Those of us who work as drug journalists are accustomed to witnessing the limits of human creativity, both at its most beautiful and its darkest. It’s the latter that prove most challenging to the psyche: from drugs made from human bones to urban myths of peanut butter and mayonnaise injections, the landscape of substances is, to say the least, diverse.
But just when we think we’ve seen it all and nothing can surprise us anymore, a new trend always comes along to humble us. This time, we’re talking about bluetoothing: the practice of shooting up the blood of a person who has recently used drugs.
Bluetoothing: What It Is and Why Injecting Someone Else’s Blood Is Dangerous
The idea behind this method isn’t complex at all: people inject themselves with the blood of someone who’s taken a drug (typically heroin or methamphetamine) to share the effects. Simple? Yes. Efficient? Apparently not. The second-hand dose fails to provide the same effects as the first. So much so that, according to the New York Times, some doctors suggest that any perceived effects are purely placebo-induced.
This practice, also known as “hotspotting” or “flashblooding” in places like Tanzania, primarily affects people from impoverished backgrounds looking for cheap ways to access drugs. A buy-one-get-one-free kind of deal, basically… or that’s what it would be if it actually worked.
To make matters worse, opportunists are already cashing in on the trend. In Zimbabwe, according to some sources, sachets of adulterated blood can be found on the illicit market. In Pakistan, it’s apparently not uncommon to sell half-used heroin syringes infused with blood.
The number of risks of bluetoothing is only surpassed by its seriousness. Sharing blood in an uncontrolled setting can be fatal: this is why knowing the blood type and factor is so important in medical procedures. Added to this are the dangers of sharing needles, such as the spread of a wide range of infections like hepatitis or HIV.
According to the BBC, this trend has been growing in the last couple of years, and primarily affects young and impoverished populations. In fact, experts warn that drug users are getting younger, and the lack of resources paints a worrying picture for the future.
Bluetoothing and HIV: A Needless Crisis
Predictably, Bluetoothing has led to an sharp increase in HIV cases in areas already heavily affected by the epidemic, such as South Africa, Fiji, Lesotho, and Zimbabwe, to name a few. Needless to say, we can’t pin the blame solely on drug users: this crisis is largely due to structural factors, such as the lack of prevention and care programs, state neglect, the lack of access to clean needles, sexual education, and health services.
Fun fact: In Fiji, police pressure pharmacies to require prescriptions when selling needles, leading drug users to share the few needles available on the market. Another example of prohibitionism generating precisely the same evils it claims to combat.
In some places, such as Lesotho, civil initiatives are emerging to try to curb substance abuse, closely linked to the HIV epidemic. But their efforts are insufficient without the support of the state.
For all these reasons, members of the medical community are sounding the alarm and urging authorities to take measures to mitigate this dangerous practice. Education, access to healthcare and support systems (currently almost nonexistent) are key to stemming what some are already calling an “avalanche” of cases.
State authorities could implement harm reduction measures, grounded on evidence and with a focus on health rather than punishment, such as safer drug consumption services (SCS) or non-stigmatizing education programs, to name a few. Their effectiveness has already proven to be greater than ‘tough on crime’ approaches or simply looking the other way. It’s time for states to catch up.
