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

[specialspack]

So what relevance does neurotoxicity have if it doesn't cause brain damage? Why even mention it?

Will taking 10 a weekend for 6 months? Quite possibly.

Is this based on evidence? Or is it just a feeling in your water?

No, unlike you I have considered the evidence. I know you're fond of Julie Holland so maybe read her cautious conclusions way back 10 years ago:
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_neurotoxicity1.shtml
Then maybe you want to look at the following more recent reviews, which cover a wide range of different studies:
Rogers et al review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19195429
Cowan review http://www.springerlink.com/content/t5u47550134xvm0m/
Parott response to Halpern's study http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03437.x/full
Kish (most up to date imaging study) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912692/?tool=pubmed

All of which correlate amounts used and frequency of use with cognitive deficits. But, of course, from your point of view they're all government propaganda, right?

and the problem with public perception of science is that people want those sort or results, but science doesn't deal in those sorts of pronouncements

I've read many alleged "scientists" making claims that Ecstasy causes brain damage and is incredibly dangerous. Most of them appear to be funded by the government mind you. I suppose it's the same situation with climate change - you can read thousands of "scientific" articles claiming it doesn't exist. Then you find out they're all funded by oil companies.

The only criteria for you casting doubt on their credibility is that they don't agree with you. I've asked you to justify your claims but you are unable to, falling on back on "government funding = bad science" everytime. Since you think that the Halpern study (government funded) is "good science", that neatly exposes your prejudices.

It has similar mechanisms of action, as I've said several times now.That has nothing to do with subjective feel.

I think if a drug feels entirely different to another drug while you're claiming it has "the same mechanism of action" you need to go back and study it's mechanism of action again. If they don't affect a human being in the same way then they either arn't working by the same mechanism of action or you've missed something.

Hmm, yes interesting point there. I like how you've changed my quote from "similar" to "the same" in your reply. Mephedrone obviously does not have the precise method of action as any other drug, otherwise if would be indistinguishable, as you so rightly point out. The mechanisms that we're interested in are the ones implicated in neurotoxicity.

Go and read the massive body of research yourself

And you're certain this isn't politically motivated research like most of the Ecstasy stuff? What was the difference do you think? Why did meth get independent research and E didn't?

Yes, all research that you don't agree with is "politically motivated". i get it. Change the record, eh? Would it kill you to study some of the actual papers?

Oh please… you think we should encourage people to take an untested drug that "might" be harmless, when all the indicators are precisely the opposite?

So you're absolutely positive it's more dangerous than alcohol? Tobacco? You'd recomend a kid to start smoking rather than take Meph once a month?
Excellent harm reduction...

So taking meph once a month causes more harm than drinking every week does it? Excellent harm reduction...

Meaningless nonsense, choosing examples (without evidence) that suit your preconceptions, without any logic for your comparisons. I could just change that around and say "you'd recommend taking meph everyday over smoking once a year?" and it would make as much sense as what you've written.

You're actually totally wrong about the research, already we're seeing grants provided to study the effect of these new substances as they're being used/abused.

We're seeing endless grants funding research to prove climate change doesn't exist too. The trouble is they all come from oil companies and the research always concludes climate change doesn't exist. I mentioned this problem earlier.

Illegality is absolutely no barrier to research.

Come off it. Illegality has an enormous effect on drug research right across the world.

Define what you mean and back this up with evidence. Oh, that's right - you can't. Illegality only really comes into effect if you want to give drug naive subjects in a study a drug, and that applies equally to untested drugs. You would never pass an ethics committee with a study to give any currently legal psychoactive substance (e.g. MDAI or meph pre-ban) either, because no one knows if it's safe. With illegal drugs It's perfectly possible to do animal studies, to do retrospective studies on drug users, and increasingly to give drugs to non-naive subjects. I'm sure you're familiar with Rick Strassman's classic paper:

Strassman RJ: Human hallucinogenic drug research in the United States: A present-day case history and a review of the process. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 23:29-38, 1991

Things have changed a lot in 20 years. Groups right here in the UK are giving ketamine, psilocybin and MDMA to subjects right now. See Nutt's research group and Curren's.

I see little point in dragging this argument out further. It's deeply ironic that you keep referring to climate change, but don't see the parallels. There, the broad consensus amongst the scientific community is that man made climate change is a real and present danger. In MDMA research, the broad scientific consensus is the MDMA is neurotoxic at levels that are high but not unusual for recreational users. Your method of argument (using the term loosely) has a lot in comment with climate change deniers, too. Anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived opinion must be "bad science", "government propaganda", without ever explaining exactly what kind of science would be sufficient evidence to to even make you think that MDMA or mephedrone might have a possibility of negative consequences attached to them. You don't grasp the principles, or even worse, wilfully ignore them and misunderstand them to suit your own beliefs. You make sweeping statements with no evidence to back them up, on subjects you have no knowledge of.

You are the one who sounds like a climate change skeptical nut...

I used to to believe that MDMA research was mostly politically motivated, and often it was, in the bad old days when Ricaurte ruled supreme. I too said "you can't generalise from animal models, we need more research". And now more research has come, and the evidence is stacking up. And I changed my opinion. And I would change it again.

 

[Ismene]

Then maybe you want to look at the following more recent reviews, which cover a wide range of different studies:

So if all these "studies" are so good why did the latest study conclude they were for the most part politically-motivated shit? Why didn't the latest study say "Yep, special's right, all the studies say Ecstasy causes brain damage. Case closed"?

falling on back on "government funding = bad science" everytime.

So you don't think the funding matters? If you read research into global warming that's funded by oil companies you would still accept it at face value?

Incidentally, yeah, I do tend to think that government funding into illegal drugs = bad science. The government has shown absolutely no interest in any fairness or willingness to be "open to science" on illegal drugs. The idea that Tony Blair or David Cameron would pour money into research that says illegal drugs have positive benefits is frankly ludicrous.


I like how you've changed my quote from "similar" to "the same" in your reply.

True, perhaps I should've changed it. My apologies.

However, you're making the case that because one drug allegedly causes brain damage, then a "similar" drug must cause brain damage too. That's a pretty big claim if they don't have precisely the same "mechanism of action" isn't it.

With illegal drugs It's perfectly possible to do animal studies, to do retrospective studies on drug users, and increasingly to give drugs to non-naive subjects.

But who on earth would pay for it?

Lets go back to basics - shareholders and private companies invest in drug research for one reason - they hope to see a return on their investment when the drug is later sold. Are you with me so far? Now, here's the kicker:

There is a 100% certainty that any investment in research into an illegal drug like Ecstasy will never see a penny in return. Why? Because the drug is illegal - it can never be sold.

I think you hear me knocking and I think I'm coming in. In fact I'm already in the house and halfway up the stairs.

I'm sure you're familiar with Rick Strassman's classic paper:

Funny you mention Strassman, have you read the problems he encountered trying to do research into DMT because of it's illegality? Get his book and check it out - any researcher who wasn't utterly obsessed would have dropped the idea straightaway.

Things have changed a lot in 20 years.

So New Labour and the tories have presided over some golden age of enlightenment on research into illegal drugs have they?

Sorry special, I must've missed that.

There, the broad consensus amongst the scientific community is that man made climate change is a real and present danger.

You're missing the key difference tho - you're blindly accepting that all the government funded research into illegal drugs is fair and accurate. Using the global warming analogy it's like blindly accepting all the science funded by the oil companies.

I'm saying look at ALL the evidence - especially evidence not funded by the politically motivated.

I used to to believe that MDMA research was mostly politically motivated

I didn't actually special - I used to accept "studies" that said Ecstasy caused brain damage at face value. Then when I realised the degree to which politically motivated funding can accept the results of so-called "science" I had pause for thought.

And now more research has come, and the evidence is stacking up

Yeah - but it's stacking up on the side saying Ecstacy is benign.

 

[specialspack]

Oh I forgot all about this... :D

So if all these "studies" are so good why did the latest study conclude they were for the most part politically-motivated shit? Why didn't the latest study say "Yep, special's right, all the studies say Ecstasy causes brain damage. Case closed"?

What are you talking about? Where does it say in the study that most other studies were "politically motivated shit"? Please provide references.

Again, you're just picking the one study that supports your preconceptions and ignoring all the others. You might want to consider Halperns political motivations too - you do know that he is extremely pro-MDMA, don't you?

So you don't think the funding matters? If you read research into global warming that's funded by oil companies you would still accept it at face value?

Incidentally, yeah, I do tend to think that government funding into illegal drugs = bad science. The government has shown absolutely no interest in any fairness or willingness to be "open to science" on illegal drugs. The idea that Tony Blair or David Cameron would pour money into research that says illegal drugs have positive benefits is frankly ludicrous.

You have no idea how this works, do you? Do you think David Cameron personally oversees what money is spent on what? Funding is done by large government bodies, run by scientists e.g. NIDA in the US. Which, for the umpteenth time funded Halpern.. thus, disproving your thesis.

However, you're making the case that because one drug allegedly causes brain damage, then a "similar" drug must cause brain damage too. That's a pretty big claim if they don't have precisely the same "mechanism of action" isn't it.

Not really. You don't understand the science. In fact the mechanism might not even matter, the results of massive efflux of DA and 5-HT are quite probably strong enough indicators of neurotoxicity.

With illegal drugs It's perfectly possible to do animal studies, to do retrospective studies on drug users, and increasingly to give drugs to non-naive subjects.

But who on earth would pay for it?

Lets go back to basics - shareholders and private companies invest in drug research for one reason - they hope to see a return on their investment when the drug is later sold. Are you with me so far? Now, here's the kicker:

There is a 100% certainty that any investment in research into an illegal drug like Ecstasy will never see a penny in return. Why? Because the drug is illegal - it can never be sold.

Er what..? You really have no idea what you're talking about. There were 237 papers published on MDMA this year alone. Most published research comes from Universities, not drugs companies, who investigate all sorts of things about drugs that have no marketable value - for instance on what meph might be doing in people's brains.
"The drug is illegal - it can never be sold" - umm, you better tell that to the companies that supply morphine to all the hospitals then eh, and the multi-million dollar business that is the manufacture and supply of amphetamines in the US… 8(

I'm sure you're familiar with Rick Strassman's classic paper:

Funny you mention Strassman, have you read the problems he encountered trying to do research into DMT because of it's illegality? Get his book and check it out - any researcher who wasn't utterly obsessed would have dropped the idea straightaway.

Duh… this paper that I've referenced is his detailed explanation of the difficulties he faced. It goes into much more detail than the book. Not only have I read his book, but I communicated with him personally when I was doing my undergrad degree and wrote my dissertation on precisely this subject. 8)

So New Labour and the tories have presided over some golden age of enlightenment on research into illegal drugs have they?

Sorry special, I must've missed that.

The Americans have ushered in an new age of study. Strassman, Grob, Halpern are all part of that. And now it's taking off in the UK too. Ask your friend David Nutt, look at what MAPS is doing. There's a massive renaissance going on.

You're missing the key difference tho - you're blindly accepting that all the government funded research into illegal drugs is fair and accurate. Using the global warming analogy it's like blindly accepting all the science funded by the oil companies.

I'm saying look at ALL the evidence - especially evidence not funded by the politically motivated.

Seriously? When you have just ignored all the other studies, reviews and papers I've linked to? That's "looking at all the evidence" is it?

Yeah - but it's stacking up on the side saying Ecstacy is benign.

Oh yes - can you please provide references to all this stuff stacking up, beyond the single Halpern paper..? No? Thought not.

 

[Ismene]

Fuck me, not you again special

 

[MrM]

So you don't think the funding matters? If you read research into global warming that's funded by oil companies you would still accept it at face value?

A massively thorough study – funded in part by a pair of US oil billionaires who are opponents of climate-disruption remediation – has come to the conclusion that the earth is, indeed, warming.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/21/berkeley_earth_surface_temperature_study/

 

[Ismene]

And..?

 

[MrM]

I'll let you work it out, if you can.

 

[Ismene]

Before you make even more of an idiot of yourself M, read up about the Koch brothers. Find out a little more about who they are and who they fund.

 

[MrM]

A massively thorough study – funded in part by a pair of US oil billionaires who are opponents of climate-disruption remediation – has come to the conclusion that the earth is, indeed, warming.

So scientists are capable of arriving at conclusions that differ from those whom the people funding their research would like to see. It's a pretty straighforward point but i knew, somehow, that you'd choose not to get it.

The Koch family (pronounced /ˈkoʊk/; coke) of industrialists and businessmen is most notable for their control of Koch Industries, the largest privately owned company in the United States, as of October 4th, 2011.[1] The family business was started by Fred C. Koch, who developed a new method for refining heavy oil into gasoline

 

[Ismene]

Wow, you're even dumber than I thought you were!

Billionaire oilman David Koch used to joke that Koch Industries was "the biggest company you've never heard of." Now the shroud of secrecy has thankfully been lifted, revealing the $55 million that he and his brother Charles have quietly funneled to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming.

We continue to expose the connections between climate denial front groups and the secretive billionaires who are funding their efforts.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

It appears that the Koch brothers funded the project with 150,000 because Richard Muller was running it and he was a guy who had been the darling of global warming deniers for years.

 

[MrM]

And yet the results of the study were that global warming is real and happening now. That's the point i'm making - scientists can arrive at conclusions that differ from those the people funding their research would like to see.

Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch have a vested interest in delaying climate action: they've made billions from their ownership and control of Koch Industries, an oil corporation that is the second largest privately-held company in America (which also happens to have an especially poor environmental record). It's timely that more people are now aware of Charles and David Koch and just what they're up to. A growing awareness of these oil billionaires' destructive agenda has led to increased scrutiny and resistance from people and organizations all over the United States.

massively thorough study – funded in part by a pair of US oil billionaires who are opponents of climate-disruption remediation – has come to the conclusion that the earth is, indeed, warming.

 

[Marmalade]

I havent read the whole thread, just the last 6 posts between Ismene and MrM, but they're blindingly funny. hrmn, maybe it's just me, I just got up.

but saying that [and that I'm stiill actually in bed and typing tbh], based on the last 6 7 posts, I'm feeling strangely motivated by wanting to have MrM babies.

this is largely possibly due to it being day 7 or 8 in my monthly cycle. and just a little bit to do with his approach, and Ismene's failure to read

[pee ess: on not a completely different note, the register is a pretty decent site]

 

[Marmalade]

And yet the results of the study were that global warming is real and happening now. That's the point i'm making - scientists can arrive at conclusions that differ from those the people funding their research would like to see.

DAMN JOO!

you shoulda just kept on posting the same two quotes dammit!

 

[Ismene]

And yet the results of the study were that global warming is real and happening now. That's the point i'm making - scientists can arrive at conclusions that differ from those the people funding their research would like to see.

Yeah but they contributed to the funding of that study by mistake didn't they. Richard Muller was a well known global warming sceptic, they were expecting him to come up with something to their liking. If you're theory is true then the Koch brothers will keep funding him and funding other people who say global warming is happening and man-made.

At the moment they've pumped 55 million into the global warming denial industry and $150,000 by mistake into Richard Mullers study. I'm not sure what your point is, and I don't think you are either.

 

[MrM]

At the moment they've pumped 55 million into the global warming denial industry and $150,000 by mistake into Richard Mullers study. I'm not sure what your point is, and I don't think you are either.

I know exactly what my point is, and (thanks to Marmalade) i'm convinced i've made it clear enough for any other reasonable person to see. I could quote the same quotes again but it wouldn't do you any good Ismene and everyone else is likely to have already got it.

I posted up the best example i could find of scientists arriving at conclusions different to those the people funding their research would like to see.

So now i'm going to follow my own advice;

You are wasting your time arguing with Ismene; everyone else agrees with you, Ismene never will.

you shoulda just kept on posting the same two quotes dammit!

I was strongly tempted

[pee ess: on not a completely different note, the register is a pretty decent site]

Agreed.

I'm feeling strangely motivated by wanting to have MrM babies.

We should get to know each other first, but i'm up for that

 

[Ismene]

I posted up the best example i could find of scientists arriving at conclusions different to those the people funding their research would like to see.

That's the best example?

So the Koch brothers funding a known climate change sceptic by mistake proves that global warming funding is free from political bias?

Yeah, you've got me M 8(

Greenpeace agrees with me, and marmalade agrees with you. I'm happy with that.

 

[MrM]

He missed my point completely, o well.

 

[Marmalade]

That's the best example?

So the Koch brothers funding a known climate change sceptic by mistake proves that global warming funding is free from political bias?
.

nothing is. of which there's probably not one person on the whole of blue light that doesnt already know this.
you're biased, I'm biased ... EVERYONE is

JOKE
question: 'what do you call a climate change sceptic who produces a pro global warming report?
answer: ' a blip in my argument'
/JOKE

Real question. what should we do with all the scientists and researchers and sceptics who produce report results that weren't expected [nay, were not even welcomed], by their funding fathers?

hmn ... hanging maybe? they're obviously a buncha wily reprobates ;p

 

[Marmalade]

and I shouldve mentioned, Esmene, because it seems to be of vital importance to your debate style ... I've been a veggie since I was 15 [that's 20+ yrs btw], used to be a member of Greenpeace, and about 5 other similar orgs ... WWF [or WWFN as it was back then], the Animal Liberation Front, Friends of the Earth, you name it. Amnesty International [which I should rejoin at some point]

I currently only subscribe yearly to my local Wildlife Trust.

oh, and Ive met Bill Oddie. F34R my environmental credentials ;p
/tongue in cheek

 

[Ismene]

and I shouldve mentioned, Esmene