that they swallow and drink before using and equally soon as they tin while coming down. Similarly, the more than wellness conscious claim to ensure they replenish lost nutrients and vitamins past taking vitamin replacement tablets and eating poly peptide based foods, such equally eggs and nuts, when coming down.

The potential physical gamble of blow or violence is managed by ensuring that they are e'er with a group of friends when using drugs. The perception is that should anything dangerous occur through an accident or violence, at that place is always a friend around to ensure assistance from emergency services if it is required. To avoid this potential altogether, social users claim they made a exercise of testing the force past only taking a small amount of a new batch of the methamphetamine first. This allows them to then ascertain how much of the drug they need to go the effect they are seeking, without risking the potential of their actions getting too farthermost. The potential for harm from the ingredients that the drug had been cut with is managed in a similar mode; past just trying a pocket-size corporeality of a new supply first. Buying from the same source is regularly cited equally the all-time way to mange this potential risk. Carrying a rubber, and and then trying to remember to employ it when information technology is needed, is seen every bit the simply way of managing the potential of contracting a STI through unsafe sexual practices.

Social users also identified ways they managed curt term societal and mental risks, notwithstanding these strategies were perceived to exist more near managing the brusque term furnishings of a comedown than whatsoever real potential harm. To minimise the varying degrees of low, anxiety, insomnia and paranoia experienced during a comedown, many social users program ahead and ensure they have cannabis, alcohol or even a small corporeality of the methamphetamine (a minority) on hand to use. The potential for conflict with family and friends due to moodiness or a curt temper is managed by trying to avoid these people as much every bit possible during that time.

The majority of social users minimise the potential for drug use to impact on their employment, through taking too much sick exit and generally lacking in productivity, by making sure they adhere to a time to stop taking drugs on the weekend. Many commented that as long equally they stopped by a sure time on Sabbatum night or Sunday forenoon, the effects of a comedown had usually dissipated enough by Monday morning time to ensure that colleagues or employers did non notice whatsoever difficulties they may be experiencing. The quotes beneath illustrate this,

Top of page

Functional users

Functional users identify with the same curt term risks as social users. The exception is in regards to loss of employment, which for users in this behavioural context is a existent curt term risk. Manic Mondays and Slippers fear calling in ill too often and so use methamphetamines again to enable themselves to become through a workday. These groups, still, as well fear the potential of getting caught using at work and possible loss of employment. In contrast, for some Workers, loss of employment is more to do with non taking drugs than taking them. For this group, their utilise of drugs is due to the demand to continue in employment.

Possibly, due to their frequency of utilise, many functional users tend to fright the potential for dependency much more than than social users although they notwithstanding maintain guidelines surrounding their use in order to minimise long term run a risk. Manic Mondays and Slippers advocate many of the same parameters of responsible utilise as social users and are oftentimes aware that they have broken the boundaries they fix themselves, particularly those around employment. On the other hand, Workers take a different fix of boundaries that they claim differentiate them from dependents. These include:

• always using smaller, measured amounts and never bingeing
• ensuring regular periods of time (days) without using where possible and
• maintaining command over and managing other areas of their life such equally finances and homelife, and virtually importantly maintaining employment.

This final point is the boundary that Workers well-nigh strongly believe equally differentiating them from dependents. In their perception, people who have get dependent on methamphetamines are not able to maintain a family, relationships and employment. The fact that they tin, is the disquisitional factor in Workers assertive themselves as not existence dependent or an 'aficionado', despite the frequency with which they use methamphetamines.

Dependent users

For the majority of dependent users, the long term societal risk factors are the most relevant. Many identified with the loss of employment and the need to find other methods of gaining coin such as sex work or theft, loss of family (including some mothers whose children had been removed from them), and the potential for violent behaviour towards others. While some respondents from all dependent sub groups identified with these long term societal risks of drug apply, all Heroin Co-Dependents found these relevant to their ain lives.

For some dependents in the Meth Devotees sub group, these long term societal risk factors are not considered as applicative. While these respondents are regular injectors of speed and base, they claim to pb and manage a 'normal' life. They merits that this is illustrated by their power to maintain employment, finances and relationships with others. This group is differentiated from the functional Workers sub group, as they openly admit to using the drug everyday in order to continue living a normal life rather than for piece of work purposes simply. Furthermore, while all Meth Devotees inject as a method of administration, a range of methods tin can be constitute amidst the Workers group. For this group of Meth Devotees, the risks most relevant are identified as physical (both long and curt term).

Dependent injectors all claim to practice needle hygiene. They readily identified that access to needle and syringe programs enables them to ensure they accept make clean equipment and also provides them with knowledge on how to minimise vein damage. Injectors more often than not believed that given the accessibility to safety and make clean equipment, they really had no reason to not practice condom injecting. However, most injectors indicated they knew others that sometimes shared equipment., though none claimed this applied to themselves.

---

²³ Also argued in Rawson et al., 2002, cited in Illicit Drug Use in Australia: Epidemiology, utilise patterns and associated harm, (second edition), Ross, J., (ed), National Drug & Alcohol Research Middle, 2007.
²⁴ Descriptions of possible risks are based on information fatigued from 'Crystal – Effects – Health – Sex – Help', ACON (the Bluish Book), as well as respondent knowledge.

Top of page

hornoneved.blogspot.com

Source: https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/phd-npi-methamphetamine-report-feb09-l~risks

Share this post