Desperate Addicts Inject Others’ Blood
 

And so it goes...:eek:

Richard :munchin

Desperate Addicts Inject Others’ Blood
NYT, 12 July 2010

Desperate heroin users in a few African cities have begun engaging in a practice that is so dangerous it is almost unthinkable: they deliberately inject themselves with another addict’s blood, researchers say, in an effort to share the high or stave off the pangs of withdrawal.

The practice, called flashblood or sometimes flushblood, is not common, but has been reported in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on the island of Zanzibar and in Mombasa, Kenya.

(cont'd) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/he...tml?ref=africa

That is messed up.

I have seen some serious drug abusers in my line of work and some creative ways of getting high, but this is on another level.

Darwin works. Eventually the problem will be self-eliminating.

Ignorance
 

Ignorance can be a dangerous and sometimes deadly thing. I heard of this same technique used in southwest Sudan to "share" everything from antibiotics to quinine.

Dan Pitzer, God rest his soul, used to speak about the injections to treat his beri beri he received while being held in North Vietnam. The “doctor” used to insert the empty syringe and draw fluid from his butt. Only then would the doc fill the medicine in the syringe and inject it. After weeks of this he finally asked him why he would always pull fluid out of his butt before injecting the arsenic solution? The doctor’s answer was “to make room for the fluid”.

Even today there's quite a lack of understanding of shared fluids and basic sanitation in the world's garden spots.

They also believe that having sex with a virgin will prevent/cure HIV/Aids.

There's always the African tribe who copulates with the ground in order to make it fertile.

*

It's always sad to see the depths to which people will go to fulfill their addictions. With that said, nothing I have seen in the last few years has surprised me when it comes to someone trying to "get their high".

I remember a couple of years ago in my AO, they were dipping their joints in embalming fluid and then smoking them. Imagine that. I would of loved to have talked to the first person that had that idea. You wouldn't believe the rash of drug store and funeral home burglaries that occurred.

You musta been stationed in Haiti, Sheepdog; only zombies do that.

Idiots:(.

Peregrino is dead on.

RF 1

To be honest with you Dusty, they looked and acted much like zombies. They had it all going for them; slow moving, glazed over eyes, unable to communicate. It was amazing to see.

That was a fad in Southern California in the late 70s except that it was done with regular cigarettes. After a number of people ended up dying and suffering permanent brain damage it became less popular.

Sounds like the current Presidential Cabinet.

Agreed..........;)

Big Teddy :munchin

[QUOTE=Richard;339103]And so it goes...:eek:

Richard :munchin

Desperate Addicts Inject Others’ Blood
NYT, 12 July 2010

[I]Desperate heroin users in a few African cities have begun engaging in a practice that is so dangerous it is almost unthinkable: they deliberately inject themselves with another addict’s blood, researchers say, in an effort to share the high or stave off the pangs of withdrawl


Would this be a bad thing if it spread to junkies world wide? Just asking.

Is that where the phrase 'pound sand' came from?:D

Popo bawa
 

there was an article in the citizen last summer about shooting each others blood in a local paper in Dar es Salaam last summer.
any culture that can come up with the idea of a humanoid, man raping bat creature must be getting high.
look for Popo bawa on the web it is hilarious but people in Zanzibar actually believe in it and you cannot get them to talk about it in public.

"Modern Popobawa " Wikipedia

"Reports of Popobawa attacks rise and fall with the election cycle in Zanzibar..."

lol We have one in the States called Bawney Fwank who does the same thing.

A hollywood special effects guy could cause alot of trouble over there:rolleyes:

we had one of those in Arizona but we called it Janet, now she has a job in DC

IIRC, HIV/AIDS in Africa is not merely a "liberal" issue <<LINK1>>, <<LINK2>>.

Somebody who actually gets it.:cool:In spite of the LSM.

CNN LINK

Future historians will also note what today's pundits ignore: total US government development aid to Africa quadrupled from $1.3 billion in 2001 to more than $5 billion in 2008. What's more, the Bush administration doubled foreign aid worldwide over the past eight years. You have to go back to the Truman years to match that.

All of which was borrowed money. All of which will have to be paid back or inflated away. All of which adds to the total debt load of the country.

Sounds like a certain nation is desperately addicted to spending.

If Bush hadn't spent the money, the Bush-haters would bitch about that. Doesn't matter what he did-to liberals it's wrong.

You wanna talk about spending money? The current administration can't print the shit fast enough to spend it.

I think Mr. Fwank gets injections of a more personal nature. :eek:

Absolutely true.

Here's a link that illustrates your point nicely. LINK

I am surprised that people are surprised addicts will do anything to feed their addiction(s)...whatever they may be. Amazing.

Richard :munchin

Or wise enough to balance its ideas with its strategic interests.

By this logic, the US should not have backed the reconstruction of Europe after the Second World War.

Oh, really. How so? :confused:

Richard :munchin

True. In essence, we funded the competition. Likewise with Japan. Ask GM shareholders how that worked out.

While you make a good point about balancing ideas with strategic interests, I note that China seems to do a pretty good job of advancing their interests at minimal cost.

Until we get our own house in order, maybe we should reconsider giving money away.

Your bottom line approach to current affairs and to history lead you to some interesting generalizations.
And during that interval we can count on no other competing powers to step into the geopolitical void.

(Chuckle) Of course they will. But if we follow the present path to its tragic conclusion, the void will suddenly manifest itself and the realignment of geopolitical power will be chaotic - and, I suspect, violent.

Something a bit more orderly might avoid some of the worst consequences.

With respect, I think your unflagging pessimism gets in the way of you using your intellectual skills to get past 'either/or' projections. Problems may be defined from graphs and charts but sometimes they get in the way of developing creative sustainable solutions.

In this country, folks have been crying "the Apocalypse is just around the corner" for centuries. Time and again, history has unfolded in ways to prove their dire "either we do this or the roof will cave in" prognostications inaccurate.

The demographics of this planet are changing. The foci of international power are shifting. In addition to 'getting our own house in order,' the U.S. needs to be mindful of these broader changes to 'the neighborhood' and to manage wisely our relationships with the folks down the block.

My $0.02.

It's true that there has been an ongoing argument (nothing as civil as a discussion!) for centuries between the Malthusians, who argue for limits, and the folks who contend that human ingenuity can and will transcend those limits. I call them Cornucopians - or Cornies if I'm feeling wicked - since they seemingly believe in limitless abundance.

For the past couple hundred years, the cornies have won the bet. I'm tempted to use the most dangerous words in the English language - "This time it's different" - but I'll restrain myself. :D

As you suggest, the foci of power are changing. But power is a zero-sum game, since one group's gain is another's loss. If we help some group gain power, we reduce our own.

Economic strength isn't quite the same. There can be multiple winners. Except - human-kind cannot fully comprehend the exponential function. I hear city leaders in San Antonio talking about a 2.6% growth rate in a favorable manner. What they seem not to realize is that this means we will grow from the present 1.2 million population to 2.4 million in about 28 years. They are hardly alone - the whole world engages in the same behavior.

Let's look at those demographics you mention. Why has this happened? At least in part due to the Green Revolution, circa 1948 or so, courtesy of the U.S. Agriculture Department. It did increase crop yields, just as they expected. And population followed along. So now we have heavy demands on food producing areas around the world. Food is going up in U.S. supermarkets - at least partly due to increased global demand. Notice that we in the U.S. are living a little bit worse due to others having increased economic strength. Please reflect on this for a moment.

There are other issues, among them energy, particularly crude oil. As China and other areas increase demand and supply fails to increase (and it is failing to increase), the price in the U.S. goes up. Increased energy prices act as a drag on the economy. So - once again, as other nations get stronger, we in the U.S. live worse.

And now we're going to save more countries, uplift Africa, and bring more prosperity to the world. We'll deliver them from poverty to affluence - in some ways, a corollary of a certain motto. What will the consequences be?

As they are uplifted - at least partly due to our efforts, our spending - we will decline. That, of course, is the wildly optimistic scenario.

The pessimistic one? An exponential curve tends not to end smoothly. Rather, it breaks sharply from growth to decline - and the decline tends to be catastrophic. A marvelous example is offered by Easter Island, particularly as discussed in Diamond's "Collapse".

So...we weaken ourselves. We make other nations stronger. Still worse, we raise their expectations. Then the growth curve fails - at which point we may experience Hell on Earth.

Are there solutions? Sure. Finding some source of cheap, abundant energy that is rapidly scalable would help a lot. Controlled and fairly rapid population reduction would be another. But the first (abundant energy) has eluded us for decades and shows little promise of coming to fruition, and the later is not politically (or, for that matter, economically, socially, or religiously) viable.

Bottom line, we're doomed. Embrace our destiny. :munchin

one word
 

GROSS! EWW!

YUCK!
3 my bad

Here is another practice with no up side.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/0...est=latestnews

Smoking AIDS meds mixed with rat poison and other neat things.