News - WA's Deadly ecstasy risk - Sunday Times 18/9/05(**New: response from journo**)

[phase_dancer]

i get tired of all hype about (illict) drugs killing/harming people. if you actually pull out and examine the health statistics there are many, many more people who die and/or are harmed from the legal drugs of alcohol and tobacco.

I'm being a devils advocate here, but someones gotta do it

While I agree that legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco kill many more people annually, it's not a realistic comparison to state that illicit drugs cause less death or health problems per number of users. I do believe tobacco is far worse than alcohol in as much as the incidence rate of health related problems among tobacco smokers is much worse than the rate of alcohol related probs among drinkers.

Statistically, you must calculate the incidence / prevalence rates in respect to population size. In other words, for the number that take illicit drugs against the number that take alcohol, are the ill health, or death rates similar? If these figures could be calculated for each drug type, I think in most cases you'd find the the results surprising, especially if you took mental health into account.

What about the safety of drugs when taken over a lifetime? There are relatively few drugs that don't have adverse affects when taken in even small amounts daily over 30-40 years or so. But a little alcohol a day (1-2 standard drinks) is not likely to do too much damage to most people.
In that respect it is a relatively safe drug.

Can the same be said of 40 years of moderate meth use? No, not really as meth has been shown to be neurotoxic. For many people, heavy or prolonged use causes a rapid deterioration of their health. As for MDMA; we don't yet know what 40 years of use will do to the average person. There's a few that have taken it for 40 years, but not yet enough to form significant statistical probabilities.

Then there's the danger for older people, or those who suffer from high blood pressure, or have heart problems. Amphetamines are potentially quite dangerous to some people so predisposed. So are both alcohol and tobacco, but in an acute sense, arguably to a lesser degree.

Of course no-one knows the level of hidden danger - diseases later in life - that might stem from illicts, due simply to a lack of Quality Control. The chance of dying from taking an E may not equate to russian roulette as has been described by the hardliners, but taking an E and having problems down the line might be closer to it. Unless you know that a pill is clean, or at least the properties of whatever else is in there , there is no way of knowing what that risk might be.

Much as I'd like to see the illegality taken out of drug use, I agree with Zonee in that I can't see a successful health related approach other than having a major shift in drug related social/ health policies, coupled with the legalisation and authorised distribution of pure forms of drugs.

And to work at all, that would need to be highly regulated. BUT, and this is a big BUT, if people couldn't still party when they wanted to, there would still be money to be made in illicits, and so there would still be an illicit market.

 

[LittleHedgehog]

ok, yeah. good point.
i did consider the extent of mental illness arising from drug use (i work in the field ) but i DIDN'T consider the 'per capita' rates comparison.
i wonder if anyone has ever actually done that research?

There are relatively few drugs that don't have adverse affects when taken in even small amounts daily over 30-40 years or so. But a little alcohol a day (1-2 standard drinks) is not likely to do too much damage to most people.

umm. yes. but then i wouldn't exactly take a 'small amount' of mdma, daily. if you compared moderate use of alcohol (1-2 standard drinks, 5/7days a week is the guideline) to moderate use of illicits (say one a month) do you still think the difference would be so significant?



i think though - a point that i did not make quite so eluquently yesterday (i was near the end of a 12hour shift, be kind to me) - that potentially many of the dangers and harms that are currently associated with illicits could be reduced through legalisation. no accidental overdoses, or trips to hospital because of getting 'bad' gear with some other crap in it. there would more research and awareness of potential harms and how to manage/minimse them . .
for example there's some anti-psychotic meds that can have pretty horrendous 'side-effects' over time, or one-off potentially lethal effects. these are known about, monitored for, managed . . and a similiar system for illicts would be invaluable



i would certainly agree though, that it's not as simple as 'make drugs legal'. any legislative changes would need to be coupled with a whole shift in public perception, social and health policy . .

 

[Cyberdyne]

Just an interesting excerpt from a while back in NZ;

"She has tracked the methamphetamine explosion and regularly handles new designer drugs. Often they are similar to known drugs, with small changes to the molecular structure.

MDMA or Ecstasy, for example, has a new sister substance called MBDB. A development of methamphetamine has seen the creation of a new substance called dimethylamphetamine.

In the past four months, ESR analysts have also detected a worrying combination of the popular party pills with illicit drugs. Party pill ingredients have been mixed with methamphetamine or MBDB. In one case, scientists found one batch of green pills contained nine substances ranging from MDMA to the party pill ingredient BZP to ketamine to caffeine."

Taken from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10121205

Apparently the ESR works the same way as ove rin Aus...identify's when police bring things in but don't release results even if harmful...

 

[phase_dancer]

Interesting article, thanks for the link Cyberdyne

 

[Zonee]

that was a good read, cheers Cyberdyne

 

[chugs]

It's a deadly loop that just continues to feed itself - the politicians use law and order (read drugs, rape and murder) issues as a platform in their election campaigns. In turn providing (as a by product in some ways) massive resources to law enforcement agencies when making good on the promise to eradicate crime forever through overwhelming use of police & brutality to solve what are health issues.

Media agencies are in turn feed their bread and butter staple of crime stories from the area commands, prosecutors and others who benefit from such funding.

If the media was to toe a line inconsistent & contradictory to that of the politicians (thus convincing people not to vote for them), this in turn would cause funding problems to the beneficiaries of Law Enforcement funding who would no longer have their political avatars in power.

Obviously before such a state of affairs was to ever occur the Law Enforcement agencies would withdraw the insider information & cooperation they give the media outlets...

Just imagine mainstream newspapers and TV stations cut off from this valuable source of stories? What would we watch, hell about 1/3 we see are about crime & drugs.

I don’t think it really matters that drugs are not as harmful as they are portrayed, or whether it would save lives if supply of drugs were regulated (and sourced from the government).

Far too many vested interests, at the very least, on media’s side would never risk the consequences of telling the truth. It could be easily said that many groups are also profiting in one way or another from the illicit classification of recreational drugs.

Something far more powerful and greater then all these vested parties, combined, is required to change this dismal state of affairs.

 

[LittleHedgehog]

. . . got it in one, chugs.


what to do, what to doooo..

 

[deano]

So tell me what the real issues are...

One of my issues is reporters getting away with printing lies in newpapers because your average Joe Citizen doesn't know any better.

There was basically no truth at all in what you reported, and you didn't research any of it..... well done.

 

[deano]

They are probably drawing the comparison that even legal drugs have risks. No drug is safe, not even pharmas with quality control.

Panadol would be a perfect example, hospitalises more australians that all other drugs combined. I must have missed this "reporters" panadol report.

 

[Yossarian_is_sane]

ok, yeah. good point.
i did consider the extent of mental illness arising from drug use (i work in the field ) but i DIDN'T consider the 'per capita' rates comparison.
i wonder if anyone has ever actually done that research?




umm. yes. but then i wouldn't exactly take a 'small amount' of mdma, daily. if you compared moderate use of alcohol (1-2 standard drinks, 5/7days a week is the guideline) to moderate use of illicits (say one a month) do you still think the difference would be so significant?



i think though - a point that i did not make quite so eluquently yesterday (i was near the end of a 12hour shift, be kind to me) - that potentially many of the dangers and harms that are currently associated with illicits could be reduced through legalisation. no accidental overdoses, or trips to hospital because of getting 'bad' gear with some other crap in it. there would more research and awareness of potential harms and how to manage/minimse them . .
for example there's some anti-psychotic meds that can have pretty horrendous 'side-effects' over time, or one-off potentially lethal effects. these are known about, monitored for, managed . . and a similiar system for illicts would be invaluable



i would certainly agree though, that it's not as simple as 'make drugs legal'. any legislative changes would need to be coupled with a whole shift in public perception, social and health policy . .

Certainly social perceptions is where the big shift is needed. After all, what politicain is going to go against public opinion (when there is a massive majority in the anti-drugs camp).

Comparing MDMA use to alcohol use is interesting but how many alcoholics (i.e. drug abusers) stick to 1-2 standard per day? I have lived with and am related to a couple and its more like a six pack per day (8.4 standard). Certainly the crowd i used to hang out with would without fail, every saturday, drink 5 or 6 beers (or half a bottle), head into town, drink a couple more at the pub and then hit the red bull and vodka at the club (3 or 4). All of this equates to about 20 standard drinks, which is a shitload of alcohol. Compare this to ~130mg of MDMA every second weekend (In my frequent use days).

While the physiological damage inflicted by alcohol may not be as siginificant at average dosage levels as MDMA, it has the same potential for abuse and has more of a negative social impact on those who use it. Granted MDMA has a massive potential for abuse (although not as much as meth, cocaine and opiates IMHO ), but with proper regulation, perhaps even an inevitable illicit market could minimised? How many people here would wait a week to get a clean ~150mg pill or buy 1-2 of unknown ingredients? Granted, bluelighters tend to be far more educated than most drug users but does anyone remember a single lesson about MDMA in high school? I sure don't (Ecstacy is a stimulant!- doh!).

Regulation, decriminalisation, whatever; anything that can lift the social stigma surrounding MDMA, would go a long way to minimising any abuse potential. If someone is determined to get fucked up on 'E' every weekend there is nothing to stop them now. At least with regulation, one could minimise other active ingredients and give them some 5-htp for the week in between. /END RANT%)

 

[lovemytrips]

mabey the answer to all our problems regarding the purity of ectasy would be solved by simple leglising of the drug, and allowing it to be purchased over the counter at the local pharmacy. this way we know exactly what is in the pill we are taking, and heck it may even get a bit cheaper....

i know this idea is both unrealistic, and will probably cause good reason for a lot of flame, but heck with it.

You managed to sum up my ideal world in one paragraph, and probably the same for everyone else here too

On another note, if Trevor is fair dinkum about what he is saying, and gets an unbiased story published, he deserves a medal

 

[Psychadelic_Paisly]

I still don't get why I should go to jail for eating a specific chemical... If I want to smoke burning plastic or drink drain fluid that's a fuck load worse for me that a night on MDMA.

One point I'll bring forward against myself is that the problems that can arise from drug use tie up hospitals and government money. But it's going on anyway...
Bah, it's all just politics... I'm going off to smoke my cigarette backwards...