UK: Ken Livingstone 'legalise ecstasy'

poison39 said:
Ecstasy kills 50 people a year? By using the term 'ecstasy' are they referring to all things sold as ecstasy, like PMA? I wonder how many people actually have died as a result of MDMA alone? That is the drug in question, not the shit passed off as ecstasy.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

I am overly pessimistic about the idea as a whole, nevermind that it will be brought past anything but a few catchy newspaper headlines.
Sure, it'd be nice if it were to happen. And some people may gain a more broadend view of chemicals for pleasure.
But there's still gunna be the same problem just with a different substance: Binging.

There'd need to be a huge omni-conscious shift in attitude or something.
 
monstanoodle said:
.........................But there's still gunna be the same problem just with a different substance: Binging.
There'd need to be a huge omni-conscious shift in attitude or something.
Click to expand...
monstanoodle really has hit the nail on the head, so to speak. The current situation, where abstinence is the core part of any government's drug message (prohibition and harm-reduction are mutually incompatible), will always end up with mixed messages which confound effective drugs education. It would be nice to think, as Carsick points out, that substances could be used responsibly, and with personal and social gains.

But for the most part, from what I can see anyway, drugs (especially on Fri and Sat nights after work) are taken as part of a "binge", just to "get out of it". Perhpaps it's not totally narrow-minded to imagine that decriminalisation/legalisation might have serious health-related consequences for the sort of people who binge.

Anyone here do alcohol, E, K, grass, coke, fags, etc. & etc. on a party night?

Thought not ;) But then this is Bluelight after all, not inner city London where poor old Ken and Boris live. Poor old Boris. Lovely example of the old Tory knee-jerk reaction. We should frame him and stick him on the wall with a bunch of other political cartoons.
 
It's nice to see the London Mayoral electioneering is taking it's traditionally serious route... Good ol' Boris - you've got to love a comedy buffoon like that. If there was ever a man who had no need for drugs it truly was he...

I've always believed in the legalisation of all drugs. But I would not be naive enough to think that this would be an easy change, where everybody would stop drinking to excess (approx 730 deaths per month in the UK, according to the National Statistics Office - tobacco's UK monthly toll is around 6500) and become a paragon of sensible chemical usage. It wouldn't happen because as is pointed out above, people aren't built to be sensible. There would still be drug deaths, although probably less as the supplies would be clean - people would know exactly what, and how much, they were taking - and there would presumably be a lot more support and advice available for those that choose to use.

What it would change, however, is the criminality associated with prohibitive drug laws. Why do little "gangsta" kids run around stabbing and shooting each other? Because there's a lot of money at stake and a very long supply chain above them who want paying. Buying your substance of choice from a high street shop and paying tax on it takes all of the profit and "glamour" out of the equation. Drugs are generally cheap, and need not cause so much heartache over something as meaningless as money.

Ultimately, I don't think a great deal would change with society. People who enjoy drugs take them - alway have and always will, no matter the legal status. I've yet to meet anyone who has suggested that they would like to take drug X, but won't because it's illegal. I imagine there would be a spike in usage as a few curious types take advantage of the relaxation in the law, and then levels would return to a baseline. Probably pretty near to where it is right now, I would suspect. All that would really change is that we'd live in a more civilised society that doesn't criminalise vast tracts of its populaton on the basis of... well, I'm not even sure what that basis is to be honest.
 
Last edited:
^ You just made me think of a quote. It's from a recent Discworld novel, but similar things come up a lot, especially in Libertarian type things.

"the system was supposed to take criminals and, in some rough-and-ready fashion, force them into becoming honest men. Instead, he'd taken honest men and turned them into criminals." - Sam Vimes - Night Watch
 
This is a bit off topic, but I heard it at a party this weekend and just wanted to check. Are the little gangsta kids in london called "chavs"?
 
Nobody said anything about MDMA legalization. "ecstasy" was the term used, and along with it go the bullshit deaths by way of impure pills, dehydration, and mixing with alcohol. How about explaining that if legalized, there will BE no deaths because the users would be getting pure MD. If they wanna be retarded and drink alcohol with it, thats their problem, but it would still be safer.

Also, I agree, specifying a perceived "hard drug" (not pot) is a step forward.
 
Dr.DOB said:
and u know that those 50 deaths are bullshit too
i bet half included alcohol combinations
half of the other half included meth
and the last quarter involved constant dancing and no water
Click to expand...
good posting =D they wont admit it
but we know whats going on behind those numbers.8)
 
Don't be stupid, guys. MDMA is not a perfectly safe drug.
Occasionally people will still die. Mostly they'll die because they're too stupid to follow good practice and drink too much water, or take too much, or take it with too much alcohol or whatever, but occasionally people will still die.

No drug is 100% safe. I just happen to believe that prohibition is more dangerous than education and completely banning a substance because a minority are too stupid to use it responsibly is absurd.
 
spun420833 said:
I wonder how many people are killed a week in the UK due to alcohol? I should prolly UTFSE on that one.
Click to expand...


Logic isn't a strong point with politicians.
 
MDMA is schedule 1 in the US. So are MDA, MDEA, and most of the analogs.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there has been some breakthrough research by MAPS.
Still as of now, i believe anything with "methylenedioxy" in it, is automatically scheduled, altho not listed (MDMA, MDA, MDEA are all listed). I'm not sure if this applies to RC MDXX chems like Methylone or MDBD (or bk-mdbd). I am not referring to the analog act, which makes RC's only quasi-legal, and if found in capsules, etc, things like Methylone will be charged as illicit drugs.
 
^
Don't be stupid, guys. MDMA is not a perfectly safe drug.
Occasionally people will still die. Mostly they'll die because they're too stupid to follow good practice and drink too much water, or take too much, or take it with too much alcohol or whatever, but occasionally people will still die.

No drug is 100% safe. I just happen to believe that prohibition is more dangerous than education and completely banning a substance because a minority are too stupid to use it responsibly is absurd.
Click to expand...

I happen to think that used sparingly by experienced psychonauts, MDMA happens to have an extremely high safety margin. Also, overdose is fairly rare because taking more rolls wont do anything but make you speedy if u have expended your serotonin. There is just the sweet spot, and anything above that will just cause more side effects. So, one good pure mdxx high pill, for me, is all i need to take if im rolling. And with benzos at your disposal, the crash is nothing (unless you get methed out rolls, which i personally hate, but i know tons of people who only take those, and will think a pure mdxx pill is too subtle... these people should be smoking meth instead of dropping random impure pills).

So, taken under these conditions, by responsible people, it is 100% safe assuming you are dealing with MDMA and not just some random "ecstasy". This is an anachronism, because whats ecstasy if its not MDMA? Any pill imprinted with a stamp?
 
You're right, it is very safe. I didn't say it wasn't. I still think you're very wrong by saying it's 100% safe. You have no evidence whatsoever that this is true.
Also, how is alcohol not safe under those conditions? I've been drinking reasonably heavily for 16 years, over half of my lifetime and I haven't died yet.

Most recreational drugs are safe enough taken responsibly, but whether they are or not, is not the point. Prohibition does not save lives. On average, prohbition seems to do more harm than good.
 
Last edited:
People dieing from e is a hoax. Ive only done e once and it was one of my best trips ever. It was so good I only did it once! Now if only I did that with opiates... Things like e allow people to break through and see life in a different way without being on it all the time in my proffesional opinion.
 
Legalisation would be great! It would give other countries more confidence in changine their own (think U.S.) ridiculous schedule 1 drugs that do LESS harm than legal drugs (think cigs and alcohol)!!!

I mean look at this bloody graph!

564px-20drugs.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top