Be Excellent To Each Other

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7882708.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7882708.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7882708.stm

This really annoys me. Why bother having the Council if you're just going to do what you want, anyway? They did this with cannabis last year, too.

All this does is send out the message that other drugs such as crack and heroin are on the same level. This is just not the case. The report says that ecstasy can account for 10-17 deaths a year—how many deaths a year are caused by alcohol?

Wait, so Ecstasy is as safe as weed now? Sign me up!

Nope, either way it's still 'less safe' than weed (in theory). The Council says cannabis should be C and ecstasy B; the government say B and A, respectively.

I'd be interested to hear Goatboy's views on this.

Yes, but you are doing a scandal making tactic of twisting the statistics and quote there.

So, how much does it increase when other drugs are involved? Does taking E exacerbate the affects of other drugs?
Furthermore, it currently accounts for 10-17 deaths, if there was a massive increase in use due to reclassifying it, how many would it be then. Given that there is no governing body for production of this, if there were an increase in production this may lead to poorer quality items being used, leading to dodgier stuff becomng available.

I see your point, Bobby, but it's the crass hypocrisy of the government which riles me more than anything else. I can't look at mortality rates for both ecstasy and alcohol from work, but I've seen them before and it's much higher for alcohol.

I'm not saying there aren't risks in taking drugs, but from my experience (and this is anecdotal), I've seen more people fuck up their lives (and friends and family) from drink, than I have from drugs.

And really, it's not ecstacy that's the killer, it's under- or over-hydrating and the scum cutting the MDMA with all kinds of crap that's what'll kill you.

MDMA just possibly fucks with the fabric of your mind on a long-term basis. Like is always said but still not proven about pot.

Exactly the same, because it being a class A doesn't stop millions being available at under a fiver a go every weekend.And therein lies with problem with all illicit drugs - if the manufacture was legal, it could be regulated. How many people would die if the cutting agents were safe to consume? And people could be reasonably sure of the amount of MDMA they were ingesting?

Especially recreational drugs. I don't see how you could become addicted to ecstacy in the same way that people become addicted to heroin and crack.

Although I've never done E (or in fact any recreational drug) myself, I have spent a fair bit of time around those that have. Forget the long-term effects, Sunday afternoons surrounded by people on a comedown are SHITE!

They had an amusing discussion on Radio 2 yesterday about this. There were basically people arguing that ecstasy should be downgraded to class B because riding a horse is more dangerous than taking E.

It was actually the head of the Advisory Council who said that. His point was that society allows us to partake in some activities that are dangerous, but not others. Also, it was his personal viewpoint and not that of the Council's.

Yeah I know about what that guy said, but there were people arguing on Radio 2 yesterday (as in, members of the public) that as horse riding is statistically more dangerous than taking E, that E should be downgraded to a class B.

"Crossing a road is more dangerous than taking E, E should be downgraded!"

Yeah, it's not comparing like-for-like, but it's an interesting opinion (from the Prof, not the plebs).

Surely Horse-Riding and crossing the road should be Class A then?

Why do you always post links in triplicate, myp?

That's just fucking stupid.

Clearly horse riding should be immediately reclassified as a Class A.

In case the first two don't work.

Imagine if horse-riding was illegal, though. You'd have people secretly going out to ride without the proper training or equipment. It'd make it a lot more dangerous.

If they're too afraid to lower the classification of drugs in-case they give the wrong message, are we going to spiral out of control and end up seeing triple-A drugs in the next few years?

Horseriding is a gateway activity though.

Black market horses, cut with washing powder, shipped over in Cuban girls bums.

He also wasn't comparing taking drugs with riding horses, but the addictive components of both. In other words, he said that certain addicts/obsessives in society are tolerated, despite their activities being extremely dangerous and actually more likely to kill than drugs. Ultimately, he was talking about rank hypocrisy, but nothing will sway the government, given that middle England wouldn't like it if those nasty drugs were downgraded. (And, yeah, legalise, control and tax the bloody lot.)

Perhaps he was saying it's not as bad as horse

I know I've posted this before, but I just can't resist:

Possibly followed by Special Stage drugs where you've got to dodge the crashing UFOs.

But Myp, surely the reason why you have seen more lives affected by alcohol is because it is far more readily available.

There is a significant difference between chemical addiction and a dependency formed from habit and desire, correct, but that doesn't mean that it wou
n't affect your life in a similar manner. Alcohol is different from crack, but there are many people who are dependent. Just becuase the addiction is of a different form does nt mean it is a viable alternative.

Bik, if E was downgraded there would be far more demand, therefore more available and it would be cut with even more crap than it currently is.

Only very slightly more readily available, and the difference is massive.

That's utter, utter bollocks.

I bet if I asked everyone in my office if they could get me some drugs in the next fifteen minutes, nobody would be able to. Every single one of them could get me booze.

I would only be able to acquire them, after a period of time, from a friend, who would get them from a friend, who would... etc.

And I say that as a person who has many, many friends who take drugs.

Alcohol is different from crack in that it's more directly harming to the body, even in moderate* volumes. The main problem with narcotics is the spiralling addiction leading to crime to get money to pay for your fix.

The class of the drug clearly has little to no effect on demand or availability or there wouldn't be many thousands of Es taken every weekend, or thousands of heroin, crack and cocaine addicts. Or millions of stoners.

(Edited to reduce my pulled-out-of-my-arse numbers, which are probably inaccurately swollen by news media and government programming)

* Not the same "nearly none" definition used by the government.

Also how often is it that E actually kills? Isn't it normally the way it's taken that's the problem? Too much not enough water / with other drugs / Alcohol

I didn't realise I was friends with your entire office. Say hi from me.

/rat poison and concrete dust cut with it.

Same as how the Vietnamese gangs allegedly spray finely ground glass and glue onto their inferior bushes so it looks like skunk.

I would say that a death from having a specific amount of water to take with a drug requirement that varies from person to person and can not be quantified or countered against, would count as death caused by taking ecstasy. cf liver failure due to alcohol abuse, asphixiation from solvent abuse. It is a direct result of having taken E.
Other drugs blurs the line though, as in what actually causes the death. Is it the e, is it the other drug? I doubt there is any way to tell, but I would still say it isn't a case of it not being the e which kills here. The same way as if I jump out of a 20 story window carrying a knife and stab myself when I hit the ground. It is still the fall that kills me, really.

The reason that people die from taking ecstasy is because they're given bad advice from friends. Leah Betts died because she was advised to drink litres and litres of water to 'flush the ecstasy out of her system'.

General advice is to drink 500ml of water an hour. That's a small plastic bottle.

That doesn't change anything about your statement :

Drugs are almost as readily available as alcohol

It's still bollocks, you gayer.

No, it's a direct result of drinking too much water. E doesn't cause you to drink too much water, although it can raise your requirement for it.

No, I was being specific about ecstasy and my various groups of friends. While it isn't a case of just popping down to your local off-licence, if I felt so inclined, I could get hold of it today. Of these people, the ones that have had addiction problems/personality disorders have been caused almost 100% by alcohol.

Is that a bit clearer now?

But would you be drinking that water if you weren't on E? I mean you have to drink a lot of water to dilute your electrolytes enough to cause brain failure. a person ina normal statye of mind would npt be doing that, if the E a)causes you to drink that water, b) make you think you need that water, or c) be in the position that you can't stop, then I would say that the cause here is the E.
And if, as you are saying, E can raise your requirement, how much does it do so, it is unquantifiable, if the E does this, and you don't know when to stop because of the E, then the E caused the result.

E does not cause you to want more water. If anything, it becomes an effort to force yourself to drink enough.

Or so I've heard, etc.

Yeah, apparently E can increase idle body temperature and heart rate, then people get "lost in the music" at loud, sweaty events (raising body temperature and heart rate) and dance for hours (raising body temperature and heart rate). Word spread that people were dying from dehydration. So people started making sure they were drinking plenty of water. But then a person or two died from forcing themselves to drink too much water.

E itself neither makes you want or particularly need extra water, and therefore doesn't cause you to drink it - what does is the rational part of the brain.

Ban this sick filth, thinking kills!

Oh, and regarding your "it takes a lot of effort to drink that much water" - you know that "you must drink at least 8 glasses a day" thing? That's a lie, you should ingest a total of about that much - but most of which you get from food. So if you drink 8 glasses of water a day and eat reasonably, you're drowning yourself and fucking up your kidneys. Without drugs, just misinterpretation and propaganda.

I suppose. It makes an already anecdotal piece of evidence even less reliable.

I've seen way more people messed up by drugs than I have by booze, despite knowing more drinkers than drug-takers, and booze being far more freely available.

Shall we keep them all banned?

Whereas I've seen no-one messed up by drugs*, but have friends and family with friends and family in hospital for the umpteenth time or the ground because of booze.

* Well, I have, there are plenty of crackheads wandering about looking dead, but equally there are homeless alcoholics wandering around as well.

I've mostly seen idiots messed up by being idiots.


Everything in moderation is I believe the maxim.

Including moderation.

Heh.

J Psychoactive Drugs. 2007 Jun;39(2):131-42.

How much water is too much just out of interest?

That much.

So cannabis (probably) doesn't cause psychosis, but symptoms of pre-existing psychosis are (probably) more frequent?

As you might expect with any uninhibiting chemical?

I believe it's: if your wee is transparent (which comes before colourless), you are suitably hydrated. Which is odd, because I almost always have dry lips/mouth, but wee plenty and mostly colourless (apart from first thing in the morning).

The latter quote:



was taken from the conclusion of the review. I would read it in greater detail, but I'm preoccupied at present with a tort question which probably involves pigeon shit, noxious fume, and flooded mines in Wales, so I might do that at a later date.

But you also quoted +3 diagnosed psychosis, -5 diagnosed psychosis/+5 symptoms), -2 non-causal.

I make that -4 diagnosed psychosis, +3 symptoms, and am a bit confused about what "diagnosed psychosis" means but based on the symptoms bit read it as "psychosis diagnosed after consumption started"* whereas symptoms "pre-existing psychosis with changes after consumption".

That was from the abstract of the article. I only skim read the full thing,as it was talking about lots of studies and I can't be arsed to review each one at this juncture.

Any road, they recommended further studies.