Ecstasy less dangerous than horse riding? [Archive]

portlandatheist

29th October 2009, 01:00 AM

Our wonderfully named Dr Nutt government science advisor has repeated comments he made a year or two ago to rather predictable media hysteria and wheeling out of outraged parents. I was wondering how best to measure "danger"? In terms of deaths more people die of horse riding each year, and i presume horses are the cause of many more injuries. What's the argument for the other side? That E might do longer term damage to the brain that we don't yet fully understand? That very very occassionally a teenager drinks themselves to death on water whilst on the drug?

anyway, i can just imagine the headline in tomorrow's Daily Wail....the moral majority are not going to be happy ;)

This statement isn't very meaningful and I'm curious of what the actual numbers are. We hear all the time that air travel is safer than driving but what does that really mean? Per trip? Per mile? Or just overall that we are more likely to die in a car in our lifetime given that we spend more time in a car?
Do many more people ride horses than take e? Or do it more frequently? I would like to see this broken down on a per instance basis. Is it more dangerous to get on a horse for a few hours or take ecstasy? Saying that more people die riding a horse than taking e doesn't give us that information and relative risk.

Roboramma

29th October 2009, 01:08 AM

andyandy

29th October 2009, 01:20 AM

This statement isn't very meaningful and I'm curious of what the actual numbers are. We hear all the time that air travel is safer than driving but what does that really mean? Per trip? Per mile? Or just overall that we are more likely to die in a car in our lifetime given that we spend more time in a car?
Do many more people ride horses than take e? Or do it more frequently? I would like to see this broken down on a per instance basis. Is it more dangerous to get on a horse for a few hours or take ecstasy? Saying that more people die riding a horse than taking e doesn't give us that information and relative risk.

true - i was hoping perhaps someone had the actual data to hand ;)

andyandy

29th October 2009, 01:23 AM

It may be true that E is less dangerous than riding horses, but what of it?

Cost/benefit requires two variable, and here we're only seeing one. I'm interested not just in what the risks of an activity are, but also the rewards.

It seems to me that the rewards of horse riding are greater than the rewards of E, though that may differ from person to person.

There are also the social and psychological effects of drug addiction that don't seem to be factored in to the equation here.

to be fair to Dr Nutt I think he's gone into quite a lot of detail on this before, compiling long and comprehensive reports on the relative harms of drugs....but the tabs just pick up the single sensational quote....

it's interesting to comment on the benefit part of the equation - i don't think i've ever really seen this discussed when it comes to the drugs debate - it's always from the relative harm perspective.

quarky

29th October 2009, 02:08 AM

a good mdma experience kicks horse-riding's butt.

I'd bet Superman (Reeves) wishes he'd been rolling instead of expressing domination over horses that fateful day.

We will remain collectively insane until we are willing to judge activities with greater objectivity...especially subjective experiences.

McHrozni

29th October 2009, 02:16 AM

I'm sure more people die in work-related accidents and while commuting to work, than of hunger in, say, the USA. Is it therefore better to stay at home rather than work?
Same arguement, different topic.

McHrozni

Puppycow

29th October 2009, 02:24 AM

It may be true that E is less dangerous than riding horses, but what of it?

Cost/benefit requires two variable, and here we're only seeing one. I'm interested not just in what the risks of an activity are, but also the rewards.

It seems to me that the rewards of horse riding are greater than the rewards of E, though that may differ from person to person.

There are also the social and psychological effects of drug addiction that don't seem to be factored in to the equation here.

What are these "rewards" of horse riding?

In this case, the only relevant drug is E. We're not comparing horse riding with shooting heroin or smoking crystal meth.

And, it should only be the "social" effects that are considered. "Psychological" effects are the concern of the individual, not any third party.

So, let's compare the "social" effects of E with those of binge drinking, for example. Which is more harmful?

soylent

29th October 2009, 02:56 AM

So, let's compare the "social" effects of E with those of binge drinking, for example. Which is more harmful?

Definetly E; it has lead to the proliferation of crappy techno music, a weapon of mass annoyance only slightly less irritating than "hello kitty" merchandize. (do I really need a fake sarcasm tags?)

BobHaulk

29th October 2009, 03:06 AM

drugs are boring and drug users are universally dull.
I'm with Frank Zappa on this one. Mind you i smoke tobacco and drink tea like a loon.

Ivor the Engineer

29th October 2009, 03:58 AM

What are these "rewards" of horse riding?

Not that it interests me, but looking after and riding a horse requires dedication and empathy. Popping a pill for a high requires no skill or effort at all.

<snip>

And, it should only be the "social" effects that are considered. "Psychological" effects are the concern of the individual, not any third party.

The behavioural manifestations of psychological effects do have social implications.

So, let's compare the "social" effects of E with those of binge drinking, for example. Which is more harmful?

Soldiers are allowed to kill their enemies. As raping someone isn't as bad as killing them, soldiers should be allowed to rape their enemies.

soylent

29th October 2009, 04:29 AM

Not that it interests me, but looking after and riding a horse requires dedication and empathy. Popping a pill for a high requires no skill or effort at all.

Riding horses is a wasteful indulgence with no purpose or benefits to society at large, just like taking drugs and dancing to intolerably bad music. What's it to you?

Soldiers are allowed to kill their enemies.

The world would be a better place if they weren't.

As raping someone isn't as bad as killing them, soldiers should be allowed to rape their enemies.

If sexually molesting your enemy led to the victory sought by the respective governments involved, it would not only be allowed, it would be depicted as heroism to risk the integrity of your precious sphincter muscle in battle.

dlorde

29th October 2009, 07:44 AM

There are also the social and psychological effects of drug addiction that don't seem to be factored in to the equation here.
Is E an addictive drug ?

ponderingturtle

29th October 2009, 07:47 AM

ponderingturtle

29th October 2009, 07:49 AM

Soldiers are allowed to kill their enemies. As raping someone isn't as bad as killing them, soldiers should be allowed to rape their enemies.

Funnily enough soldiers are also not allowed to kill their enemy in any situation where raping them would be practical.

Roboramma

29th October 2009, 08:36 AM

What are these "rewards" of horse riding? I suspect similar to any hobby: it gets you out and active, meeting people and enjoying life. The exercise involved might improve physical fitness, and there are some benefits to sunshine (vitamin D for instance).
Probably useful for people who are depressed or lonely.

Of course, my point is that E also has benefits: it feels good, it might be a useful way to gain exceptance in a social group, etc.

I just don't think it's useful to weigh only the cons without considering the pros, before saying one activity is of more or less value than another.

In this case, the only relevant drug is E. We're not comparing horse riding with shooting heroin or smoking crystal meth. Yeah, I agree.

And, it should only be the "social" effects that are considered. "Psychological" effects are the concern of the individual, not any third party.
At what point did I suggest anything about third parties?

So, let's compare the "social" effects of E with those of binge drinking, for example. Which is more harmful?
I don't know, but I don't see what that's got to do with this thread.

Roboramma

29th October 2009, 08:38 AM

Is E an addictive drug ?

Good point, I don't know, and hadn't considered that it might not be.

Roboramma

29th October 2009, 08:40 AM

Oh, I see, this is a drug legalization or not thread.

I thought this was a "is it bad to take E" thread. Which, in my opinion is a totally different topic: ie. there's a difference between whether it is a smart idea to do something as an individual and whether or not that thing should be made illegal. I had assumed from the OP that the issue was the former, but from recent posts it seems to be the latter.

I think I'll bow out. :P

!Kaggen

29th October 2009, 08:50 AM

Good point, I don't know, and hadn't considered that it might not be.

Life's addictive. Yoga's addictive. Morphine's addictive.
Get the idea;)
The OP brings up the question "how do humans perceive danger".
Statistically E is less dangerous than horse riding.
Then again so are sharks.
My solution is - bring on the experiments and then the education.

blutoski

29th October 2009, 08:54 AM

Our wonderfully named Dr Nutt government science advisor has repeated comments he made a year or two ago to rather predictable media hysteria and wheeling out of outraged parents. I was wondering how best to measure "danger"? In terms of deaths more people die of horse riding each year, and i presume horses are the cause of many more injuries. What's the argument for the other side? That E might do longer term damage to the brain that we don't yet fully understand? That very very occassionally a teenager drinks themselves to death on water whilst on the drug?

anyway, i can just imagine the headline in tomorrow's Daily Wail....the moral majority are not going to be happy ;)

It may not be fair to compare raw deaths per year. It's probably more appropriate to compare deaths per hour of use.

For example, if the number of deaths per year are identical, but horse riders average 500 hours per year of use and E users average 25 hours per year of use, then E is 20 x more dangerous to use. This probably does not include associated risks such as injury or death caused by accidents while intoxicated. (Nobody operates construction equipment while horse riding.)

Eddie Dane

29th October 2009, 09:08 AM

I suspect that the number of MDMA users is vastly bigger than the number of horse riders.
Has that been factored in?

blutoski

29th October 2009, 09:25 AM

I suspect that the number of MDMA users is vastly bigger than the number of horse riders.
Has that been factored in?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'factored in'.

ponderingturtle

29th October 2009, 10:30 AM

It may not be fair to compare raw deaths per year. It's probably more appropriate to compare deaths per hour of use.

For example, if the number of deaths per year are identical, but horse riders average 500 hours per year of use and E users average 25 hours per year of use, then E is 20 x more dangerous to use. This probably does not include associated risks such as injury or death caused by accidents while intoxicated. (Nobody operates construction equipment while horse riding.)

I am not sure that these things are accurate measures. Think about how dangerous skydiving would be by this metric. You would have to be a very very active skydiver to get an hour of actual skydiving in a year, because the experiance is so short.

Looking at risks in a year for a typical user or rider would be better in my view.

Eddie Dane

29th October 2009, 11:03 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by 'factored in'.

As in: Has it been taken into account?
I've been to raves in the nineties that had thousands of people, most of them drugged to their eyeballs.
The closest thing I've seen in the way of group activity with horses is fox hunting.

How many people would be on E on any given weekend? (I don't know if the drug is still fashionable).

How many actually experience problems?

andyandy

29th October 2009, 11:41 AM

Eos of the Eons

29th October 2009, 12:33 PM

blutoski

29th October 2009, 12:53 PM

As in: Has it been taken into account?

My question is: what does that look like? You're suggesting it will alter the outcome. How? What would we change in the comparison? Could you please be specific.

I've been to raves in the nineties that had thousands of people, most of them drugged to their eyeballs.
The closest thing I've seen in the way of group activity with horses is fox hunting.

How many people would be on E on any given weekend? (I don't know if the drug is still fashionable).

How many actually experience problems?

Horseriding is a popular - if perhaps regional - hobby unrelated to hunting. People participate at all ages. My nieces ride for about 16 hours a week.

Yes, it would be worth looking at the number of people involved, but I think it is valuable to examine how much time these people spend in these activities.

When I look at comparisons of deaths per year, I think it's pretty meaningless without factoring the amount of benefit that is associated with the risk. One way to compare is the raw amount of time involved.

Another way is 'per incident'. Is the risk of dying "per dose" the same as the risk of dying "per ride"?

These are reasonable alternatives to just raw deaths over the year.

blutoski

29th October 2009, 01:03 PM

As in: Has it been taken into account?
I've been to raves in the nineties that had thousands of people, most of them drugged to their eyeballs.
The closest thing I've seen in the way of group activity with horses is fox hunting.

How many people would be on E on any given weekend? (I don't know if the drug is still fashionable).

How many actually experience problems?

Good question. As you can imagine, I don't have an epidemiology specialty. However, I work in a hospital and we get two or three emergency admissions per night from drug-related injuries. It's not clear if these would be reported in the literature cited, because the person did not directly die or receive injury from this drug. They only died or received injury from driving while under the influence or falling while disoriented.

There is also the question of whether the thesis is that it's as dangerous for the specific user, or dangerour overall including innocent bystanders. It's very unusual for somebody to have a 'horse accident' on the freeway that kills passengers in somebody else's car. The victims would have died of injuries - not drug use - so would be excluded from raw statistics. Yet, this is clearly an important factor in deciding about what is considered a 'risk' associated with use.

blutoski

29th October 2009, 02:02 PM

This statement isn't very meaningful

Just as an extreme example... almost nobody in the US dies from playing Russian Roulette.

But nobody believes that this proves it's safe.

Information Analyst

29th October 2009, 02:47 PM

Good point, I don't know, and hadn't considered that it might not be.
So you may be surprised to know that, to all intents and purposes, MDMA is not addictive. I know people who take it most weekends, others who can go for months without it inbetween occasional indulgences.

JoeTheJuggler

29th October 2009, 02:57 PM

I doubt very much that Ecstasy is less dangerous than horse riding, depending on how you define "danger". I don't think horse riding can ruin you economically and emotionally.

However, I don't think the fact that something is dangerous is a very good reason to make it illegal.

I was just reading a section about these types of prohibitionist arguments in Crimes Against Logic. He used the specific example of cocaine rather than E, but the point is the same:

The paternalist who thinks cocaine use is a net cost tacitly assumes that the pleasure is insufficient to compensate for the costs. Since what he assumes here is precisely what is at issue in the debate, he begs the question.

Having said that, I'm a non-drinker, non-drug user myself, but I am in favor of pretty general legalization. (I'm not a libertarian, though. I have no problem with government regulation.)

Information Analyst

29th October 2009, 03:49 PM

Okay, we seem to be a short short on actual data here, so I'll thrown some in. In Britain for many years the accepted Home Office estimate accepted by all sides has been half a million instances of use each week. An instance of use can be a person taking one pill, or ten, or more. Obviously that's 26 millions instances of use each year.

In terms of actual users, the Home Office report Drug Misuse Declared: Findings from the 2007/08 British Crime Survey (http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/rds/s?rds.hosb1308pdf&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb1308.pdf]) estimated in the 15-59 age range:

Used ever = 2,394,000
Used in the last year = 470,000
Used in the last month = 164,000

Drug Misuse Declared: Findings from the 2008/09 British Crime Survey (http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/rds/s?rds.hosb1209pdf&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1209.pdf]) reported:

Used ever = 2,782,000
Used in the last year = 586,000
Used in the last month = 178,000

I can see an immediate problem there in the differnce between the "used ever" figures being 388,000 suggesting that that many people took it for the first time in the previous year, even though the number of people who in the 2008/09 survey had used in the the previous year was 586,000. However, these are all we have in terms of estimating the number of users, so we'll have to go with them.

The Office of National Statistics Deaths related to drug poisoning, England and Wales (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7892) gives the following for the number of death certificates on which MDMA was mentioned either on its own or with any other drug or drugs:

2004 - 43
2005 - 58
2006 - 48
2007 - 47
2008 - 44

However, the instances where MDMA was the only drug mentioned on death certificates were:

2004 - 24
2005 - 33
2006 - 27
2007 - 28
2008 - 15

The BCS figures are based on a financial year, so the most recent are Apr 2008-Mar 2009, which obviously isn't an exact match for the calander years of the ONS data, but it's close enough. If 586,000 people used MDMA in 2008/09 and there were 44 deaths, that's one death for every 13,318 users. That includes, however, users who used other drugs at the same time, so it cannot be said with certainty that MDMA was the actual cause of death, and not whatever else they took, or the specific combination (some being accepted as being inherently more dangerous than others). For deaths where only MDMA was used - i.e. 15 - it would be one death for every 39,067 users.

With 26 million instances, it would put the chances of any single one resulting in death at one in 590,909 whether it was MDMA only or MDMA plus another drug or drugs. For only MDMA, it would be one in 1,733,333.

Information Analyst

29th October 2009, 04:11 PM

I doubt very much that Ecstasy is less dangerous than horse riding, depending on how you define "danger".
Horse riding deaths in the UK run at about 10 per year. It would seem highly unlikely that the number of people who actually ride horses in the country would be anywhere near the number who - as per the figures above - use MDMA.
I don't think horse riding can ruin you economically and emotionally.
As per the figures I quoted above, 2,782,000 people have used MDMA in England and Wales at any time in their life, and yet this does not appear to have resulted in any widespread psychological problems. The street price of MDMA is around £3 (US$5) per pill, but it's clear that most users in any one year aren't doing it even every month. Annecdotally it seems that most users can get by with 1-3 pills a night, so economic ruin clearly isn't going to be a significant social effect. Horses, of course, are not cheap, either to own, keep, or hire.

Information Analyst

29th October 2009, 04:15 PM

Let's see. Put half the population onto E, and the the other half to ride horses. This is totally slippery slope, but you'd have a lot horse kukka to deal with! Thing is, horse kukka is easier to deal with than drugged up idiots.That would depend on the drug. If it's MDMA, it's a lot easier dealing with chatty and empathic people than those who have been drinking.

Modified

29th October 2009, 05:46 PM

Horse riding deaths in the UK run at about 10 per year.

But how many of them are from jumping, rodeo, etc, and how many are from just puttering around on a horse? I would guess that some horse riding activities are far more dangerous than taking E, and some are far safer.

andyandy

30th October 2009, 02:17 AM

Eddie Dane

30th October 2009, 02:52 AM

But how many of them are from jumping, rodeo, etc, and how many are from just puttering around on a horse? I would guess that some horse riding activities are far more dangerous than taking E, and some are far safer.

Does this mean we have to separate responsible MDMA use from binge use also?
If you'd remove the idiots who take 7 pills a night, from the responsible users (1-3 pills), the responsible users would have a very low problem/mortality rate.

Here are some things that make me think that MDMA is VASTLY more safe then horse riding.

Personal experience. I've done tons of MDMA with little adverse effect. I've only been on a horse twice and nearly fell of the bastard.
Most of the people I know took MDMA, but there were no deaths, hospitalisations or psychiatric problems in my social circle.
My brother broke his arm, falling of a horse and a friend of my father went the way of Christopher Reeve.

All anecdotal, I know.

Then there is the huge disparity in MDMA users versus horse riders. The numbers may be even more extreme as it is an illegally traded substance and we work with estimates, not definite numbers.

Oh, and all that "MDMA" is cooked up by a bunch of amateurs in trailer parks and basements. They do not get visits by the FDA.
Much of that stuff is actually an entirely different substance sold as "E".

So, perhaps it is better to change the statement to: Even illegally produced E is safer than galloping around on 1000 kilo's of muscle that has a mind of it's own and is only under your control becuase it thinks it is.

Ivor the Engineer

30th October 2009, 03:01 AM

<snip>

Most of the people I know took MDMA

<snip>

Most of the people I know have not taken MDMA.

Eddie Dane

30th October 2009, 03:06 AM

Most of the people I know have not taken MDMA.

Do they ride horseback?

Ivor the Engineer

30th October 2009, 03:13 AM

Do they ride horseback?

Most don't, though those that have had not been harmed* by the activity.

Does the euphoria induced by ecstasy make an individual more tolerant to everyday stimuli which would otherwise make them happy?

*Other than financially.:)

Information Analyst

30th October 2009, 03:42 AM

But how many of them are from jumping, rodeo, etc, and how many are from just puttering around on a horse? I would guess that some horse riding activities are far more dangerous than taking E, and some are far safer.
I wouldn't hazard a guess that rodeo doesn't have a particularly high prevalence in the UK. Googling likely word combinations for few news stories for a single year brings up the following deaths in 2008:

2 Feb - Olympic hopeful, 12, crushed to death by horse (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577231/Olympic-hopeful-12-crushed-to-death-by-horse.html) (Shannon Bloomfield)
27 Mar - Rider, 22, dies in her sleep days after falling from horse (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-1002873/Rider-22-dies-sleep-days-falling-horse.html) (Becky Hastie)
23 Apr - Leeds horse rider died two hours after freak accident (http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-horse-rider-died-two.4010137.jp) (Georgia Hill)
22 Jul - Tragedy as nurse dies on horse ride (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/2405727.tragedy_as_nurse_dies_on_horse_ride/) (Victoria Bessey)
10 Aug - Woman rider dies at horse trials (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/7551980.stm) (Emma Jonathan)
26 Aug - Parents' poignant goodbye to horse death daughter (http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Parents39-poignant-goodbye-to-horse.4425435.jp) (Charlotte Collison)
31 Oct - Girl killed in horse fall (http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/Girl-killed-horse-fall/article-440371-detail/article.html) (Jade South)
14 Nov - Horse 'should never have been in yard' where worker died (http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Horse-yard-worker-died/article-474313-detail/article.html) (Lucie Simpson*)
19 Nov - Did 'spooked' horse cause rider death? (http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/burtonmail-news/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=367346) (Loretta Topliss)
29 Nov - Hunt rider's fall was 'devastating' (http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Hunt-rider-s-fall-devastating/article-511431-detail/article.html) (Michael Slater)
4 Dec - Hunt girl crushed by horse (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2001934.ece) (Tracey Richer)
30 Dec - Farmer dies on Princes' hunt (http://www.newstin.co.uk/rel/uk/en-010-009251754) (David Hall)

Obviously that's probably not complete, but by my reckoning the activity breakdown is:

Leisure = 6
Competition = 2
Hunting = 3
Stable* = 1

The last one is a bit of an outlier, being someone killed by a horse in stables. The most obvious thing is that 10 out of 12 deaths are female, but given that horses are very much a "girl thing" in Britain (when I rode a child the girl:boy ratio was around 2 or 3:1), it's not incredibly surprising, although I wouldn't have expected the difference to be so stark.

Figures on the actual breakdown of equestrian activity levels in the country seem impossible to find, but I think we can assume that the leisure sector is larger than serious competition level. Hunting I wouldn't like to guess at, as there is probably a considerable overlap between it and the other two.

Information Analyst

30th October 2009, 03:55 AM

very interesting posts info analyst, thanks. I was quite surprised at the (relatively) high numbers of deaths in which MDMA is mentioned on the death certificate. Though as you say, how many of these have actually anything to do with the MDMA itself is difficult to gauge. There doesn't seem to have been a cause celebre for the "E is dangerous" brigade since Lea Betts, and that was about 15 years ago, which does make me wonder if for most of these deaths E was not the main cause. Because if there had been another Lea Betts style "young girl takes one pill for the first time and dies after drinking too much water", then i imagine the Daily Mail would have been all over it.....It has, of course, been long established that it was by no means Betts's first pill. In the early days the main cause of death was hyperthermia (i.e. overheating), which was exacerbated by practices in many venues of not having chill-out areas and or free water available; now that premises have to provide both in order to get a licence from the local authorities, it's less of a problem. Deaths like Betts's from water intoxication and hyponatremia are always going to be the minority. This leaves acute allergic type reactions, which are also relatively rare. The biggest problem these days is that the world-wide "drought" of genuine MDMA has created a vaccum that has been filled by various "fake" active ingredients in putative Ecstasy tablets that are a lot more dangerous than real MDMA is, a phenomenopn that did not occur on the same scale during previous shortages.

Eddie Dane

30th October 2009, 04:02 AM

Does the euphoria induced by ecstasy make an individual more tolerant to everyday stimuli which would otherwise make them happy?

The worst side effect that I know of, is the depletion of some chemicals in the brain (serotonin?).
The day after use is typically lazy and pleasant. The two days following that can be pretty horrid and some people feel quite down.
(Now that I think of this, we might want to add that to the dangers. I imagine that people who tend towards depression may have a very rough time during an MDMA hangover).

In my experience, one does not get immune to life's normal pleasures.
However, rave parties seem to suck without taking the drug. That may be caused by the fact that rave parties suck in actual objective reality.:)

Information Analyst

30th October 2009, 04:08 AM

Does the euphoria induced by ecstasy make an individual more tolerant to everyday stimuli which would otherwise make them happy?By which I take it you are suggesting that users become desinsitised to "normal" pleasure? There doesn't seem to be any significant evidence that it does. It's been long recognised that over-use leads to a physical tolerance of the drug itself, losing the empathy and euphoria, so that eventually the only effects the user gets are those akin to ordinary amphetamine. This tolerance, however, disipates fairly quickly, and after a month of two's break, the desired effects will be felt again.

P.J. Denyer

30th October 2009, 06:53 AM

Interesting discussion, as a motorcyclist who raised money for our local Air Ambulance I have a couple of (admittedly subjective) points to make-:

1) The financial cost to medical services of horse riding accidents tend to be relatively high, they frequently occur in inaccessable places and accounted for the largest single reason for highly expensive Air Ambulance call outs in the time I was receiving regular reports. If this is extrapolated to other emergancy services it represents more 'unavaliable' time to personel and equipment compared to the generally more urban 'E' taker. In addition horse riding accidents carry the concern of spinal traumer leading to longer onsite attendance to check/immobalise/move the victim.

2) Danger to others. While it sounds like a joke, horse crap on the road causes a number (sorry I don't have a citation right now) of motorcycle accidents every year. Horse manure is extremely slippery when fresh or dampened by rain and is routinely deposited in the roads. Horses are also living creatures that can act unpredictably and cause a hazard to other road users/passers by). In the UK a substantial amount of riding is done on the roads, usually in country areas where speed limits tend to be quite high. None of the normal rules relating to driving a powered vehicle on public roads apply to horseriders many of whom are children who would not be permitted to ride a (far more predictable) 1 horsepower motorised vehicle on the roads.

At the end of the day both are leasure activities so I think it is a valid comparison to make. I personally feel that recreational horseriding is a more 'valuable' activity than taking a recreational drug. But I think that this is a predjudice on my part and difficult to justify by anything other than an appeal to the emotions. If we want to legislate on the damage that a leasure activity can do to the participant then, drinking alcohol, swimming, sailing, mountain climbing, motorcycling, ballet, football, hill walking, bungee jumping, motor racing, wieght training, hill walking, karate, hang gliding, [.....lists practically every human leasure activity except doing the crossword.....], is in trouble!

If we're legislating on grounds of public cost then many of the above activities cost thousands in medical care and in many instances search and rescue costs.

Danger to others? Drinking alcohol...... hello?????

It seems to me that the only criteria on which recreational drug use is different is the prejudice to which I refered earlier, and while I feel it myself I don't think that is due grounds for legislation.

Rolfe

30th October 2009, 07:02 AM

[....] galloping around on 1000 kilo's of muscle that has a mind of it's own and is only under your control becuase it thinks it is.

Ponit of information. A Thoroughbred horse weighs about 500kg. A child's pony may be as light as 200kg. A heavy hunter may be a bit more than a Thoroughbred, and a draught hourse such as a Shire quite a bit more, but nobody is going to be galloping around on a 1,000 kg horse outside The Chrysalids.

Rolfe.

Stacy Head

30th October 2009, 07:25 AM

Is E an addictive drug ?

http://www.addictionsearch.com/treatment_articles/article/ecstasy-addiction-abuse-and-treatment_31.html

Here are some stats on E

A very bad drug with long term side effects.

Horse back riding is dangerous too, but that's a calculated risk I'll take for a high that no drug could ever mimick.

Eddie Dane

30th October 2009, 07:29 AM

Ponit of information. A Thoroughbred horse weighs about 500kg. A child's pony may be as light as 200kg. A heavy hunter may be a bit more than a Thoroughbred, and a draught hourse such as a Shire quite a bit more, but nobody is going to be galloping around on a 1,000 kg horse outside The Chrysalids.

Rolfe.

I figured that since it was the same size as my car.....never mind.
A friend of mine used to own one of these (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fries_paard), and I based my estimate on that.
They're huuuuuge.

Still, you can see why I avoid guessing peoples ages.
It's social suicide. :)

Information Analyst

30th October 2009, 08:09 AM

http://www.addictionsearch.com/treatment_articles/article/ecstasy-addiction-abuse-and-treatment_31.html

Here are some stats on E

A very bad drug with long term side effects.
Laughable. No, I mean it, really laughable. A few points:

1) MDMA was not synthesised as an appetite suppresant. It was discovered as the intermediate compound during the creation of a haemostatic drug.
2) The idea that MDMA is "analogous to... LSD in terms of its hallucinogenic properties" is absolute nonsense.
3) The claim that its psychiatric use, " rather than cure any disorder, it made most patients worse," is a total lie. There is plenty olf testimony to its usefulness, but none that I have ever seen that reflects susbtantiates this.
4) The claim that, "Various studies have revealed that even recreational users of the drug might be at risk of developing permanent damage that can manifest depression, anxiety, memory loss, and psychotic disorders," is not reflected by any manifest increase in attributed psychiatric admissions, despite millions of people having used it.
5) Interesting how it claims, "Today, it is the number one Club Drug abused among college students," and then, "while MDMA abuse currently is not as widespread as that of many other illicit drugs..."
6) Another contradiction: "The drug is smuggled in from Europe, Mexico and even China," then, "Because the use of this drug is illegal, the drug is manufactured illegal in clandestine laboratories all over the country."
7) Regarding impurities in and strength of pills, this is of course a result of prohibition.
8) Neither injection not rectal insertion are even remotely common methods of admission. Insufflating is undoubtedly more prevalent than either, but even then is very much a minority practice.
9) "Prices range from $25 to $40 per pill." Exagerrated by several times, even in the United States. In the UK the cost can be as low as £2 (US$3) per pill.
10) "The effects of ecstasy are not predictable and vary from individual to individual." On the contrary, the uniformity of effects is well documented.
11) "MDMA is an addictive drug and can cause both physical and psychological dependence." MDMA is not addictive in the normal sense. As noted above, user can build up a tolerance (although would require someone taking a hell of a lot), but quitting for a few months allows this to subside.
12) "Ecstasy can rapidly cause dependence and most individuals complain that they have a difficult time stopping the drug. However, the addictive nature of the drug makes stopping the drug difficult and the vicious cycle of dependence continues." Annecdotally there is far more evidence that taking a break or even stopping completely is very easy, which would make this another lie. The figures I posted previously from the 2008/09 British Crime Survey show that out of 2,782,000 who had ever used MDMA, 586,000 had done so in the previous year, and 178,000 in the previous month. Ergo, for those who had used it in the previous year, 408,000 (70%) had clearly taken a break of at least a month immediately prior to the survey, while of those who had taken it ever, 2,196,000 (79%) had clearly taken a break of at least a year immediately prior to the survey. This does not support the idea that it is difficult to stop taking MDMA, either temporaily or permanently.
13) "Long terms users develop severe withdrawal symptoms and abrupt abstinence is fraught with medical complications." In light of the previous figures, this is clearly also a lie.
14) The bottom line is that that site is "selling" detox services - it is in its interests to exagerrate the adverse effects of drugs, but that does not excuse its outright lies.
Horse back riding is dangerous too, but that's a calculated risk I'll take for a high that no drug could ever mimick.
Unless you have personally tried ever drug there is, let alone MDMA, you cannot make such a claim.

3point14

30th October 2009, 08:16 AM

http://www.addictionsearch.com/treatment_articles/article/ecstasy-addiction-abuse-and-treatment_31.html

Here are some stats on E

A very bad drug with long term side effects.

Horse back riding is dangerous too, but that's a calculated risk I'll take for a high that no drug could ever mimick.

You've done the comparison then?

skbuncks

30th October 2009, 08:39 AM

In case anyone missed it the first time round, this is the original journal article

Equasy: An overlooked addiction with implications fo the current debate on drugs harms (http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/23/1/3)

skb

CriticalSock

30th October 2009, 09:05 AM

Very nicely reasoned Information Analyst. I salute you!

I used to do E regularly back in the nineties, it was fun times but I grew out of it after a while (I wanted to do more with my weekends than just club and chill). But one thing I would say is that I have been shepherd (the guy that stays straight and drives \ generally looks after things) on E trips, magic mushroom trips and booze trips and I would far rather have people on E's in the back of my car than people on booze.

People on E generally just cuddle and stroke each other and ask you to play Josh Winks "Higher State of Consciousness" even though it's only just finished playing.

People on booze talk aggressively, moan about how long the trip is taking, need to pee every 5 miles and throw up at the slightest provocation.

People on shrooms are generally ok too as well. They just stare owlishly at the passing streetlights...

Ivor the Engineer

30th October 2009, 09:21 AM

<snip>

People on E generally just cuddle and stroke each other...

<snip>

What stops sober people doing this?

CriticalSock

30th October 2009, 09:33 AM

What stops sober people doing this?

Nothing!

But if you mean why bother taking Ecstasy when you can cuddle and stroke perfectly well without it then I would answer that it's a more intense and heightened experience.

Eddie Dane

30th October 2009, 09:39 AM

What stops sober people doing this?

Social rules? Inhibitions? The wrong atmosphere?

I took E with some friend's house and had a conversation with a girl.
Somehow the conversation turned to breast implants, and she told me she'd had a boob job. She asked if I wanted to feel them, they feel just like real breasts. And they did.

It was completely non-sexual. How often have people talked about that subject without that vital bit of hands-on experience? :D

Damn! I miss the nineties.

CriticalSock

30th October 2009, 09:54 AM

Social rules? Inhibitions? The wrong atmosphere?

I took E with some friend's house and had a conversation with a girl.
Somehow the conversation turned to breast implants, and she told me she'd had a boob job. She asked if I wanted to feel them, they feel just like real breasts. And they did.

It was completely non-sexual. How often have people talked about that subject without that vital bit of hands-on experience? :D

Damn! I miss the nineties.

Completely non-sexual for her may be.... :D

quarky

30th October 2009, 09:55 AM

What an odd thread.

In danger assessment, don't we need to know what the other activity would have been, had the person not chosen to do E or go horse-back riding?

Both activities are very safe for the person that is deciding to do one of them, or go cave diving. Cave diving is very dangerous.
So, the analysis doesn't work in a vacuum.

Hmmnn..

I wonder if horse-back riding on E is as dangerous as cave diving?

Eddie Dane

30th October 2009, 10:05 AM

I have the theory that horse riding becomes significantly less dangerous if the horse is on E.

CriticalSock

30th October 2009, 10:14 AM

...(when I rode a child the girl:boy ratio was around 2 or 3:1)...

This is the most disturbing thing I've read in quite a while! I'm entirely behind your position on E, Information Analyst, but seriously! Stop riding those kids!
:)

Information Analyst

30th October 2009, 10:30 AM

This is the most disturbing thing I've read in quite a while! I'm entirely behind your position on E, Information Analyst, but seriously! Stop riding those kids!
:)

"When I rode as a child..." Damn this keyboard!

alexi_drago

30th October 2009, 10:57 AM

I have the theory that horse riding becomes significantly less dangerous if the horse is on E.

A horse trying to cuddle you is not without risk.

!Kaggen

30th October 2009, 11:45 AM

Professor Yaffle

30th October 2009, 11:57 AM

He's been sacked:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

andyandy

30th October 2009, 12:07 PM

He's been sacked:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

Nu-labour is beneath contempt in how it deals with science (or indeed evidence in general). Can't tow the Great Leader's Party Line? Off to the gulags you go...........

rocketdodger

30th October 2009, 12:07 PM

nescafe

30th October 2009, 12:12 PM

Matthew Best

30th October 2009, 12:40 PM

Information Analyst

30th October 2009, 12:59 PM

I was under the impression that E use leads to actual topographical changes in brain tissue from neuron death, etc. At least, I seem to recall seeing pictures of the brain tissue from E users that looked something like spongiform encephalopathy.

Is this misinformation?

This is the Wikipedia page on the subject: Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retracted_article_on_dopaminergic_neurotoxicity_of _MDMA)
As Nescafe mentions, methamphetamine was used by mistake.
Because if not, I think that is a pretty big part of the equation, no? Assuming I am correct, horse riding can be safe, E use cannot. Even though the risk of death and permanent injury is higher on a horse, at least it doesn't kill you slowly every time you ride one.
Like alcohol and cigarettes, you mean?

Information Analyst

30th October 2009, 01:02 PM

Very disappointed to hear about the sacking of Dr Nutt. If the government want scientific advice to mesh exactly with policies they have already decided on, then they don't really want scientific advice at all, do they?
It's kind of surprising, but not. There was one grilling that an oversight committee gave a Home Office minster, and when pressed he pretty much admitted that they would never reclassify MDMA, no matter what advice the ACMD gave them, even if it was that entirey safe. That's the closest they've ever come to admitting they are inherently more interested in social control and politics than the actual science.

rocketdodger

30th October 2009, 01:17 PM

According to Wikipedia, the jury is still out on that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mdma#Health_concerns).

The rat study that showed the really dramatic effects on the brain was withdrawn because they mistakenly used methamphetamine instead of mdma.

well, I guess that clears up any questions on whether or not one should use methamphetamine.

Otherwise, that sucks -- I wish researchers would put aside all the political baggage and just tell me whether or not it is completely safe (in a permanent damage sense) to use E, because I really would like to try it if it isn't going to harm my brain.

rocketdodger

30th October 2009, 01:26 PM

Like alcohol and cigarettes, you mean?

I wasn't aware that alcohol does permanent damage unless the blood concentration rises beyond a certain threshold.

Is that not true?

But yes, like cigarettes.

Look you don't need to start this up with me, because I am not one of those fools that thinks certain harmful things are OK and others are not. A harmful thing is a harmful thing, and if a person wants to harm themselves in any way that is up to them, whether it be horse riding, smoking, E, or crystal meth.

I know that fatty foods are killing me, and will probably take a few years off my life, but I don't care that much because pleasure matters to me. However, I value my intelligence more than anything else by far and so I am very concerned with anything that could harm my brain even in the most insignificant way. I would rather die a few years early than live with any neural damage at all. Thus, studies about the permanent neural effects of drugs are very important in my opinion.

Along those lines, I would rather have my legs crushed by a horse than lose a few neurons to E. But if it turns out E doesn't kill my neurons ...

GlennB

30th October 2009, 01:32 PM

The truth about Prof. Nutt and E (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/ecstacy-is-mental%2c-says-drugs-czar-200910302184/)

Information Analyst

30th October 2009, 01:56 PM

The truth about Prof. Nutt and E (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/ecstacy-is-mental%2c-says-drugs-czar-200910302184/)
A good satire, but the idea of getting genuine MDMA for £2 a pill anywhere - let alone Dalston - is somewhat out of date.

Rolfe

30th October 2009, 02:11 PM

I figured that since it was the same size as my car.....never mind.
A friend of mine used to own one of these (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fries_paard), and I based my estimate on that.
They're huuuuuge.

Oooh, shiny! (But 1.7m is my actual height! That's massive!)

Rolfe.

Rolfe

30th October 2009, 03:27 PM

andyandy

30th October 2009, 03:35 PM

Did you hear the bit where Brown said that he was sacked because the government had lost confidence in his ability to give impartial advice?

That WAS impartial advice you were getting, you stupid man.

Rolfe.

Independent advisor sacked for giving independent advice. Obviously the type of independent advisers that Nu-labour want are ones which tell the imbeciles at government what they want to hear. Depressing.

quarky

30th October 2009, 09:27 PM

well, I guess that clears up any questions on whether or not one should use methamphetamine.

Otherwise, that sucks -- I wish researchers would put aside all the political baggage and just tell me whether or not it is completely safe (in a permanent damage sense) to use E, because I really would like to try it if it isn't going to harm my brain.

Shulgin, last I heard, was old and well. He'd be the obvious anecdotal evidence that its not so bad. Yet, he knew what he was doing, and what he was taking.

For a person that is willing to consume alcohol fairly often, the risk of damage from mdma should be downgraded. Taking "E" would be downright wholesome if the other choice was a night of huffing solvents.

Fiona

30th October 2009, 10:13 PM

Did you hear the bit where Brown said that he was sacked because the government had lost confidence in his ability to give impartial advice?

That WAS impartial advice you were getting, you stupid man.

Rolfe.

I suspect it is not because he is stupid, Rolfe. It may be because he thinks we are. What is the biggest selling newspaper again.....?

Matthew Best

31st October 2009, 12:10 AM

Alan Johnson's Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=91846000115&ref=mf) seems to have had an influx of people giving him some, er, "impartial advice" as a result of this.

CriticalSock

2nd November 2009, 03:14 AM

Independent advisor sacked for giving independent advice. Obviously the type of independent advisers that Nu-labour want are ones which tell the imbeciles at government what they want to hear. Depressing.

I've been feeling depressed all weekend Andy. The government isn't about government any more; it's about appearance and popularity. I think that in 50 years time, when the UK is a communist satellite state of China, we'll look back on these times as the point where democracy failed. We've got politicians that eat, live and breath ****, Cash for gold adverts everywhere, cats and dogs living in sin... rivers of blood... it's the democrapocalypse!

Eddie Dane

2nd November 2009, 05:37 AM

Nutt's comment that horse riding was more dangerous than taking ecstacy was rejected by Johnson as a "political rather than a scientific point".

In its original report the ACMD found that horse riding caused acute harm to a person once in 350 episodes while ecstacy caused acute harm once in 10,000 episodes - which sounds to us like maths, not politics.

Linky (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/02/home_office_drugs_adviser/)

Information Analyst

3rd November 2009, 01:20 AM

Johnson just digs himself deeper. In a letter published in yesterday's Guardian he claimed:
"As for [Nutt's] comments about horse riding being more dangerous than ecstasy, which you quote with such reverence, it is of course a political point rather than a scientific fact. There are not many kids in my contitutency in danger of falling off a horse - there are thousands at risk of being sucked into a world of hopeless despair through drug addition."
Johnson is the MP for Hull West and Hessle, the latter being a semi-rural area, and there are certainly riding schools fairly close, if not actually in it. The idea that MDMA leads to "a world of hopeless despair through drug addition" would be laughable, were it not such a blatent lie.

arthwollipot

3rd November 2009, 03:38 AM

Best headline ever:

"Nutt sack causes Johnson revolt"

Matthew Best

3rd November 2009, 04:54 AM

It's a great headline, but when I google it the only place it appears is in this thread. If you made it up yourself, you should get a job at the Sun.

Information Analyst

3rd November 2009, 08:55 AM

Gordon Brown has now pretty much admitted that he is more bothered about what the general public thinks, even if it's contrary to the science:

Gordon Brown: I’m right to overrule drug advisers (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23763767-gordon-brown-im-right-to-overrule-drug-advisers.do)

"A tough policy on drugs is essential and it is what the public want,” Mr Brown said. “I've seen the damage that drugs can do and people can see it in estates in London. I think I share the public concern about the effect that drugs have.

"On climate change, or health, for example, we take the best scientific advise possible. But in an area like drugs we have to look at it in the round.

"We have got to look not just at what medics and scientists are saying to us — and we take that very seriously — but also what impact different decisions can have on young, vulnerable people.

"It was right to reclassify cannabis. It is right to reject any attempts to reclassify ecstasy. It's right also to say that drugs can cause such damage, particularly when dealers are pushing drugs on young people and making them victims of a cruel trade ... I think everybody knows lives that have been ruined because of drugs.

"It's very important that we say yes, we take scientific advice seriously and will never ignore it, but yes, also, it is right that the people who make the final decisions and are accountable to Parliament for them are the Home
Secretary in this case or in other cases the Health Secretary or myself."

More people's lives are blighted by alcohol and tobacco, but I don't see politicians exactly falling over themselves to ban either. It's odd that clearly it's OK for governments to "re-educate" the public on such matters as climate change, but when it comes to drugs, the emotions of the public trump science.

Sunray Breaker

3rd November 2009, 09:09 AM

It seems to me that the rewards of horse riding are greater than the rewards of E, though that may differ from person to person.

I've tried both horse back riding and E...I'd have to say the E is more worth it. But maybe that's just because you get a whole lot of pleasure for little to no effort. That and it makes any terrible music you happen to be listening to sound like "wow man, ya, know, ya know man? Like....Wow. "

*stares up at the ceiling and giggles quietly to himself*

I advocate total legalization myself. Better regulations, less money going to the street gangs, safer drugs, better quality, taxable...etc, etc.

whatthebutlersaw

3rd November 2009, 09:48 AM

As someone who would likely opt for the horsie, given the choice, I can only shake my head at the many levels of idiocy in Johnson's actions and Brown's response.

I can't vote in UK general elections, so my opinion is of course worth less than nothing. But my life, and my heart, is here, and the policies of the government influence my life a lot and it is really disheartening to realize that noone cares about the science at all. Only in re-enforcing fallacious assumptions that easily get voters emotional.

I didn't hold it against Brown that he is a dour bastard with less people skills than Mr Gumby. I don't hold with that smarmy Blairesque style of politician anyway. I didn't hold it against Brown that he inherited a government in disarray during the initial phases of what would become a worse financial train wreck than the Krüger Crash. I didn't hold it against him that the government responded to the Bank crisis with using my tax money to save the banks. It sucks, as it sucked when Sweden did the same thing 1992 (and Swedish bankers definitely only learned that they can frit away our money with impunity) but I can see the political reasoning, even though I don't agree.

I do not, however, accept this spineless propagandaism. I definitely hold it against him that he condones the silencing of objective advisers on the grounds that the science and the policies don't match.

His one saving grace was that he appeared honest. Too blunt to be smarmy, and willing to make unpopular decisions. Now I am wondering if he just didn't understand that his decisions would be unpopular.

I am also wondering what the _hell_ his spin doctors are doing, not explaining to him the implications of following in the footsteps of the BCA and Trafigura in using might to silence science.

Basically what just happened was that where he previously never had the Telegraph readers, and he recently lost The Sun readers - he has now made a booboo that will likely lose him the Guardian and the Independent readers as well. And let's face it, we were the only ones he had left, and barely that.

I lived in the hope that Brown was too bluff, blunt and honest to be a good politician - turns out he's just another politician who also happens to be a crap politician. When you manage to be neither populist, elitist nor "Middle England"-ist - then you have some serious problems...

I'm almost happy I can't vote here, because between Nu-Labour and the Tories we have a "pestilence or cholera" situation - and of course the Lib Dems are too small to make a difference, and I still have no clue what they really stand for despite really trying to find out.

I predict that the next election sees an unexpected increase in Standing-in-the-back-dressed-stupidly-looking-stupid-party. It will be free corsets for the under fives, compulsory asparagus breakfasts and abolition of slavery by this time next year.

Stacy Head

3rd November 2009, 02:53 PM

Laughable. No, I mean it, really laughable. A few points:

1) MDMA was not synthesised as an appetite suppresant. It was discovered as the intermediate compound during the creation of a haemostatic drug.
2) The idea that MDMA is "analogous to... LSD in terms of its hallucinogenic properties" is absolute nonsense.
3) The claim that its psychiatric use, " rather than cure any disorder, it made most patients worse," is a total lie. There is plenty olf testimony to its usefulness, but none that I have ever seen that reflects susbtantiates this.
4) The claim that, "Various studies have revealed that even recreational users of the drug might be at risk of developing permanent damage that can manifest depression, anxiety, memory loss, and psychotic disorders," is not reflected by any manifest increase in attributed psychiatric admissions, despite millions of people having used it.
5) Interesting how it claims, "Today, it is the number one Club Drug abused among college students," and then, "while MDMA abuse currently is not as widespread as that of many other illicit drugs..."
6) Another contradiction: "The drug is smuggled in from Europe, Mexico and even China," then, "Because the use of this drug is illegal, the drug is manufactured illegal in clandestine laboratories all over the country."
7) Regarding impurities in and strength of pills, this is of course a result of prohibition.
8) Neither injection not rectal insertion are even remotely common methods of admission. Insufflating is undoubtedly more prevalent than either, but even then is very much a minority practice.
9) "Prices range from $25 to $40 per pill." Exagerrated by several times, even in the United States. In the UK the cost can be as low as £2 (US$3) per pill.
10) "The effects of ecstasy are not predictable and vary from individual to individual." On the contrary, the uniformity of effects is well documented.
11) "MDMA is an addictive drug and can cause both physical and psychological dependence." MDMA is not addictive in the normal sense. As noted above, user can build up a tolerance (although would require someone taking a hell of a lot), but quitting for a few months allows this to subside.
12) "Ecstasy can rapidly cause dependence and most individuals complain that they have a difficult time stopping the drug. However, the addictive nature of the drug makes stopping the drug difficult and the vicious cycle of dependence continues." Annecdotally there is far more evidence that taking a break or even stopping completely is very easy, which would make this another lie. The figures I posted previously from the 2008/09 British Crime Survey show that out of 2,782,000 who had ever used MDMA, 586,000 had done so in the previous year, and 178,000 in the previous month. Ergo, for those who had used it in the previous year, 408,000 (70%) had clearly taken a break of at least a month immediately prior to the survey, while of those who had taken it ever, 2,196,000 (79%) had clearly taken a break of at least a year immediately prior to the survey. This does not support the idea that it is difficult to stop taking MDMA, either temporaily or permanently.
13) "Long terms users develop severe withdrawal symptoms and abrupt abstinence is fraught with medical complications." In light of the previous figures, this is clearly also a lie.
14) The bottom line is that that site is "selling" detox services - it is in its interests to exagerrate the adverse effects of drugs, but that does not excuse its outright lies.

Unless you have personally tried ever drug there is, let alone MDMA, you cannot make such a claim.

I'm not going to address these one by one so let's go with what's important

#13-Have you ever taken care of a patient who has used e for several days in a row? I have, so real life trumps your accusation of lying.
#14-I'm not selling detox to anyone, that's not my area of expertise and I couldn't care less what you do with yours.

I can make that claim, I do not use recreational drugs but I do support the use of orphan drugs such as marijuana, Xyrem and others for treatment of various medical conditions.
You sound as if you are on a meth bender, make clear intelligent arguments without being so harsh.

Stacy Head

3rd November 2009, 03:23 PM

Laughable. No, I mean it, really laughable.

Unless you have personally tried ever drug there is, let alone MDMA, you cannot make such a claim.

I can make any claim I want, I'm a Nurse, I deal with people like you. Maybe fun for you, but I've seen people die in the orperating room table from interactions with e and anesthetics. You know, drop e do something stupid like cut your finger off and I get called in to help reattach, then you die because anesthetics and mdma don't jive. I don't want to try any drugs that aren't made by someone that I don't have to address as Doctor, as in PharmD.

arthwollipot

3rd November 2009, 07:27 PM

It's a great headline, but when I google it the only place it appears is in this thread. If you made it up yourself, you should get a job at the Sun.I did. :cool:

Prometheus

3rd November 2009, 10:59 PM

Best headline ever:

"Nutt sack causes Johnson revolt"

It's a great headline, but when I google it the only place it appears is in this thread. If you made it up yourself, you should get a job at the Sun.

Wow. It's even more rare than "arthwollipot"....

Eddie Dane

4th November 2009, 02:00 AM

I'm not going to address these one by one so let's go with what's important

#13-Have you ever taken care of a patient who has used e for several days in a row? I have, so real life trumps your accusation of lying.
#14-I'm not selling detox to anyone, that's not my area of expertise and I couldn't care less what you do with yours.

Information Analyst never claimed you were selling detox, the site you referred to does.

You obviously have seen some terrible effects of drug use and your input is valued and respected. But that site you referred to has an agenda, spreads lies and apparently has more internal inconsistencies than the Old Testament.

3point14

4th November 2009, 02:53 AM

whatthebutlersaw

4th November 2009, 04:05 AM

ponderingturtle

4th November 2009, 05:32 AM

Stacy Head

5th November 2009, 12:49 PM

Yeah, the bolded part isn't really how reasoned debate works, you do know that, don't you?

As a nurse, with experience, I can say for certain, real life experience in my career with MDMA has not been one where the patient has had positive outcomes.

My definition of positive outcomes:

breathing, being able to complete a sentence after long periods of hyperthermia, no brain damage after long periods of hypoxia. Is that clear enough.

Out of context, no I'm not making "any claim I want because I'm a nurse"

I was making claims on the subject at hand and my experience with people who have ingested MDMA.

Stacy Head

5th November 2009, 12:51 PM

We have some homopaths here who make this same claim you know.

I do not support nor do I practice hoeopathic medicine.

Stacy Head

5th November 2009, 12:55 PM

Any claim valid for being a nurse? Damn I am in the wrong business!

My mother in law is a nurse, and extremely christian. Somehow she has never used the fact that she is a nurse to convince me that gawd loves me - maybe I should be grateful for that, because if she DID invoke the nurse license, I would obviously have to convert and a I really, really don't believe in god, so that would be awkward.

I'm sorry, your mother-in-law sounds as crazy as mine.

Truly everyone is missing the point of what I'm trying to say. In my dealings with MDMA patients, who have been brought into the hospital, the outcome has been poor.

I can say I'm the pope, but are you gonna believe me?

nescafe

5th November 2009, 01:39 PM

As a nurse, with experience, I can say for certain, real life experience in my career with MDMA has not been one where the patient has had positive outcomes.

With all due respect, you are a nurse. Your job entails severe selection bias towards negative outcomes w.r.t damn near everything nonroutine.

My definition of positive outcomes:

breathing, being able to complete a sentence after long periods of hyperthermia, no brain damage after long periods of hypoxia. Is that clear enough.

People do stupid stuff, sometimes suffer severe consequences. I would consider good old ethanol to be much, much worse w.r.t negative consequences.

The overwhelming majority of E users do not experience such effects, and probably never will.

3point14

5th November 2009, 06:04 PM

As a nurse, with experience, I can say for certain, real life experience in my career with MDMA has not been one where the patient has had positive outcomes.

My definition of positive outcomes:

breathing, being able to complete a sentence after long periods of hyperthermia, no brain damage after long periods of hypoxia. Is that clear enough.

Out of context, no I'm not making "any claim I want because I'm a nurse"

I was making claims on the subject at hand and my experience with people who have ingested MDMA.

But large portions of your working life must be spent dealing with people who have not had positive outcomes when they've been driving, or crossing the road, or taking prescribed medicine or walking upstairs or having a meal or eating peanuts or riding horses or any one of thousands of activities. Why single this one out as particularly bad?

Or, after reading to the end of the thread...

With all due respect, you are a nurse. Your job entails severe selection bias towards negative outcomes w.r.t damn near everything nonroutine.

WHS

3point14

5th November 2009, 06:05 PM

Deleted

Sol88

5th November 2009, 08:59 PM

Furcifer

5th November 2009, 09:04 PM

Generation Ecstasy : Into the World of Techno and Rave Culture (http://www.amazon.com/Generation-Ecstasy-World-Techno-Culture/dp/0415923735)

A great read. I grew up going to those first raves in Detroit. Simon Reynolds mixes a pretty good history of E with the Techno and Rave scene during the early 90's. He touches on the cultural phenomenon E was.

It was tactile. It was overwhelming. It was fun. It was 1000's of people, dancing for hours on end without a single fight. It was a moving experience an entire generation shared. And it was one little pill. (but that's another thread ;))

I know hundreds of people who took E, and many that continue to do so. I don't know a single person that ever became addicted. Ever. Oh sure there were a few summers where it became a focus so strong it was consuming, but it never became addictive. When the party was over and the beats stopped...well it stopped. It stopped rather abruptly mind you, but there were no lasting effects. Depression? Yah, there was depression. The exact same depression you get as you pull the zipper around the last corner on that suitcase, or turn the key in the lock, that exact same feeling you get when you pull out of the driveway on your way home from vacation.

You want to go back but you can't. You think about calling in and taking another week off but remember you can't and you keep driving. You pull the car in the garage, you unload the kids, you unpack your bags and pull the plug on the cooler.

But you vow to go back. ;)

Sol88

5th November 2009, 10:59 PM

@ 3bodyproblem : Amen

The Don

6th November 2009, 02:05 AM

Alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs!!!!

If they are "safe" to use, then just about anything is, "pure" MDMA is safer to use than booze or cigarettes and that is a fact.

Education is the key of course, along with moderation of use.

I'd rather be surrounded by loved up, empathetic dancers than narky, abusive violent drunks any day!!

I'd prefer to think of MDMA as being less dangerous rather than being more safe. I believe this was Dr Nutt's thesis too.

- MDMA and Dope not safe
- but less dangerous than alcohol
- Should still be illegal but lower classification
- There is a moralistic dimension to the classification of these drugs

whatthebutlersaw

6th November 2009, 02:55 AM

I'm sorry, your mother-in-law sounds as crazy as mine.

Actually, my MiL is a sweet, helpful and open minded person. Who also happens to be really in to god. She never proselytizes and she always accepts that other people are of a different opinion and that she may not have the answers just because she is a nurse/christian.

That was kind of my point: you invoke your (possible) nurse's license as an appeal to authority, and then give us obvious guff.

If you didn't get it: my fundamentalist MiL is no patch on you, lady.

Oh, and don't compare my lovely MiL to your personal family nutters. She's definitely more open minded than you.

You're waffling, but the fact remains. You came in here and claimed that we should disregard everything science knows about certain compounds.

Why?

"Because you are a nurse, so you can make any claim you want."

Hell no.

Ivor the Engineer

6th November 2009, 02:57 AM

<snip>

I'd rather be surrounded by loved up, empathetic dancers than narky, abusive violent drunks any day!!

Well if those around you are drugged up and having a similar reaction to ecstasy as you are I suppose that could be classed as empathetic behaviour.

E.g., one could consider two violent drunks fighting with each other as behaving in an empathetic way.

whatthebutlersaw

6th November 2009, 03:50 AM

Well if those around you are drugged up and having a similar reaction to ecstasy as you are I suppose that could be classed as empathetic behaviour.

E.g., one could consider two violent drunks fighting with each other as behaving in an empathetic way.

That comment explains so much about you.

CriticalSock

6th November 2009, 04:39 AM

Most don't, though those that have had not been harmed* by the activity.

Does the euphoria induced by ecstasy make an individual more tolerant to everyday stimuli which would otherwise make them happy?

*Other than financially.:)

In the short term yes, to some extent. You tend to have a day or two after taking ecstasy when you feel a bit wan. It's like you have a reservoir of fun juice in your brain and you empty it all out in one go when you take ecstasy. It takes a couple of days for the reservoir to fill back up again and start operating normally again. So if you went to the opera a day or two after taking E then I think you would not enjoy it as much (unless it was the Welsh National Opera Co. that transcends all such mundane considerations). Give it four or five days though and you are back to full operating capacity!

Information Analyst

6th November 2009, 04:47 AM

I'm not going to address these one by one so let's go with what's important
I'll take that to mean that you can't rebut the bulk of my observations, then.
#13-Have you ever taken care of a patient who has used e for several days in a row? I have, so real life trumps your accusation of lying.
The lie was in the claim that, "Long terms users develop severe withdrawal symptoms and abrupt abstinence is fraught with medical complications." As I said, the statistics do not support this as being a common effect, nor is there any widespread relevent annecdotal evidence.

Your objection is to a different scenario - i.e. going from "long term users" to someone "who has used e for several days in a row" - but I know plenty of people who do MDMA for several days in a row, none of whom are subsequently significantly any more badly effected when they stop and go back to work/study/whatever than they would have been if they had been drinking alcohol over the same period of time. It is notable that there is currently a worldwide "drought" of genuine MDMA at the moment, making it exceptionally difficult to obtain for most users. This has not manifested itself in a sudden surge of people seeking medical help for supposed "withdrawl symptoms."

#14-I'm not selling detox to anyone, that's not my area of expertise and I couldn't care less what you do with yours.

As has been pointed out, I said the site is selling detox. My area of expertise happens to be public healthcare information analysis, which includes acute hospital treatment data, so I appreciate what the numbers actually say. Your experience is only at the extremes, so has little bearing on the bulk of MDMA users' experiences, any more than what you see of people suffering from the extremes of alcohol use has on the majority of drinkers.

I can make that claim, I do not use recreational drugs but I do support the use of orphan drugs such as marijuana, Xyrem and others for treatment of various medical conditions.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the research done on the medical use of MDMA, then?

You sound as if you are on a meth bender, make clear intelligent arguments without being so harsh.

LOL! I provided a concise point-by-point rebuttal of the various disfinformation and lies on the site you linked to. If you want elaboration on any one of them, then say which.

Oh, and I have never and would never use methamphetamine, notwithstanding the fact that it is virtually unknown in the UK, anyway.

CriticalSock

6th November 2009, 04:57 AM

What the hell?! I must have had a cached copy of this site from a couple of days ago or something, the last post I saw was the one I responded to in my post above. My apologies.

Well if those around you are drugged up and having a similar reaction to ecstasy as you are I suppose that could be classed as empathetic behaviour.

E.g., one could consider two violent drunks fighting with each other as behaving in an empathetic way.

The poster doesn't mean empathetic in a generic sense. They mean like-minded, friendly, non-violent... tree hugging.

With respect, I think that you are over generalising in taking all illegal recreational drugs, lumping them into the same category and assigning them the same levels of risk and damage.

Ivor the Engineer

6th November 2009, 05:04 AM

That comment explains so much about you.

Please tell everyone what, in your opinion, my comment explains about me.

Information Analyst

6th November 2009, 05:16 AM

I can make any claim I want, I'm a Nurse, I deal with people like you. Maybe fun for you, but I've seen people die in the orperating room table from interactions with e and anesthetics. You know, drop e do something stupid like cut your finger off and I get called in to help reattach, then you die because anesthetics and mdma don't jive. I don't want to try any drugs that aren't made by someone that I don't have to address as Doctor, as in PharmD.
Hang on, you said: "Horse back riding is dangerous too, but that's a calculated risk I'll take for a high that no drug could ever mimick." I quite rightly pointed out that you can't make that claim unless you've tried every drug there is, let alone MDMA. That's logic. I'd never claim that sky-diving can't give the same buzz thing as horse-riding, because I've never been sky-diving.

Anyway, people have adverse reactions to anaesthetics all the time, even when not in interaction with any drug. Are you similarly judgemental about poeple who get injured during dangerous sports, or any other manner of legal activities that may and do result in injury or death?

Information Analyst

6th November 2009, 05:21 AM

As a nurse, with experience, I can say for certain, real life experience in my career with MDMA has not been one where the patient has had positive outcomes.
By definition your only experience is of extremes, which has little relevence to the majority.
I was making claims on the subject at hand and my experience with people who have ingested MDMA.
No, you have experience with a very small minority of people who have ingested MDMA. Does your experience of people who present with acute alcoholic poisoning lead you to a similar blanket condemnation of drinking alcohol as a whole?

Ivor the Engineer

6th November 2009, 05:22 AM

<snip>

The poster doesn't mean empathetic in a generic sense. They mean like-minded, friendly, non-violent... tree hugging.

What stops sober people behaving in that way?

With respect, I think that you are over generalising in taking all illegal recreational drugs, lumping them into the same category and assigning them the same levels of risk and damage.

Then you are mistaken. I have no argument with the review of the evidence which indicates that some of the currently illegal drugs are less harmful than alcohol, tobacco or horse riding. However, that does not mean the less-harmful drugs are beneficial.

Information Analyst

6th November 2009, 05:36 AM

What stops sober people behaving in that way?
Clearly a lot of things. The issue is that MDMA specifically provokes an empathic response in the user to those around them. It's like that stage of drinking that some people get where everyone's their best mate, but without the other adverse effects. I've found that in a setting where some people are taking MDMA (I don't think I've ever been in one where that was more than 50%), it has a calming effect even on those that aren't. Altercations are exceptionally rare, especially compared to venues where the bulk of the patrons are drinking.
I have no argument with the review of the evidence which indicates that some of the currently illegal drugs are less harmful than alcohol, tobacco or horse riding. However, that does not mean the less-harmful drugs are beneficial.
Define "beneficial." Do you apply the same defintion of "beneficial" to legal drugs?

calebprime

6th November 2009, 05:47 AM

Generation Ecstasy : Into the World of Techno and Rave Culture (http://www.amazon.com/Generation-Ecstasy-World-Techno-Culture/dp/0415923735)

...

seconded as good read.

CriticalSock

6th November 2009, 06:02 AM

What stops sober people behaving in that way?

Their sobriety stops them, almost without exception. I've been to church based non-alcohol or drugs parties in my younger days. They all died on their arse because sober people aren't able to express themselves freely. Well, not in the UK at least.

Then you are mistaken. I have no argument with the review of the evidence which indicates that some of the currently illegal drugs are less harmful than alcohol, tobacco or horse riding. However, that does not mean the less-harmful drugs are beneficial.

I'm often mistaken, it's a defining characteristic! :) I agree with you about the relative levels of harm, that's the main argument of this thread isn't it? So having found agreement on that we should all be happy!

Are you saying though that alcohol, tobacco and horse riding are beneficial in a way that ecstasy isn't? I don't agree with that.

Ivor the Engineer

6th November 2009, 06:13 AM

Clearly a lot of things. The issue is that MDMA specifically provokes an empathic response in the user to those around them. It's like that stage of drinking that some people get where everyone's their best mate, but without the other adverse effects. I've found that in a setting where some people are taking MDMA (I don't think I've ever been in one where that was more than 50%), it has a calming effect even on those that aren't. Altercations are exceptionally rare, especially compared to venues where the bulk of the patrons are drinking.

Using the word empathic/empathetic to describe the cognitive and behavioural effects of MDMA is inaccurate and misleading.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathy

The intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Being under the influence of ecstasy does not make one empathetic, just drugged (and often rather boring/annoying to people who are not similarly drugged).

Define "beneficial."

Physical and social wellbeing for the individual and society.

Do you apply the same defintion of "beneficial" to legal drugs?

Yes. For example, I don't think tobacco is beneficial.

Ivor the Engineer

6th November 2009, 06:25 AM

Their sobriety stops them, almost without exception. I've been to church based non-alcohol or drugs parties in my younger days. They all died on their arse because sober people aren't able to express themselves freely. Well, not in the UK at least.

Isn't it sad that people should need drugs to express themselves freely?

<snip>

Are you saying though that alcohol, tobacco and horse riding are beneficial in a way that ecstasy isn't? I don't agree with that.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying we are where we are. Alcohol and tobacco are in widespread use and making them illegal is not a realistic option. Using them as standards by which the harms of currently illegal drugs are assessed is irrelevant.

The decision whether or not to make a drug legal should be based on the benefits and harms of the drug in question to both individuals and society.

Information Analyst

6th November 2009, 06:25 AM

Using the word empathic/empathetic to describe the cognitive and behavioural effects of MDMA is inaccurate and misleading.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathy

The first definition applies. So much of the literature specifically notes the empathic response. Why do you know better?

[quote]Being under the influence of ecstasy does not make one empathetic, just drugged (and often rather boring/annoying to people who are not similarly drugged).

Define "drugged". High? Low? Alert? Sedated?

Physical and social wellbeing for the individual and society.

That seems absurdly narrow (even if we assume you mean "Physical and/or social..."), as it means that a lot of pleasurable activities by your definition are not "beneficial".

Yes. For example, I don't think tobacco is beneficial.

And alcohol? And caffeine?

Information Analyst

6th November 2009, 06:28 AM

Isn't it sad that people should need drugs to express themselves freely?
Isn't it sad that you are so judgemental about the choices of people it seems you have little direct experience of?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying we are where we are. Alcohol and tobacco are in widespread use and making them illegal is not a realistic option. Using them as standards by which the harms of currently illegal drugs are assessed is irrelevant.

The decision whether or not to make a drug legal should be based on the benefits and harms of the drug in question to both individuals and society.

You cannot divorce illegal drugs from the context of existing legal drugs. It should, of course, be noted that MDMA was outlawed in the UK by legal sleight-of-hand, not through any specific assessment of even what was known of it at the time. There are other substances that are virtually identical in their effects to MDMA, yet are completely legal, unconstrained by any legislation whatsoever. At the other end of the scale, the likes of Prozac are legal (where prescribed) to stop people from feeling bad most of the time, so what exactly is wrong with other people taking something else to make them feel good some of the time?

Eddie Dane

6th November 2009, 06:56 AM

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying we are where we are. Alcohol and tobacco are in widespread use and making them illegal is not a realistic option. Using them as standards by which the harms of currently illegal drugs are assessed is irrelevant.

The decision whether or not to make a drug legal should be based on the benefits and harms of the drug in question to both individuals and society.

I'm sorry but I cannot think of a more relevant benchmark for which drugs should be legalised, than the drug which are already legal.

Especially if relative to these legal drugs the illegal drug under discussion is less harmful in every way we can objectively verify.

We are putting people in jail, spending enormous amounts of tax money, burdening the police force, making the Mafia swim in money, funding international terrorism and poisoning users because the uninformed stick their fingers in their ears when scientific data is presented.

It's illegal because we were told it was bad, now it is bad because it is illegal. It's circular logic.

I appreciate and respect the fact that you think drug use it stupid, unnecessary and has no benefits for society.
One of my heroes, Henry Rollins, feels the same way about drugs. Good. That is a life philosophy I can respect. Straight edge!

But I feel the same way about horse riding. An objectively vastly more dangerous activity then MDMA use. And people are putting children on these enormous, unpredictable farm animals.

CriticalSock

6th November 2009, 07:53 AM

Actually I do find it sad that people need drugs to express themselves freely. In an ideal society it wouldn't be necessary. But it's our society that has created the repression and insularity of individuals to the extent that a person needs chemical stimulus to be able to say "I love you man". Sad but true.

I think that the lessons that I learned when I took ecstasy myself are still with me now all these years later. I can draw on that experience to break down social barriers and have even told an accountant that I loved him! (in a platonic sense of course!)

whatthebutlersaw

6th November 2009, 09:06 AM

Please tell everyone what, in your opinion, my comment explains about me.

It explains your understanding of empathy. And why it doesn't quite chime with everyone else's general use of it.

This in turn explains why you have such a judgemental attitude to everyone who is not an exact clone of yourself.

It also makes me wonder about something, but I am afraid I can't go into that, because even though the question stems from a compassionate place, actually asking it could easily be construed as breach of rule 12. It is simply not a question for an open forum.

CriticalSock

6th November 2009, 09:31 AM

It explains your understanding of empathy. And why it doesn't quite chime with everyone else's general use of it.

This in turn explains why you have such a judgemental attitude to everyone who is not an exact clone of yourself.

It also makes me wonder about something, but I am afraid I can't go into that, because even though the question stems from a compassionate place, actually asking it could easily be construed as breach of rule 12. It is simply not a question for an open forum.

just put hypothetically in front of the question, you can get away with anything if you do that! :D

Information Analyst

6th November 2009, 09:46 AM

just put hypothetically in front of the question, you can get away with anything if you do that! :D
Allegedly. :cool:

CriticalSock

6th November 2009, 10:25 AM

So are we all agreed that taking ecstasy is less dangerous than horse riding and that Professor Nutt was fired for telling the truth?

Furcifer

6th November 2009, 04:45 PM

So are we all agreed that taking ecstasy is less dangerous than horse riding and that Professor Nutt was fired for telling the truth?

yep, and less addictive than chocolate. Much less than cigarettes or alcohol.

Although I will admit I got married on an E binge. So, be warned!

Information Analyst

7th November 2009, 03:37 PM

Although I will admit I got married on an E binge. So, be warned!
I waited until the reception.

Elf Grinder 3000

7th November 2009, 03:59 PM

What are the long term side effects of ecstacy - brain damage, depression. That doesnt seem like something I would want to live with.

I would rather break my arm horseback riding.

Furcifer

7th November 2009, 04:06 PM

What are the long term side effects of ecstacy - brain damage, depression. That doesnt seem like something I would want to live with.

I would rather break my arm horseback riding.

Besides the alimony, none.

edit: I see you're being serious so I'll try to be as well. It's about as addictive as aspirin, with about the same long term effects. There's a notion that because E is a banned substance there must be some long term effects. There's nothing in the literature to suggest this. What are the long term effects from any drug? Can you name a drug that has long term effects from small spuradic doses? I can't. It's the abuse that leads to long term effects. "Do not continue use for long periods of time, if the condition persists discontinue use and see a doctor" etc.

Information Analyst

8th November 2009, 03:11 AM

What are the long term side effects of ecstacy - brain damage, depression. That doesnt seem like something I would want to live with.
Neither of which have been effectively proven. As per my post #32, 2,394,000 people in England & Wales have used MDMA - out of a population of 54 million - over a period of about twenty years. So where are all the "casualties"? Clearly such effects - if the actually exist - can't be universal, so they're at the extremes, which as 3BP says apply to lots of other drugs, including legal ones. Now we're being told that there is a link between depression and processed food (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8334353.stm), on top of everything else!

ponderingturtle

8th November 2009, 04:46 AM

I do not support nor do I practice hoeopathic medicine.

Well you are presenting the same evidence they do.

rocketdodger

8th November 2009, 11:23 AM

Isn't it sad that people should need drugs to express themselves freely?

I could be wrong, but I don't think many people at all take drugs so that they can express themselves easier.

I think people take drugs because it makes them feel better.

And if you were to say "isn't it sad that people should need drugs to feel a certain way," well, I agree -- but we can't really reprogram, or even redesign, our nervous system (yet), and as far as I know certain feelings can only be achieved by drugs.

rocketdodger

8th November 2009, 11:26 AM

What are the long term side effects of ecstacy - brain damage, depression. That doesnt seem like something I would want to live with.

I would rather break my arm horseback riding.

I thought so as well.

But now that Information Analyst and others have pointed out that the most damaging study was entirely retracted (since the mice were on methamphetamine instead of E), I really don't see anything wrong with taking E.

In fact, if I am ever in controlled situation where I am presented with the choice, I will definitely try it. Why not?

Furcifer

8th November 2009, 11:36 AM

I could be wrong, but I don't think many people at all take drugs so that they can express themselves easier.

I think people take drugs because it makes them feel better.

And if you were to say "isn't it sad that people should need drugs to feel a certain way," well, I agree -- but we can't really reprogram, or even redesign, our nervous system (yet), and as far as I know certain feelings can only be achieved by drugs.

I think it's more about changing our perception. The whole "altered states of reality" kinda thing. The reasons vary from person to person and change at different times in our lives. Trying to determine the reasons for anyone other than yourself is pretty hard to do.

Furcifer

8th November 2009, 11:44 AM

In fact, if I am ever in controlled situation where I am presented with the choice, I will definitely try it. Why not?

By a controlled situation I'm sure you mean a place where it is legal to obtain :)

Ivor the Engineer

8th November 2009, 01:25 PM

It explains your understanding of empathy. And why it doesn't quite chime with everyone else's general use of it.

Empathy is the ability to put oneself in another's shoes. It is not merely the desire to hug'n'kiss those around you.

This in turn explains why you have such a judgemental attitude to everyone who is not an exact clone of yourself.

I've noticed I only get accused of being judgmental when my judgment differs from the majority of the group I'm conversing with.

To judge other people I use an informal points system based on observing their behaviour towards me and others. What do you use? Or perhaps you believe you do not judge others?

It also makes me wonder about something, but I am afraid I can't go into that, because even though the question stems from a compassionate place, actually asking it could easily be construed as breach of rule 12. It is simply not a question for an open forum.

I'm not autistic. However I can score high on tests designed to reveal autistic characteristics.;)

Ivor the Engineer

8th November 2009, 01:43 PM

The Fallen Serpent

8th November 2009, 02:05 PM

Are drug companies required to prove there is no damage from long term usage for their products? For most drugs the intended usage is for short periods of time so long term usage can be seen as irrelevant. I admit I am not exactly familiar with the process. It appears from media coverage that most damages from long term usage is discovered long after government approval has been granted. At least in the US.

Even so, at the least showing that reports proving any damage were false should at least be seen as a reason to green light further study. Which is often disallowed since E is classified so severely.

Information Analyst

8th November 2009, 02:37 PM

Empathy is the ability to put oneself in another's shoes. It is not merely the desire to hug'n'kiss those around you.
Your continued stubborn inability to get the point is getting a bit tiresome now.

Information Analyst

8th November 2009, 02:58 PM

That's an interesting idea: Move the burden of proof from drug companies having to prove their products are safe to third parties which have to prove they are harmful.
You seem to be missing the point, yet again. Government-funded research has continually tried to prove that MDMA is massively harmful, yet has failed to come up with anything that shows anything of the sort. More to the point, its use is so widespread that if harmful effects were anything other than extreme outliers, we should see a lot of users - current, past, or otherwise - suffereing from them, and yet we don't.

Furcifer

8th November 2009, 05:02 PM

geni

8th November 2009, 05:58 PM

Can you name a drug that has long term effects from small spuradic doses?

TGN1412

If you limit it to recreational drugs Nitrous Oxide can cause liver issues. Some of the solvent sniffing activities have the ability to do significant damage rather quickly.

Furcifer

8th November 2009, 06:33 PM

TGN1412

If you limit it to recreational drugs Nitrous Oxide can cause liver issues. Some of the solvent sniffing activities have the ability to do significant damage rather quickly.

"In its first human clinical trials, in March 2006, it caused catastrophic systemic organ failure in the subjects, despite being administered at a supposed sub-clinical dose of 0.1 mg per kg, some 500 times lower than the dose found safe in animals,[3] resulting in the hospitalization of six volunteers on 13 March 2006"

13 days isn't long term in my book. I didn't see anything in Wiki that suggested there were any cumulative effects.

One of us has the wrong defintition about "long term" effects I think.

ponderingturtle

9th November 2009, 06:29 AM

That's an interesting idea: Move the burden of proof from drug companies having to prove their products are safe to third parties which have to prove they are harmful.

The thing is this is not really the issue. Drug companies have to prove that something is safe and effective to sell it as a drug. This is about banning a chemical, should all chemicals be banned until we can prove them harmless?

A drug that has not been proven safe by a drug company is still legal to take, it might be a bad idea but it is legal.

Ivor the Engineer

9th November 2009, 07:21 AM

You seem to be missing the point, yet again. Government-funded research has continually tried to prove that MDMA is massively harmful, yet has failed to come up with anything that shows anything of the sort. More to the point, its use is so widespread that if harmful effects were anything other than extreme outliers, we should see a lot of users - current, past, or otherwise - suffereing from them, and yet we don't.

That's one interpretation of the evidence. Another is that the impairments are common but relatively mild and can be largely compensated for in day to day life.

What I find amusing is criticism of the government for ignoring the scientific evidence on drugs when formulating its drug policy by people who (more than likely) ignore (or are ignorant of) the scientific evidence on drugs when using drugs personally. An example of this is alcohol consumption - few people are willing to accept they drink too much or like the idea of the government putting policies in place to affect their behaviour, such as the recently proposed minimum price for a unit of alcohol.

geni

9th November 2009, 10:36 AM

"In its first human clinical trials, in March 2006, it caused catastrophic systemic organ failure in the subjects, despite being administered at a supposed sub-clinical dose of 0.1 mg per kg, some 500 times lower than the dose found safe in animals,[3] resulting in the hospitalization of six volunteers on 13 March 2006"

13 days isn't long term in my book. I didn't see anything in Wiki that suggested there were any cumulative effects.

One of us has the wrong defintition about "long term" effects I think.

another has had fingers and toes amputated. All six victims have been told their risk of contracting diseases due to impaired immune systems has gone up; this includes cancer and multiple sclerosis.

http://www.pharmastrategyblog.com/2008/07/what-happened-with-tgn-1412---two-years-on.html

Furcifer

9th November 2009, 07:41 PM

http://www.pharmastrategyblog.com/2008/07/what-happened-with-tgn-1412---two-years-on.html

I'm not following you. The effects were immediate. I'm not sure how this relates to E?

dallasroofer

9th November 2009, 07:53 PM

dallasroofer

9th November 2009, 07:55 PM

Don't forget lacrosse!

The Fallen Serpent

10th November 2009, 12:54 AM

That's one interpretation of the evidence. Another is that the impairments are common but relatively mild and can be largely compensated for in day to day life.

What I find amusing is criticism of the government for ignoring the scientific evidence on drugs when formulating its drug policy by people who (more than likely) ignore (or are ignorant of) the scientific evidence on drugs when using drugs personally. An example of this is alcohol consumption - few people are willing to accept they drink too much or like the idea of the government putting policies in place to affect their behaviour, such as the recently proposed minimum price for a unit of alcohol.

I think there is a difference between "massively harmful" and "common but relatively mild impairments." The US and UK government have been claiming massively harmful. The science does not hold that claim up. Considering its actual proven effects I think MDMA should be reclassed. In general I think recreational use of drugs should be legalized but discouraged with factual education and general social pressures, such as holding down a job. I also do not use any drugs beyond alcohol and caffeine. I do drink too much on occassion, and I'm not against sensible regulation of alcohol. A minimum price for a unit might not be a bad thing, I would have to look into it.

CriticalSock

10th November 2009, 03:03 AM

That's one interpretation of the evidence. Another is that the impairments are common but relatively mild and can be largely compensated for in day to day life.

What I find amusing is criticism of the government for ignoring the scientific evidence on drugs when formulating its drug policy by people who (more than likely) ignore (or are ignorant of) the scientific evidence on drugs when using drugs personally. An example of this is alcohol consumption - few people are willing to accept they drink too much or like the idea of the government putting policies in place to affect their behaviour, such as the recently proposed minimum price for a unit of alcohol.

You may be amused, but don't you find it understandable? If something that you enjoy was treated in this fashion how would you respond? If Welsh steam engines with dragons in their coalboxes were banned for health and safety reasons wouldn't you argue against the ban?

I'm also interested in your response to a question I posted earlier:

"So are we all agreed that taking ecstasy is less dangerous than horse riding and that Professor Nutt was fired for telling the truth?"

Joe588

10th November 2009, 12:33 PM

Furcifer

10th November 2009, 05:00 PM

Information Analyst

11th November 2009, 01:02 AM

What these "Ecstasy" death counts and hospitalisations seem to leave out is the fact that in england at least, most 'Ecstasy' tablets are not MDMA. They're usually filled with Benzylpiperazine, which is quite a dangerous drug.

Would it be fair to say that the deaths from MDMA only would be a lot lower?
BZP and piperazines only began to proliferate in Ecstasy tablets in the last few years, and up until about a year ago it was certainly the case that the vast majority (>90%) contained MDMA or - as outliers - MDEA or MDA. It's only with current the worldwide "drought" of MDMA that non-MDMA pills have become as prevalent as they are. In most cases of deaths. one would presume that the toxicology results would show what had been consumed. If BZP, etc. had been even indirectly linked to deaths in the UK, it would undoubtedly be cited in the current Home Office justifications for the forthcoming ban on BZP, but it's not. BZP certainly seems to have a much higher potential for producing mild adverse effects, but even most MDMA-related deaths are not due to direct toxicity.

Information Analyst

11th November 2009, 01:04 AM

Probably. Aside from allergic reactions, I'm not sure what MDMA could do to a person that resulted in hospitalization? Given the fact that I have no scientific data it's purely speculation on my part, but it's based in 15 years of casual observation.
Primarily over-heating (hyperthermia) or ingesting too much water. There are what could be classed as acute allergic-type reactions, but on balance they seem to be less common than fatal peanut allergies.

CriticalSock

11th November 2009, 02:43 AM

AgeGap

11th November 2009, 04:15 AM

...anyway, i can just imagine the headline in tomorrow's Daily Wail....the moral majority are not going to be happy ;)
About 10 years ago the Mail had an article that compared the risks of ecstasy, penicillin and peanuts. Ecstasy came out the safest in that article.
So if the Mail said that ecstasy is safe then it must be really dangerous.

Ivor the Engineer

11th November 2009, 06:06 AM

You may be amused, but don't you find it understandable?

Yep. People can be selfish and foolish and choose to act in ways which are not in their own (or those important to them) best interests.

If something that you enjoy was treated in this fashion how would you respond? If Welsh steam engines with dragons in their coalboxes were banned for health and safety reasons wouldn't you argue against the ban?

An activity I engage in which could be considered irrational is downhill skiing. Skiing can be rationalised as an enjoyable way to exercise. I'm not sure what the rationalisations could be for wanting to fake intimacy by taking pills containing who knows what.

I'm also interested in your response to a question I posted earlier:

"So are we all agreed that taking ecstasy is less dangerous than horse riding and that Professor Nutt was fired for telling the truth?"

I think Prof. Nutt was sacked for the way he told the truth.

3point14

11th November 2009, 06:34 AM

Yep. People can be selfish and foolish and choose to act in ways which are not in their own (or those important to them) best interests.

An activity I engage in which could be considered irrational is downhill skiing. Skiing can be rationalised as an enjoyable way to exercise. I'm not sure what the rationalisations could be for wanting to fake intimacy by taking pills containing who knows what.

I think Prof. Nutt was sacked for the way he told the truth.

The bolded part would not be an issue if the drug were legalised/decriminalised.

Oh, and it's fun. Don't you ever do anything only because it's fun?

Eddie Dane

11th November 2009, 07:07 AM

Three more quit over Nutt sacking

Three more scientists have resigned from the UK drug advisory body after the home secretary sacked of its chief advisor, Professor David Nutt, for disagreeing with government policy on marijuana.

The trio quit after a meeting with Home Secretary Alan Johnson that was called to reassure them that their independence would not be compromised, according to the BBC.

According to the BBC, the latest to resign are doctors John Marsden, Ian Ragan, and Simon Campbell. Their departure would mean six of the panel's 31 members appointed to advise Johnson on drugs policy have defected in solidarity with Nutt.

Linky (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/11/three_more_quit_over_nutt_sacking_row/)

Information Analyst

11th November 2009, 07:12 AM

If only we could get the testing kits in the UK that are freely available in Holland...
Well, you have to pay for them, but they are available:

www.wellcoolstuff.com (http://www.wellcoolstuff.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=ETK)

I swear by mine.

Ocelot

11th November 2009, 07:14 AM

Aside from allergic reactions, I'm not sure what MDMA could do to a person that resulted in hospitalization?

It can help them get pregnant.

Information Analyst

11th November 2009, 07:26 AM

I'm not sure what the rationalisations could be for wanting to fake intimacy by taking pills containing who knows what.
Because, as 3.14 says, it feels good. I do, however, think you are continuing to misunderstand the effect MDMA actually has, with your claim of "fake intimacy." The basis for MDMA's claim to a place in therapy is precisiely because it breaks down barriers and allows people to address and discuss matters they would or could not normally, yet does not rob them of good judgement in that process. Issues confronted and resolved under the influence of MDMA generally remain resolved and firmly in perspective afterwards.

Information Analyst

11th November 2009, 07:27 AM

It can help them get pregnant.But usually not getting someone pregant.

Ocelot

11th November 2009, 07:37 AM

But usually not getting someone pregant.

I may have been somewhat tongue in cheek but I've heard it seriously suggested that the most prevalent social harm caused by the proliferation of ecstasy is via an increase in unprotected sex and the risks that this entails.

Information Analyst

11th November 2009, 09:09 AM

I may have been somewhat tongue in cheek but I've heard it seriously suggested that the most prevalent social harm caused by the proliferation of ecstasy is via an increase in unprotected sex and the risks that this entails.I was just having a joke at the usual erectile disfunction, although at least a guy on MDMA is unlikely to see not getting an erection and/or not coming as the end of the world.

To be honest, I've never been overly impressed with the claim that MDMA leads to any high incidence of risky/unprotected sex, at least not compared to good old alcohol.

Cainkane1

11th November 2009, 09:44 AM

Information Analyst

11th November 2009, 09:57 AM

This drug has caused suicides because it rapidly takes endorphins from one part of the brain and puts them in another. This causes depression and that causes suicide.
Cite? "Suicide Tuesday" is named figuratively, rather than literally. I don't think I've seen a single reported instance of MDMA being solely linked to a suicide.

Ocelot

11th November 2009, 10:16 AM

Furcifer

11th November 2009, 10:46 AM

I was just having a joke at the usual erectile disfunction, although at least a guy on MDMA is unlikely to see not getting an erection and/or not coming as the end of the world.

To be honest, I've never been overly impressed with the claim that MDMA leads to any high incidence of risky/unprotected sex, at least not compared to good old alcohol.

This is a Hollywood stereotype. Touching and fondling maybe, but not sex or sexual activity. Sex can be a chore when your on E. Focussing can be an issue, as well as maintaining interest, if you catch my drift.

Ocelot

11th November 2009, 11:14 AM

This is a Hollywood stereotype. Touching and fondling maybe, but not sex or sexual activity. Sex can be a chore when your on E. Focussing can be an issue, as well as maintaining interest, if you catch my drift.

I found that with LSD but not with E. Maybe different chemicals being sold as E

Furcifer

11th November 2009, 11:24 AM

I found that with LSD but not with E. Maybe different chemicals being sold as E

Exactly right. Not to mention there are preconcieved notions that may over ride the actual response. I've seen girls turn into total sluts on P's (Pamprin)

ponderingturtle

11th November 2009, 06:23 PM

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 02:15 AM

Because, as 3.14 says, it feels good. I do, however, think you are continuing to misunderstand the effect MDMA actually has, with your claim of "fake intimacy." The basis for MDMA's claim to a place in therapy is precisiely because it breaks down barriers and allows people to address and discuss matters they would or could not normally, yet does not rob them of good judgement in that process. Issues confronted and resolved under the influence of MDMA generally remain resolved and firmly in perspective afterwards.

IA, you are making bold claims with no evidence to back them up. At the moment I think you're spouting crap hoping no one will check if what you're saying is true.

Typing "mdma judgement" into pubmed returns this paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16574712?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1):

MDMA polydrug users show process-specific central executive impairments coupled with impaired social and emotional judgement processes.

In recent years working memory deficits have been reported in users of MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, ecstasy). The current study aimed to assess the impact of MDMA use on three separate central executive processes (set shifting, inhibition and memory updating) and also on "prefrontal" mediated social and emotional judgement processes. Fifteen polydrug ecstasy users and 15 polydrug non-ecstasy user controls completed a general drug use questionnaire, the Brixton Spatial Anticipation task (set shifting), Backward Digit Span procedure (memory updating), Inhibition of Return (inhibition), an emotional intelligence scale, the Tromso Social Intelligence Scale and the Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX). Compared with MDMA-free polydrug controls, MDMA polydrug users showed impairments in set shifting and memory updating, and also in social and emotional judgement processes. The latter two deficits remained significant after controlling for other drug use. These data lend further support to the proposal that cognitive processes mediated by the prefrontal cortex may be impaired by recreational ecstasy use.

Which is the exact opposite of what you said above. Care to cite the source for your claim?

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 02:50 AM

The bolded part would not be an issue if the drug were legalised/decriminalised.

True. But I still wonder about the mentality of people who are willing to take pills and powders which may contain many more (harmful) chemicals than the person selling them claims they have. Or is that part of the "fun"?

Oh, and it's fun. Don't you ever do anything only because it's fun?

I have enough fun dealing with reality with all my faculties intact without having to deliberately handicap and/or harm myself and others with drugs.

Fontwell

12th November 2009, 03:24 AM

It seems to me that the word 'harm' is the problem here. If we want to compare rock climbing vs parachuting then it's not too difficult. They can both lead to minor sprains and broken bones or severe death, so comparing them makes some kind of sense. However the type of harm that you get from E, or any drug, is fundamentally different to falling off a horse. Looking at the number of deaths doesn't really help either because most of the time the harm is not fatal. How can you compare having a messed up head with breaking a leg. Well you can but it is a subjective process.

Interesting how the media like to talk inflammatory nonsense with this sort of thing. I don't know if it's come up on this thread but the famous E death in the UK was Leah Betts. She is still trotted out as an example of how dangerous E is, despite the fact that she actually died from drinking 15 pints of water prompted by the much repeated advice to ravers that they shouldn't get dehydrated.

3point14

12th November 2009, 03:44 AM

True. But I still wonder about the mentality of people who are willing to take pills and powders which may contain many more (harmful) chemicals than the person selling them claims they have. Or is that part of the "fun"?

Just goes to show, if it's illegal, and potentially dangerous* and thousands of people go out and do it every week, how much fun it is. No-one's asking you to do it, they're just asking if it's entirely reasonable that it be illegal to do something which is arguably less harmful than an awful lot of sports or dangerous activities and which hurts no-one but the person doing the using.

I have enough fun dealing with reality with all my faculties intact without having to deliberately handicap and/or harm myself and others with drugs.

And that's entirely your perogativeand your opinion is quite clear from the language you choose to use, however, others clearly feel differently.

*ETA Due solely to the fact that it's illegal

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 04:09 AM

Just goes to show, if it's illegal, and potentially dangerous* and thousands of people go out and do it every week, how much fun it is. No-one's asking you to do it, they're just asking if it's entirely reasonable that it be illegal to do something which is arguably less harmful than an awful lot of sports or dangerous activities and which hurts no-one but the person doing the using.

<snip>

Let's not muddy the waters. Many activities carry risks of serious injury or even death. The difference between taking drugs such as MDMA and sport is that people can engage in most sports with no short-term or lasting harm coming to them at all*. Despite what you mistakenly believe, taking MDMA is harmful to everyone who takes it.

As for thinking drug users hurt no one but themselves, I suggest you go talk to their relatives.

*With some obvious exceptions such as boxing, which, IMO, should also be banned.

Ocelot

12th November 2009, 04:28 AM

Despite what you mistakenly believe, taking MDMA is harmful to everyone who takes it.

no

3point14

12th November 2009, 04:29 AM

Let's not muddy the waters. Many activities carry risks of serious injury or even death. The difference between taking drugs such as MDMA and sport is that people can engage in most sports with no short-term or lasting harm coming to them at all*. Despite what you mistakenly believe, taking MDMA is harmful to everyone who takes it.

As for thinking drug users hurt no one but themselves, I suggest you go talk to their relatives.

*With some obvious exceptions such as boxing, which, IMO, should also be banned.

There can be short, medium or long term effects to any activity. don't get hit on the head with a baseball, or a cricket ball, don't get an eye damaged beyond repair in a rugby match, don't miss your timing on a freefall jump and hit the ground going too quickly. All these hurt the relatives of the person concerned as much as any (possible) damage from any narcotic (including tobacco and alcohol) might. But that's all by the by to be honest, the real question is this:

"Who the hell are you to tell me I can't harm myself?" Legalise the drug, tax it to account for any further burden it might impose on whichever healthcare mechanism you have in your country and let me go about my day and you can go about yours.

Are you going to ban all potentially harmful activities? You mention boxing, how about association football, american football, cricket, baseball and any number of other activities, why, because it involves a pill and not running around a field, is a drug so much more unpleasant?

Just because a thing might damage a vanishingly small percentage of the population when they do it, it doesn't mean it should be banned, does it?

Ocelot

12th November 2009, 04:30 AM

I mean since we're asserting without evidence or reason. I thought I'd play too.

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 04:57 AM

IA, you are making bold claims with no evidence to back them up. At the moment I think you're spouting crap hoping no one will check if what you're saying is true.
So you think people are not able to be extraordinarily open with MDMA? It's one of the most mentioned effects in annecedotal accounts, from the very earliest to the current.
Typing "mdma judgement" into pubmed returns this paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16574712?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1):

Which is the exact opposite of what you said above. Care to cite the source for your claim?
Without access to the full paper and seeing the claimed impairments quantified, it's impossible to comment. However, it seems to be claiming long-term effects, not the immediate/short-term facilitation that MMDA allows that I was talking about. Also, it relates to polydrug users, not people who use only MDMA, and the sample remains almost ridiculously small.

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 05:10 AM

True. But I still wonder about the mentality of people who are willing to take pills and powders which may contain many more (harmful) chemicals than the person selling them claims they have. Or is that part of the "fun"?
Until very recently widespread adulteration of purported Ecstasy pills was largely a prohibitionist myth. See Is ecstasy MDMA? A review of the proportion of ecstasy tablets containing MDMA, their dosage levels, and the changing perceptions of purity”. (http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?A=ShowDoc1&ID=6369) (Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2004;173(3-4):234-41.:

"During the 1980s and early 1990s there were few problems with the purity of ecstasy tablets, and the biochemical evidence shows that they nearly always contained MDMA. During the mid-1990s, the majority of ecstasy tablets continued to contain MDMA, while many others comprised MDA (3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine), MDEA (3,4-methylenedioxyethylamphetamine), or amphetamine drug mixtures. However, a small proportion (4–20% according to survey, time and place), comprised non-amphetamine drugs such as caffeine, ephedrine, ketamine, paracetamol, or placebo. During the late 1990s, the proportion of ecstasy tablets containing MDMA increased to around 80–90%. The latest reports suggest that non-MDMA tablets are now very infrequent, with purity levels between 90% and 100%. Dosage levels of tablets are also highly variable, with low dose tablet often encountered during the mid-1990s, and high dose tablets now seen more frequently. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings will be debated. Conclusions: The ecstasy purity problem was predominantly a phenomenon of the mid to late 1990s, when many tablets contained substances other than MDMA. Before and since then, the proportion of ecstasy tablets containing MDMA has been very high."
That was, of course, five years ago, and it is only in the last year or so that the availability of MDMA had nose-dived for a number of claimed reasons. Nobody would be advised to consume anything without testing it these days. certainly annecdotally many users are simply giving up taking anything unless they are sure it really is MDMA.
I have enough fun dealing with reality with all my faculties intact without having to deliberately handicap and/or harm myself and others with drugs.
Bully for you.

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 05:15 AM

There can be short, medium or long term effects to any activity. don't get hit on the head with a baseball, or a cricket ball, don't get an eye damaged beyond repair in a rugby match, don't miss your timing on a freefall jump and hit the ground going too quickly. All these hurt the relatives of the person concerned as much as any (possible) damage from any narcotic (including tobacco and alcohol) might. But that's all by the by to be honest, the real question is this:

"Who the hell are you to tell me I can't harm myself?" Legalise the drug, tax it to account for any further burden it might impose on whichever healthcare mechanism you have in your country and let me go about my day and you can go about yours.

Are you going to ban all potentially harmful activities? You mention boxing, how about association football, american football, cricket, baseball and any number of other activities, why, because it involves a pill and not running around a field, is a drug so much more unpleasant?

Just because a thing might damage a vanishingly small percentage of the population when they do it, it doesn't mean it should be banned, does it?

With MDMA there's no might about it. It is a harmful drug. Using the font of knowledge which is Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_MDMA_on_the_human_body#Subjective_effec ts

Effects beginning after the main effects of MDMA have ended, which can last several days, include:

Lowered mood or even depression (comedown) after the effects have worn off
Increased anxiety, stress, and other negative emotions
Residual feelings of empathy, emotional sensitivity, and a sense of closeness to others (afterglow)

Acute physiological effects include:[14]

Increased heart rate and blood pressure
Increased body temperature
Increased perspiration and sweating
Pupil dilation
Blurred vision
Nystagmus (rapid involuntary eye movements and jittering)
Trisma (jaw-clenching) and bruxia (grinding of the teeth)
Difficulty sleeping
Loss of appetite
Nausea and emesis
Urinary retention

How many users of MDMA will not have *any* of the above unpleasant and often harmful effects? Approximately zero.

Sport on the other hand, while there is a risk of injury, most of the time most of the participants at the end of cricket, baseball and football matches leave unharmed (except for perhaps minor bruising and/or muscle stiffness, but I think that's taking the definition of harm a bit far).

There are plenty of harmful substances which are banned or whose use is controlled that no one ever questions the reasoning of the restrictions. It's funny how it's only the harmful substances which are psychoactive and impair cognition and physiological functioning which people such as yourself whine about not being able to access legally.

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 05:19 AM

Let's not muddy the waters. Many activities carry risks of serious injury or even death. The difference between taking drugs such as MDMA and sport is that people can engage in most sports with no short-term or lasting harm coming to them at all*.
One of my in-laws suffers - and will always suffer - chronic back problems as a direct result of horse-riding in their youth.
Despite what you mistakenly believe, taking MDMA is harmful to everyone who takes it.
So are alcohol and tobacco, but demonstrably more so. Isn't it up to individuals to make their own informed choices. I hardly ever drink, and never to excess, because I don't like either the loss of control, the hangover, or the long-term effect on my liver.
As for thinking drug users hurt no one but themselves, I suggest you go talk to their relatives.
That's a rather stupid and simplistic blanket statement.

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 05:32 AM

With MDMA there's no might about it. It is a harmful drug. Using the font of knowledge which is Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_MDMA_on_the_human_body#Subjective_effec ts

How many users of MDMA will not have *any* of the above unpleasant and often harmful effects? Approximately zero.
Well, that's a mixture of possible medium-/long-term effects, with those that may be experienced while actually under the influence. Most of the latter are, of course, subjectively no worse or even preferable to the effects of alcohol. Most of the immediate effects are transitory in nature (e.g. nausea when "coming up"), and are outweighed by the positive effects, whilst others are more the result of excessive consumption than consumption per se (e.g. sleeping difficulties).
Sport on the other hand, while there is a risk of injury, most of the time most of the participants at the end of cricket, baseball and football matches leave unharmed (except for perhaps minor bruising and/or muscle stiffness, but I think that's taking the definition of harm a bit far).
So why do you think the same is not true of occasional MDMA users?
There are plenty of harmful substances which are banned or whose use is controlled that no one ever questions the reasoning of the restrictions. It's funny how it's only the harmful substances which are psychoactive and impair cognition and physiological functioning which people such as yourself whine about not being able to access legally.
On the contrary, there are many psychoactive substances that I would never touch. Your problem is that you seem to think that if something psychoactive, it must by definition be grossly harmful and "wrong."

Cainkane1

12th November 2009, 05:46 AM

Cite? "Suicide Tuesday" is named figuratively, rather than literally. I don't think I've seen a single reported instance of MDMA being solely linked to a suicide.
I only know what I saw on TV about it. Maybe you're right.

3point14

12th November 2009, 05:47 AM

With MDMA there's no might about it. It is a harmful drug. Using the font of knowledge which is Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_MDMA_on_the_human_body#Subjective_effec ts

How many users of MDMA will not have *any* of the above unpleasant and often harmful effects? Approximately zero.

Sport on the other hand, while there is a risk of injury, most of the time most of the participants at the end of cricket, baseball and football matches leave unharmed (except for perhaps minor bruising and/or muscle stiffness, but I think that's taking the definition of harm a bit far).

There are plenty of harmful substances which are banned or whose use is controlled that no one ever questions the reasoning of the restrictions. It's funny how it's only the harmful substances which are psychoactive and impair cognition and physiological functioning which people such as yourself whine about not being able to access legally.

Yep, I think (a very long time ago) I've experienced all of the effects you listed. Still alive, still got a job, a family, a life, a driving license and my health.

Sorry, I missed your answer to this bit:

"Who the hell are you to tell me I can't harm myself?" Legalise the drug, tax it to account for any further burden it might impose on whichever healthcare mechanism you have in your country and let me go about my day and you can go about yours.

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 05:51 AM

So you think people are not able to be extraordinarily open with MDMA? It's one of the most mentioned effects in annecedotal accounts, from the very earliest to the current.

<snip>

What I doubt is the idea of a person who has taken illicit ecstasy having good judgement, either before or while under the influence of the drug.

Given the amount of ************ in psychotherapy in general I'd question the validity of anecdotal or low quality studies of MDMA's supposed therapeutic benefits.

Ocelot

12th November 2009, 05:59 AM

Ivor, clicking back through the chain of this conversation it appears that you were contradicting the claim that ecstasy doesn't rob people of good judgement.

Good for you, I suspect that e does indeed lead to somewhat impaired judgement.

However I'm too pedantic not to point out that you're now suggesting the they can't have had good judgement in the first place (before taking the pill)

This doesn't support your earlier argument.

The Fallen Serpent

12th November 2009, 06:00 AM

I do not think many people are arguing for allowing MDMA to be available as an unregulated substance. Even soda pop receives regulation. In my opinion, drugs such as MDMA should be available through a lisenced pharmacy. There are already a number of products that are only available through a pharmacy that do not require perscription. Such sales are also limited to adults.

Yes, there is danger and harm inherent in using MDMA. It is relatively minor and certainly within the realm of what I consider to be a personal judgement. Proper education on what the harm of drugs actually are is important. An institution that willfully spreads falsehoods to discourage use of a drug exacerbates the social problems by losing credibility and encourages those who discover some falsehoods to disbelieve even facts spread to discourage use.

The problem with over consumption of too much water when on MDMA is such a problem. The proper message should be that MDMA lowers inhibitions and makes it more difficult to judge your physical state, so proper precautions should be taken to keep your health in mind when on MDMA during certain activities. Dehydration is a major issue with prolonged dancing in crowded spaces, MDMA makes it more difficult to judge if you are dehydrated. Bring a designated sober companion when going out dancing on MDMA.

A friend of mine related to me his one experience of using E for a night partying. He did this with experienced companions, some of whom were also partaking and other who were not. It was a Navy outing in a foreign city. He said it was the most fun he has ever had in his life. Hey, good for him. One problem I noticed was that he mentioned to be safe he and the other E users made sure to drink water all night to counter the side effects of E. When he told me this I explained to him why that was false and that water consumption should be based on the activity and environment, not taking E. Hence why some people die drinking too much water thinking they are protecting themselves. This I feel is an example of the falsehood based discouragement. The problem with E is not that it directly causes overheating and dehydration, the problem is that it makes it difficult to notice those issues. Since the overheating/dehydration issue is what is promoted in media a false control against it has become an issue in its own right.

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 06:03 AM

What I doubt is the idea of a person who has taken illicit ecstasy having good judgement, either before or while under the influence of the drug.

Given the amount of ************ in psychotherapy in general I'd question the validity of anecdotal or low quality studies of MDMA's supposed therapeutic benefits.
So basically it just comes down to a purely emotional response on your part.

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 06:07 AM

<snip>

Sorry, I missed your answer to this bit:

"Who the hell are you to tell me I can't harm myself?" Legalise the drug, tax it to account for any further burden it might impose on whichever healthcare mechanism you have in your country and let me go about my day and you can go about yours.

It seems to me you believe society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, which probably explains why you felt the need to use drugs to feel intimacy.

As you can probably gather from my posts, I have no need of illicit drugs to be "open".;)

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 06:09 AM

So basically it just comes down to a purely emotional response on your part.

Not at all, just reasonable scepticism of unreliable sources of evidence, such as drug users posting on internet forums.

3point14

12th November 2009, 06:13 AM

It seems to me you believe society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, which probably explains why you felt the need to use drugs to feel intimacy.

As you can probably gather from my posts, I have no need of illicit drugs to be "open".;)

I don't understand how that answers my question. Could you expand?

Ocelot

12th November 2009, 06:14 AM

Not at all, just reasonable scepticism of unreliable sources of evidence, such as drug users posting on internet forums.

The thread title doesn't come from a drug user posting on an internet forum. It comes from the chief scientist of a panel commissioned by the UK government to advise on the misuse of drugs.

The Fallen Serpent

12th November 2009, 06:21 AM

Not all of here are users of Ectasy. As I state previously the only drugs I use are caffeine and alcohol in usually moderate amounts.

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 06:29 AM

Not at all, just reasonable scepticism of unreliable sources of evidence, such as drug users posting on internet forums.
A nice piece of prejudice that allows you to discount anything you don't want to hear. Are we equally allowed to say that you are an unreliable source on any activity you choose to take part in?

I don't think you should be judged for clearly being a victim of decades of prohibitionist propaganda and disinformation, but your dogged determination to maintain a position for which there seems to be little justifcation does seem rather sad.

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 06:47 AM

A nice piece of prejudice that allows you to discount anything you don't want to hear. Are we equally allowed to say that you are an unreliable source on any activity you choose to take part in?

I would expect you to take into account I may be biased in how I present arguments for activities I engage in and enjoy.

I don't think you should be judged for clearly being a victim of decades of prohibitionist propaganda and disinformation, but your dogged determination to maintain a position for which there seems to be little justifcation does seem rather sad.

Ah yes, the advice from the ACMD was to downgrade MDMA from a class A drug to class B. Hardly a ringing endorsement of ecstasy.

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 06:50 AM

I don't understand how that answers my question. Could you expand?

Your post seemed to be expressing an underlying Individualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism) ideology.

Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses independence and self-reliance. Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires, while opposing most external interference upon one's choices, whether by society, or any other group or institution. Individualism is opposed to collectivism, which stresses that communal, community, group, societal, familial or national goals should take priority over individual goals.

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 06:56 AM

I would expect you to take into account I may be biased in how I present arguments for activities I engage in and enjoy.
I would not, however, say it would make you an "unreliable source," which is inherently much more dismissive.
Ah yes, the advice from the ACMD was to downgrade MDMA from a class A drug to class B. Hardly a ringing endorsement of ecstasy.
Only if one assumes that that actually was a "final" position of opinion. It seems more like a first step.

The Fallen Serpent

12th November 2009, 06:57 AM

Ah yes, the advice from the ACMD was to downgrade MDMA from a class A drug to class B. Hardly a ringing endorsement of ecstasy.That means instead of being comparable to heroine and meth it is comparable to marijuana and ritalin. Many class B drugs have medicinal or therapeutic uses. One of the many claims on this thread is that MDMA has therapeutic uses. Such a downgrade in classifcation in a simple 3 tiered system is a fairly major change. Also to quote wikipedia here:

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) report on ecstasy, based on a 12-month study of 4,000 academic papers, concluded that it is nowhere near as dangerous as other class A drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine, and should be downgraded to class B.

While the legalisation debate is more complex than this, as many of us think think that recreational use of drugs should be legalised within certain limits and others agree with the current standard than any recreational use of a drug should be illegal, at the least there is plenty of scientific study that supports MDMA not being as dangerous as the political rhetoric claims.

3point14

12th November 2009, 06:59 AM

Your post seemed to be expressing an underlying Individualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism) ideology.

Nope, still don't get it, how is the use of E affecting society in a negative way over and above any other leisure activity. I still don't think you've answered the question.

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 07:01 AM

The thread title doesn't come from a drug user posting on an internet forum. It comes from the chief scientist of a panel commissioned by the UK government to advise on the misuse of drugs.

Who no doubt wanted to stir the pot. Has Nutt suggested MDMA should be made legal?

Not all of here are users of Ectasy. As I state previously the only drugs I use are caffeine and alcohol in usually moderate amounts.

Not being a member of a group whose evidence is likely to be contaminated with bias does not automatically make your evidence reliable.

If the number of regular users of MDMA stated earlier are correct, I don't think your idea of having pharmacies dish the stuff out would be a good idea. The people who need medicinal drugs wouldn't be able to get to the counter for all the young adults and sad older people trying to recapture their youth in front of them.

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 07:02 AM

Nope, still don't get it, how is the use of E affecting society in a negative way over and above any other leisure activity. I still don't think you've answered the question.

Because E is a vowel habit.

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 07:15 AM

Not being a member of a group whose evidence is likely to be contaminated with bias does not automatically make your evidence reliable.
It seems to me that you are finding every excuse to ignore the any views that contradict your own. Very scientific.
If the number of regular users of MDMA stated earlier are correct, I don't think your idea of having pharmacies dish the stuff out would be a good idea. The people who need medicinal drugs wouldn't be able to get to the counter for all the young adults and sad older people trying to recapture their youth in front of them.
Continued use of pejorative emotion noted.

You're also demonstrating a failure to grasp the numbers involved. There are 12,600 pharmacies in the UK, so even if you assume that every one of the 26 million instances of MDMA use each year would require a separate pharmacy visit, that's an average of 2,063 to each one in a year - 6.6 per day (assuming six days of opening). Yeah, that's really going to clog up the counter.

The Fallen Serpent

12th November 2009, 07:15 AM

Who no doubt wanted to stir the pot. Has Nutt suggested MDMA should be made legal?No. This thread has evolved to dealing with multiple issues. The relative danger of MDMA determining where it falls in controlled substance classification and if it should be legalised

Not being a member of a group whose evidence is likely to be contaminated with bias does not automatically make your evidence reliable.What do I need to do to make my evidence as reliable as yours? My opinions are based on both anecdotes and what scientific studies have managed to conclusively show about drugs.

If the number of regular users of MDMA stated earlier are correct, I don't think your idea of having pharmacies dish the stuff out would be a good idea. The people who need medicinal drugs wouldn't be able to get to the counter for all the young adults and sad older people trying to recapture their youth in front of them.
Is there a problem with pharmacies being overloaded by the number of people on various drugs such as aderall, valium, prozac, ect? Even so, with the implementation of pharmacists allowing to sell controlled substances for purely recreational purposes, I would also propose that while standards are held to the same level there be a split in load. IE pharmacies that cater to more choice based personal uses, and pharmacies that cater to filling doctor's perscriptions. Likely most pharmacies such as those that are substores in other larger stores could handle both loads without significant problem. Obviously prescribed drugs should get preferential treatment. Pharmacies that cater to personal use shouldn't be directly funded by taxes and such. I do not think that pharmacists should be forced to sell recreational controlled substances and it is perfectly reasonable for pharmacists to choose not to offer such a product. Since some states in the US allow pharmacists to deny prescribed treatments because of moral objections I doubt there will be an issue those same pharmacists refusing to sell recreational drugs.

3point14

12th November 2009, 07:15 AM

Because E is a vowel habit.

Made me smile, but still didn't answer the question.

Ocelot

12th November 2009, 07:25 AM

I keep having the follow the chain on the conversation.

IA:

So you think people are not able to be extraordinarily open with MDMA? It's one of the most mentioned effects in annecedotal accounts, from the very earliest to the current.

You:

Given the amount of ************ in psychotherapy in general I'd question the validity of anecdotal or low quality studies of MDMA's supposed therapeutic benefits.

IA:

So basically it just comes down to a purely emotional response on your part.

You:

Not at all, just reasonable scepticism of unreliable sources of evidence, such as drug users posting on internet forums.

Me:

The thread title doesn't come from a drug user posting on an internet forum. It comes from the chief scientist of a panel commissioned by the UK government to advise on the misuse of drugs.

Who no doubt wanted to stir the pot. Has Nutt suggested MDMA should be made legal?

No but he has suggested that it may have therapeutic benefits and is far less harmful than other class A drugs and should be downgraded to class B.

Which just happens to be the topic had hand rather than your red herring about legalisation.

It's a good thing you don't do drugs, I'd hate to think what they'd do to you attention span.

CriticalSock

12th November 2009, 07:33 AM

I would expect you to take into account I may be biased in how I present arguments for activities I engage in and enjoy.

Ah yes, the advice from the ACMD was to downgrade MDMA from a class A drug to class B. Hardly a ringing endorsement of ecstasy.

And presumably therefore advising that Horse Riding should be classified as Class A? And Downhill skiing of course!

Speaking of skiing, a friend of mine was on a skiing holiday at a resort in Bulgaria and he was told that the whole place was run by the Russian mafia. Dirty, filthy skiiers; funding organised crime just so they can get their adrenaline high...

:)

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 07:43 AM

Speaking of skiing, a friend of mine was on a skiing holiday at a resort in Bulgaria and he was told that the whole place was run by the Russian mafia. Dirty, filthy skiiers; funding organised crime just so they can get their adrenaline high...
I went on a school skiing trip to Bulgaria in 1984. Even under Communism there seemed to he a lot of shady characters around, eager to exchange currency at twice the official rate, or to buy any Western good. A mate of mine got a good price for a pair of horrible denim dungerees he had specifically brought along for the purpose. It was, of course, the sole experience that also told me that skiing was not for me, given that out of our party of 30 kids, two returned home with fractures, and me with a broken heart (Tch! Girls from Nottingham!).

quarky

12th November 2009, 08:05 AM

Here's a hypothetical:

If a new drug came out, and it was legal, and the claim was that it caused a permanent improvement in mood and social graces, would you take it?

If you refused, would it imply a resistance to an improved state?

What if it became mandatory, like a vaccine?
Would you break the law to maintain your state?

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 08:09 AM

<snip>

You're also demonstrating a failure to grasp the numbers involved. There are 12,600 pharmacies in the UK, so even if you assume that every one of the 26 million instances of MDMA use each year would require a separate pharmacy visit, that's an average of 2,063 to each one in a year - 6.6 per day (assuming six days of opening). Yeah, that's really going to clog up the counter.

Making MDMA legal would increase the demand for it. Demand for MDMA is unlikely to be spread evenly throughout the week and equal at all pharmacies.

So your 6.6 per day could easily turn into 50-100 on a Friday and Saturday in certain locations.

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 08:16 AM

<snip>

No but he has suggested that it may have therapeutic benefits and is far less harmful than other class A drugs and should be downgraded to class B.

Where he suggested MDMA may have therapeutic benefits?

Which just happens to be the topic had hand rather than your red herring about legalisation.

It's a good thing you don't do drugs, I'd hate to think what they'd do to you attention span.

My point being that if downgraded from class A to B MDMA would still be illegal.

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 08:17 AM

Made me smile, but still didn't answer the question.

What do you think of the governments recent U-turn on super casinos?

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 08:22 AM

And presumably therefore advising that Horse Riding should be classified as Class A? And Downhill skiing of course!

Speaking of skiing, a friend of mine was on a skiing holiday at a resort in Bulgaria and he was told that the whole place was run by the Russian mafia. Dirty, filthy skiiers; funding organised crime just so they can get their adrenaline high...

:)

Does horse riding always, without exception, result in harm to every person who engages in it?

The Fallen Serpent

12th November 2009, 08:23 AM

Making MDMA legal would increase the demand for it. Demand for MDMA is unlikely to be spread evenly throughout the week and equal at all pharmacies.

So your 6.6 per day could easily turn into 50-100 on a Friday and Saturday in certain locations.

Correct. The brunt of the demand would likely colesce on those pharmacies that cater to such users in the neighborhoods those users are likely to frequent. I am not advocating changing the industry from it currently is into a recreational drug enabling institution that ignores its responsbilities, I am advocating allowing the industry to grow to accomodate another classification of products that would best be regulated by them. Pharmacists is a protected term, like Medical Doctor or Nutrionists. I am saying legalisation of drugs of a certain nature should be funnelled through people who are trained in making and dispensing drugs. Pharmicists. Not that all "traditional" pharmacies as they currently stand be changed into E bars. A popular product at many pharmacies and drug stores are condoms. I doubt MDMA will out sell condoms barring other disease prevention methods making condoms irrelevant. Do you see problems with condom purchases clogging up the staff at drug stores to the point that people are unable to acquire their medically prescribe medicine?

Lastly, at the least, can we agree with the scientific studies that Ecstasy is largely too strictly classified and should be reduced to a Class B drug (using the UK system of classification) or do you find a problem with the report by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs?

3point14

12th November 2009, 08:39 AM

What do you think of the governments recent U-turn on super casinos?

I don't have an opinion on it. I don't know much about it, I'm afraid.

You still haven't answered my question. Or if you have, I haven't understood the answer. I think I'll give up now and persist with my belief that your constant evasion means you don't have an answer. It was a bit of a derail anyway.

Ocelot

12th November 2009, 08:40 AM

My point being that if downgraded from class A to B MDMA would still be illegal.

The your point is a non-sequitur with no bearing whatsoever on the comments which lead up to it.

CriticalSock

12th November 2009, 08:42 AM

Does horse riding always, without exception, result in harm to every person who engages in it?

Does Ecstasy always, without exception, result in harm to every person who engages in it?

Ocelot

12th November 2009, 08:43 AM

Where he suggested MDMA may have therapeutic benefits?

Your willfull ingornace astounds me.

Quick Google.

http://www.psychointegrator.com/?p=142

“As someone who sees people with severe untreatable PTSD in my clinic, I think these results are very exciting,” says David Nutt, a psychopharmacologist at the University of Bristol, UK. “These data give further credence to the idea that there’s a medical use for MDMA.”

Ocelot

12th November 2009, 08:46 AM

Does Ecstasy always, without exception, result in harm to every person who engages in it?

Absolutely. Ivor listed the harm it causes along with the assertion that everyone who ever took E suffered from at least one of the list. The list included difficulty sleeping.

I'd suggest that horse riding offers similar problems catching 40 winks.

CriticalSock

12th November 2009, 08:47 AM

Correct. The brunt of the demand would likely colesce on those pharmacies that cater to such users in the neighborhoods those users are likely to frequent. I am not advocating changing the industry from it currently is into a recreational drug enabling institution that ignores its responsbilities, I am advocating allowing the industry to grow to accomodate another classification of products that would best be regulated by them. Pharmacists is a protected term, like Medical Doctor or Nutrionists. I am saying legalisation of drugs of a certain nature should be funnelled through people who are trained in making and dispensing drugs. Pharmicists. Not that all "traditional" pharmacies as they currently stand be changed into E bars. A popular product at many pharmacies and drug stores are condoms. I doubt MDMA will out sell condoms barring other disease prevention methods making condoms irrelevant. Do you see problems with condom purchases clogging up the staff at drug stores to the point that people are unable to acquire their medically prescribe medicine?

Lastly, at the least, can we agree with the scientific studies that Ecstasy is largely too strictly classified and should be reduced to a Class B drug (using the UK system of classification) or do you find a problem with the report by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs?

If it's been properly manufactured by government licenced producers then why not sell it in Off Licences? Behind the counter with the death sticks and maybe a 20 year age limit on buying them. As they're less harmful than cigarettes, alcohol and horse riding why restrict their sale to the pharmacies?

CriticalSock

12th November 2009, 08:51 AM

Absolutely. Ivor listed the harm it causes along with the assertion that everyone who ever took E suffered from at least one of the list. The list included difficulty sleeping.

I'd suggest that horse riding offers similar problems catching 40 winks.

Ivors list only listed short term effects. That's like saying "Don't drink alcohol, you'll have slurred speech and impeded walking".

Give it 48 hours and all those symptoms (with the exception possibly of bad sleep, that might take a couple of nights) will be gone. And before you pipe up that the effects of alcohol only last 24 hours. I get 48 hour hangovers now! Another curse of middle age that no one tells you about!!

Eddie Dane

12th November 2009, 08:55 AM

Does Ecstasy always, without exception, result in harm to every person who engages in it?

Ivor listed the horrible side effects of MDMA in an earlier post:

Effects beginning after the main effects of MDMA have ended, which can last several days, include:

* Lowered mood or even depression (comedown) after the effects have worn off
* Increased anxiety, stress, and other negative emotions
* Residual feelings of empathy, emotional sensitivity, and a sense of closeness to others (afterglow)

Acute physiological effects include:[14]

* Increased heart rate and blood pressure
* Increased body temperature
* Increased perspiration and sweating
* Pupil dilation
* Blurred vision
* Nystagmus (rapid involuntary eye movements and jittering)
* Trisma (jaw-clenching) and bruxia (grinding of the teeth)
* Difficulty sleeping
* Loss of appetite
* Nausea and emesis
* Urinary retention

You'll feel a bit fuzzy for a day, then you'll feel a bit blue for a day, sleep a bit less and have night sweats.

When I have been downhill skiing I experience the following side effects:

Muscle ache
Increased sugar intake
Loss of sleep (due to altitude, I presume)
Occasional nose bleed (altitude, dry air)
Lower back ache

And couple more if you look really hard.

Ocelot

12th November 2009, 08:56 AM

Ivors list only listed short term effects. That's like saying "Don't drink alcohol, you'll have slurred speech and impeded walking".

Indeed and as I said the short term effects of horse riding include difficulty sleeping.

CriticalSock

12th November 2009, 09:02 AM

Indeed and as I said the short term effects of horse riding include difficulty sleeping.

Ah Sorry Ocelot, didn't realise we were singing from the same song sheet.

I'm a bit worried that Ivor might think I'm a bit of an old hippy from my avatar and thus not give proper credence to my statements, so I've changed it to a new one...

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 09:03 AM

Making MDMA legal would increase the demand for it.
Maybe, maybe not. IIRC, decriminalisation in all drug possession in Portugal has led to a drop in use. The same applied to the UK while Cannabis was Class C.
Demand for MDMA is unlikely to be spread evenly throughout the week and equal at all pharmacies.

So your 6.6 per day could easily turn into 50-100 on a Friday and Saturday in certain locations.
I would presume that your prejudice is suggesting demand would be significantly higher in urban areas, and yet there are more pharmacies in those same areas by virtue of the demand for them across the population as a whole. It also - bizarrely - presumes that people would only "suddenly remember" to visit on the day or the day before actual use, which doesn't seem likely.

Given your - I will assume completely arbitrary - suggestion of "50-100 on a Friday and Saturday in certain locations," lets taken an average of 75 per day. Assuming nine hours of opening would average one person every 7.2 minutes, which would hardly be a flood, but on the other hand increased regular demand would undoubtedly result in increased capacity to cope with it. Nobody, after all, would suggest that the product would be given away for free. As I noted previously, all this is based on the very unlikely assumption that each instance of use would require a single pharmacy visit. Current use patterns can range from a single pill or equivalent, to a few, to more. Selling multi-packs of tablet would therefore be a given, which would drastically cut down on the number of require pharmacy visits.

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 09:07 AM

I'm a bit worried that Ivor might think I'm a bit of an old hippy from my avatar and thus not give proper credence to my statements, so I've changed it to a new one...
Goodness knows what message mine is giving off!

Ocelot

12th November 2009, 09:11 AM

Goodness knows what message mine is giving off!

Makes me think that you are rather an expert at things like map reading.

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 09:12 AM

Makes me think that you are rather an expert at things like map reading.
Yes, I am a bit of an expert at map reading! When it's the right way up....

CriticalSock

12th November 2009, 09:22 AM

Yes, I am a bit of an expert at map reading! When it's the right way up....

I assumed you were a fan of Peppa Pig?

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 09:25 AM

I assumed you were a fan of Peppa Pig?
Indeed - Ocelot's reference was just simply self-incriminating in its obscurity!

nescafe

12th November 2009, 09:32 AM

Does horse riding always, without exception, result in harm to every person who engages in it?
Yes -- scary bone microfractures.

You are using a ridiculously inclusive definition of harm.

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 10:18 AM

Your willfull ingornace astounds me.

Quick Google.

http://www.psychointegrator.com/?p=142

That's interesting. As was pointed out in a comment on the nature page the story was lifted from, if the patients were "treatment-resistant", how come 25% of the placebo group improved?

Nutt's disproportionate (IMO) enthusiasm for MDMA is a useful piece of data.

Information Analyst

12th November 2009, 10:32 AM

That's interesting. As was pointed out in a comment on the nature page the story was lifted from, if the patients were "treatment-resistant", how come 25% of the placebo group improved?

Nutt's disproportionate (IMO) enthusiasm for MDMA is a useful piece of data.
What, when it says that 92% of those administered MDMA with their therapy improved? Even if we assume the same percentage of them would have responded as well to placebo, that still means 62% seem to owe their improvement to the combination of therapy + MDMA than therapy alone. How is recognition that that shows a clear advantage to using MDMA in conjuction with therapy "disproportionate enthusiasm"?!

Cuddles

12th November 2009, 10:33 AM

I would presume that your prejudice is suggesting demand would be significantly higher in urban areas, and yet there are more pharmacies in those same areas by virtue of the demand for them across the population as a whole. It also - bizarrely - presumes that people would only "suddenly remember" to visit on the day or the day before actual use, which doesn't seem likely.

I'm just astounded that he has so little logical argument he can make that he's actually reduced to complaining that legalising ecstasy would increase pharmacy profits.

As for the sport thing, I can't help finding it rather amusing that the only sport Ivor has specifically said he takes part in is downhill skiing, with around a 0.5-1% risk of injury per trip and, anecdotally, the only place I've ever seen anyone die. As rational arguments go, refusing to take a pill that has not been shown to have any serious long term effects but stating that you take part in a much more expensive and dangerous sport anyway, that's really not the best.

I also particularly like this one:
Not at all, just reasonable scepticism of unreliable sources of evidence, such as drug users posting on internet forums.

Drugs are bad, therefore anyone who has ever so much as looked at a drug funny is unreliable, therefore anything anyone says in support of a drug can be safely ignored, therefore drugs are bad. That's a classic piece of reasoning, even for Ivor.

Ocelot

12th November 2009, 10:36 AM

That's interesting. As was pointed out in a comment on the nature page the story was lifted from, if the patients were "treatment-resistant", how come 25% of the placebo group improved?

Nutt's disproportionate (IMO) enthusiasm for MDMA is a useful piece of data.

Wow you really won't let these red herrings go will you.

Here let me help.

Thanks Ocelot for pointing out that my mention of a desire to legalise E was completely off topic for a discussion of David Nutt's position. Your brief summary of Professor Nutt's stance was accurate and I was wrong to imply that he didn't endorse its potential role in therapy. I found that one particular example fascinating and having nothing but falsehood and irrelevancy to add to the current topic would like to discuss the Hawthorne Effect instead which I'm assuming was particularly pronounced in the study I've just researched.

3point14

12th November 2009, 11:01 AM

Wow you really won't let these red herrings go will you.

Here let me help.

Thanks Ocelot for pointing out that my mention of a desire to legalise E was completely off topic for a discussion of David Nutt's position. Your brief summary of Professor Nutt's stance was accurate and I was wrong to imply that he didn't endorse its potential role in therapy. I found that one particular example fascinating and having nothing but falsehood and irrelevancy to add to the current topic would like to discuss the Hawthorne Effect instead which I'm assuming was particularly pronounced in the study I've just researched.

I feel I may take some level of responsibility for the bolded section. I apologise, I just wanted an answer to the question. I didn't get one.

Furcifer

12th November 2009, 11:11 AM

The first time I went horse riding I couldn't walk properly for a week. It was extremely painful.

Plus being around horses is probably a bad influence. Have you ever seen how many drugs these creatures take? It's frightful. Plus they stay up all hours of the night. And mean, I can't begin to tell you how dangerous they can be. Never stand near the business end of one. :)

Horses and horse riding are way more dangerou than taking E. I'd say sugar is also more dangerous in regards to long term effects.

This whole Nutt job is just another reason why honest people have no business in politics.

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 01:29 PM

I'm just astounded that he has so little logical argument he can make that he's actually reduced to complaining that legalising ecstasy would increase pharmacy profits.

As for the sport thing, I can't help finding it rather amusing that the only sport Ivor has specifically said he takes part in is downhill skiing, with around a 0.5-1% risk of injury per trip and, anecdotally, the only place I've ever seen anyone die. As rational arguments go, refusing to take a pill that has not been shown to have any serious long term effects but stating that you take part in a much more expensive and dangerous sport anyway, that's really not the best.

I also particularly like this one:

Drugs are bad, therefore anyone who has ever so much as looked at a drug funny is unreliable, therefore anything anyone says in support of a drug can be safely ignored, therefore drugs are bad. That's a classic piece of reasoning, even for Ivor.

Given the example above of your poor reading comprehension, how on earth did you convince anyone you should be a moderator?

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 01:57 PM

Wow you really won't let these red herrings go will you.

Here let me help.

Thanks Ocelot for pointing out that my mention of a desire to legalise E was completely off topic for a discussion of David Nutt's position.

Is it? When Nutt started making arguments along the lines of MDMA being less dangerous than horse riding he might have been considered to be expressing how he thinks MDMA should eventually be treated by the government.

Do you think Nutt might have his own agenda to promote?

Your brief summary of Professor Nutt's stance was accurate and I was wrong to imply that he didn't endorse its potential role in therapy.

I didn't imply he didn't endorse MDMA's use in therapy, I asked where he said it. This was because I didn't remember reading any comments by Nutt in links posted before you made the claim in which he had stated such an opinion.

I found that one particular example fascinating and having nothing but falsehood and irrelevancy to add to the current topic would like to discuss the Hawthorne Effect instead which I'm assuming was particularly pronounced in the study I've just researched.

So you're not concerned that patients with supposed "treatment-resistant" PTSD got better with placebo pills?

Just what is a suitable placebo for MDMA anyway? From what you've all been telling me it fairly obvious when you've ingested MDMA (or similar) compared to a sugar pill. This is the same type of problem studies of acupuncture often have.

Actually who Nutt (from his comments in the article you linked to) reminds me of is Edgar Schoen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Schoen), who managed to get himself on the AAP Task force on circumcision and skew the policy statement toward his point of view.

Furcifer

12th November 2009, 02:35 PM

What agenda do you think Nutt might have? What agenda is served by the others on the panel that quit in protest? Are they owners in major night clubs or something?

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 02:40 PM

Here's a page by a person who thinks Nutt has some rather controversial views on the negative effects (or lack there of) of benzodiazepines:

http://www.benzo.org.uk/blog/index.php?/archives/127-The-Canonisation-of-Professor-David-Nutt.html

"The (benzodiazepine) withdrawal period lasts between sort of 4 days to a couple of weeks at most I think." Prof. David Nutt, Brain Mechanisms and Treatments of Anxiety Disorders, Lundbeck Institute, November 2005.

“The case for benzodiazepine dependence causing real damage has not been made.” Prof. David Nutt, former chairman of the ACMD.

And other experts have been criticising Nutt for his statements on drugs:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/academics-attack-professor-nutt-over-incorrect-statements-on-drugs-1817012.html

Some of Britain's leading drug experts yesterday launched an attack on Professor David Nutt, who was sacked as chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) after he argued that alcohol and tobacco were more dangerous than cannabis.

Professor Andy Parrott, the country's foremost authority on ecstasy, accused him of making "misleading and factually incorrect" comments. He said: "Professor Nutt has stated that ecstasy/MDMA is 'less pleasurable' than cocaine or nicotine, and hence less damaging. This is nonsense." He said such mistakes are "very worrying" and "may help to explain his recent dismissal", he added.

And Professor Robin Murray, a cannabis expert at the Institute of Psychiatry, added to his previous criticism of Professor Nutt when he said the ACMD hadn't "covered itself with glory in its understanding of cannabis" and has "always been several years behind the evidence". "It isn't an exclusively expert scientific body... and has been badly led by a few individuals," he said.

Ivor the Engineer

12th November 2009, 02:50 PM

More from Prof. Parrott*:

http://www.addictiontoday.org/addictiontoday/2008/11/an-open-letter-to-acmd.html

"After conveying my concerns to the ACMD, its response leaves me with very serious concerns. Indeed, it leaves me even more concerned than I was before.

I cannot believe that I have spent the past 14 years undertaking numerous scientific studies into Ecstasy/MDMA in humans, then for the ACMD to propose downgrading MDMA without a full and very detailed consideration of the extensive scientific evidence on its damaging effects. My research has been published in numerous top quality journals, and can be accessed via my Swansea University webpage here.

The topics the committee are covering seem to be very limited. It also seems to be relying on meta-analyses – apparently, the ACMD organised that the HTA conduct a NICE-type metanalytical review of all the neurocognitive studies of MDMA. But meta-analysis is inherently limited as a procedure (see final section below). And it seems to be focusing on the longer-term effects of MDMA. This is only one aspect of the dangers of MDMA. Three areas need to be considered.

...Goes onto list dangers...

MDMA is certainly a damaging psychoactive drug and it should not be downgraded.

Professor Andy C. Parrott
Department of Psychology
Swansea University, Wales, UK
Swansea SA2 8PP

What is it with these Professors and their surnames?:)