Discussion Prohibited Substances

[WhatDoesTheFoxSay?]

Out of curiosity,

In the hypothetical scenario that such a case is the first of its kind, where an autopsy determined that a prohibited/highly regulated substance (e.g. illicit drugs, industrial solvents) has been the cause of (unnatural) death:

Assuming that the country in question is a (A) first world country and (B) vigilant against potential threats to peace and security,

1. What is the likelihood that existing laws and regulations would be tightened, so as to restrict public access to the above substance(s)?

2. Is there a possibility that the deceased's personal and private information, such as browsing history and bank transactions, is subject to vetting—perhaps to glean information on the means by which controlled paraphernalia is obtained—by the relevant authorities?

3. Sensationalisation by the media aside, what are the chances that this news will reach the ears of the public?

 

[odradek]

Hmmm interesting question.

1. This is a possibility I think due to any number of factors. A politician could take it as a cause on behalf of the grieving relatives. It also depends on the substance in question. The sellers could lobby for stricter regulations out of guilt or whatever. Definitely a possibility as there are a lot of variables potentially at play.

2. I think this would happen regardless the cause of death if it's suspicious or speculated as a potential suicide.

3. I think this would depend on the family and who the deceased person was. If the story is compelling in some way, there's no way to stop the media from sensationalising it because they only really care about clicks and views in this day and age. Depending how private the family of the deceased is would partly determine this I think.

For all of them I think it depends on what the variables are for any particular case to determine potential outcomes. It's hard to say in the abstract but #2 is almost assured.

 

[WhatDoesTheFoxSay?]

Thank you for your response @foxdieΩ, you brought up very good points. I agree that various socio-political factors, such as politicians supporting what they think is a worthy cause, and merchants seeking to prevent misuse of their products, could tighten up laws on controlled substances.
With regards to #3, I would also like to point out that in an attempt to find closure, the bereaved may demand for changes to be made. ft26 for instance, have been quite vocal in making their cause known—to have suicide forums like these taken down—through petitions and lobbying efforts. The media is quick to jump on the bandwagon, branding us a 'death cult' that exploits the vulnerable, inciting them to take their own lives. I don't think it's in my place to pass judgement on those who lost their loved ones to suicide, but as many here have pointed out, if those deceased could turn to their loved ones (ft26) for support, they wouldn't have found themselves here in the first place.

I am worried that #1 would happen as an inevitable consequence of #2. My country IS a first world country that is hyper-vigilant against potential threats to peace and security. If I were to ctb by means of a controlled substance (e.g. SN, N), it would jeopardise future attempts by others (in particular those more 'deserving' than I) to exit via the same route. That idea does not sit well with me.

SN seems to be the method of choice for a peaceful exit here (rather than N, perhaps due to logistical difficulties). According to threads here, bluish-gray discolouration of the skin (due to methemoglobinemia) and thick blood consistency are giveaways of nitrite poisoning to the forensic scientist, who would then order the necessary tests for confirmation.

 

[odradek]

Thank you for your response @foxdieΩ, you brought up very good points. I agree that various socio-political factors, such as politicians supporting what they think is a worthy cause, and merchants seeking to prevent misuse of their products, could tighten up laws on controlled substances.
With regards to #3, I would also like to point out that in an attempt to find closure, the bereaved may demand for changes to be made. ft26 for instance, have been quite vocal in making their cause known—to have suicide forums like these taken down—through petitions and lobbying efforts. The media is quick to jump on the bandwagon, branding us a 'death cult' that exploits the vulnerable, inciting them to take their own lives. I don't think it's in my place to pass judgement on those who lost their loved ones to suicide, but as many here have pointed out, if those deceased could turn to their loved ones (ft26) for support, they wouldn't have found themselves here in the first place.

I am worried that #1 would happen as an inevitable consequence of #2. My country IS a first world country that is hyper-vigilant against potential threats to peace and security. If I were to ctb by means of a controlled substance (e.g. SN, N), it would jeopardise future attempts by others (in particular those more 'deserving' than I) to exit via the same route. That idea does not sit well with me.

SN seems to be the method of choice for a peaceful exit here (rather than N, perhaps due to logistical difficulties). According to threads here, bluish-gray discolouration of the skin (due to methemoglobinemia) and thick blood consistency are giveaways of nitrite poisoning to the forensic scientist, who would then order the necessary tests for confirmation.

While I feel trying to protect other's future ability to ctb is very noble, I would say there isn't much you can realistically do to prevent an outcome once you are gone. While I don't always agree with the anti-choice position and the actions of its adherents (ft26), their position is way easier to understand and articulate to the outside world then our pro-choice position ever will be. This is an extremely emotional topic and rationality is hard to muster, even for the most logical among us. If a particular suicide leads to more limited access to SN for example, I feel that would just be an inevitable consequence of any suicide that receives a certain amount of attention. I don't think there's a way to reasonably safeguard the substance from the grieving families, manufacturers or politicians, especially if they happen to feel guilty or are particularly self righteous (or both). Also I'll add you are as deserving as anyone who suffers to decide how and when you want to ctb. If your exit causes the further restriction of SN, that is on your society, not on you imo.