Oh Issy, old chap.. This response is so full of willful misunderstandings and straw men I suspect you're simply trolling now… but I shall soldier on regardless
So your position is that there is no difference in the funding given to research into illegal drugs? The government will fund positive research every bit as much as negative? Do you think this happens with all illegal drugs or just Ecstasy?
Did I say that? Of course I don't think there's no difference. As I keep saying, it's more nuanced than simple dichotomies between good vs bad. Every study should be looked at and weighed on it's own merits. Although from this you seem to think that the funding happens after the study is conducted, not the other way around…
Yes, of course there is political pressure from labs solely funded by e.g. NIDA to return results that will ensure continued funding. However, that doesn't taint all the research, as evidenced by Halpearn's study you mention below (more on that later).
We're also way way beyond simple "drugs are good" vs "drugs are bad" studies and into working out the fine grained detail of what they do in the brain.
There is a broad scientific consensus that MDMA is neurotoxic
There is no evidence that ecstasy causes brain damage, according to one of the largest studies into the effects of the drug. Too many previous studies made over-arching conclusions from insufficient data, say the scientists responsible for the research, and the drug's dangers have been greatly exaggerated.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/19/ecstasy-harm-brain-new-study
Even Rick Doblin and David Nutt would agree.
"I always assumed that, when properly designed studies were carried out, we would find ecstasy does not cause brain damage," said Professor David Nutt
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/19/ecstasy-harm-brain-new-study
Yes, there you go playing fast and loose with the terms "neurotoxic" and "brain damage" again. There is no question that MDMA is neurotoxic, just at what
dosages, and whether that toxicity manifests itself in behavioural differences. If you choose to define "brain damage" as physical changes that lead to behavioural ones, then yes, this study indicates that it seems unlikely. MDMA is still neurotoxic though.
Two things about this study - first off, what you're reading here is the media's spin on it. Second, this study in no way shows what the headline claims. All it shows is that a small subset of MDMA users at one point in time had no significant cognitive defects compared to controls. It doesn't follow them over time to see what changes there might be. I'm not sure if they measured subtle things like incidences of depression. Nor were there brain scans to look for physical changes, and it only has a very few "heavy" users (over 150 lifetime uses). Read the actual study, or if not, this summary is useful:
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/02February/Pages/ecstasy-brain-damage-research.aspx
The researchers suggested their study may show that “illicit ecstasy use, by itself, does not generally produce lasting residual neurotoxicity” (brain damage). They further suggest that, as they took unusual care to minimise factors that might bias results, it is plausible that the results of some earlier studies, which suggested that ecstasy impaired brain function or caused brain damage, could be attributed to these confounding factors.
However, they also say that the lack of a difference in cognitive function between the groups may be because they were unable to detect an effect rather than because one did not exist. They also highlight that only six participants had very high ecstasy exposure (over 150 episodes). Given these two plausible explanations for not finding a difference, they say that the effect of ecstasy on the brain remains “incompletely resolved”.
Which is hardly what the Guardian reported. Personally, I think David Nutt is probably a little bit foolish in saying what he does based on this bit of research. But yes, this is a promising step in showing the safety of MDMA. As ever, more work needs to be done.
Yeah… and this has precisely what to do with the question of mephedrone?
I'm talking about Ecstasy. Obviously Mephedrone has even less reliable research on it than E - so I wouldn't be too quick to make claims based on "research" into Mephedrone.
Umm.. but that was precisely what you did to upthread, dismissing mephedrone research "is it just home office propaganda because they don't want you to take it?"
But to then dismiss all research that doesn't agree with the way you think as "government propaganda" is stupid.
No, it's a little more complex than that. I'm saying that with the billions spent on drug prohibition, negative research into illegal drugs is given more, far more, funding than positive research. If you can't see that fundamental truth then I don't think we're going to make any progress.
Yes, of course it's more complicated than that… sorry, that was a low shot and unnecessary.
And yes, there is plenty of government funded research that paints drugs in a bad light - or more
accurately research that is summarised by governments in such away to make drugs seem more dangerous (e.g. the famous "E creates holes in your brain" - the research in no way showed that, but the image of a brain with "holes" in it was plastered on billboards everywhere. Thankfully, we seem to be moving towards a more balanced age, and I hope we wont see such wild claims again).
Anyway, this isn't about research that's positive or negative in mephedrone's case - it's about really basic stuff about mephedrone's method of action, that we didn't even know about until now!
Yes, it is like speed, and like MDMA, in its mechanism of action.
So it's "like" speed and MDMA is it? But not like caffiene? Not like cocaine? Did you get this nugget from one of your fabled "scientific papers"?
And your logic is what exactly? That because it's "like" speed and "like" MDMA, then it does what? Causes brain damage..right..so that means..it must be made illegal?
Nice thinking. Dr Iverson would love you.
Ok, I could be accused of oversimplifying the science here, but that's because I'm trying to make you understand (silly me!). As far as we know, at the moment, it's "like" speed in that it causes a massive release of dopamine, and "like" MDMA in that it causes a massive release of serotonin. It's not like caffeine, because caffeine works on totally different receptors. It's not like cocaine, because cocaine is a reuptake inhibitor of dopamine, and probably to a much lesser extent, serotonin.
The combination of the two releases is well regarded as indication of neurotoxicity, and is similar to methamphetamine, which is a known, potent neurotoxin. There's the logic.
As to whether it should be scheduled or not, in the current climate, given that other, safer drugs - such as amphetamine and MDMA - are illegal, I would say yes, it should be illegal. If not, then you're encouraging people with little knowledge of what they're doing to take a barely tested, possibly violently neurotoxic drug.
In a pragmatic calculation, the possible damage from it remaining legal and widely used vs the possible danger to meph users getting poorer quality and therefore possibly dangerous drugs, I'd say the balance tips towards making it illegal as the best thing to do. In fact I would say from anecdotal evidence from BL, and from the report this thread is about, that people seem to be switching back to pills and MDMA, which is a good thing. I expect lots of people to disagree with me, fair enough. Prohibition is in general a bad thing, but you have to look at the "facts on the ground" so to speak.
Of course I'd much rather MDMA was legal, then we wouldn't have this whole stupid, reckless production of untested designer stimulants.
You'd like to see "independent research"? What do you mean?
I mean research that isn't politically motivated like Ricautes and research that isn't dependent on politically motivated funding. Y'follow?
Like the various papers already referenced in the ADD thread...
Still, it is fun
I think the fun wore off a while ago special.
Sorry if you feel that way, I enjoy a vigorous debate, but non of it is personal, old bean.
