"alcohol worse than ecstasy," say scientists. "la la la la i'm not listening," says govt, sticking its fingers in its ears.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Some of Britain's leading drug experts demand today that the government's classification regime be scrapped and replaced by one that more honestly reflects the harm caused by alcohol and tobacco. They say the current ABC system is "arbitrary" and not based on evidence.

The scientists, including members of the government's top advisory committee on drug classification, have produced a rigorous assessment of the social and individual harm caused by 20 substances, and believe this should form the basis of any future ranking.

By their analysis, alcohol and tobacco are rated as more dangerous than cannabis, LSD and ecstasy.

They say that if the current ABC system is retained, alcohol would be rated a class A drug and tobacco class B.

"We face a huge problem," said Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council and an author of the report, which is published in the Lancet medical journal. "Drugs ... have never been more easily available, have never been cheaper, never been more potent and never been more widely used.

"The policies we have had for the last 40 years ... clearly have not worked in terms of reducing drug use. So I think it does deserve a fresh look. The principal objective of this study was to bring a dispassionate approach to what is a very passionate issue."

David Nutt, a psychopharmacologist at Bristol University and member of the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) which advises ministers on drug policy, added: "What we are trying to say is we should review the penalties in the light of the harms and try to have a more proportionate legal response.

"The point we are making is that all drugs are dangerous, even the ones that people know and love and use regularly like alcohol."

Professor Nutt and his team analysed the evidence of harm caused by 20 drugs including heroin, cocaine, cannabis, ecstasy, LSD and tobacco.

They asked a group of 29 consultant psychiatrists who specialise in addiction to rate the drugs in nine categories. Three of these related to physical harm, three to the likelihood of addiction and three to social harms such as healthcare costs. The team also extended the analysis to another group of 16 experts spanning several fields including chemistry, pharmacology, psychiatry, forensics, police and legal services.

The final rankings placed heroin and cocaine as the most dangerous of the 20 drugs. Alcohol was fifth, the class C drug ketamine sixth and tobacco was in ninth place, just behind amphetamine or "speed".

Cannabis was 11th, while LSD and ecstasy were 14th and 18th respectively. The rankings do take into account new evidence that specially cultivated "skunk" varieties of cannabis available now are two to three times stronger than traditional cannabis resin.

Evan Harris MP, the Liberal Democrats' science spokesman, said the paper undermines the government's claim that drug policy is evidence-based. "This comes from the top echelons of the government's own advisory committee on the misuse of drugs. It blows a hole in the government's current classification system for drugs." He said the ACMD should make recommendations to ministers on how to change drug policy based on the findings.

But the shadow home secretary, David Davis, rejected any changes that would confuse the public. "Drugs wreck lives, destroy communities and fuel other sorts of crime - especially gun and knife crime. Thanks to the government's chaotic and confused approach to drugs policy, young people increasingly think it is OK to take drugs," he said, adding that he was against downgrading of ecstasy. "It is vital nothing else leads young people to believe drugs are OK."

The position of ecstasy near the bottom of the list was defended by Prof Nutt, who said that apart from some tragic isolated cases ecstasy is relatively safe. Despite about a third of young people having tried the drug and around half a million users every weekend, it causes fewer than 10 deaths a year. One person a day is killed by acute alcohol poisoning and thousands more from chronic use.

Prof Nutt said young people already know ecstasy is relatively safe, so having it in class A makes a mockery of the entire classification system for them. "The whole harm-reduction message disappears because people say, 'They are lying.' Let's treat people as adults, tell them the truth and hopefully work with them to minimise use."

Another advantage of the new system, according to Professor Blakemore, is that it would be easy to tweak the rankings based on new evidence.

The public furore over the downgrading of cannabis from B to C, he said, showed how hard it is to change drug classifications once they are fixed. "[Our system] would be easy to use on a rolling basis, to reassess the harms of drugs as evidence developed," he said.

― emsk, Friday, 23 March 2007 08:25 (eighteen years ago)

from here

why is it so impossible for people to be sensible about this?

― emsk, Friday, 23 March 2007 08:27 (eighteen years ago)

The weight of history can't be wrong. We've had beer for 8000 years.

― Ed, Friday, 23 March 2007 08:31 (eighteen years ago)

hah. yes, BAN BEER! that's what i think they should do. um... but why won't they just, y'know, chill out a bit wrt other stuff. (i am a bit fuzzy, not woken up properly yet.)

― emsk, Friday, 23 March 2007 08:34 (eighteen years ago)

Let's have some of the 5th most dangerous drug in pint form tonight, then maybe move onto the 18th later.

― Ed, Friday, 23 March 2007 08:36 (eighteen years ago)

Tobacco and alcohol are harmful? Oh NOES!

― nathalie, Friday, 23 March 2007 08:40 (eighteen years ago)

Drugs wreck lives, destroy communities and fuel other sorts of crime - especially gun and knife crime.

...becz drugs are illegal.

― stevie, Friday, 23 March 2007 08:49 (eighteen years ago)

No, not only because they are illegal. But anything can cause a crime. Feh, jewellery, your best friend's wife,...

― nathalie, Friday, 23 March 2007 08:59 (eighteen years ago)

BAN YR BEST FRIEND'S WIFE!!

― Mark G, Friday, 23 March 2007 09:19 (eighteen years ago)

"It is vital nothing else leads young people to believe drugs are OK."

There are 99 things that say "drugs are OK" from the 'peer pressure' to the 'pictures of young people having a good time' to the 'this fantastic music was made by people who use drugs as a matter of course"

― Mark G, Friday, 23 March 2007 09:21 (eighteen years ago)

It's really simple: nobody gonna win an election on a "Free Smack for Pensioners" platform.

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 23 March 2007 09:32 (eighteen years ago)

What about 'slap and tickle for pensioners'?

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Friday, 23 March 2007 09:59 (eighteen years ago)

I know some pensioners I wouldn't mind giving a smack.

― C J, Friday, 23 March 2007 10:02 (eighteen years ago)

> (i am a bit fuzzy, not woken up properly yet.)

have you been drinking?

alcohol & tobacco harmful but deemed ok because of regulations and tax revenue they provide, all other drugs harmful but unregulated and untaxed, therefore bad.

(were some scottish doctors who would prescribe heroin for junkies on nhs and that solved a lot of problems to do with impurities and stealing to support habits. didn't go down too well with other people though)

but having been to funerals where the cause of death was obviously smoking related in the one case and probably drink related in the other does make you think.

> It's really simple: nobody gonna win an election on a "Free Smack for Pensioners" platform.

maybe in scotland... 8)

― koogs, Friday, 23 March 2007 10:02 (eighteen years ago)

Cannabis worse than Ecstasy seems a bit odd.

― Colonel Poo, Friday, 23 March 2007 10:23 (eighteen years ago)

I've got a very good book called "The Pursuit of Oblivion" which is all about how US drugs enforcement basically created the entire "drugs problem" that we have today. Basically they made it up for something for their agents to do after alcohol was relegalised.

Before that, drug addiction (especially morphine/heroin) was viewed as a medical problem, not a legal one, and left to doctors to treat. There were statistically very low numbers of addicts compared to today - almost all of them legally prescribed or in the "grey market" of secondary users.

US style blanket ban comes in, doctors are no longer allowed to prescibe, organised crime moves in, addiction soars. The statistics on it were quite scary.

It is simply the amount of history/experience that humans have with various chemicals. And the steady refinement and/or chemical synthesis which doesn't have the data behind it - or if there is that data, it's coming from criminal investigations, not medical ones.

And also it's the "druggies" who are just as loathe to listen to scientists as the govt. - any criticism of drugs use is viewed as propaganda - for example the links between THC abuse and onset of mental illness in those with a genetic propensity for schitzophrenia and bipolar disorders. That's just got to be hysterical propaganda, yeah, maaan?

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 23 March 2007 10:24 (eighteen years ago)

You are falling into the preconceptions trap that this report is trying to steer around.

― Ed, Friday, 23 March 2007 10:25 (eighteen years ago)

To sell product you have to excite the customer.

This is done quite often by suggesting 'altered states of conciousness' will occur if you buy these sweets/hairdye/cheesestrings.

Therefore, the message is in theory that drugs are good.

In actuality, the receiver wants that message.

C'mon, who does not want to be excited by something?

― Mark G, Friday, 23 March 2007 10:29 (eighteen years ago)

Who was that to?

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 23 March 2007 10:29 (eighteen years ago)

To colonel poo.

― Ed, Friday, 23 March 2007 10:30 (eighteen years ago)

Hrmmmm, where is the complete list? I wonder if prescription highs like valium and diet pills are on the list at all.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 23 March 2007 10:32 (eighteen years ago)

>> for example the links between THC abuse and onset of mental illness in those with a genetic propensity for schitzophrenia and bipolar disorders. That's just got to be hysterical propaganda, yeah, maaan?

Well, I think when stoners complain about this, it's not so much about denying there are links for people with genetic propensity, it's that this is reported as "cannabis causes mental illness" without adding the qualification.

― Colonel Poo, Friday, 23 March 2007 10:49 (eighteen years ago)

See the graph at the bottom of this

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Friday, 23 March 2007 10:50 (eighteen years ago)

Only 8 days until I give up smoking officially. I haven't smoked for 2 weeks anyway, so maybe I have already given up.

But there are menthol cigs in the house still. Mmmmm. Mustn't though.

― Dr.C, Friday, 23 March 2007 10:52 (eighteen years ago)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42718000/gif/_42718419_drugs_graph2_416.gif

― Ed, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:03 (eighteen years ago)

surely alcohol in this scheme is "class A" because of its consistent abuse leading to consistent violent accidents, health problems, social dysfunction etc - yet if it actually were classified as class A no bars could sell it, drastically cutting consumption and these related problems, thereby vastly reducing its potential for harm, thereby moving it out of the class A category...

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:08 (eighteen years ago)

Stopping bars selling alcohol caused a fair bit of harm in the US. Kevin Costner almost died!

― onimo, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:10 (eighteen years ago)

maybe in scotland... 8)

roll on independence so i can get properly worked up about this kind of thing :/

i'm surprised at how offensive i find this comment, but my political sensibilities are shot to fuck right now, so hey. deep breaths, count to ten ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... TONGS, YA BASS :)

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:11 (eighteen years ago)

Only 8 days until I give up smoking officially. I haven't smoked for 2 weeks anyway, so maybe I have already given up.

But there are menthol cigs in the house still. Mmmmm. Mustn't though.

teach me your ways.

― dice in my pockets, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:11 (eighteen years ago)

I am surprised that alcohol is rated higher than ketamine.

I suppose the reason that cannabis is rated relatively high is that inhaling the vapours of *any* burnt leaves, regardless of which plant it is, isn't going to do you much good.

The fact that the temperance movement ever got strong enough to lead to prohibition, regardless of the country concerned, is one of the historical events that I find hardest to comprehend.

― Grandpont Genie, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:12 (eighteen years ago)

do the harm ratings take the form in which the drug is taken into a/c?

I, for example, have never smoked cannabis but I have eaten it in food. and I was disappointed to discover that it seemed to have no effect on me whatsoever (mind you, the same is true of the many occasions when I have been in a room where loads of other ppl have been smoking it and I have too, passively).

― Grandpont Genie, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:14 (eighteen years ago)

in those days the combination of not much to do (the US was still a largely agricultural society) + alcohol was destroying people's lives at a rate we would also find difficult to comprehend

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:14 (eighteen years ago)

ketamine fucks you up but is not particularly addictive.

― Ed, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:18 (eighteen years ago)

Well, this is always the problem with drugs control - the same substance can have vastly different effects on people, given their genetic make-up, environmental factors, etc.

Obviously, most people can have the occasional pint and show no ill effects, while other people spiral quite rapidly into alcoholic disintergration and lose jobs, homes, lives. Mark H can use cannabis and feel "absolutely nothing" but if I use it, it triggers hallucinations, extreme manic episodes and even psychotic breaks.

Do you judge a drug's harmfulness based on its baseline effect on *all* persons (some drugs are by their nature more physically addictive) or the extreme effects on certain segments of the population?

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:22 (eighteen years ago)

There was some pathetic story on BBC News the other day in which the headline was along the lines of 'cannabis user murders two teenagers' but then the report talked about the guy's obsession with violence, weapons etc. and didn't refer to any drug use, or indeed drug-induced psychosis, at all. And this was on the fucking BBC!

― blueski, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:24 (eighteen years ago)

(> i'm surprised at how offensive i find this comment)
(sorry.)

― koogs, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:24 (eighteen years ago)

Some people can die from eating peanuts. But you can't criminalise peanuts on that basis.

― blueski, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:25 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, but every bloody thing that has even had some kind of contact with peanuts has warning labels on it. As does alcohol. And nicotene.

I've always taken the line that cannabis should be legalised, but given the same kinds of control and warnings that alcohol and tobacco do. But I know that offends the hippies.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:27 (eighteen years ago)

is ketamine really that bad for you? ecstasy being down the bottom doesnt surprise me, shits virtually harmless:D

― 600, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:28 (eighteen years ago)

exactly, but you *can* put a health warning on the packet.

― Grandpont Genie, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:29 (eighteen years ago)

as for what your actually getting thats not really mdma, fuck knows

― 600, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:29 (eighteen years ago)

Ketamine is pretty shocking stuff really, its a pretty heavy duty tranquilliser.

― Ed, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:30 (eighteen years ago)

xp with Kate.

ecstasy being down the bottom doesnt surprise me, shits virtually harmless:D

a health warning on hypothetically legalised ecstasy would say 'drink plenty of water and avoid alcohol'.

ppl who have suffered ill effects with E, afaik, have done so because they have not drunk enough water or have drunk alcohol and taken E. Either that or they've taken tablets with impurities that a legalised and more important, regulated, form of the drug would avoid.

― Grandpont Genie, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:32 (eighteen years ago)

ketamine = horse tranq, and previously human tranq til they realised how strong it was

― Grandpont Genie, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:32 (eighteen years ago)

I'm kind of surprised tobacco is so high up the list. How is this being measured anyway? I'm pretty sure if one were to consume ecstacy in the everyday way people consumer alcohol and tobacco it'd fuck you up pretty badly.

― Matt DC, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:33 (eighteen years ago)

i can't tell you how much i enjoy the word "tranq", i am saying it my mind over and over

it reminds me of "kin dza-dza"

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:34 (eighteen years ago)

What amazes me is how quickly it's all changed.

Half the things on that list didn't even exist when I was a teenager. (or at least didn't exist in the realms of something bored suburban teenagers could get their hands on, even in the nearest city.)

And that so many of the bugbears of my youth (the things we got warned about in health class - PCP/Angel dust will make you go blind or jump out of windows, ohmigod, Quaaludes, etc. - or are Quaaludes barbituate? I don't even know.) no longer seem to even register.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:36 (eighteen years ago)

ppl who have suffered ill effects with E, afaik, have done so because they have not drunk enough water or have drunk alcohol and taken E.

Didn't Leah Betts die from drinking too much water?

― onimo, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:39 (eighteen years ago)

she'd have to drink, what, 15 litres or so if that were true. I thought she dies from taking a tablet with impurities in it.

― Grandpont Genie, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:40 (eighteen years ago)

Mark, she did die from drinking too much water.

― Mark C, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:41 (eighteen years ago)

Skipping 11 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

I have been on ketamine once and it is not something I will be repeating. Although - I was drunk and stoned as well. At noon. I got arrested (released without charged, thankfully). Not one of my best days. Morning after a particularly debauched party.

― Colonel Poo, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:12 (eighteen years ago)

But the fact is everyone I know who takes E drinks about 20 beers any night that they do it

Is it me or was there a point where the idea that you'd go out and do pills *instead* of drinking beerz kind of faded away? I guess when they became crappy and not often very MDMA-like, whenever that was

― DJ Mencap, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:18 (eighteen years ago)

mencap i remember that - people i was with would kind of sneer at "steamers"

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:21 (eighteen years ago)

i've seen people on ketamine and it's a fucking terrifying sight.

I watched some of the Devvo videos a few months back and as well as being v. v. funny and recommended to all, they're the best JUST SAY NO TO DRUQS KIDS videos you could hope for, the Christmas ones esp.

― The Wayward Johnny B, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:31 (eighteen years ago)

what the hell is khat? and surely these indenpendant experts have never met a meth head to rate it lower than alcohol.

― Ms Misery, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:35 (eighteen years ago)

isn't there some stat that says ski-ing is 6 x as likely to kill you, ditto angling.

also:
"more people in the UK die from choking on peanuts than from taking ecstasy..."

http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/ecstasy/faq.htm

i do feel sorry for anyone not taking E because they fear it'll kill them.

― pisces, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:39 (eighteen years ago)

a health warning on hypothetically legalised ecstasy would say 'drink plenty of water and avoid alcohol'.

ppl who have suffered ill effects with E, afaik, have done so because they have not drunk enough water or have drunk alcohol and taken E. Either that or they've taken tablets with impurities that a legalised and more important, regulated, form of the drug would avoid.

i also am surprised ecstasy is so low down - are they not taking into account the becoming-more-obvious-every-day long-term effects of mdma on mental stability, memory etc? certainly, i attribute e use in my younger days as a contributary factor towards my depression.

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:41 (eighteen years ago)

But you could spend your years caning enough of anything on that list, save possibly for tobacco, and fuck up yr mental stability and memory

― DJ Mencap, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:47 (eighteen years ago)

Khat is (roughly) an African version of the coca plant.

I've had it, it tastes like shit but you do get a pleasant buzz. Not really worth bothering with.

― Colonel Poo, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:47 (eighteen years ago)

ppl who have suffered ill effects with E, afaik, have done so because they have not drunk enough water or have drunk alcohol and taken E

Britain's most famous E fatality died of water intoxication because she drank a terrifyingly large quantity of water which her MDMA infused body found it hard to process.

― The Real Dirty Vicar, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:51 (eighteen years ago)

Khat is (roughly) an African version of the coca plant.

What form is it and how do you take it?

― Ms Misery, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:52 (eighteen years ago)

Twigs/leaves and you chew it. Hence the tasting like shit and not being worth the hassle.

― Colonel Poo, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:53 (eighteen years ago)

Britain's most famous E fatality died of water intoxication because she drank a terrifyingly large quantity of water which her MDMA infused body found it hard to process.

We already established that.

― onimo, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:54 (eighteen years ago)

i do feel sorry for anyone not taking E because they fear it'll kill them

This is precisely why I've never regularly done "harder*" drugs, but only dabbled when drunk on a handful of occasions. Normally, I'm too scared. It's not necessarily that I think I'm going to die (although that thought is always somewhere in the back of my mind) but more that I'm going to completely freak out.

Of course, this could be because when I was little my Dad told me that his cousin Jurgen had taken acid and never really come down. It was only years later that I found out that Jurgen was mentally ill from the get go. I guess scare tactics do work sometimes - at least on me!

*by harder I mean basically anything other than cannabis.

― ENBB, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:54 (eighteen years ago)

Twigs/leaves and you chew it.

haha, okay that sounds completely crap.

― Ms Misery, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:58 (eighteen years ago)

A friend of my parents' kid, a double-first-at-cambridge type of chap, took a bad trip at uni and never recovered - i've met him, he's a gibbering hermit with a five-second attention span and a big beard - but there are some fairly compelling arguments that say there's no such thing as a bad trip, just a bad mental state when the trip is taken. it certainly didn't deter me from trying and enjoying acid on many occasions.

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 23 March 2007 12:59 (eighteen years ago)

A friend of my parents' kid, a double-first-at-cambridge type of chap, took a bad trip at uni and never recovered

Hmmm. So maybe it really was the acid all along . . . interesting. I just grew to think that one bad trip could have such long lasting effects.

but there are some fairly compelling arguments that say there's no such thing as a bad trip, just a bad mental state when the trip is taken

Exactly. Because I've always been so nervous about it, I thought it best to avoid the possibility altogether.

― ENBB, Friday, 23 March 2007 13:20 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah the long term effects of E are interesting...but difficult to ascertain clearly. Does it really contribute to depression or are people who feel the need to take a lot of E in their youth just predisposed to depression anyhow?

Some of the real effects I would say is it just inhibits drive and desire to do anything, but again that's it's chicken or egg, plus if you've been up all night even working a night shift, even just the tiredness can have this effect. What's more since I stopped doing E, about 2 years ago, I've noticed many of the things I blamed on it are actually caused by alcohol. If I have a few beers now I realise this.

Part of me thinks young people should just go out and have fun, and I know from experience and from people I meet when DJing that ecstasy can be an amazing, fun thing to do. It changes lives and has thrust a lot of friends into artistic or musical careers, some more successful than others. It is probably one of the most life changing things you do after turning 18 and going to college etc.

However the other side of me feels that those young people who do go out and do drugs are the ones who could really change the world if they all weren't getting fucked up every weekend. I look at some friends now doing absolutely nothing, and think how intelligent they are, and I know with some a combination of different drugs have led to them becoming kind of dead inside.

Sometimes I wonder if I have done damage to my mental state in this way, but it's difficult to tell at a time when I have a chronic illness since that's depressing anyway. I think drugs can make you exit the loop of society a little bit, and sometimes it's hard to come back, even if you decide you want to. The box has been opened at that stage.

― Ronan, Friday, 23 March 2007 13:33 (eighteen years ago)

The only really bad trip i had was because i had a very strict time limit after which i knew i had to be totally ok, so i just spent the whole night panicking that i wouldn't be alright. Kids, i wouldn't recommend taking LSD between Neighbours and Home & Away on a Tuesday night...

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 23 March 2007 13:33 (eighteen years ago)

i didn't drugs to be artistic...nor to become dead inside lol

― blueski, Friday, 23 March 2007 13:34 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah the long term effects of E are interesting...but difficult to ascertain clearly. Does it really contribute to depression or are people who feel the need to take a lot of E in their youth just predisposed to depression anyhow?

nail/head. i don't think e makes people depressed, but i do think it widens the window of opportunity for depression to manifest itself. whether or not that's actually a good thing is another discussion for another thread, perhaps.

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 23 March 2007 13:39 (eighteen years ago)

speaking some to what ronan posted, I think those who tend to abuse drugs (or even use them excessively) often are already depressed (or suffereing from anxiety or something similar). They are using the drugs to seek relief from that. Unfortunately the drugs end up just exacerbating the original problem.

― Ms Misery, Friday, 23 March 2007 13:40 (eighteen years ago)

they fill all the holes!

― Ronan, Friday, 23 March 2007 13:42 (eighteen years ago)

not that I ever took them that way

― Ronan, Friday, 23 March 2007 13:42 (eighteen years ago)

Serotonin receptors in the brain are such a delicate balance - especially if you have some genetic predisposition towards imbalance.

But, with all of these things, there is no control. And when you're talking about having taken LSD, ecstacy, cannabis, alcohol, all mixed up together and separately, how can you possibly tell which specific drug caused the damage, if any?

And what about the equally compelling argument (heard my entire life from mental health facilities) that people with predispositions towards mental illness are often drawn towards drugs (legal or otherwise) as a method of self medicating?

Did ecstacy make you depressed in the long term? Or were you drawn to the feel-good effects of ecstacy *because* you were aware (conscious or otherwise) of your own pre-existing propensity for depression?

These things are never clear-cut.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 23 March 2007 13:43 (eighteen years ago)

It's okay Ronan, you can be open here. We're all friends. Here have a cup of coffee and a donut.

― Ms Misery, Friday, 23 March 2007 13:44 (eighteen years ago)

Did ecstacy make you depressed in the long term? Or were you drawn to the feel-good effects of ecstacy *because* you were aware (conscious or otherwise) of your own pre-existing propensity for depression?

These things are never clear-cut.

And when you couple them with the fact that most of the best memories of your youth are ones that involve being on drugs....waters muddied even further.

― Ronan, Friday, 23 March 2007 13:58 (eighteen years ago)

most of the best memories of your youth are ones that involve being on drugs

haha, *so* not my experience. (but then I never really did X anyway.)

― Ms Misery, Friday, 23 March 2007 14:00 (eighteen years ago)

i'll take the lows with the highs any old day of the week because the *HIGHS* oh man those highs.

― pisces, Friday, 23 March 2007 14:08 (eighteen years ago)

surely these indenpendant experts have never met a meth head to rate it lower than alcohol

i was really surprised by that as well. perhaps they're making a distinction between garden-variety speed and methamphetamine? i don't think that the uk has a big meth problem... yet.

― lauren, Friday, 23 March 2007 14:11 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.reportamethlab.com/includes/images/meth_addict.jpg

vs

http://www.homiesonfire.com/thesimpsons/BarneyGumble.gif

― Ms Misery, Friday, 23 March 2007 14:14 (eighteen years ago)

even worse

http://www.sweetandbitter.com/inside/images/fergie_pee-thumb.jpg

― Ms Misery, Friday, 23 March 2007 14:16 (eighteen years ago)

i do feel sorry for anyone not taking E because they fear it'll kill them.

I know I'll come across as a complete twit for admitting this, but I always thought:"What *if* it's true. I know the chances are minimal of anything going wrong. But you never kno..." But truth be told, I think the danger of E is just an excuse for me, I am just not that interested in drugs to be honest. Sure, I like joints and alcohol but I can leave it (and actually do). It's not a conscious decision, I'm just not bothered. Or maybe I'm just too lazy to get off my ass and purchase teh drugs? ;-)

― nathalie, Friday, 23 March 2007 14:23 (eighteen years ago)

certainly, i attribute e use in my younger days as a contributary factor towards my depression.

what does your doctor say about this? i'm not trying to pick a fight, just curious (and you don't have to answer if it's too personal, obv).

― lauren, Friday, 23 March 2007 14:26 (eighteen years ago)

happy to share, sure. i never mentioned the e thing to my doctor (not for any reason - i just didn't think about it at the time, just as i neglected to mention the fact that I took possible depression-exacerbating acne drug Roaccutane in my youth), but it did come up in therapy.

my therapist follows the theory that i was depressed well before i took my first e (and i agree), but that mdma won't have necessarily done me any favours, mentally speaking. as i said upthread, i thinkmdma and lsd open up emotional coffers that would otherwise probably lie untouched for ever. this can be great, in a purging, exorcising kind of way, but it can be awful in an "oh my god i'm having a total fucking emotional collapse and i can't deal with shit at all" kind of way. but good can come from the latter as well, of course - i'm living proof!

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 23 March 2007 14:44 (eighteen years ago)

yeah I emotionally collapse far to easily without any help. This is why I've never done acid.

― Ms Misery, Friday, 23 March 2007 14:45 (eighteen years ago)

Ketamine is still used on humans as a medical anaesthetic, especially in emergency situations.

― leigh, Friday, 23 March 2007 14:54 (eighteen years ago)

Saying this as someone who has done alot of both, I have a hard time believing weed is worse than e!

― The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall, Friday, 23 March 2007 15:47 (eighteen years ago)

i didn't drugs to be artistic...

blueski on Friday, March 23, 2007 8:34 AM (2 hours ago)

you never drugs

― and what, Friday, 23 March 2007 15:51 (eighteen years ago)

depends whether you factory in long term health risks such as cancer and emphysema.

― Ed, Friday, 23 March 2007 15:51 (eighteen years ago)

ronan's posts on here are, for me, really nailing it: i can't add much to what he's already said.

the one observation i will chuck in on the chicken/egg mental-instability thing is that the three - no, four! - schizophrenic dudes i've ever met (a mate's brother, the same mate's pal, another mate's brother and a bloke i used to work with; the one who, after a particularly good wank, decided he was the reincarnation of william wallace, and ended up covering his office in pentagrams ... i've posted about him somewhere ... genuinely lovely guy) have all been heavy-duty dope-smokers.

i genuinely don't believe the dope was responsible for their illness. i don't think it helped, though. and i genuinely do think their pre-existing illness, whether manifest or not, was in some way linked to their drug use (ie they're in some minor mental discomfort; dope eases it; suddenly ... wham, it's all gone horribly wrong).

but this is a spectacularly amateur and ill-informed viewpoint; i really don't know anything about it. just how it seems to me, that's all.

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:01 (eighteen years ago)

You didn't give another link: they all met you.

― nathalie, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:03 (eighteen years ago)

i didn't drugs to type bad neither

― blueski, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:07 (eighteen years ago)

Chicken/egg trigger vs aggravator of latent symptoms vs selfmedication doubts OTM.

The three schizophrenics I know (about?) were all fairly heavy smokers before breakdown too, but what I've read about the onset of schizophrenia underlines that uncertainty: generally the classic symptoms don't show up until early/mid-20s or so, but there's often a "prodrome" stage of gradual withdrawal from society/ambition, low mood, maybe depressive breakdowns before a final psychotic break. Plus it's thought that that final stage is often triggered by stress and one of the things I read wondered whether some people reach the first but manage to avoid that final break. (I'm no expert obv)

None of which mentions drugs, but if you add them to the age when things start to manifest themselves...

(If this sounds like I think the drugs are to blame, on balance I don't believe they are, I'm just trying to illustrate how impossible it is to say "drugs did this" vs "not crazy yet = it's fine" or whatever. So my opinion, such as it is, is basically the same as grimly's third paragraph, and I'm fairly sure at least one of the people I mentioned would say - already has, pretty much - the same.)

― a passing spacecadet, Friday, 23 March 2007 16:36 (eighteen years ago)

couple of things:

ketamine isn't a tranquilizer, it's a dissociative anesthetic. originally developed for, and used on, humans in a wide variety of surgical situations. eventually withdrawn from most mainstream human medical use, although it's often still the go-to choice when operating on children, and is the number one battlefield anesthetic because it doesn't depress breathing and has a fairly wide margin of safety. also, as noted, used for animal surgeries, not just horses. almost all of the recreational supply is diverted from veterinary supplies.

it has, however, somewhat habit-forming for frequent users, hence its occasional tag as "psychedelic heroin" (although pharmacologically speaking it's not a psychedelic at all), and some users develop a legitimate psychological dependence on it.

there are also no credible studies showing a link between ecstasy use and meaningful long-term neurochemical effects.

― pretzel walrus, Friday, 23 March 2007 19:02 (eighteen years ago)

and when i say "ecstasy" use i mean mdma, and not whatever the fuck is in 90% of e tabs

― pretzel walrus, Friday, 23 March 2007 19:04 (eighteen years ago)

there are also no credible studies showing a link between ecstasy use and meaningful long-term neurochemical effects.

and none that disprove the link either...

― Ronan, Friday, 23 March 2007 21:26 (eighteen years ago)

i prefer meaningless long-term neurochemical effects anyway

― ken c, Friday, 23 March 2007 23:14 (eighteen years ago)

two years pass...

lol 2 and a half fkn years ago

― my fave thing to do on the computer is what im doing right now (acoleuthic), Monday, 23 November 2009 14:37 (fifteen years ago)

professor nutt otm, i hope he went onto great things

― my fave thing to do on the computer is what im doing right now (acoleuthic), Monday, 23 November 2009 14:39 (fifteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.