NEWS - MP says ecstacy isn't dangerous (The Advertiser, 13/05/06)

[Slateroz]

her arguments suggest to me:

She is new to using E; i judge this from her STUPID comments about giving it to trauma sufferers.

If she had any clue, she'd realise that E is infact dangerous on some level, and drugging out people with problems wont fucking hielp them - especially with e. HELLO YOU COME DOWN - THE SITUATION ONLY GETS WORSE.

I like that she's trying - but it's pushing a horse uphill man - there is enough conclusive evidence to show that MDMA can kill people - if not by overdose so commonly, but other adverse reactions. I seriously believe some people need to do their homework before coming out to Parliament with such trivial arguments - even though there is no evidence to suggest E is dangerous - there is also none to suggest it's safe.

IMO The users themselves are evidence enough its clearly not good for you.

I whole heartedly support decriminalisation of MDMA and related chems - but not legalisation in whole - or the idea of giving it to people suffering from trauma, as I personally believe it's just fuel for disaster.

My 2 cents

But those kinds of things are exactly what the drug was used for before it became an underground drug. There is talk even now of it being used to assist the post traumatic stress of US Soldiers from the Gulf.

Not silly at all. But obviously it wouldn't be like handing them a bag of white kanga's and sending them on their way lol

 

[kryalkastleE]

well good on her.

 

[ANDO420]

First of all, I would just like to say that ecstasy (mdma) is anything but safe. I have seen the drug fuck up many people's lives through depression, short term memory problems, suicidal thoughts, emotional breakdown, psychological addiction, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

Having said that, it would be unwise to believe that alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, processed foods, a diet high in salt, sex, driving cars, motorcycles (very fucking dangerous), crossing the street, trusting the government are not dangerous.

The air in which we breathe can be proven to be detrimental to one's life.

No drug usage is safe. There is no such thing as safe anything and I think the term "safe" is too loosely used in everyday life.

...just my thoughts.

I understand what you are saying - so if it is dangerous or "unsafe" to eat processed foods, have a diet high in salt, sex, driving cars, motorcycles, crossing the street , you just dont do those things anymore?
I think we do a little thing called "harm minimisation" you implament procoutions to reduce the risc of danger.

When we cross the road we look both ways - when we drive a car we put on our seat belt, just about anything we do we are implamenting harm minimisation. So....its the same with pills, (I hope) we test them to make sure its md**, harm minimisation.

And dont flame me if im wrong - but pure MDMA has not been proven to be harmfull?

 

[ANDO420]

um...

posted by zaineaol.nu:

HELLO YOU COME DOWN - THE SITUATION ONLY GETS WORSE.

don't know about you but I have never been worse as such - just the same as before I had it.

there is enough conclusive evidence to show that MDMA can kill people - if not by overdose so commonly, but other adverse reactions.

I would bet 90% of them cases involved poly drug use and/or they thought they were taking a pill with mdma and it wasn't . (and i still dont think there is more than 5% of conclusive cases - there is just no evidance)

IMO The users themselves are evidence enough its clearly not good for you.

I do agree with this one - BUT - I only take e once a month sometimes 2 months and I havent had a problem yet, nor do I see a problem devoloping?

My 2 cents

 

[starboy]

It depends how you measure risk, let's get it in perspective.

Here's an excerpt from our recent submission on drug policy in NZ, excuse me for cut and pasting to save time.

One measure of risk is deaths per exposure, so things like mountain climbing are relatively high (I think Climbing Everest has a 33% chance of death.) Health Canada put out a useful system analysed by Law in 2004 measuring deaths per exposure of various activities.

1 in 1000 deaths per unit of exposure is what we'd call "dangerous"
1 in 10,000 deaths per unit of exposure is what we'd call "intolerable"
1 in 100,000 deaths per unit of exposure is what we'd call "tolerable"
1 in a million deaths per unit of exposure is what we'd call "de minimis risk"
1 in ten million deaths per unit of exposure is what we'd call "ultrasafe"

• Stargate does not hear society demanding that these alpine activities be prohibited because of 70 deaths over a 15 year period as a direct result of individuals exercising freedom of choice in pursuit of adrenal generating activities. There is a degree of societal risk here due to the risks associated with search and rescue.

There has been an average of 1.4 deer hunters killed by firearms per year between the years 1979 and 2002 (33 deaths) with a fatality rate of one per 26,000 deer hunters per year or one fatality per 180,000 deer hunting occasions. This police report correctly concluded that the number of accidental fatal shootings of deer hunters is a statistically rare event. Amalberti would classify this as a safe activity, but requiring significant standardization of rules an dregulation to make significant improvements.

• Stargate does not hear society demanding that deer hunting activities be prohibited because of 33 deaths over a 23 year period as a direct result of individuals exercising freedom of choice in pursuit of adrenal generating activities. Whilst the risk is tolerated each death generates new calls for firearms to be banned.

• Every year 400-500 New Zealanders (1 in 9,000) die on our roads.
• Every year a similar number commit suicide.
• Every year about 1,500 New Zealanders die from accidents other than medical injury…
• Every year 1,500 New Zealanders die every year as a result of preventable medical injury, including approximately 600 as a result of pharmaceutical products. (Approximately 1 highly preventable death per 350 hospital patients).


• In 2005 there were 45 recreational drownings, including 10 boating, 10 inland based angling, and 5 scuba diving.

Society has not banned any of these activities. Indeed there are even minimal regulations affecting these activities.

Peanuts are one of the most common and severe allergens with about 2% of children being allergic. The government hasn’t banned peanuts… it has introduced sensible labelling and education.

Once you know how high a risk something is in society you have a better idea of how to manage it, how heavy the regulation should be. I think that in relation to other things in society, drugs are perhaps over regulated and that the prohibition model doesn't offer enough felxibility to really reduce the risks, otehr measures may well be more effective and economically viable, but it means a steering of messaging and public education.

 

[Cyberdyne]

This is an absolutely outstanding statistical comparison and one which I agree with wholeheartedly...the degree of harm is whats relevant when comparing and something that gets you high should not be prohibited when it has a similar degree of risk to other activities.

One key point that is missing from this analysis however, is the capacity of drugs to impinge upon genuine consent to teh risks involved. In other words, the high potential for addiction can mean a paternal hand is warranted at a point when we can consdier people are turning a blind eye to the risks or not rationally weighing them because they are incapable of doing so due to their addiction. Drugs are unique in that they are able to directly re route our thought patterns to change our behaviours and judgments (essentially creating a self perpetuating and self strengthening cycle of harm) and THIS is the one and only reason why a pure risk/harm analysis cannot be made between drugs and other more mundane activities. I would not, however consider them to be a wholely different category to activities like eating disorders, sexual activity or gambling. They are somewhat related in that all can cause substantial dopamine (etc) release and the degree to which they should be treated in a similar fashion is a toughie to actually work out and a job that i wouldnt envy.

Apologies if this is a bit schizophrenic...im at work and in a hurry...i hope the point is clear.