Ecstasy risks
I wonder whether the home secretary opened the PowerPoint presentation on the dangers of ecstasy that she was sent by the man the papers describe as the "UK's greatest expert" on the drug. If she did, was she impressed?
Professor Andy Parrott from Swansea University has emerged as the most powerful academic opponent to the view expressed by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that MDMA or ecstasy should be downgraded in their recent report [322Kb PDF].
He tried to get the medical journal The Lancet to publish his criticism of the ACMD's analysis, but says that they turned him down flat. Instead, he made his presentation to the committee and then sent his slides [69Kb PDF] to Jacqui Smith.
He argues that the Chair of the ACMD, Professor David Nutt, has made a number of "extremely serious errors" in papers on the relative dangers of ecstasy and seeks to demolish the committee's argument with his own "extensive knowledge".
Here is the key slide from his presentation in which he lists the dangers of ecstasy and his sources:
Page 7 of The Psychobiological Dangers Of Recreational Ecstasy Or MDMA by Professor Andy C. Parrott [69Kb PDF]
This sounds pretty frightening. Ecstasy kills scores of people a year, damages their brains, makes them more likely to attack people and makes them monsters behind the wheel.
But a quick check of the sources suggests that Professor Parrott may be making some errors himself.
• Deaths: "40-70 per year in the UK"
• Source: Schifano, F et al (2006): Ecstasy (MDMA, MDA, MDEA, MBDB) Consumption, Seizures, Related Offences, Prices, Dosage Levels And Deaths In The UK (1994-2003) [91Kb PDF]
• ACMD estimate: 10-17 caused by ecstasy
The Schifano paper does provide a table which at first glance appears to support Parrott's claim that ecstasy kills many more people in Britain than the figure estimated by the ACMD.
But death mentions are not the same thing as deaths
"The number of cases identified here were actually 'mentions' of ecstasy on death certificates, ie no information was available in respect to ecstasy and concomitant other drugs' dosage, post mortem reports, toxicology results and setting characteristics.
Ecstasy inclusion on those documents submitted to General Mortality Registers did not necessarily mean that this drug directly 'caused' the death, but that ecstasy (MDMA, MDA, MDEA, MBDB) was found at post-mortem and/or was identified by toxicological screening. A number of methodological problems can contribute to make it difficult to interpret the role ecstasy plays in the so-called 'ecstasy related' deaths and especially so if accurate information is not available."
In a 2007 editorial written by Prof. Parrott himself (Ecstasy Versus Alcohol: Tolstoy And The Variations Of Unhappiness), he notes that the death data are pretty meaningless:
"In relation to annual deaths, Schifano et al. (2006) suggested an annual UK death rate of around 40-70/year, although they noted the many difficulties in arriving at these estimates, since most fatalities are in ecstasy polydrug users. Indeed all the functional and structural data on recreational ecstasy/MDMA is confounded by other drug and non-drug factors."
• Brain damage: "Most robust finding was a reduction in serotonin transporter density"
• Source: Cowan, RL (2007): Neuroimaging Research In Human MDMA Users: A Review
• ACMD: "unsure" about ecstasy's long-term effects on the brain
Actually, Cowan concludes something rather different about his research on MDMA ecstasy's effect on the brain:
"The current state of neuroimaging in human MDMA users does not permit conclusions regarding the long-term effects of MDMA exposure."
• Aggression: "Increased mid-week"
• Source: Curran, HV et al (2004): Empathy And Aggression: Two Faces Of Ecstasy? A Study Of Interpretative Cognitive Bias And Mood Change In Ecstasy Users / Hoshi, R et al (2006): An Investigation Into The Sub-Acute Effects Of Ecstasy On Aggressive Interpretative Bias And Aggressive Mood: Are There Gender Differences?
• ACMD: no evidence that ecstasy causes "interpersonal violence"
The Hoshi work involved "participants processing sentences that could be interpreted as either aggressive or neutral and subsequently remember them in a recognition test. Ecstasy users show a bias toward interpretation of ambiguous material in an aggressive manner when compared to controls 4 days after ecstasy use".
I am not an expert on this kind of analysis, but I do wonder whether we need better evidence to conclude that ecstasy users are significantly more likely to beat someone up on Wednesday nights than their responses to sentence construction.
• Car driving: "Can be 'extremely dangerous'"
• Source: Brookhuis, K et al (2004): Effects Of MDMA (Ecstasy), And Multiple Drugs Use On (Simulated) Driving Performance And Traffic Safety
• ACMD: did not find evidence that ecstasy causes road deaths
The Brookhuis paper Professor Parrott cites does not suggest ecstasy makes car driving extremely dangerous. In fact, it says:
"Driving performance in the sense of lateral and longitudinal vehicle control was not greatly affected after MDMA, but deteriorated after multiple drug use."
And the line about the dangers is in this sentence:
"Driving under the influence of MDMA alone is certainly not safe; however, driving back (home) after a dance party ("rave") where MDMA users regularly combine MDMA with a host of other drugs can be described as extremely dangerous."
• Cardiac: "MDMA has profound cardiovascular effects in humans and animals"
• Source: Perrine, SA et al (2008): Cardiac Effects Of MDMA On The Metabolic Profile Determined With (1)H-Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy In The Rat
• ACMD: poor evidence to suggest ecstasy causes heart damage
The paper cited actually says this:
"Acute exposure to MDMA has profound cardiovascular effects on blood pressure and heart rate in humans and animals."
Professor Parrott chose not to include those key words in his slide.
No-one disputes that taking ecstasy involves risk (see my previous post). Indeed, it seems that we are in urgent need of better research on the long-term effects of MDMA. And the Advisory Council made it clear that ecstasy is a harmful drug and deserves to be listed within Class B.
Its conclusions are based on the largest-ever systematic review of any drug in Britain. Everything is posted online for further academic review. The ACMD did not come to its conclusions alone; the work was scrutinised by the Health Technology Assessment programme.
Naturally, I've tried to contact Professor Parrott to discuss the points above with him, but he hasn't responded to my calls.
Professor Parrott wrote a personal letter to the home secretary urging her not to listen to the ACMD. Instead, he suggests an "independent review" of the committee's findings.
"As one of the leading international experts in this area, I would be willing to undertake such a review", he writes.
Update 26 Feb: Professor Parrot has sent me this document [30Kb PDF] with his response which I'm happy to include here.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~39~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Why does nobody mention the work from the 1980s in this debate, regarding the destruction of dorsal raphe neurons by MDMA (e.g. O'Hearn et al Journal of Neuroscience 1988)? This damage may account for some of the depression symptoms sometimes seen in former users.
Complain about this comment
Excellent analysis, Mark.
Complain about this comment
"As one of the leading international experts in this area, I would be willing to undertake such a review", he [Professor Parrott] writes. I bet he would. Nice little earner.
Surely the best people to judge the evidence from all of these disparate sources is someone used to analysing academic papers and weighing evidence, but have not been closely involved in the field. Anyone that has been working closely in the field will come to the review with too much personal prejudice.
All of this is assuming that the ACMD review was not independant.
Complain about this comment
Generally I agree with your analysis, but
"I am not an expert on this kind of analysis, but I do wonder whether we need better evidence to conclude that ecstasy users are significantly more likely to beat someone up on Wednesday nights than their responses to sentence construction."
is a cheap shot. You are referring to a standard technique for psychological investigation, apparently widely accepted as diagnostic. Would you have said "we need better evidence....than some old guy in lab bending over a microscope"?
Complain about this comment
Congratulations, Mark, on a top-quality analysis! Perhaps Professor Parrott should take note of how to carry out intellectually rigorous research!
Complain about this comment
I have the ultimate respect for anyone who is willing to spend most of the life within an academic field in order to provide the world with the fruits of their mental labour.
However, I think their are more pressing issues triggered by this study.
1) Why is alcohol not a class A or B drug?
2) Why is tobbacco not a class A or B drug?
3) How many people die from the above compared to ecstacy?
4) How much does Alcohol and Tobbaco cost the tax payer each year in Healthcare, Policing, Family planning, dependency treatment and benefits compared to ecstacy?
5) How many families are torn apart by Alcohol each year compared to ecstacy?
6) How many people are beaten, stabbed, raped or murdered by someone under the influence of ecstacy each year compared to Alchohol?
Ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
I don't have a strong position about this one way or the other, but one small point on the reporting of it ...
Having his paper "turned down flat" by the Lancet does not necessarily demonstrate his paper is technically or academically flawed.
Lancet has a two phase review process. First they give it a cursory look to see if it is something they are likely publish. If it is, then they send it to the 'double blind peer reviewer(s)' who will be the experts on that topic.
If his paper was turned down quickly then it fell at the first step - PROBABLY not because a highly knowledgable psychopharmacology expert found flaws. More often it is just not something that the Lancet sees as appropriate/interesting for them and would then go on to be published by a respectable specialist journal.
Perhaps a more interesting question: has it since been submitted to and/or accepted by any other journal since the lancet declined it? Most academics would not want to waste their hard work and would just send it to another journal.
Complain about this comment
whilst what Mark Easton has written is excellent, I would just say one thing, as someone who once drunk alcohol like a fish, - all drugs are wrong, even the mildest. I tried to drown severe emotional trensions, but it never works that way. lifes pain always comes back until one is able to deal with it. people take drugs for similar reasons to those who follow religion. they are a crutch, for weak or credulous people. standing firm and facing reality with all its blisters and pain, is not easy, and maybe for the few. but all drugs are wrong in principle.
to alter ones brain activity, to swamp the mind with states of consciousness alien to its natural state is wrong.
if people want to get beyond the pains and darkness of daily life, it is only by the way we live -love, compassion go a long way in this respect-- or meditation. not by disrupting the normal functioning of the brain to facilitate some shift in perception
Complain about this comment
So people seem to think that 10-17 deaths per year caused by extasy is nothing important. Would they feel the same if a pharmaceutical company came around offerring a drug which lowers blood pressure, but causes only 10-17 deaths per year? Would they be happy to take it? Such a drug will never pass the approval process in this country, even though it is effective in treating a disease. If then some criminals strated making it in their own backyards and selling it to people, would anybody buy it? Would anybody demand its downgrading just because the deaths it causes are relatively small number? Why should extasy be downgraded, when it is obvious that it does not have any useful purpose, yet it caries its own health risks? If we are to allow unporoven drugs with no beneficial efects to humans to be easily sold and bought without any proper control, them we do not have to stick to extasy. I am sure the pharmaceutical companies will be more that happy to provide unproven drugs with the same effect as extasy and at least this way we can be certain that no rat poison has gone into the pills.
#6 supamanipulator
The argument about alcochol always comes up when people try to justify the dowgrading of one or another drug. However, it is completely wrong. If alcohol is more dangerous than extasy, we should ban alcochol, not allow extasy. However, that is not going to work because the Great British Public will never allow that. After all the Government did ban smoking, but there are people who still think this is unfair. Leave alcochol now, let's concentrate on things we can more easily control.
Complain about this comment
I found it interesting that many of the same people who were condemning Nutt for being biased before the recent review began - having suggested a move was probably appropriate - (and even suggesting he should resign) were suggesting Parrot should have taken the helm instead - despite his making it clear he was against a move to B.
It was clearly more a case of supporting the scientists whose views most closely fitted theirs.
For all the other problems with the ACMD, the ABC system and the Misuse of Drugs Act, the reports on drug harms the council produces are always thorough and professional. What we do with the findings is a different matter entirely.
Transform have been clear that:
"any review of the harm of ecstasy, or indeed any illegal drug, is essentially pointless if no distinction is made between harms caused by the drug and those created and or exacerbated by its illegality. Transform has been calling for the ACMD to work at disaggregating policy harms from drug harms for some years now, maintaining that the ACMD’s continued explicit support for the criminalisation of drug production, supply and use (and failure to explore alternative regulatory options) makes them part of the problem instead of being part of the solution. Given the dramatic failure of the existing system and its appalling negative consequences (in both public health and criminal justice arenas) it is absolutely imperative that the ABC classification system itself, and the legislative framework of the MDA 1971 in which it sits, is the subject of the Advisory Council’s expert scrutiny."
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2008/09/transform-submission-to-acmd-ecstasy.html
Complain about this comment
#8
Not everyone that drinks or takes other substances is doing it because they are dependant or because they have some deep personal problem to deal with. I'm sorry for your troubles, but there are a lot of folks that can enjoy a pint or three once in a while without it being a problem.
Please recognise that we are all different.
#9
1. The government did not ban smoking.
2. Why do you get the right to decide what I put into my body? Why should you and your type be allowed to say to me "Alcohol is too dangerous!" or anything else is too dangerous?
You have no right, it's my body and my life. If I want to take risks I damn well will.
Complain about this comment
When I read the dangers of ecstasy above I thought I was about to read an ironic account of alcohol.
I don't know the exact figure but alcohol accounts for a few thousands deaths per year, so do road accidents but we ban neither cars nor alcohol. We are trying to educate people to drink sensibly and to drive better (and never mix the two, something not observed by everyone).
But we push a drug like ecstasy underground. Prohibition never works so we force users to buy something that might be very suspect. We cannot educate people except in the old self-denying terms "Don't!" (which is like a magnet to the young).
In my youth I'd meet people in pubs lecturing others on drugs...with a pint in one hand and a cigarette in the other.
Complain about this comment
#9
The Government only banned smoking in public places.
While that has led to some absurd definitions of what's a "public place" (a lorry cab if there are 2 drivers?) that's an argument for tweaking that particular law, not one for keeping ecstasy a Class A drug.
A lot of the problem with ecstasy and other similar drugs seems to be quality control: those taking it are often unsure of dose strength and / or purity. That's not per se necessarily an argument for legalisation and regulation, I suppose, but I really can't think of a more logical solution...
I remain of the view that the "matrix of harm" concept is the best, most simple and most logical basis for deciding what should be legal and the classificiation of illegality.
Jaqui Smith is playing politics, nothing more. And Professor Parrott seems to have shot himself in the foot.
Complain about this comment
Look, pratical ethics forbids neuroscientists from conducting empirical studies in humans that would conclusively determine the safety of MDMA. Add to that the confound of poly-drug use (MDMA users are typically licentious users of other drugs, including cannabis and alcohol), and we are left with a perplexing dilemma of not knowing the dangerous capacity of MDMA to affect cognition or brain integrity.
This is why we use animal models-- so that we can be informed by an unbiased, evidence-based approach. And the evidence in several species--rats, mice, and non-human primates included--suggests that MDMA is neurotoxic (i.e., produces long-term, irreversible death) to serotonergic (i.e., serotonin-containing) neurons (i.e., nerve cells) in various areas of the brain. Single or repeated administrations of MDMA have repeatedly proven to produce long-term reductions in markers of serotonergic system integrity in rodents and non-human primates (Schmidt, 1987; Battaglia, et al, 1987; Stone, et al, 1986; O’Hearn, et al, 1988), consistent with serotonergic neurotoxicity (Molliver, et al, 1990; Ricaurte, et al, 1992; Steele, et al, 1994). And the evidence is there for humans as well-McCann et al (1998) scanned the brains of volunteers who had not used drugs for at least three weeks prior to the study, and found that abstinent MDMA users had significantly lower levels of serotonin transporter binding than controls. With a preponderance of data to suggest that MDMA causes damage to brain neuronal terminals, and the fact that MDMA is a neurochemical analogue that bears striking pharmacological resemblance to methamphetamine, another potent (and interestingly, undisputed) neurotoxin, we should be highly circumspect to ignore Dr. Parrott's sage advice. Directed to Dr. Nutt: as a scientist in search of the truth, and with hopeful endeavors towards improving society, how can you possibly ignore the bevy of animal data underscoring the dangers of MDMA use? As a voice for society, this is akin to condoning its use.
Complain about this comment
9. Isenhorn
"If somebody created a drug that killed 17 people per year it wouldn't be allowed etc etc"
Probably not - but then I do not know the figures for aspirin deaths, anybody happen to know the death rate for tampons? (that's not a joke, it happens) - and as this is a recreational drug the situation is different
The fact is this drug is used, it currently has the toughest restrictions placed on it and are they working? No, so you saying we shouldn't legalise it for that purpose is about as much good as saying we should make it 'not exist' - it does and we need to approach the issue in the way that is best for everyone's health
Then of course there's the logical argument - if we just created alcohol we probably wouldn't allow it, but we do, and it's far more deadly - we allow people to take that risk, despite it being far more dangerous (and perhaps if it's fine in small amounts consider how well a restriction on personal consumption would go down) - likewise we allow people to ride horses, and there is a higher death rate
why are the stats irrelevant to one but not the other? in everything we do we play a numbers game - driving a car, drinking, playing golf, smoking and many industries have a higher fatality rate than ecstasy - such as road workers, fishermen etc - should we stop people signing up to dangerous, but essential jobs, because people might die?
so you saying 'if something is too dangerous we should ban it' is flawed logic and makes a mockery of the justice system
Also remember that very low death rate may well be reduced if the drug wasn't controlled by criminals and properly manufactured
Good critique Mark, this Parrott sounds like he has an agenda and isn't objective
Complain about this comment
#15
Tarquin,
You say that the death rate can be reduced if the drug is properly manufactured. This is exactly the problem- who is going to manufacture it properly? A pharmaceutical company will not be able to do it as it will never get approval- the drug has got no beneficial effect, is not really necessary, yet it carries health risk. By downgrading it we will just send the message to the criminals to continue what they are doing.
#11
gothnet,
Why don't you listen to your own advice and put something in your mouth? Then you can shut up. Interestingly enough, I have worked as a First Aider in night clubs for a long time and have seen plenty of 'your type' who do not want to be told 'what to put in their mouths' however soon after they stagger in the first aid room and demand to be treated for an overdose. Extasy, ketamine, GHB, GBL, cocaine, all of the above- I have seen it all. If it is your decision what to take, then it should be 'our' decision whether to treat you, should it not?
Complain about this comment
#16 Isenhorn
Things like alcohol and tobacco are heavily taxed so that the consequences to our health system are mitigated. (In fact, from raw figures, smokers subsidise non smokers). Do the same with drugs.
Denying people medical attention because of your misguided sense of what's morality is just wrong. Would you apply it to someone that was injured in the course of rock climbing or skydiving? It was their choice to participate in a risky activity for a thrill, after all.
I would also say that the figures given here don't support your assertion that everyone that takes any drug (and alcohol was the specific one I was addressing with my "what gives you the right to decide" comment) necessarily ends u0p in casualty shortly afterwards.
Complain about this comment
#16 Isenhorn.
You would not be a first aider in cubs if there were no drugs so you would be out of a job would you not?
If you think that a letter or a number matters to a criminal who produces and sells drugs think again its a commodity and nothing more. Prohibition gave drug dealers the power they have now and this outdated view will only keep power in their hands.
Positive education and legal outlets will reduce harm in the long run. Will reduce the uptake of other drugs, ie the myth that cannabis turns you into a heroin addict. The environment you practice your preference of recreational drugs in will have an outcome on further drug use.
What would make a good start to the reeducation on drugs is a FIXED law not this constant bickering about what class they should be or not be in. But just about every user of alcohol is guilt free of drug use and abuse because its socially acceptable.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The scients can discuss the minutiae, but we must not let that deflect from the key issues. All the psychoactive drugs being discussed are harmful, especially to the developing brains of children and adolescents.
The ACMD's concentration on classes abc diverts attention from this. The ACMD and Nutt had many powerful opportunities to point out the dangers, and create an environment where drug use is not seen as the 'norm' or inevitable. Instead, they chose a course of actions which has already been proven to harm our future generation (eg, cannabis - they claim numbers of users have fallen but numbers of 'hard' drug users have risen, perhaps proving cannabis's invidious role as a gateway drug).
All ACMD members should declare their pharmaceutical interests: what they received in grants and salaries from pharmaceutical manufacturers, what their organisations and departments received, what conferences, hotels and trips they have received, what shares they have in pharmaceutical companies, what career-advancing research projects were funded by pharmaceutical manufacturers. That would make things more transparent.
Complain about this comment
#20 MakeWallsTransparent
"All the psychoactive drugs being discussed are harmful"
May I ask what qualifies you to make that blanket judgement, in light of the fact that you're flatly contradicting the best/only evidence available?
You're not helping the debate on this matter by taking a moral standpoint (drugs are bad!) and sticking to it regardless of scientific veracity.
Time and again the UK government have commissioned scientific reports into these issues, and each time they've decided they don't like the results and buried them. It's pure politics, playing to people who have an objection based on propaganda.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for continually bringing the drug issue to people's attention, Mark. We can't expect Politicians to follow any idea that doesn't get them votes, so these discussions are important because they help the public form their own opinions instead of parroting what the newspaper barons say. The politicians will follow public opinion.
All I have to say this time is that despite the relative harm alcohol causes (there are figures available for this but in any case it's 1000s of deaths per year in the UK), the government will not ban alcohol and nor should they. It was tried once, in the USA and that form of prohibition didn't work either! I think the only remaining argument against drug prohibition seems to be the detail of how to do it. For the less harmful drugs such as cannabis a simple THC-CBD level testing would suffice, we can sell it in off licences. For other drugs we might have to use a prescription-based approach but however it's done it will be safer than the leave-it-to-the-dealers approach.
Anyway, we need to keep pushing to make sure it happens. It will save us billions in taxes, police costs and give a major body-blow to organised crime.
Complain about this comment
This is just a test- I wrote a post twice, yet it disappears somewhere.
Complain about this comment
I find it increadible that the debate over the serious effects of any illegal drug still takes place, but none more so that in the case of MDMA and ecstasy.
As all sensible people know that indulgence in excess of anything can have highly adverse effects on any person.
Its laughable that this report, by the so-called highest academic authority on the drug, can only make vague and inaccurate claims about its negative effects, which, on closer examination prove to be smoke and air, anyway.
Ecstasy is not a drug which is psychologically or physically addictive, although as is the case with most drugs (legal and non-legal) increased usage of which can result in increased tolerance.
'Agressive' is not a term which clarifies any particular behavior which a person may display. It is about as credible a claim as saying that hangovers make people 'grumpy' or 'snappy'. I have never heard of 1 proven instance where a person acted in a violent way as a result of taking ecstasy maybe 4 days previously, and such a claim would be absurd.
Ecstasy and MDMA are both widely known (amongst people who actually know) as making you feel lovey-dovey, confident and relaxed.
They kill less people every year than falling coconuts, and if the authorities decide at any point soon that they wish to address the facts, it might restore some national faith in their common sense.
Complain about this comment
Dear BBC blogs, thank you very much for allowing me to take part in this discussion! I have just spent one hour writing the same post twice, for it to disapper without trace. It did not even appear in the moderation queue. Keep up the good work (not!).
Complain about this comment
It disappoints me the way that this government seems to only rely on scientific fact when it suits them. If you want to make a moral judgement about something then just come out and say that you think 'drugs are bad, m'kay' rather than trying to wrap it up in poorly referenced material and thinly justified health grounds. I really wish that Jacqui Smith and her colleagues would stop patronising us.
Incidentally - on this subject of ignoring sensible scientific data, please urge your MP to sign EDM 754 (google it for details).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Despite losing my son to this drug, I still believe the system of prohibition is all wrong.
It just isn't working and never will do.
I am not saying drugs are right and suggesting people take them.
But how can it be right to prohibit one intoxicant and to allow others, like alcohol which causes HUGE social and financial strain on society, to flourish?
Bring it out into the open.
Give people more information without hysteria.
Tax sales to fund research and alternative activities for youngsters - like sound studios, workshops and positive things to keep them occupied and happy.
Take millions of pounds away from organised crime and stop the hundreds, perhaps thousands of drug related deaths caused by murder, rather than as a direct result of the drug itself.
And why not deny the Taliban the major source their funding by taking control of Heroin?
Complain about this comment
I find this all rather depressing (and No, I didn't take ecstasy a few days ago).
We are fed all this information about how dangerous drugs are, but in reality what are the statistics ?
According to the Office for National Statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7892), these are the number of deaths in 2006 where the indicated substance was mentioned on the death certificate :
(NOT the same thing as number of people who died from an overdose of this sustance)
Numbers in brackets were for that drug alone, without even alcohol.
Heroin and Morphine : 713 (496)
Methadone : 241 (125)
Cocaine : 190 (68)
Ecstasy : 48 (27)
Cannabis : 17 (2)
Diazepam : 89 (8)
Antidepressants : 336 (177)
Paracetamol : 309 (131)
Aspirin : 22 (8)
Tramadol : 81 (42)
If this is the case, why can we still buy paracetamol without a prescription ?
And, why was David Knutt castigated for not caring about the families and friends of people who died from ecstasy ?
Shouldn't Jaqui Smith apologise to the families and friends of those that died from horse-riding accidents ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_horse_accidents
Complain about this comment
MDMA itself is relatively harmless with the correct dose ( 0.1g/£4 for first time is what Alexander Shulgin the main man behind the recreational use of MDMA and chemical/synthetic drugs estimates.((look him up! for interesting account of the development of drugs in thr 60s onwards))
Ecstasy(pills) on the street however are a mixture of substances, some of which are dangerous. There was a gov report done to find out stats and chemicals, should be somewhere on bbc.
Personally I dislike all forms of ecstasy as I lack the discipline. But I find this an interesting debate. With the youth and adults bombarded with information about smoking and alcohol drugs can look more attractive and with a class system as ridiculous as ours, it mis-informs people and is generally not trusted and rightly so.
So should Ecstasy be class B ?
Probably. Given the state of the way drugs are classified. Alcohol has been one of my worst highs.
If it were class B the main problems would be no quality control for the users. This is the only pro for it staying class A.
The class system is useless apart from the fact it tells you what prison/punishment you will (or actually won't) get. It's designed to give a punishment based on the so called dangers of the drug to the user, the wider community, amount and probably more other reasons (or maybe not judging by the system).
But on the whole it doesn't mean anything to people who take drugs. This might be ignorance and naive. But then the same can be said for a system that is incredibly inconsistent. In terms of what some of these drugs have done to me or people I know some class C drugs under certain circumstances are as dangerous or as safe as some class A drugs.
MDMA in my opinion safer than the other class A drugs except magic mushrooms. More research needs to be done before decisions can be made about classifying/legalizing drugs but there is no denying that research needs to be done these drugs could be useful to medicine and if you could prove they're safe, make big money.
Complain about this comment
#20
"(eg, cannabis - they claim numbers of users have fallen but numbers of 'hard' drug users have risen, perhaps proving cannabis's invidious role as a gateway drug). "
this is proven untrue the evidence shows through testing done that if heroin is available then the subject will move on however, if heroin requires a lot of work to get the risk is the same as a none cannabis user taking up heroin. As usual only half the experiment has been quoted the bit that backs the current view, our problems with drugs began in 1971 when world governments handed over entire control of drugs to the criminal.
under the current regime all drugs are sold together thus giving the ground for further addiction to occur. This alone provides the basis that proper control is needed for all drugs. I personally would like to see alcohol banned in public places with stiff sentences for those that cause harm to others through the norm of a civilised balanced society.
Complain about this comment
I think really most of the comments are missing the point Sure most drugs are dangerous but also most drugs can also be taken with little affect on the users. Sure not all but say cannabis alcohol and ecstasy are taken by millions but with only a small proportion falling ino the danger of abuse.
I think that we all can agree that we don't want kids taking drugs and those vulnerable to addiction or problems with drugs need help.We also need to protect our citizens from taking the often even more dangerous adulterants that are often mixed in.
What is patently obvious is that Prohbition as it stands now is a total failure. We have kids finding it easier to get cannabis tha alcohol.
We have alcohol glamourised and available everywhere,
If we want to reduce harm while allowing personal freedom for adults make sure that those who exercise such freedom and choose to use drugs do so in an informed way then we need regualtion and control of all drugs by the government.
If we can get millions to stop using nicotene a lethal and highly addictive drug by education, price and restricting advertising then we can do this with the less dangerous drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy. To criminalise users as we do now is not only counterproductive but increases the harm to users aswell.
We have tried prohbibiton for the last 40 years and it has been an abject failure lets try and get sensible on drugs and minimise the harm
Complain about this comment
I'm with Gothnet on the whole 'my body, my business' thing, obviously caveated with 'provided it doesn't harm anyone else'. Drinking is fine - we have laws to deal with the minority who cause problems without targetting anyone who enjoys a night out. I don't personally use drugs - never felt the need, but I do think that if the present panic over alcohol in particular continues we will see a similar situation to the US where limiting supply and widespread demonisation of drink has pushed many young people onto cheaper and more widely available drugs (you can make crystal meth in a saucepan, and when that takes off over here no-one will care about ecstasy).
What's more, anyone expecting the Government to take decisions based on science and practice evidence-based medicine and public policy will be waiting a long time, as their purpose is not to protect us (even from ourselves) but to tap into the popular sentiments and prejudices of those most likely to get them re-elected. Look at all their rhetoric on immigration, where hysteria about being 'overrun' belies the fact that our population is actually shrinking due to emigration, and the whole crusade against obesity, which increasing numbers of researchers are realising has no impact whatsoever on society-wide BMI levels.
Complain about this comment
To satisfy all parties, the NHS could issue a two-letter index of 'harm' for a) physiology/neurology b) psychology/addiction - that would allow would-be users to know what they were letting themselves in for personally.
Then the Govt. could issue an index based on tabloid 'outrage' headlines on which prison sentences would be based.
Then all the correct 'messages' would be sent out . Job done.
PS. "PowerPoint presentation" ?
I think you'll find it's a PDF - or is this site sponsored by Microsoft ?!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ecstacy, particularly its MDMA component was extremely popular during my clubbing 20's. Having used the drug recreationally on most weekends for several years I am happy to say I did not experience any of horrors Mr Parrott describes, nor do I know of anyone who did. Now in my 30's I've grown out of it but those fond memories of peacefully living a fearless youth will remain with me forever. As with most things in life, everything in careful moderation is the best advice. Politicians and many so called experts such as Mr Parrott look ridiculous for over stating the risks. We only have one life to enjoy and one to lose but I'd rather that decision is mine.
Complain about this comment
From what I see its a report to keep Jacquie Smith happy she is a woman who will climb up the ladder no matter what it takes, does she take the drug as she does not know truth from lies I was just wondering. Booze kills you quicker and nothing is said I was brought up by drinkers so I know, and know many who drink and smoke. I always wonder why the Govenment likes to do this nagging of its people when it could not look into the House of Parliament to see how damaging the drinking and smoking works on MPs.
To me like not smoking why is the British public better than the country they sell these cigarettes to now why do we have booze for all? Cheap booze and gambling yet the Govenment does not see these as destructive it picks a drug and gets someone to do a chart and blind people with science, smacks of the New world Order to me.
Complain about this comment
Don't we have some paradoxes here? You can legally buy cigarettes and alcohol and be taxed for it and Kill yourself. You can drive a car, you can travel by air, train or ship all of which have the capability of disaster, you can catch major chest infections on Public Transport and pay for the privelidge. You can't have a Gun and you can't have unprescribed Drugs. I actually agree with the reclassification but I do think that Government must come up with a consistent policy in relation to what it does or does not permit. Escpecially in relation to Alcohol or tobacco with which people are far more able to injure themselves because of promotions.
Complain about this comment
Well written, well presented, and even-handed. A model piece of journalism. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
16# "By downgrading it we will just send the message to the criminals to continue what they are doing"
Erm, what? the biggest problems caused by all illegal drugs is the fact that they are illegal!
if MDMA for example were legal or at least decriminalised, then theres no money to be made illegally, therefore no smuggling, no dealing, no gangs, no arms to go with it
if it were legal it wouldnt be made by some dodgy backstreet lab or dealt by people doing it purely for money, cutting and mixing it with all sorts - if it were legal it could be controlled
i for one agree with the reclassification, however i dont believe it makes any difference in reality - people dont consider what class a drug is before taking it, i dont believe that even comes into the equation.
having tried different chemicals in the past, i agree alot should be prohibited, however MDMA is one of the safest there is - it doesnt cause violence, crime or any of some of the above mentioned actions! ive seen the worst of enemies become the best of friends on the stuff - as said it is known for making you "loved up" not for being violent at all, unlike our lovely legal DOWNER called alcohol.
you cant keep telling people what to do to with their own bodies, and you certainly can't take away every bit of pleasure there is in life. most of us will do it and enjoy it, go back to work on monday morning and go about our lives.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I guess only approved statistics will do hay???
I mentioned no names or ages apart from the groups ie 7 adults 32 young people.... In my area of local retailer's shambles..
Complain about this comment
I have seen comments about dropping prohibitions. Its a no go wether you like it or not. If you swept away prohibitions you would not like the result or are people just being selective? Because the alternative would have to be a return to feuding. For those who justify the use of drugs as a personal choice, I would remind people that it is a commodity that people pay with their lives for and the sellers have no interest in the purchasers welfare, only in the money it generates. The problem is that if a Gun is involved, one can see with awful clarity what it does almost immediately. Drugs unfortunately have a cumulative effect that may not be recognised for years and even then the problems may not be fully known. Bearing in mind the taxpayer has to foot the bill, I don't think anyone has the right to do what they want if I am ultimately paying
Complain about this comment
43#
"Drugs unfortunately have a cumulative effect that may not be recognised for years and even then the problems may not be fully known. "
Well as most drugs have a history dating back 10.000 years+ I would say that the problems are fully known.
What is unknown is the full story under prohibition were feuding, murder and many forms of slavery are well established now.
Prohibition is the taxpayers choice you pay for a model of control you support! The governments of the world have no care for the users health or well being, if they did they would listen to both the UN and the public around the world. Countries like Africa are ravaged by drug warlords because we refuse to control drugs in the civilised west and leave the rest to fend for themselves.
Tell me does it not bother you that children sell drugs? .The very people that should not, the ones that prohibition is there to protect? How does it protect them? How does it stop impure drugs getting in to the hands of the vulnerable Young people?
Can you identify these people do they were badges that say I'm a drug retailer.?
A modern fantasy for blind people.!
Complain about this comment
In response to #43.
America used to have a big problem with exactly what you describe. Feuding gangs, guns and crime - with the sellers caring not one jot for the consumers of their products.
Fortunately a change was made and America ended alcohol prohibition. Alcohol products are now made by reputable companies and subject to regulation on manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale. No-one pretends that alcohol is harmless but that harm is managed and reduced by regulation.
The largest harm caused by drugs is by far the crime that we created when we prohibited them. Remember that drug prohibition is a relatively recent phenomenon - before the first world war there was no prohibition and society seemed to function just fine. We introduced prohibition (to counter a specific short-term problem relating to munitions workers) and the result is all the things #43 describes - guns, feuding and crime.
I'm unsure why we seem unable to apply the lessons of US alcohol prohibition to other substances.
Complain about this comment
The gateway drug is nicotine. The drug responsible for most deaths a year is nicotine (closely followed by alcohol). The most addictive drug is nicotine (and the makers tried to refute that for years). The drug most likely to make someone agressive is alcohol, and midweek in the workplace too much caffiene will make you agressive! The drug that causes the most severe brain damage in people is alcohol. The drug that is most dangerous to drive on is alcohol. The drug that is most likely to damage your liver is alcohol. The drug that is most easy to overdose on is paracetamol.
I think compared to the drugs mentioned above ecstacy is bit of a pushover.
Complain about this comment
#43 leoRoverman
"For those who justify the use of drugs as a personal choice, I would remind people that it is a commodity that people pay with their lives for and the sellers have no interest in the purchasers welfare, only in the money it generates."
And would you not agree that this is not the primary and most compelling reason to legalise these substances and take their manufacture and distribution (not to mention profits) out of the hands of criminal gangs?
Do you imagine the impurities, the violence and then black-market profit would continue if this was manufactured and sold in a controlled manner?
The violence and suffering you talk about is a *direct* consequence of the current legal setup There would be no drug overlords and no profit for criminal drug dealers, we could get rid of a major blight on society by ending this prohibition.
Complain about this comment
This is great reporting and just the kind of thing that journalists should be doing - i.e. not taking scientists' claims at face value and digging deeper into what they and the papers they cite actually say.
I hope this will be linked to from BBC website reports on the subject.
Complain about this comment
Agree entirely with post #46.
But also, when I was young enough to indulge in such things, I noticed that ecstasy was a perfect cure for hayfever. Has this been ivestigated? There are a lot more people suffering from hayfever than 'suffering' from ecstasy use...
Complain about this comment
Sheesh! Has anyone looked at Prof Parrot's website? (I was intrigued by the unlikely name) He appears to be a self-appointed "international expert" in ecstasy and other addictive substances. The research mentioned on his site is non-scientific with tiny self-selected samples. An over-promoted sociologist perhaps, hardly a "powerful academic opponent" as the blog would have it. Chwarae Teg to Swansea for the free advertising!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
16 Isenhorn
By downgrading it we just encourage the criminals to continue...
So whether it's legal or carries the maximum penalty the criminals won't stop
so that admits the whole policy of prohibition doesn't work - and never has, so why not look for a different approach? even if that may* not work, I'm not seeing any alternatives...or evidence that it won't
as for the assumption companies won't make it - pharmas may not but someone will - the same way there are companies making alcohol and cigarettes (and tobacco companies are hardly ethical) - if they can make money legally off it somebody will produce it - then appropriate legislation can be made around the industry it to protect consumers
So far I've seen little in the way of an argument in these comments that backs up the current policy of prohibition
Complain about this comment
OI!
MODERATOR
You have indicated my earlier post was referred to the moderators.
I don't understand how as it was never actually made public (for someone to complain)
Is the truth that it was long and you couldn't be bothered to read it all?
You have not sent me a mail indicating why it's been taken off (so I can re-write it if neccessary).
Please can you resolve this or I shall have to ask why you are censoring this blog and taking off opinions that are opposite to that of your masters.....sorry I meant the Government!
Complain about this comment
Did anyone read new scientist this week?
It posed the question, if you were on a table of people and had the choice to make them eat an "E" or a peanut which would be more dangerous. The answer was a peanut!
I'm not saying that drugs are not dangerous but there seems to be a disconnect between risk and classification and evidence.
Take legal drugs alcohol & tobacco and compare - both would probably be class A due to there addictive nature and damage to health.
If you look at (pure) heroin it has a low health risk but high (like tobacco) addiction rate. "E" low addiction and relatively low health risk compared to tobacco.
Provided tests are available to catch people driving under the influence etc. Why not legalise and tax the tax being used to fund help for the damage/addiction the drugs can cause cause? (I'd apply this to alcohol and tobacco as well but these are now government cash cows). I don't think the UK could do this alone as otherwise we would be swamped with drug tourists also huge implications on how to regulate,. I have no idea if it would even would but the fact that no government has even looked at this shows how blinkered government is.
As far as reducing harm that's joke, heroin adics used to shoot liquid temazapam to reduce withdrawl symptoms - government response was to make it a gel - this blocked veins, caused gangrene and death.
Forget classifications should we not focus on harm reduction to individuals and society.
Complain about this comment
#16 Isenhorn
"...who is going to manufacture it properly? A pharmaceutical company will not be able to do it as it will never get approval- the drug has got no beneficial effect, is not really necessary, yet it carries health risk."
...which used to be exactly the situation with alcohol! (In many countries, it still is and people die from drinking badly-distilled spirits.)
In UK, alcohol production and sale are regulated, so quality and distribution can be controlled and the tax revenue goes into the Exchequer's purse. The same could be done with ecstacy and other currently illegal drugs, which would reduce many of the toxicological and social risks! It seems like a no-brainer to me!
Complain about this comment
The people who are opposed to recrational drugs are using the justification that a voluntary activity should be banned because there is a danger of death. To be consistent, why don't they advocate banning other voluntary activities than can cause death? e.g. sky-diving, mountain climbing, boxing, rugby, horse riding.
Does anyone know what the real reason was that caused the British Establisment to use prohibition against voluntary recreational drug taking? Obviously, prohibition not only doesn't work and it's counter-productive So what's the emotional investment in this irrational activity? Is it just social control? The delight in exercising power? Fear of other people's freedom?
Complain about this comment
#54
Excellent point,. Lets find those white-coated boffins in their peanut-making laboratories and lock them up.
I find the supporters of the "ecstasy should be legalised" agrument a little odd, particularly when people start comparing it to alcohol and tobacco.
The latter 2 are natural products that were developed and used in a time when science was significanly behind where it is now. As we have become aware of their harmful effects, society has restricted their use, but they have been establised for too long to be "banned".
Chemically manufactured drugs are a new phenomenon, and should sensibly be subject to rigorous tests before their distribution is permitted.
As part of these tests it should be determined that either 1) the drug offers a meaningful societal benefit, or 2) that it is proven not to be harmful in any way.
Ecstasy clearly fails both these tests, hence I fail to see why the laws should be relaxed.
Complain about this comment
To no. 57: If only things that "are not harmful in any way" were permitted, we would soon turn our society into a mad totalitarian hell-hole. I much prefer the principle that only things that harm non-volunteers be banned.
Complain about this comment
#57 jojobreeze
"As part of these tests it should be determined that either 1) the drug offers a meaningful societal benefit, or 2) that it is proven not to be harmful in any way."
Perhaps we should apply the same tests to the current set of prohibition laws, that many understand are actually a societal detriment and that are proven harmful in terms of funneling money to criminal gangs and letting contaminated drugs into the street.
Your part 1 is utter nonsense by the way. If we are in a free country (which it increasingly seems we are not) then there should be a damn good reason to make something illegal and punish our citizens for possessing it.
Your part 2 likewise, as I am allowed to harm myself in any number of ways, ecstasy is simply one way that you find morally unacceptable. Horseriding, skydiving etc all have similar mortality rates, but that risk is ok is it?
The only test should be if one individual doing it, with full knowledge of the risks, harms *other people*, which is demonstrably not the case.
Complain about this comment
Ah drugs, the nedless debate.
A note to Isenhorn - Drugs companies get all sorts of drugs through into the public relam that kill or harm people. Accomplia being the most recent and dangerous for weight loss, luckily it is now banned. But only after a lot of people comitted suicide through psychotic episodes which the doctors had to eventually admit was a bit of a problem.
Fact is the number of ecstasy deaths is a piddle in the ocean of problems we have in this country. The elephant in the room is alchohol and tobacco but of course these are massive tax revenues so the thousands of deaths, relationship break up's, abuse, assualt, social disorder, police time, nurses assaulted, sick on our streets and fights gets casually glossed over. 10 deaths a year in the dance community from people who didn't hurt anyone but themselves, physically at least gets massive attention.
The fact is more people die each year from choking on peanuts than from ecstasy. Puts things in perspective a bit doesn't it? So I urge you all to think very hard next time you take peanuts people. Do the risks really outway the benefits of consuming a second class protein? You can get it from other less risky food stuff's! We should re-grade peanuts as class A, one grade more leathal than E.
Complain about this comment
#60 Well said.
How many people, having responsibilities, would ever volunteer themselves for analysis for taking an illegal substance?
There can only be financial incentive to keep the system as it is.
Complain about this comment
this drug 'debate' is getting ridiculous, there is no debate just intelligent people being able to look at the issues in an intelligent manner then having a totally uneducated on the subject government cut the debate dead, because they know best, because they possess the knowledge that the ACMD doesn't,because the Gov are experts in all fields of everything. It has been 100years since drug control has come into force and it has done nothing but divide society. When will our Government listen to intelligent advice and stop listening to the tabloid toilet papers and actually protect society, by legalising and controlling. the only people who seem to have any valid knowledge on this subject are the people who have tried it, bar jaqui 'i smoked cannabis at uni' smith and the other politicians who claim they want to protect society by letting criminal gangs control drug supply.
Complain about this comment
The misuse of drugs act should do what it says on the tin and actually try to control misuse. The assumption is that all illegal drug use is misuse and that abuse of legal drugs, alcohol, tobacco and pharmacueticals isn't. The problem for drugs like Ecstacy and Cannabis which are actually less harmful physically than many prescription and non-prescription drugs is that classifications supposedly based on harm actually expose the lack of logic or rational basis for these classifications. Saying that "we have enough problems with smoking and drinking so why make anything else legal?" actually doesn't wash with the multitudes "breaking" what they percieve as an arbitrary law more subject to the prejudices of the Home Secretary than any basis in evidence. All it does is put the control and revenue in the hands of organised gangs with little thought to quality control and a complete absence of morality.
Complain about this comment
unfortunately for society Politicians don't care a bit about what is good or bad for it's people only what will get them elected, as long as they keep up the drugs is bad campaign and as long as the tabloid toilet papers keeps printing their lies the majority of the general public will remain in the dark about this whole subject. When you look at other comments about African druglords unscrupulous dealers and what they add to the drugs how can anyone argue that this policy is working and when you can admit that then it's time the Government admit they are the ones responsible for the thousands of lives lost due to licit AND illicit drugs, their policy their fault.
Complain about this comment
The effects of drugs and driving can be seen quite clearly on sunday mornings on many motorways particurlarily in the summer - just check out the statistics - age, vehicle - etc.
Complain about this comment
I can tell you, Ecstasy, Cocaine or otherwise, are all dangers.
Especially dangerous when driving.
Do not drive when on ecstasy, you WILL go too fast. You wont realise you are going too fast, you DO care whether you are going too fast, but you just wont realise you are.
Well, that is, if you've had, say, 4 pills or more. If you've had one good pill, maybe you will have a reasonable amount of control over the vehicle. But after 4 pills, you could be doing 60 and think its 30. Very distorted.
In the case of violence, Esctasy doesn't make you want to fight, it just makes it more likely that you will end up in a fight.
You are happy and talkative, but the next guy might not be, so it all kicks off.
Give me 3 months with a drug expert and me and him would have the details sorted.
His academia, my experience, we're sure to find some answers.
I know more about the effects than he ever will, the mental effects anyway.
Complain about this comment
But Joe, driving after 4 pints of beer is also dangerous, it's illegal- I can't see why using E and driving wouldn't be illegal too.
As for the case of violence, the other guy is probably at fault then (no doubt he's tanked up on booze, and highly agressive because of it). If someone is friendly to the point of annoyance, then they should be removed from wherever they are, like intoxicated people. If someone turns around and beats someone using E up, then that's because the other guy is a thug- not because the user is too talkative!
The problem is politicians don't want to follow advice when it isn't what they want to hear. You only hear about the results of research if it backs them up.
As for using too much/ too many drugs being bad for you- is it a surprise? 'Too much' of something is, by definition, the very quantity at which point it becomes bad for you. Too much water is bad for you, too much food is bad for you etc. Anything in excess is dangerous. It's up to people to look after themselves.
Complain about this comment
#66
kryton101
Drug companies do not just 'get through drugs that harm people'. Before a drug is on the market it goes through series of clinical trials during which its effects are demonstrated. it is not always possible to detect all unwanted effects of a drug before approval- that is why each company marketing a drug is responsible for collecting post-marketing adverse events data, which allows rare and very rare side effects to be studied. This is the case with Acomplia- the pre-marketing trials did not show its effect of causing suicide, it was detected post-marketing, drug withdrawn.
However, this is completely different from extasy- we alredy know it has side effects, it has got no potential benefit, therefore no need to bother with the whole approval process which will only confirm what is alredy known. This whole business of downgrading drugs is nonsence- a drug is either harmful and therefore illegal or benefical and therefore allowed. I do not think it will be much of a consolation if somebody dies due to drug poisoning and his/her parents are told-' yeah, but it was only class C, therefore not really dangerous'.
Complain about this comment
JoeRogerson, i agree with you in certain aspects, ecstasy may not impair your driving greatly (as the experts point out) like alcohol or even to a lesser degree cannabis, but if you are taking several ecstasy pills the chances are you are taking ketamine, lsd or another drug which has been mixed with the mdma or even sold as ecstasy and these drugs are definitely not safe to drive on, and this is the problem the law lets criminal gangs do this, ecstasy users don't really know what they are taking half the time because of the law, so because of the law ecstasy is made more dangerous. The fighting point i don't agree with, it's not the person on ecstasy that is more likely to get into a fight it's the next guy drunk who will start the fight, alcohol will make you more likely to be involved in a fight, ecstasy will make you more likely cop of with the local bicycle!!!
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn drugs are either harmful and illegal or beneficial and legal hey alcohol and tobacco(2 name a few not to mention all the very dangerous prescription drugs passed as 'safe') are both legal and harmful with no benefits, dangerous drugs can be and are legal, your argument is faulty, also i heard about a diet pill which was produced by pharmaceutical companies which has been proven to cause suicide and promptly banned, people once said the world was flat didnt mean it was true.
Complain about this comment
68 Isenhorn
I really am starting to wonder whether you can use logical process
people have already pointed out to you that it wouldn't just have to be medical companies who make it, and likewise the side-effects are (and death are lower than several products out there) - frankly I wouldn't expect to be buying a recreational drug from a chemist, but the issue has never been legal before so clearly people struggle with envisaging the situation
""I do not think it will be much of a consolation if somebody dies due to drug poisoning and his/her parents are told-' yeah, but it was only class C, therefore not really dangerous'.""
and how is this a valid argument? - it's exactly the same reasoning as 'one death is too many', this is the illogical, mass-hysteria, reasoning used by the tabloids - as many have pointed out the death rate for peanuts is more than ecstasy - the peanut is a recreational food, dangerously added to food, surely they are harmful too? - you have to use consistency here, you can't just have a vendetta against one because it's a 'drug' and therefore is bad
maybe the parents of those killed by peanuts should campaign to ban them (and horse-riding and all the other examples used on here)?
Complain about this comment
71 tarquin,
Yes, I can use logical process. However, I can see that you do not know anything about the regulations behind drug development, yet you continue arguing. You say that not only drug companies can produce drugs- this is completely wrong. Let's not call them 'drug companies', you could call them 'private enterpreneurs'. However, in order for these people to start manufatcuring a drug, they need to get a licence for the manufacturing process and ned to prove that the drug is actually beneficial. Hense they become a 'drug company'. The the marketing authorisation for the drug then follows. The drugs that you point out as an example are therapeutic drugs, not recreational. They have been shown to treat diseases, not just make junkies in clubs happy.
Bansis,
'dangerous drugs can and are legal'- this might be true for life-saving drugs, but is utter rubish for recreational drugs. If you are dieing from cancer and there is a drug that could save you, but it has side effets, would you take it? The choice is yours- die or live but with side efects. That is not the case with recreational drugs- it is either live without them or live with them but with side effects.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn, also what is a benefit? financially all drugs can be beneficial, when legal, even recreational drug can be taxed for the benefit of society. also many cannabis users and experts will argue cannabis has many positive effects on people suffering with migraines, Crohn's disease and multiple sclerosis, many suffers say it is a benefit and even many cannabis users will argue that cannabis is a stress relief, stress being the UK's biggest cause of mental disorders, and also leads to many physical problems. Just because you can't recognise any benefit doesn't mean there isn't, cannabis has been proven to be a benefit and ecstasy has be alleged to help MS sufferers, i remember watching a program on C4 a few years ago about a MS sufferer, he could hardly walk until he took an E and then he was able to move around and even do handstands et cetera. Both drugs haven't had enough research on them to say they have no benefits, but will find people/experts willing to say they are a benefit.
Complain about this comment
bansis,
I agree about cannabis- I have seen it used in trials for pain due to spasticity. If such effect is proven, it can be prescribed in the appropriate patients. However that does not mean it should be readily available without prescription. It would be the same as with antidepressants for example- readily available but not sold over the counter for everybody to treat themselves.
The same goes for extasy- if it helps in MS, great! Trials can be started and if proven, the people suffering from MS would be more than happy to start taking it. However, because it is useful in MS, that does not mean that it could be sold in night clubs for everybody. Research of its useful properties is not done in night clubs. For the majority of people it will not have any useful clinical benefit (that is improving or maintaining a person's health). And they will be taking it only for its stimulating properties, which they do not really need. This is one thing it should be understood about all the recreational drugs- they might be useful in some cases, thye might be relatively safe, however the majority of people taking them will be exposing themselves needlessly to harm for no other reason whatsoever than feeling good on a Saturday night.
Complain about this comment
E does have benefit as does cannabis were it does not have benefit is in the hands of drug dealers.
If you look at the USA E has a long history in therapy and bi polar disorders. It is currently being used for PTSD therapies.
Cannabis is one of the fastest moving drugs in the pharm world now soon your going to be using THC THCV CBD's for many reasons.
What i find hard to understand is how anyone thinks drugs are better off illegal?
We are told oh that's a class A that's a class B, and that's why they are illegal.
MODA 71 was put in place to protect the public was it not ? but you really have to ask the question what does the MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT actually stand for misuse by the public or misuse by the world governments.
Look at the basics of all the laws we live by the are there to manage and protect our lives all bar one which flies in the face of all other laws in its delivery and its meaning on society. While i am for a range of legal recreational alternate intoxicants for public use I'm very much a hardliner when it comes to the MODA were young and vulnerable people are involved 'hypocrisy you say'
MODA71 should be road tested to see whom it actually benefits, does it benefit children who take and sell drugs?, does it benefit the local economies? does it benefit families? does make any sex worker safe? does it slow human trafficking down? So far all that has happened under this failed act is wide spread drug use, new and more dangerous kitchen lab drugs and impurity levels that would not be tolerated in any other product world wide.
Its very sad that we look at the product in these cases and not the society that they exist in. maybe if people listened more t those that see and deal with the farce that is drug control they would realise that those that seek legal drugs on one side of the coin also seek the most harsh of penalties for those that would deal outside the law.
I know of dealers whom sell E/pills cocaine acid and a wide variety of other substances that are lucky to serve more than 3 months when caught with a sizable amount. In my world that would be life.
Complain about this comment
I will say this once again- allowing extasy for treating bipolar disorders is not the same as allowing it for people to take in clubs. If it works for bipolar disorders, fine- legalize its use. But how many people take it for bipolar disorders on a Saturday night?
Just because the control of something is not perfect, that does not necessarily mean an outright legalization will be acceptable. The sale of alcohol to youngsters is prohibited, yet a a lot of 13-14 year olds drink. Does this mean that any attempt of controlling it should be withdrawn and any child allowed to get themselves drunk? After all alcohol is legal for adults and illegal for children, yet some children do get hold of alcochol. Why do people think that legalizing drugs will be any different?
Complain about this comment
Does it matter what the drug is called? name a pill what you like its still a pill.
yes a lot of young people drink but what do they drink? Still don't get the point?
a lot of people use recreational drugs what do they take? Who knows except the people that made it.
Lots of adults use alcohol they know its source its purity.
Lots of adults use cannabis and thanks to the government's campaign now grow their own for reasons of purity and choice.
Lots of kids use cannabis which is uncured still damp in a lot of cases and generally sprayed with god knows what to enhance the plant/fertilizer/pesticide the plant.
So when a young person gets a mental disorder who is to blame? when a person dies from a accidental drug overdose who is to blame ? the dealer or the law that governs this?.
the dealer exists because of the law not the other way around as most would like to think.
Complain about this comment
#76 Isenhorn
Your criteria - what is the benefit of the substance - is a nonsense.
The only criteria should be whether the current set of laws do more harm than good. And they do.
They drive profit to criminal gangs, they make sure the product is unregulated and dangerous and they criminalise vast swathes of society.
People, you included, talk about banning something as if it makes it go away.
You admit that the control of ecstasy may not be perfect, but you don't see how imperfect it is. Small pockets of use by tens of individuals would be imperfect. Frequent use by hundreds of thousands across the country is where we are today. Less than perfect doesn't come close. Ecstasy is cheaper than booze and more easily available to kids *now*.
"Does this mean that any attempt of controlling it should be withdrawn and any child allowed to get themselves drunk?"
Children are not considered able to make a rational choice, and are particularly vulnerable to damage from alcohol,therefore we make the choice for them. Adults, on the other hand, are supposed to be able to make choices for themselves. Except we're not allowed when things offend the moral puritanism that infects you and your type, even when they are no more dangerous than many activities you do approve.
You *still* have yet to provide any good reason that an informed adult should not be able to use this substance, when the dangers are comparative to peanuts and horse-riding, yet you do not call for these to be banned.
Why, when the laws do more harm than good, it doesn't harm anyone but the individual taking the substance, do you have the right to ban adults from taking these things?
Complain about this comment
#77
CC,
A lot of young people drink and take drugs illegaly. What is your suggestion for solving the problem- make it even easier for them to do that.
You seem to think that freely availble drugs is the only option. It is not. Is teaching the same young people not to drink/take drugs out of the question? Perhaps for you this might not seem fun enough, compared to having the option to buy any drug you want freely, however I would always prefer trying it first.
Complain about this comment
#9
Your argument is flawed in several places.
Pharmaceutical drugs kill around 40000 people a year (or, better put, 40,000 people a year die from using pharmaceutical drugs). Compare that to 40-70 people on ecstacy. Obviously more people use the former, but millions, and I do mean millions, use ecstacy every week in less controlled and regulated circumstances.
Alcohol is one of the greatest evils we know. Friday and Saturday nights in the UK are a disgrace; everywhere you turn there are people throwing up, getting into fights, screaming, being kicked out of bars/clubs, abusing bouncers, and over-crowding the A+E. However, should alcohol be criminalized?
In the current climate of substance control, yes, absolutely it should be criminalized. I come to this conclusion based on comparing relative harm caused by different drugs, and the effect on society as a whole.
But the fact that we live in a society that criminalizes specific substance abuse is hugely hypocritical.
We do not arrest an alcoholic for illegal intoxication or possesion or consumption. The worst that will happen to a drunk is he or she will be taken to the police station until the sober up, and are then allowed to go home, as long as no other crime was committed. However, if someone is caught in possession of ecstacy, weed, cocaine, whatever it may be, they are considered criminals. The fallacy in logic here, to me, is astounding.
If drugs were legal, like alcohol, or cigarettes (which cause over 40 % of hospital admissions eveyr year), there would be more control on quality of substance, meaning more safety for those who do choose to take the drug. The substances would be taxed. They could only be procured from places such as chemist's or pharmacies, where identification is required. Drug dealers do not ask for ID. This would mean the kids are safer, because to get a hit of ecstacy from a chemist's would be decidedly harder than off the street dealer.
Just because drugs are legalized does not mean we encourage their use. Paint is legal, but we don't encourage sniffing it. It's about education, and the belief in self-determination and free will. What is the harm of somebody wanting to rave once every couple of weeks? If they are educated on the risks of taking drugs and alcohol, then let them explore. We are not dogs or robots, but human beings.
Heroin or cocaine use would not skyrocket if it were legal, nor would any other substance use. The fact is prohibition does not work. It never has. Education and discussion is always the way forward.
And, as a sidenote, how can you possibly believe in criminalization of cannabis. It is 100% natural, a plant I can grow in my home or back garden if I wish to. when we start making NATURE against the law then we know we have a problem. (That is not even to mention the fact that weed is relatively harmless, and to many people beneficial.)
Complain about this comment
Gothnet: well put. It makes no sense, whatsoever. It depresses me that policy makers, those with the power, are blind, or simply unwilling to see how obvious the solution is, and how incredibly illogical drug prohibition is. One day, one day, logic and truth will triumph over ignorance and aggression.
Complain about this comment
Examine the Dutch example for proof. Far less Dutch youths smoke weed than in most, if not all, Western countries. The reason? It is controlled. Upon entering a coffee shop in Holland, you are asked for ID. If you are under 18, you are kicked out immediately. Also, legalization reduces the 'cool' factor, which, although I have no personal experience with wanting to try something just because it's illegal, apparently a lot of people do.
It would be the same with drugs. However, unlike alcohol, where an 18 year old can walk into a Tesco's and buy as much as he can carry, drugs would be controlled, just as they are in Holland. An adult would only be able to walk into a chemist's and buy a small, personal amount of the drug desired. Same with cannabis; in Holland, you can only purchase 5 grams, any more is considered more than personal use.
It is fundamentally an ideological issue. We are supposed to leave in a society of free individuals. In theory, I should be free to do WHATEVER I wish to do, as long as my actions do not harm or infringe the freedom of others. These were the basic tenants upon which our democratic societies were founded. However, drugs remain illegal, uncontrolled, and inherently more dangerous.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Cannabis as a gateway drug. That's my favourite argument. I find it hilarious.
That is, quite literally, like saying that milk, or or Sunny D is a gateway drink to alcohol. We all had to start drinking somewhere. Do you think Ribena has a chemical component that makes kids crave alcohol? Do you honestly believe that cannabis has something inherent that causes people to move on to hard drugs?? Consumption of drugs, regardless of what substance, is entirely a personal choice, and has nothing to do with cannabis' chemical or whatever make up. People who use this argument are totally ignorant, bordering on clinically stupid. You are wasting all of our time with it.
Complain about this comment
@ Isenhorn
"This is one thing it should be understood about all the recreational drugs- they might be useful in some cases, thye might be relatively safe, however the majority of people taking them will be exposing themselves needlessly to harm for no other reason whatsoever than feeling good on a Saturday night."
You expose yourself to risk every time you leave the house, every time you cross the road and every time you decide to take a shower.
I will decide what risks are appropriate to expose myself to and I will be the one to decide whether or not the risks outweigh the benefits. The fact that you may disagree about what constitutes an acceptable risk is irrelevant.
"Does this mean that any attempt of controlling it should be withdrawn and any child allowed to get themselves drunk?"
That's a nice strawman you've got there - did you make it yourself? Your reasoning for prohibiting ecstasy means that we should actually extend alcohol prohibition to include all adults as well.
Do you support alcohol prohibition or are you going to fall back on the old "it's been acceptable for X years" hypocrisy (which, incidently, means you then have to support the legalisation of cannabis)?
When your ideas keep leading to contradictory conclusions, it's supposed to be a hint for you re-examine you assumptions and reasoning.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn, as an adult i can do lots of dangerous activities that have no benefits to society, climb the white cliffs of Dover(with no rope,which i did) horse racing, one night stands, drinking too much alcohol, superbike racing, all of which can and do injure and kill. If we are to keep recreational drugs like cannabis or ecstasy illegal on these grounds surely a whole host of hobbies pastimes and other activities should also be banned. As an adult i should have the right to choose whether or not i want to risk my own life by driving a car, eating a peanut, or taking an ecstasy pill, it seems it may be only a matter of time till i do have that choice, we will be the generation in power soon and a lot of the younger generations are alot more educated and open minded about drugs. sooner or later the plebs will say no to the nanny state.
Complain about this comment
weak ass-ed that :)
young people drink fact of life we teach this at a very early age they grow up with it rammed down their necks and told this is what you do anything but this is wrong but at he end of it all the product is safe not made in a garage somewhere... And when it is made in a garage somewhere its jumped up n down on with vigour by the law that protects alcohol users.
Freely available is again a weak narrow view of the situation, with little or no thought by yourself beyond the cartoon image in the paper. But it is the TRUTH of this day THIS moment THIS second as many school children take hits from a bong.
As i said in a previous post I'm hard line about it.
A fair law that does not persecute the user and prevents children getting hold of dangerous drugs .
safe recreational intoxicants distributed law full under licence through outlets. Not the guess what it may be in the pill regime we have now.
Very harsh penalties for those who fail to operate under licence or whose product fails a QA test.
The list is so much longer but as no one really cares there is little point in listing.
I would also bring alcohol in under MODA or CODA as I would have it called.
Complain about this comment
isenhorn 'You seem to think that freely available drugs is the only option.'
This is the current option, illegal drugs are freely available to anyone, young and old, by controlling drugs we can minimise the impact on children, and protect people from the unscrupulous dealers who cut their gear with all sorts of nasty toxins and chemicals, faeces! and plastic. i may be an advocate of legalisation but im not an idiot, children shouldn't drink or smoke or take drugs and the current laws are letting this happen. There really is no logical fact based argument for keeping drugs like cannabis and ecstasy illegal and plenty of arguments for, but the one that should be of paramount importance is protecting society and the law is failing on that in many ways, it is criminalising millions who make the choice, it is endangering lives and it is helping fund very dangerous criminal gangs, it beggers belief that the old guard can still cling on to these outdated untrue beliefs on drugs, even when their own advisers tell them they need to rethink their policies.
Complain about this comment
class B seems like a sensible place for it.
Is it addictive?
sort of, you wont show any fever like symptoms like addicts of heroine and crack, but you will have it on your mind when you are in front of those speakers, but then again when you are in a club you're likely thinking about sex in the same way, i.e. it would be nice right now.
Is it dangerous to the individual taking it?
possibly.
Is prolonged use of it going to cause lasting problems to the individual?
quite possibly.
Are the people taking it a risk to others:
1. while driving? i would say yes as decisions on risk are altered, so some people make bad choices, if you have a brain you wouldn't be driving on it. If you drive on E there is a good chance you drive on alcohol too so its pointless debating on this point in my mind. My advice, if you like driving, dont do it on drugs.
2. while dancing in a club? No
3. while walking home? No
4. 4 days later? No
5. If you're a violent criminal who likes fighting? yes, but they would whether or not they took any pills 4 days previously. Some people like fighting as can be seen in school playgrounds, outside pubs, at football matches and anywhere else we humans happen to be. but wouldn't it be better to neck a few beans and talk about it?
are more people going to take ecstacy as class B compared to ecstacy as class A ?
highly doubt it
could this honestly be proved either way?
Nope.
would legalising the drug increase the availability of it?
to criminals > no
to regular people > yes
to children > no
Is anybody talking about legalising it?
NO!
Is giving somebody a 14 year sentence for swapping 10 coins for 10 pills worth it?
no.
would Parrot be a bad choice for an independent study?
Yes as he has already made his decision.
would a parrot be better?
yes, they dont have any preconceptions of the drug and speak more sense.
would the results of an independent study actually be of benefit to the policy makers?
No because the advisory council IS (I think) independent and the government HAS ALREADY ignored them. (cos they're thinking of the children, obviously)
what has actually changed in the real world?
nothing, people who want it will get it.
Complain about this comment
Illegal versus legal -
the definition of a weed is a plant in the wrong place - very applicable to the current official view on illegal drugs.
A poster mentioned the harm done by perscribed drugs - i believe out that out of the 13,000 odd drugs given out by the nhs only some 200 have been decreed safe by the world health organisation.
After a epileptic attack following a road accident i was given a drug which turned out to have a possible 37 major side effects, one of which was lupus. Lupus has since been described to me by a senior doctor as worse than aids. (there are several types of lupus)
I was told that i would be taking this for the rest of my life.
I stopped taking the drug immediately and since then, 14 years, have been completely free of any epileptic problems.
This is the second time in my life drugs have been pushed at me in this way.
On the other hand i lost a girlfriend to cocaine and other drugs, mixed with many who have heavy drug problems including cannabis and seen what it does to their lives and what it costs relatives and friends.
Here in Norway the biggest problem is alchohol -
Strange thought to think that for many life is not worth living without something to cover reality - for me reality is what its about - my own senses, seeing, hearing, feeling, being. I find the concept of living through a chemical when it is not necessary rather bizzare.
Complain about this comment
#85
You make far to many assumptions about my views- nowhere have I said that alcohol should not be in the same class as all other illegal drugs. Yes, alcohol should be illegal. Can it be done? No. Reason- the same people who want legalization of drugs will say that it is their right to get themselves drunk. The hipocricy is in your arguments- you try to justify the legalisation of drugs by comparing them to another dangerous substance, that by all rights should also be illegal. My view is- alcochol is more dangerous than extasy- regulate alcochol, do not legalize extasy.
Complain about this comment
I find it strange when i hear people against the legalisation of cannbis say 'it leads on to other drugs'.
Because even if that was true (which it isn't) that would be a VERY good argument to legalise it!
Think about it if buying some weed makes you want to buy heroin and the guy who sells you your weed also sells heroin then the oppertunity is there to buy some.
If cannabis was legal then they guy selling you your weed wouldn't be able to sell you heroin because that would be like your local off license owner selling illegal drugs, it doesn't happen.
So please can some people at least add some logic to there opinions because they are making themselves look stupid.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn, it's the people who say drugs are bad and should be illegal whilst supping on their pint of bitter who are the hypocrites, fact is alcohol is legal and will stay legal whilst less socially and physically harmful drugs are illegal, the system is hypocritical.
Complain about this comment
The fact remains that although prohibition is counter productive not too mention logically and morally flawed it cannot be reversed.
Why?
We have our American cousins to thank for this one. In the late 60's such was the hysteria in the corridors of power over the explosion of recreational drug use, emotive laws were made with no scientific backing. The problem we have is that our Misuse of drugs act 1971 was written to comply with the UN treaty, namely The Convention on Psychotropic Substances. We are still a signature to the descendants of this treaty and the UK could ill afford to back out of it politically at least.
Although we have credible scientific evidence in this country to disprove some of the commonly held misconceptions over drug use, the politicians will never back out of such an agreement especially when we have such close ties to the US.
Interestingly, in the countries when prohibition has been most stringent and vast sums of money have been poured into "curing" the drug problem usage levels are among the highest. The UN is said to be horrified over decriminalisation experiments in Holland and Switzerland despite the fact that they are working.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Is it simply the mention of the word "fascist" that results in my comments being "referred to moderators"?
If so, what is the preferred term to describe someone who wants to force their opinions on someone else?
Complain about this comment
97 MonkeyBot5000
I suppose 'authoritarian' would be closest, but in this case 'bigot' would do, fascism is such a tricky term to pin down anyway, and it's usually a pejorative
91 Isenhorn
""Reason- the same people who want legalization of drugs will say that it is their right to get themselves drunk. The hipocricy is in your arguments- you try to justify the legalisation of drugs by comparing them to another dangerous substance, that by all rights should also be illegal.""
There is no hipocricy (or hypocrisy) involved in that argument, since there is no contradiction in saying one legal thing is harmful so other harmful things should be - what should and shouldn't be illegal is a matter for ethical consideration - and is essentially an opinion, which is what you profess when you say alcohol "by all rights should be illegal"
that is simply your opinion, but at least you are consistent - altho I'm starting to think the term 'authoritarian' is about right now
Complain about this comment
tarquin and monkeybot5000,
It seems you cannot engage in a discussion with somebody, without attaching labels to them.
I can also think of some terms that I would consider suitable for you, however I would refrain from mentioning them. I am going to leave this discussion now and stop responding to your posts.
Complain about this comment
Re: #6 (supamanipulator).
Excellent post, our policymakers are sometimes so unintelligent.
Can't see the wood for the trees. Ho hum. Sad.
Complain about this comment
"I am going to leave this discussion now and stop responding to your posts."
You haven't responded to my posts. You simply referred them to the moderator so that other people wouldn't be able to see me taking your argument apart.
Then you took your ball and went home.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn's arguments are like the tangled line of a long-unused kite. Let's look at them.
1) Drug manufacturers could not make recreational drugs due to the approval process.
That's very true under the current system for medical drug production. No legal system for recreational drug production exists because no-one's allowed to make them. This is a circular argument.
If we moved to a position where production was legitimised then I'd expect a suitable regime to be introduced - based on purity and controlled dosage. There's money to be made so companies would be set up, facilities created, production and distribution initialised.
2) Drugs are harmful and offer no benefit and so must stay banned.
This is illogical and inconsistent unless we as a society ban all activities that don't pass some officially mandated risk/reward test.
If we're actually saying that drugs are "especially bad" even though they have a risk profile similar to other legitimate activities then that means the prohibition is a moral stance. It is not the place of the government to make moral judgements about the activities of its citizens. The act of prohibiting anything must be because of an overwhelming risk of harm to other people or wider society. That wider harm does exist today - but that's because of (not despite) prohibition, in the form of crime. So, prohibition actually worsens harm.
Whenever we place something in the category of "especially bad" we lose the ability to rationally and openly debate the issues. Drugs are harmful, some usage patterns and types more so than others. The important 'but' is that harmfulness of itself is no justification for prohibition.
Complain about this comment
So what are you saying Mark? Ecstasy is good for you?
Seems you disagree with Parrott BUT I don't like the undertones here
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#101,
Just because I do not share your opinion does not mean I would ask for your posts to be deleted. Yet you again chose to made claims about me that are completely untrue. I am tired of your personal attacks and am starting to wonder why you are taking my opposing views so personally. I do not share your preoccupation with the legalization of drugs and have no interest in participating in even indirect discussions with you any longer. Please do not bother to reply to me, I will not be reading any of your comments.
Complain about this comment
99 Isenhorn
I didn't even call you anything til your last post, I do happen to think your view that everything harmful should be banned is authoritarian - I don't mean it as an insult, simply as how I view your policies - believing in state control of the individual is, to me, authoritarian, that's just how I see it
Complain about this comment
Re: #9 (Isenhorn)
Forbidding something because of the risk to health (or similar) may be counter-productive. On several levels.
I teach my kids to learn about the World, to take good advice and to make informed decisions.
Complain about this comment
expatinnetherlands don't be silly you can't go about giving people good advice what ever next, what would this Government think of that, ban it.
Complain about this comment
#103 Mr. Creosote
I would hope Mark, like many of us, is trying to punch a hole through the misinformation, propaganda, politics and emotion surrounding this issue so that we can take a look at the actual facts.
Like the guy that said it's no more dangerous an activity than horse-riding. he was shouted down in a hail of abuse. But why should he have been, if he was right?
It really is time to leave the moral and emotional debates aside for a while and look at the facts.
Complain about this comment
All I know is that I, personally, do not see nearly enough appeal in any drugs, legal or otherwise, to cause me to use them.
Beyond that, I feel I am swimming in a stormy sea of ambiguity.
Complain about this comment
I find it regrettable, that Professor Parrot's clearly relevant response which is flagged in an easily missed update, has not been given the same prominence the selected quoted comments Mark chose to include in his original attempt at discrediting the professor's views.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS