'Legal highs' should be automatically banned, says government drugs adviser

[mr.buffnstuff]

saw an article in the sun today about how legal highs should be banned, Salvia - a mexican leaf thats chewed up or can be dried and smoked and makes the user hallucinate, 4-BRAVO dragonfly (new to me) and something else... i just fucking hate this stuff... surely whoever wrote the article could do a little bit of research? why is everything so bias?

 

[Si Dread]

Because the system is built to disseminate shite to a general population that understands little else...

Greetings from Australia.
Sucks my thread isn't better news.

"Don't they know that, when one door close, a hundred is opened..? Bob Marley

That is the kind of post I like to see here. I know where to dredge up this stuff now, but I rarely have time to trawl the web for this sorta info & I read it with facination. Actually, still only about halway down & going back to it shortly.

I really doubt it'll make any difference what laws they pass for what drugs for whatever fucking reason. They are quite simply pissing against the wind. Even if drugs use per head decreases our populations continue to increase & the resources available to really, properly fight drug use are & always have been woefully inadequate. Even IF they succeeded in wiping illicit chemicals from the market in every way, from the internet to the pub, past the home grower & the neighbourhoud dealer, we would just find another way to get fucked... & it'll probably end up being more dangerous than drugs use. I doubt these "100 people dead from meph" stats aren't a little exagerated by the media but I'd be surprised, given it's power & prevalence, if there havent been at least some fatalities associated with its use. As such, I'd expect any new compounds that are created to circumnavigate the law would be synthesised with that in mind, not it's effects or dangers...

So ultimately, the laws that attempt to clamp down on all or any drugs use simply serve to make drugs use more dangerous & the results of it's use even more unpredictable. But it doesnt matter, because they simply wont be able to clamp down entirely on all (or any) drugs use & the real lesson of the mephedrone saga is that it's trends more than anything that affects the decisions of drugs users.

Thanks for that post Aussie student dude!

 

[Ismene]

Oh sure, mephedrone has been implicated in only a very small number of deaths really. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about it's potentially very nasty cardio- and neurotoxic effects, which might well create long term problems in those people who were doing multiple grams in a weekend.

The report is here for those who want to read it:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/agencies-public-bodies/acmd1/acmdnps2011

Is there any reliable evidence supporting the claim that it's cardio or neurotoxic tho special? Or is it just home office propaganda because they don't want you to take it? Or some shit lab doing research on government funding that would be withdrawn if they said something positive about meph like all the "E causes brain damage" horseshit.

 

[RLP]

Alcohol's not a drug, it's a drink.

 

[Acidtek]

I know what the fuck is with that! Alcohol legal, the worst drug of them all!

 

[deko]

Ffs

That report is so full of contradictions,

 

[chasing_s]

Is there any reliable evidence supporting the claim that it's cardio or neurotoxic tho special? Or is it just home office propaganda because they don't want you to take it? Or some shit lab doing research on government funding that would be withdrawn if they said something positive about meph like all the "E causes brain damage" horseshit.

There was a paper from some University in the states (I think Nevada [close it's Utah]) that looked at how mephedrone worked and concluded on the basis of it's action that it was likely to be neurotoxic, though with out any actual evidence to say so. So it's still basically conjecture.

found it it's "4-Methylmethcathinone (Mephedrone): Neuropharmacological Effects of a Designer Stimulant of Abuse" Hadlock GC, Webb KM, McFadden LM, Chu PW, Ellis JD, Allen SC, Andrenyak DM, Vieira-Brock PL, German CL, Conrad KM, Hoonakker AJ, Gibb JW, Wilkins DG, Hanson GR, Fleckenstein AE. DOI:10.1124/jpet.111.184119

sorry for non-standard referencing

 

[clubberdude]

Alcohol's not a drug, it's a drink.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Of course Ethyl Alcohol is a drug. It is a psychoactive which affects ones central nervous system. The form in which it comes is irrelevant. By using exactly the same theory, one could argue GHB/GBL is not a drug because it is a liquid, likewise with some of the Methylone (bk-MDMA) preparations which existed a while back.

In fact, out of all the drugs I have tried recreationally, I would have said that Alcohol is the chemical which has the effects which I would typify with my understanding and interpretation of the word "drug", far more so than most other stuff including Amphetamines, MDMA, psychedelics, dissasociatives and stimulants. As I have no experience with Opiates, Benzodiazepines/sedatives or Antipsychotics, so I cannot comment on those.

Funny thing is that as a child, I made a clear distinction between drugs and alcohol, as I've aged and my experience with these things has increased, that distinction has been transformed into "socially not-accepted" and "socially accepted". In other words, that distinction is not a real thing. Even funnier is the fact that Alcohol is easily the most unpredictable drug I've taken and if I ever end up losing it/getting into trouble, chances are its Alcohol that has caused it.

 

[Mailmonkey]

^no you're wrong, it's not covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act, therefore it's a harmless sociably acceptable drink, not a drug. Misuse of Drugs Act is there to protect us from DANGEROUS DRUGS, and drinks aren't included, ergo they are safe, and not drugs, not at all. :D

Drink never blighted anyone's life, not like so-called cannabis and E.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Is no one gonna put clubberdude out of his misery and let him in on the big secret that is Brass Eye?

 

[JB]

I thought this was the same advisory that said all drugs should be decriminalised. I'm confused.

 

[JB]

Is no one gonna put clubberdude out of his misery and let him in on the big secret that is Brass Eye?

I'm an uzi lover....

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I'm an uzi lover....

lol...

 

[Si Dread]

^no you're wrong, it's not covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act, therefore it's a harmless sociably acceptable drink, not a drug. Misuse of Drugs Act is there to protect us from DANGEROUS DRUGS, and drinks aren't included, ergo they are safe, and not drugs, not at all. :D

Drink never blighted anyone's life, not like so-called cannabis and E.

This post is priceless, liquid gold! How I laughed & laughed, brilliant...

... shame really, innit? Lol

 

[Ismene]

I thought this was the same advisory that said all drugs should be decriminalised. I'm confused.

I think that report might have sneaked past Dr Les Iverson. Dr Les was brought in to be the "ban em all, Let God sort em out" voice and this is him stepping up the plate to reassure anyone who thinks the ACMD has been taken over by Walter and the softies.

 

[Ismene]

There was a paper from some University in the states (I think Nevada [close it's Utah]) that looked at how mephedrone worked and concluded on the basis of it's action that it was likely to be neurotoxic, though with out any actual evidence to say so. So it's still basically conjecture.

I suppose the question is what "neurotoxic" means tho. Every breath you take in a busy town is neurotoxic thanks to the lead and other poisons in the air. Fortunately neurotoxins don't automatically result in brain damage - otherwise we'd all be in hospital.

If you go to any hospital on earth and say "Take me to the people who have lung cancer from smoking", you'll be taken to a ward full of people - that proves the link. Say "Take me to the people who have brain damage from Meph, E, etc" and the staff will look at you blankly.

 

[specialspack]

Is there any reliable evidence supporting the claim that it's cardio or neurotoxic tho special? Or is it just home office propaganda because they don't want you to take it? Or some shit lab doing research on government funding that would be withdrawn if they said something positive about meph like all the "E causes brain damage" horseshit.

8( Yes that's right Ismene, because all the MDMA studies ever done are part of a worldwide conspiracy to make MDMA look bad. I love how you say "some shit lab" - pray tell what qualifies you pass judgement on the quality of research?

I think that report might have sneaked past Dr Les Iverson. Dr Les was brought in to be the "ban em all, Let God sort em out" voice and this is him stepping up the plate to reassure anyone who thinks the ACMD has been taken over by Walter and the softies.

Yes of course, because someone you have already have preconceived perceptions of couldn't possibly act contrary to those perceptions, could he? I guess its SO much more likely he didn't read the report... 8( Maybe you should go out and actually read some of Dr Iversen's work - I highly recommend "Speed, Ecstasy, Ritalin: the science of amphetamines" which is an extremely balanced review of the science and social history and has surprisingly positive things to say about the potential neurotoxicity of occasional recreation doses of methamphetamine and MDMA. You might also learn something about the science too.

I suppose the question is what "neurotoxic" means tho. Every breath you take in a busy town is neurotoxic thanks to the lead and other poisons in the air. Fortunately neurotoxins don't automatically result in brain damage - otherwise we'd all be in hospital.

If you go to any hospital on earth and say "Take me to the people who have lung cancer from smoking", you'll be taken to a ward full of people - that proves the link. Say "Take me to the people who have brain damage from Meph, E, etc" and the staff will look at you blankly.

"That proves the link" - please tell me you really don't think what you have written here is how you think the standard of scientific proof works...

What do you mean by "brain damage"? There are many potential negative consequences from neurotoxicity that are not "brain damage" - studies indicate higher prevalence of Parkinson's in habitual meth users, for instance.

This thread has the references that show mephedrone producing massive efflux of both dopamine and serotonin:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/474534-Mephedrone-science
Which is generally regarded as a pretty solid neurotoxic mechanism, a la methamphetamine.

And also the potential of very nasty ephedrine-like metabolic products. All this points to mephedrone being really not good for you. Do we know for certain? No. Is it likely? Yes. Will doing it a few times in moderation have any noticeable effects? Probably not no. Is doing 5 grams a weekend good for you? Certainly not. It took decades for anyone to notice that fenfluramine caused heart valve disease, mephedrone is (up until recently) a completely untested substance...

Why do you always assume that science saying that drugs are dangerous is "home office propaganda"? That's just as blinkered as saying all drugs are bad.

Maybe you think that the dangers of PMA and MPTP was just made up propaganda too?

 

[Ismene]

8( Yes that's right Ismene, because all the MDMA studies ever done are part of a worldwide conspiracy to make MDMA look bad.|

Yep. You think labs dependent on government funding are keen to bring out positive research about illegal drugs? Really? Can you explain why?

I love how you say "some shit lab" - pray tell what qualifies you pass judgement on the quality of research?

There was the ecstasy research recently where it turned out they hadn't even been testing Ecstasy - it was a completely different drug. In my book, that's one shit lab.

Maybe you should go out and actually read some of Dr Iversen's work

I've heard enough of his public statements and actions. You don't think he was hand-picked after they sacked Nutt because they thought he had independent views do you?

What do you mean by "brain damage"?

Brain damage to me brings up the idea of noticeable changes in a rats behaviour because of "brain damage" - for example, you give a rat E in an oral dose often enough and before long it can't find it's dinner. Or long-term damage that for example, people who took E in the 80's are no seeing an explosion in brain diseases like parkinsons. Obviously, nothing of the kind has ever happened.

 

[specialspack]

Yep. You think labs dependent on government funding are keen to bring out positive research about illegal drugs? Really? Can you explain why?

Because they're scientists. This is obviously difficult for you to understand, but just because you get government funding, doesn't mean your studies are therefore prejudiced and bad science. You need to actually read the papers, understand the science and then judge them on their merits. I assume you saw John Halpern's recent study which was widely reported as showing ecstasy did not have any significant effects on cognitive performance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/19/ecstasy-harm-brain-new-study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21205042

Guess who that was funded by? The US government, via NIDA and NIH.

There was the ecstasy research recently where it turned out they hadn't even been testing Ecstasy - it was a completely different drug. In my book, that's one shit lab.

Yes, Ricaute's lab where they used methamphetamine rather than MDMA. http://www.maps.org/mdma/studyresponse.html

That was six years ago, not really recently. You can't use one bad experiment to reject all studies. There are plenty of studies that show MDMA is a neurotoxin, and plenty of debate over at what doses, and what that neurotoxicity means. MDMA isn't the issue here though, I agree that MDMA is relatively safe. What is at issue here is new, untested substances.

I've heard enough of his public statements and actions. You don't think he was hand-picked after they sacked Nutt because they thought he had independent views do you?

No, I don't think he was hand picked. The politics of the ACMD are not simple. While I might disagree with Dr Iversen on plenty of things, I certainly do rate him as a scientist, and yes he has independent views. I know you would love things to be black and white - Nutt = goody, Iversen = baddy - but the real world isn't as simplistic as that. The evidence doesn't even support your theory - as previously noted the ACMD recommended decriminalisation, and your response to that is to say that he wasn't involved in it? Come on.

Seriously, read his book, rather than sticking your head in the sand.

Brain damage to me brings up the idea of noticeable changes in a rats behaviour because of "brain damage" - for example, you give a rat E in an oral dose often enough and before long it can't find it's dinner. Or long-term damage that for example, people who took E in the 80's are no seeing an explosion in brain diseases like parkinsons. Obviously, nothing of the kind has ever happened.

Right, and no one is suggesting that "E causes Parkinsons". However, methamphetamine does increase the incidence of Parkinsons - and mephedrone's method of action is quite similar to meth's.

Have you read all the stuff in the mephedrone science thread? Do you think that's all home office propaganda?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Because they're scientists. This is obviously difficult for you to understand, but just because you get government funding, doesn't mean your studies are therefore prejudiced and bad science. You need to actually read the papers, understand the science and then judge them on their merits. I assume you saw John Halpern's recent study which was widely reported as showing ecstasy did not have any significant effects on cognitive performance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/19/ecstasy-harm-brain-new-study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21205042

Guess who that was funded by? The US government, via NIDA and NIH.



Yes, Ricaute's lab where they used methamphetamine rather than MDMA. http://www.maps.org/mdma/studyresponse.html

That was six years ago, not really recently. You can't use one bad experiment to reject all studies. There are plenty of studies that show MDMA is a neurotoxin, and plenty of debate over at what doses, and what that neurotoxicity means. MDMA isn't the issue here though, I agree that MDMA is relatively safe. What is at issue here is new, untested substances.



No, I don't think he was hand picked. The politics of the ACMD are not simple. While I might disagree with Dr Iversen on plenty of things, I certainly do rate him as a scientist, and yes he has independent views. I know you would love things to be black and white - Nutt goody, Iversen baddy - but the real world isn't as simplistic as that. The evidence doesn't even support your theory - as previously noted the ACMD recommended decriminalisation, and your response to that is to say that he wasn't involved in it? Come on.

Seriously, read his book, rather than sticking your head in the sand.



Right, and no one is suggesting that "E causes Parkinsons". However, methamphetamine does increase the incidence of Parkinsons - and mephedrone's method of action is quite similar to meth's.

Have you read all the stuff in the mephedrone science thread? Do you think that's all home office propaganda?

Out of interest do they get the results that meth increases parkinsons from actual studies and modelling or is there a correlation? If there is just a correlation it could be heavy metal poisoning from those meth users using poorly synthed methcathinone?