"ecstasy 'should Be Class B Drug'" Says Drug Advisor

[1a2bcio8]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7882708.stm

This is a most frustrating situation. As with the recent changes in law with cannabis, the government is willfully ignoring scientific evidence for the purposes of political gain - what we would label demagoguery or an appeal to the masses in terms of their prejudice; which many do have toward drug users. The analogy given by one of the governments drug advisors is that ecstacy is about as dangerous as riding a horse. This would probably also convert into ecstacy is about as dangerous as riding a bike. Ecstacy is probably as dangerous as leaving your house, even. How would you all feel if the government made illegal, extreme sports on the basis of their slight danger? More specifically, how would you feel about risking upto seven years in prison for engaging in an activity that you enjoyed and didn't cause harm to others apart from the emotional response of loved ones resulting from inherrent risks that comes with all activity, that comes from even leaving your house? We are dealing with a highly irrational and self absorbed goverment, in this sense. It's the, "New Inquisition."

Please discuss.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Al_Fel]

Why not make all Drugs Legal? Its up to the person that takes them weather they want to or not.

I personally don't give a shit. I've never tried it and I don't intend on trying it either.

[anzo]

You can't compare leaving your house and the 'dangers' of drugs. Sure, we've all heard the 'I could get ran over tomorrow'...maybe so, but thats not a choice I have made, where as altering my mental state chemically, is my choice.

I'm all for freedom to do what we went, but unfortunately some people can't be trusted with freedom, or at least not that much of it. I've tried ecstasy so in my eyes, I've been there and done that...thats a chapter over and I've no need to revert back to it - it simply doesn't interest me.

People talk about drugs in a very, very selfish position - "It doesn't affect me"...maybe not, but it does affect loved ones, friends and family (which I was glad to see in your post).

[Tylerlovesalex]

taking bets now on how long it will take for this topic to get closed

[Flip-Mod]

I work in the Psychopharmacology Unit at Bristol (Same as Proffessor Nutt: they guy suggesting it could be lowered in class) and there is a massive body of evidence suggesting the physiological risks are much much lower than legal drugs like alcohol and nicotine. However, due to a combination of fear/ignorance it probably wont be lowered. The problem is drugs like alcohol/nictoine have been tried/tested over hundreds of years and we are well aware of the long term risks (and their taxability). MDMA is relatively new and everyone is scared that it might have long term effects like (psychosis/addicition). people need to know that ecstasy doesnt act on addicition pathways (Mesolimbic dopamingeric pathway>>>Nucleus accumbens) like cocaine, heroin and alcohol and this has been proved.

In my opinion, MDMA's behavioral effects, eurphoria, empathy etc are FAR better than other drugs like Alcohol which turn people into loud ,aggressive uncordinated liabilities.

Give it time, E enthusiasts and we will be aware of the long term effects, if there are any.

[1a2bcio8]

Why not make all Drugs Legal? Its up to the person that takes them weather they want to or not.

I personally don't give a shit. I've never tried it and I don't intend on trying it either.

Well, this is my position. It's been shown that drug laws aren't really a consideration in ones choice to take a drug or not, so they're not really a deterent. However, drug laws push drug control into the hands of criminals which causes all sorts of social problems. I do have some reservation about this but I think it would work. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that people WILL do it. I have little interest in drug use myself anymore but drugs like heroin and crack were never really a consideration and that wasn't based on the law but rather an awareness of the damage those drugs can do to your life. If people do the drugs regardless of the law, then the law is simply a superfluous harm.

You can't compare leaving your house and the 'dangers' of drugs. Sure, we've all heard the 'I could get ran over tomorrow'...maybe so, but thats not a choice I have made, where as altering my mental state chemically, is my choice.

I'm all for freedom to do what we went, but unfortunately some people can't be trusted with freedom, or at least not that much of it. I've tried ecstasy so in my eyes, I've been there and done that...thats a chapter over and I've no need to revert back to it - it simply doesn't interest me.

People talk about drugs in a very, very selfish position - "It doesn't affect me"...maybe not, but it does affect loved ones, friends and family (which I was glad to see in your post).

The point is, with regards to the risks of leaving your house, that life is inherrently risky and it's something we should accept. This is something we should especially accept in terms of those whom we love. If I love somebody and they derive pleasure from something risky I would prefer to accept this with the personal risk of emotional trauma at their harm or even death. If we were all obsessed about never taking any personal risk that was fulfilling, in consideration of everyone elses emotions, then that life, quite simply, would not be worth living. This applies to the entire range of activity but of course some areas possess more risk. When I go out and ride my bike, I risk emotionally damaging my family and friends if I were to have a severe accident but they accept this because it's what makes me happy. Not everyone understands this but they do more readily than drug use. But why is drug use and its risks any less worthy than bike riding and its risks? I have friends whose lives revolve around drugs like mine has around riding. In fact I've been there myself, and it was great at times, just like riding. It makes them happy and I'm happy for them. I say this knowing two people who have developed cannabis psychosis, so I am aware of the risks. I also says this of extreme sports, regardless of frequently hearing of deaths around that activity. If drug users are selfish then so are all us that ride trials. Perhaps we should stop?

When we talk of being selfish we have to realise that it works both ways.

Also, when I've taken a chemical substance, if I were to die from it, that wouldn't be my choice either, just as being run over by a truck would not. Chances are, in fact, that I'd be less likely to die (although the chances are already massively slim) if the drugs legalised and under control by regulated bodies meaning that we'd be getting exactly what we were expecting.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Elliot]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7882708.stm

More specifically, how would you feel about risking upto seven years in prison for

According to the article "Maximum penalty for possession is 14 years in prison. For supply, life in prison. You can get an unlimited fine for both"

This made me chuckle:

Ian Johnston, president of the association, told the BBC: "This is not some academic or scientific exercise, this is dealing with people's lives."

It just this kind of emotionally charged drivel that prevents rational debate. I wonder of how many of those deaths could have been preventable with a) proper knowldge of the risks and what to do/not to do drugs not produced in squaller and cut with shite

The whole analogy of horse riding/trials riding and taking e is a bit shady because of the effect illegality may have on how lethal e might be. While you could certainly die due to trials or horse riding, it may not be MDMA in itself that caused these deaths. It may not be the lethality of the substance, but the lack of knowledge and a fear of getting caught that caused the deaths, which are both a direct result of the law and not necessarily the affects of MDMA.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Elliot

[Shaun H]

Quite alot of my friends at Uni drop and they were saying that it's very rare for people to die from ecstacy itself. It's usually people doing something stupid that gets them killed if they're out without friends to look after them (just like getting pissed as a fart really...)

[Dr. Nick Riviera]

I think that the everyman on the street calling people junkies could do with a little bit of education on the subject and not only be fed sensationalist tripe from unreliable sources. perhaps then we could come to a better conclusion rather than it being an us and them type thing.

Also, props for use of the word 'demagoguery', you sly old dog.

[1a2bcio8]

Give it time, E enthusiasts and we will be aware of the long term effects, if there are any.

I think ecstacy became popular about 20 years ago and I'm unware of any general health problems arising in those people? Additionally, even if this does happen, we can't be certain of placing the blame on mdma itself because the drugs aren't regulated, so we can never be entirely sure on what's been taken. I suppose it's still suggestive, however.

You're from Bristol but do you ride trials at the moment?

According to the article "Maximum penalty for possession is 14 years in prison. For supply, life in prison. You can get an unlimited fine for both"

This made me chuckle:

Ian Johnston, president of the association, told the BBC: "This is not some academic or scientific exercise, this is dealing with people's lives."

It just this kind of emotionally charged drivel that prevents rational debate. I wonder of how many of those deaths could have been preventable with a) proper knowldge of the risks and what to do/not to do drugs not produced in squaller and cut with shite

The whole analogy of horse riding/trials riding and taking e is a bit shady because of the effect illegality may have on how lethal e might be. While you could certainly die due to trials or horse riding, it may not be MDMA in itself that caused these deaths. It may not be the lethality of the substance, but the lack of knowledge and a fear of getting caught that caused the deaths, which are both a direct result of the law and not necessarily the affects of MDMA.

My bad on the sentencing.

That seems to me a very vaild point on the analogy and which, I think, makes stronger the argument against the current laws on ecstacy. However, I'm sure in some cases, people simply are disposed to having an adverse reaction to it but then that's the same with allergies. Should we think about banning nuts then? It might also be that people took ecstacy and fell asleep somewhere cold or drove their car into a wall or something stupid like that, which simply puts it on par with alcohol.

Also, props for use of the word 'demagoguery', you sly old dog.

Use it or lose it!

[Dr. Nick Riviera]

Ben, I managed to track down a book I've been after for aeons, I'll hit you up later on facebook.

[JD™]

Props also on getting a debate going which hasn't ended up being a petty row something along the lines of:

"Drugz is great yo, i'z been droppin for years and there's nowt wrong wi me"

vs

"Anyone who takes drugs should clearly by killed, as they don't value the lives of themselves or anyone else"

I think all the points I would have made have already been said better than I could. I can personally see it both ways, but I'm interested in what else is said in here..

[Has anyone seen my shoe?]

Props also on getting a debate going which hasn't ended up being a petty row something along the lines of:

"Drugz is great yo, i'z been droppin for years and there's nowt wrong wi me"

vs

"Anyone who takes drugs should clearly by killed, as they don't value the lives of themselves or anyone else"

I think all the points I would have made have already been said better than I could. I can personally see it both ways, but I'm interested in what else is said in here..

I vote the second option.

Nah seriously I personally have never taken drugs and doubt I ever will, they just dont appeal to me. However just because of this im not going dictate that others cant, id rather not be involved but let them do what you want.

As for the change of class, I dont really see the need of the class system other then for length of sentancing for the police. If the drug is classes as illegal then whatever, I know people who have taken E and they always seemed fine to me, nothing to stupid

[Matt Vandart]

We are dealing with a highly irrational and self absorbed goverment, in this sense.

I wholeheartedly agree.

On the other hand I don't like the way people go on about getting run over by a bus shite, I have done just that, lived and it made life very hard for a long time.

I don't get what the fuss is either, do people who whine about drugs being moved up and down classes intend getting caught?

If not then why care.

Drugs like ecstasy will never be made legal, you can count on that.

So they are never going to be "controlled" and "safe". I agree the actual MDMA isn't going to kill you and that the smacky shite and other crap it gets cut with is more likely to mess you up so "controlled" and "safe ecstasy" would be better but being realistic drug users are in the minority compared to non drug users and so the votes count.

What you are being told in this message from the government is the old chestnut "do the crime, do the time" .

If you get caught.

MAtt

[boon racoon]

MDMA is relatively new

It's getting old these days. I wonder where it went

[trials_pimp]

It Died Out With the Happy Hardcore Scene.

It has Been Scientificly Prooven that you are much Safer On E than you are on Alcohol.

At an Average of £3 a Pill its also now cheaper than Drinking, and your garunteed to Enjoy yourself (provided you have a good Dealer), unlike Alcohol which Will elevate any mood you are currently in, which is why alot people start fights over Nothing. Whereas on Pills everyone would just be Hugging and Listening to Eric Clapton.

I would Agree that it doesnt deserve to be in the Same Class as Cocaine and Heroin, Seeing as Ecstacy isnt that Bad for you.

It isnt Aditive, but if used too much you can develop a Psycological Dependacy on the High. Not Unlike Becoming an Alcoholic, Exept that the Comedown Can Be alot worse that a Hangover, and Last Longer

[Fish-Finger-er]

the problem of the cheapness of ectasy is also one of its dangers.

With alcohol, you can drink, and really unless youve got serious issues, by the time the second bottle of spirits is down, youll be throwing it back up, granted youll be ill for days, you may end with a stomach pump, but its not that bad (and going for nights out, no one seems to get too bad, largely down to the cost of alcohol in clubs and pubs, at £3 a bottle, youngsters cant really get in there with £20, and end up killing themselves.

Likewise with coke, i honestly think i must of come close a few times, but dont really think overdosing is that doable/likely (unless youve got several hundred quid and are hitting it over a couple of days/ decide to do a 2 foot line), as generally when you get real real good coke, it doesnt have the regular coke effect, it just shuts you up for a good hour or so, and your unable to do much more(including more coke), and if you have crap coke, you can generally hoof a good few grams in a big session. Despite this fact, im now rather anti cocaine, just because it was getting silly amounts and silly money.

Ive never really experimented with ectasy, mainly due it to it scaring me, it scares me that i can go out and get 100 pills for less than the cost of a decent night out. and kill myself 5 times over, and you could quite easily munch 20 pills, before you even started to come up (even on relatively quick acting pills). Which is kind of the reason i think it should be kept as a class A, i could just see too many kids buying 10 for £20 in a club, and 4, waiting 10 minutes not feeling anything, munching another 4, waiting a bit longer, then taking the other 2, before coming up. and most likely putting themselves in a very bad way.

[TheCircus]

YEAH WELL WHATS THE NEXT STEP? MANDATORY CRACK FOR EVERYONE?

GOOD WORK YOU LIBERAL CRACKHEADS, THEN WHAT WILL HAPPEN?

[Elliot]

....

Your not really considering how easy it is to get alcohol poisoning. Plus, anyone stupid enough to take four pills every 10 minutes deserves exactly what they are going to get. Beside that the small death rate due to e compared to alcohol suggests that alcohol is a hell of a lot more dangerous than pills. Your argument suggests to me the need for education (not for you, but in general) into the affects of drugs rather than 14 years in prison for possession.

PLUS WHERE IS THE QUEUE FOR THE CRACK? SIGN ME UP BUDDY!!!

Edited February 13, 2009 by Elliot

[1a2bcio8]

Well, that doesn't tend to be a problem with people, at least in terms of my experience. Usually the feeling of one or two is enough for most and cost doesn't play a role. However, I do know people that have taken between 20-30 pills on an evening but they were extreme cases. Most of the time they'd get away with it apart from this one chap who ended up requiring a cathater (spelling?). He was in a class of his own though. Taking lots tends to spoil the experience anyway. You end up in a mess on the floor somewhere, ironically looking like you forgot to take your medication, and you don't remember anything about it. Kind've like alcohol I guess.

[Fish-Finger-er]

Well, that doesn't tend to be a problem with people, at least in terms of my experience. Usually the feeling of one or two is enough for most and cost doesn't play a role. However, I do know people that have taken between 20-30 pills on an evening but they were extreme cases. Most of the time they'd get away with it apart from this one chap who ended up requiring a cathater (spelling?). He was in a class of his own though. Taking lots tends to spoil the experience anyway. You end up in a mess on the floor somewhere, ironically looking like you forgot to take your medication, and you don't remember anything about it. Kind've like alcohol I guess.

Yea im fully aware of that, even know of someone who did 41, and just about got away with it. (ended up being carried home, and having convulsions on his living room floor). but im more on about the point where kids get hold of it for the first time, kind of like alcohol, theyll drink till theyll sick, but with E's you dont really drop till your sick, you end up dropping till you drop.

[Jack Chinnery]

taking bets now on how long it will take for this topic to get closed

Im not, Its quite a serious topic tbf.

[1a2bcio8]

Yea im fully aware of that, even know of someone who did 41, and just about got away with it. (ended up being carried home, and having convulsions on his living room floor). but im more on about the point where kids get hold of it for the first time, kind of like alcohol, theyll drink till theyll sick, but with E's you dont really drop till your sick, you end up dropping till you drop.

I can't say its not possible, but I do find it unlikely. I did five my first time at age seventeen and everyone around me, of similar age, thought I wasn't being very sensible. The general attitude, across the differing types of individual that did ecstacy, was one of moderation and respect for the drug - even amongst people who were in competition regarding bong smoking and alcohol. With me however, I was deeply depressed at the time and it was an escape. I only took another one as the previous one began to end - my experience was over twelve hours long. Typically, the feeling is enough from just one. It sets a mood where you don't really care for anymore - generally people feel quite content, and to be honest that's half the point of the drug. This is especially the case for people when they start off. Hardened ecstacy users sometimes like to push it though.

Also, unlike alcohol and cannabis, reverence doesn't seem as common regarding doing a lot. I've never heard anyone boasting about doing ten pills but I have heard it about ten pints or an ounce of weed in one night.

You raise a fair point though and I'm open to your idea being right, I just think that, naturally, a different mentality arises with ecstacy that stops almost everyone from going overboard.

[Flip-Mod]

yer i do ride trials in bristol, but dont really know anyone, just moved here.

MDMA was synethesized about 50 years ago (compared to alcohol, opium, coca leaves (coaine) khat, mushrooms, ergot (acid) in which the long term effects have been well documented as they are all been used for many more years

so psychopharmacologists are a little worried about effects of chronic abuse later in life. Every risky behavior is going to have a minority that take things to far, but in moderation, it is far less risky than proportionate /moderate amounts of other risky behaviors

Edited February 13, 2009 by Flip-Mod

[1a2bcio8]

yer i do ride trials in bristol, but dont really know anyone, just moved here.

MDMA was synethesized about 50 years ago (compared to alcohol, opium, coca leaves (coaine) khat, mushrooms, ergot (acid) in which the long term effects have been well documented as they are all been used for many more years

Cool, well I shall be back in Bristol this September - studying neuroscience at Bristol uni, also. Would be great to hear about this stuff in some detail.

MDMA was at one point, I think about 50 years ago, given to couples for marriage councelling. If I remember correcntly, it helped. In the same way that LSD has been used to treat various psychological problems. Unfortunately, irrationality and selfish motives controlled this substance, also.