Experts push to legalise ecstasy in australia, propose ‘over-the-counter’ sales

[poledriver]

EXPERTS PUSH TO LEGALISE ECSTASY IN AUSTRALIA, PROPOSE ‘OVER-THE-COUNTER’ SALES

Melbourne pharmacist Joshua Donelly and leading professor David Penington are spearheading a new discussion around legalising ecstasy in Australia. Collectively, they’ve issued a compelling argument for over-the-counter sales, stating, “the Australian government should legalise the drug, and regulate its production and sale through pharmacies, so users can access a safer, pure dose of the drug with advance discussion about the risks.”

Donelly’s focus surrounding ecstasy’s legalisation draws from a 2010 study in the Journal Of Law and Medicine. The study compares the harm to user vs the harm to others of a wide range of substances, both legal and outlawed.

While no drug is completely risk-free, the data shows what a large portion of the public already know – many illegal substances carry minimal risk when compared to alcohol, which is engrained in society and a staple throughout the world, despite coming under consistent and intense scrutiny for its tendency to cause harm.

Speaking with The Age, Professor Penington pointed out the reluctance of the Australian government to explore new territory. “Australians are one of the highest consumers of MDMA in the world, yet we resolutely resist exploring the fact that most of the uncommon ill consequences of its use arise from impurities in illicitly manufactured drug and the ‘illicit’, uncontrolled circumstances of its use,” he said.

Many of the investigations into ecstasy and MDMA are done using inconsistent supplies – street level products – that skew the results and give the drug a less favourable name. A study of 25,000 pills recently showed exactly what’s in your average street level drug, and the results form the bricks and mortar for arguments against the current unregulated industry.

As progress is made and more results come to light, experts in the field are sure the positive effects of the drug will outweigh the “negligible” downfalls. Recently, California therapists have started using the drug in human trials on people with anxiety and severe illness. Read about that here.

The Australian government has no plans to legalise MDMA however. According to The Age, they state that using the drug is associated with anxiety, irritability, paranoia, vomiting, overheating, high blood pressure, fits, depression and suicidal ideation. In rebuttal, Donelly states that any serious or long-lasting adverse effects that are referred to often stem from unreliable research.

Irrespective of the Government’s current stance on the issue, people with credibility rallying behind the merits of MDMA and other outlawed substances help open up dialogue in the public sector and create awareness about the drugs.

Change is coming, even if it’s not right now.

In the meantime, read what happens when you eat LSD for breakfast for seven days straight.
___
Via The Age.

https://yourfriendshouse.com/news/e...-in-australia-propose-over-the-counter-sales/

 

[falsifiedhypothesi]

Although I'd be all for the legalization of MDMA this article is bullshit. They use that ridiculous graph that everyone's seen where apparently butane is a drug and cannabis is nearly as harmful as tobacco. Also someone claims that MDMA can't cause serious side effects over the long term which is just wrong from everything I've heard. I thought MDMA tended to cause depression, cognitive decline, etc. with abuse?

 

[neversickanymore]

Why are the experts never actually in charge of these descions?

 

[Burnt Offerings]

Yeah I doubt the politicians care what these eggheads think lol

 

[rondurram]

The graph is based on overall harm (harm to users and harm to others), they are estimates only so obviously will not be completely accurate. The Nutt paper clearly has limitations. If you have a better analysis, by all means do it and publish it, more of this work is needed.

Regarding the effects of MDMA, what you have heard and what you know are two different things. Nobody in the article claims MDMA doesn't have serious side effects over the long term; Donelly says the research making such claims is unreliable. This is completely accurate. Unlike most, I've read the proposal [in the journal, not the above].

Consider these points on the research that claims what authorities (and many others) claim:
The studies are based on subjects (if you can call them that) taking ecstasy (not confirmed MDMA) and usually do not determine who took MDMA and how much
They do not control for polydrug use, subjects can be taking a host of other drugs, always including alcohol which is proven to harm the brain
Also due to lack of controls, they cannot prove that any deficits did not pre-exist street ecstasy consumption
The subjects self-report - this introduces significant bias
The subjects consume greater amounts of ecstasy and greater frequency to the norm
The results are often weak and they studies that don't find any differences are less talked about
All these things considered, such claims are unsupported.

That being said, of course MDMA would have some serious adverse effects if abused long-term, there wouldn't be many things that don't - but the proportion of people who demolish MDMA consistently over a long-period is fairly low. Most users have short using careers in the context of their whole life.

If authorities base their laws on these harms, surely they have to be concrete. Still, if you are all for legalisation of MDMA, we're probably on the same page in that such harms (unproven or prove) to the autonomous individual shouldn't be the basis of the law.

 

[rondurram]

Politics, prejudice. Its a shame, things could be so much better. Leading criminologists say the drug war is the greatest atrocity of all time, hard to argue against that

 

[falsifiedhypothesi]

You make some good points rondurram but I don't have a study that would be better then the one listed. I might be able to find one if I knew what study that graph came from and searched for similar studies.

Even if no other study has more reliable information then the one displayed it doesn't mean that this study is good. Now maybe this study is the best we have but judging from the graph it isn't very good.