Signal Damping: (almost) nobody is spiking your drinks · 5:15am Jan 1st, 2018
OK, leaving aside what did or didn't happen at a particular event, the level of concern over spiked drinks is rapidly approaching a moral panic.
I can't link the papers themselves (because copyright), but here are the abstracts for three studies on the actual frequency of drink spiking. TL;DR: Drinks do get spiked sometimes, but it is very, very rare, even among people who think their drink has been spiked. Most people who claimed to have had their drinks "spiked" either simply drank too much or drank stronger alcohol than they intended to. Of the rest, most had taken other recreational drugs which interacted with their drinks.
Embodying Uncertainty?: Understanding Heightened Risk Perception of Drink ‘Spiking’
There is a stark contrast between heightened perceptions of risk associated with drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) and a lack of evidence that this is a widespread threat. Through surveys and interviews with university students in the United Kingdom and United States, we explore knowledge and beliefs about drink-spiking and the linked threat of sexual assault. University students in both locations are not only widely sensitized to the issue, but substantial segments claim first- or second-hand experience of particular incidents. We explore students’ understanding of the DFSA threat in relationship to their attitudes concerning alcohol, binge-drinking, and responsibility for personal safety. We suggest that the drink-spiking narrative has a functional appeal in relation to the contemporary experience of young women's public drinking.
Toxicological findings in cases of alleged drug-facilitated sexual assault in the United Kingdom over a 3-year period
This paper outlines the toxicology results from 1014 cases of claimed drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) analysed at the Forensic Science Service, London Laboratory between January 2000 and December 2002. Where appropriate, either a whole blood sample and/or a urine sample was analysed for alcohol, common drugs of abuse and potentially stupefying drugs. The results were interpreted with respect to the number of drugs detected and an attempt was made to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary ingestion from information supplied.
Alcohol (either alone or with an illicit and/or medicinal drug) was detected in 470 of all cases (46%). Illicit drugs were detected in 344 cases (34%), with cannabis being the most commonly detected (26% of cases), followed by cocaine (11%).
In 21 cases (2%), a sedative or disinhibiting drug was detected which had not been admitted and could therefore be an instance of deliberate spiking. This included three cases in which complainants were allegedly given Ecstasy (MDMA) without their knowledge. Other drugs detected included gammahydroxybutyrate (GHB) and the benzodiazepine drugs diazepam and temazepam. Another nine cases (1%) involved the complainant being either given or forced to ingest pharmaceutical tablets or an illicit drug.
Prospective study of 101 patients with suspected drink spiking
Objective: To evaluate cases of suspected drink spiking presenting to the ED by the prospective collection of standardized relevant historical, clinical and laboratory data.
Methods: A prospective observational study of 101 patients presenting to metropolitan hospital ED with suspected drink spiking within the previous 12 h. Clinical history, including details surrounding the alleged drink spiking incident, and examination. Blood ethanol concentration measurement, together with the analysis of urine and blood samples for illicit and sedative drugs.
Results: Of the 97 alleged drink spiking cases included, there were only 9 plausible cases. We did not identify a single case where a sedative drug was likely to have been illegally placed in a drink in a pub or nightclub. Illicit drugs were detected in 28% of the study group. Ethanol was commonly detected, with the mean number of standard drinks consumed being 7.7 ± 3.9 SD, and the median blood ethanol concentration at the time of presentation was 0.096% (96 mg/dL). At follow-up there were no major sequelae and no police prosecutions. Thirty five per cent of patients still believed that they had been a victim of drink spiking irrespective of the results.
Conclusion: Our study did not reflect the current public perception of drink spiking. Drink spiking with sedative or illicit drugs appears to be rare. If drink spiking does occur, ethanol appears to be the most common agent used. Of greater concern was the frequency of illicit drug use and excessive ethanol consumption within the study population, making it difficult to determine whether a person had truly had a drink spiked.
Please don't start seeing rapists lurking in the corner of every party.
Oh man you even tagged this 'common sense'.
That's great.
... so why's this still up after learning that, in this specific instance, it actually was rohypnol, confirmed by morning-after-test, and that leaving this up and continuing to link it places without hedging makes you look like... well, an utter tosser?
Because I notice that your studies here rely heavily on self-reporting. People who wish to have a plausible reason to be administered for a bad trip without legal repercussions have tons of reason to say it, and a lot of the people who are successfully dose'd aren't going to make it or want to report it of their own volition, which is going to skew the data significantly.
As well, a lot of people who are anxious about getting drunker a lot quicker than they believed, because they're going to be lucid enough to make it to hospital, there's going to be a lot more of them, and they're probably doing it because they don't have prior experience being drug'd so they don't have that metric for comparison.
The party in question had:
1) Multiple victims
2) One of whom was a non-drinker
3) One of whom had prior experience
4) Drinking the same as many other males, who did not exhibit symptoms, even as a placebo effect
5) Who exhibited the actual symptoms
All of which means that your "2% chance" was far more likely in this incident than random chance, because of how selection works in the studies listed, and how the evidence points to it.
That's the thing about statistically unlikely events mate. They happen an awful lot of the time, and if that legitimate 2% chance is sufficiently avoidable and preventable, then you're being naught but a right cunt by telling people to close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears for fear of a 'moral panic'.
Which, I'd like to point out, isn't always wrong. Basic hygiene principles were once a moral panic after people realized 'miasma' theory was wrong, and that's basically what helped lead to surgeons washing their hands and the eradication of cholera.
Moral panic, even as described, isn't inherently bad. It might be overblown, but that's kind of necessary to create a systematic awareness or change to a problem.
And "I might not be safe at a con" is a completely correct takeaway from this situation, because it is a true and correct thing to believe.
I noticed you tagged this with "#Iwouldnteven".
Out of curiosity, what does this hashtag mean?
I mean, the whole point of that blog and the follow-up signal boosts is just to raise awareness of what happened. Literally just so people know, and act accordingly. Worst case scenario, parties are safer now, just in case. We know they were drugged, this was confirmed.
...So what's the point of this blog? Yeah, this incident happen, but do not read the blog post that says "this incident happened". Even though it did. Here are a lot of journals that say this usually doesn't happen. This time it happened, but that doesn't matter. What matters is, it might not happen.
I get that you're against SJWs and the whole SJW culture, and that you don't want people to immediately cry foul and start seeing rapists all around in a blind panic -- that's a reasonable position based on the idea that people are exaggerating and blowing things out of proportion.
Problem is -- they aren't? In the sense that nobody has said 'all men are rapists' in any of the blogs I've read. All I've seen has been people explaining that there was an incident that included spiked drinks, and we have to act accordingly; i.e., be extra careful just in case. It happened, the person who did it wasn't caught, there is no way to know if it'll happen again.
I honestly, seriously, don't see which angle you're defending here. It doesn't matter if drinks were spiked, because I personally don't like the character of the people telling me about the incident? That seems a bit... childish?
I guess you saw some comment that said something that offended you, and that's always annoying -- but here you're literally reacting against the blog's very message. You're literally asking people to ignore an incident that we know as a fact was a reality, just to put forward your... I've no fucking idea. Your narrative?
What is the point of this? What moral panic? I've seen one blog that carefully and respectfully explains what happened, and a lot of blogs that signal boost it. That's no moral panic, that's people trying to raise awareness. You literally named your blog 'signal damping', as in trying to fire back at Horizon for what he reported. Just--what is your gameplan here? Who is this blog for?
4765600
Wow, thats a terrible thing to say in a conversation about potential rape victims. I hope you just weren't aware of the full implications of that hashtag, Zontargs?
Edit: Jeez, I've been reading more about that Sargon of Akkad guy and he's said some pretty extreme things!
He blamed Elliot Rodger's mass murder spree on feminism.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xM1NrSSHDSc
I really dont think you want to go around using the hashtags and championing the causes of this Sargon guy, Zontargs! Especially when you're in a fandom for a show thats always had some feminist messages! Please be careful! :(
4765568
Whether this event occurred or not is irrelevant, only the reaction to the report matters. When some in the comments are calling for significant changes in how things are done in order to slightly reduce the already low risk that someone might have their drink spiked, I object, because I don't agree with such responses in general. When people start calling out counter-arguments because "'Not All Men' is problematic", I conclude that the signal has been boosted to the point where the Culture Warriors from my opposing team have shown up, the whole discussion is about to shift from "how not to get roofied" to "here's why the Other Side sucks", and if I can damp the signal down some, that's a good thing.
4765592
A response to the #MeToo used on the original blog post and several reblogs
Not only didn't I do any of that, I wouldn't even do that.
4765606
I've already seen one community tear itself apart over an alleged proposition in an elevator at a convention. The entire community wound up taking sides, with one side saying "we must police the behavior of men for the good of women" and the other side disagreeing. Things got even worse when people went over the photos and videos of the event, compared it to the timeline, and discovered...
kek.gg/i/Yvjgk.gif
Note that I am not saying that this account is false, I've simply seen what a community can do when overreacting to alleged misconduct. Whatever I can do to wave a stop-sign in front of the crowd before it gets up to speed is to the good, in my view.
4765610
Sargon's on one side of the Culture Wars. Those on the other side who know about him hate him. Please consider the possibility that you're seeing the equivalent of Fox News articles about Obama.
You know, if you keep playing the middle of the road and doing the whole "It really doesn't matter if its true or not, I'm just worried that you're all suddely hyper vigilant!" thing, people might start to suspect that you're the perpetrator at the convention.
I read this, and I shake my head, and it makes me sad that you choose to behave so malignantly.
4765935