Yesterday in proposing a new way of classifying drugs based on the risk of harm to the person, the Government’s chief drugs advisor claimed that LSD, ecstacy and cannabis were less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes.
Imperial College lecturer Professor David Nutt said in a speech at King’s College, London, that labelling dance drugs such as ecstacy as Class A was misleading because the potential harm from the drug and potential for dependency on it is far lower than for alcohol. He cast doubt on the current laws for drugs and asked what the point in them was if they didn’t represent the facts relating to the various drugs available.
He also questioned the “artificial” seperation of alcohol and cigarettes from other drugs that are deemed illegal. The Government retaliated and stated that Professor Nutt’s views do not represent those of the Government and that they are determined to eradicate “illegal” drugs from the face of the Earth. Something like that, anyway.
If Mr Nutt is right, though, it displays a bizarre policy on the part of the Government. Legal drugs – alcohol and nicotine – are ranked amongst the most dangerous yet the Government is happy to cream off taxes from both whilst other drugs such as LSD and ecstacy are way down the list and constantly consume resources in policing and enforcement.
I think perhaps part of the problem is – taking ecstacy as an example – that ecstacy rarely is ecstacy. Due to the fact that it’s sourced from drug dealers, it’s always cut with other substances and this is where the major risk appears, just like with any drug. But the drug itself in its pure form, according to Professor Nutt, is significantly less dangerous than alcohol.
Certainly from my own experience, those that have consumed alcohol are more antisocial than those that have taken ecstacy. Smoking is more antisocial than taking ecstacy as well if only due to the fact that when someone is smoking, people in the surrounding area have to breathe the smoke as well.
Take the blue pill..
You hear once in a while about a death due to “ecstacy” but it’s never proven that the MDMA was the cause. You never hear about the 9000 plus alcohol related deaths in the UK every year and the fact that alcohol related deaths have more than doubled in the last fifteen years. You don’t hear that in Scotland, 5% of all deaths are alcohol related and that one in twenty hospital admissions are alcohol related. Of course, more people drink than consume ecstacy, but then there are no official figures for the latter because it’s illegal and I doubt dealers will hand over their customer sales sheets to Gordon Brown.
Of course, high doses of ecstacy can cause damage, but so can high doses of anything. Sitting there sniffing marker pens all day can cause damage just as easily as hammering a mountain of illegal drugs.
I personally can’t understand why at least ecstacy isn’t made completely legal and purchasable in shops. The Government’s top adviser suggests that it’s far safer than the Government’s own legally approved recreational drugs. It’s non-addictive, too, so the body will not crave more and it will not drive people to crime to fund a dependency. Furthermore, unlike when drunk, you are fully in control of your actions when pilled up. It would also mean the Police don’t need to waste time slapping people on the wrists for possession and would mean more energy could be focused on policing the sale of highly addictive illegal substances like cocaine.
But perhaps the reason is because the Government prefers us to drink and smoke. It’s a control. After all, they make lots of cash from alcohol and nicotine and both create a dependency on the Government. Both have a variety of illnesses associated with them: high blood pressure, heart problems, breathing difficulty, weight gain, and so on. Alcohol certainly has other implications such as accidents and injury through violence.
Accident and Emergency departments would be quiet on Saturday and Sunday mornings without alcohol. There’s a big dependency on the NHS, or Government, right there. You also have the insane levels of policing outside pubs, clubs and football stadiums every weekend, all of which is because people are drunk and there’s an increased chance of violence.
This still doesnt explain why ecstacy is still rated by the Government as one of the most dangerous drugs. Or does it? You see, if you’ve necked a few pills, the last thing you are going to do is start drinking loads of booze. Water, absolutely, but not alcohol. No tax is payable on water, though. So I’d suggest one reason the Government does not want people taking ecstacy is because it would stop people boozing and as a result would decrease tax revenue.
Am I a “legalise all drugs” advocate then? Absolutely not. Drugs like heroin and cocaine are still dangerous and should remain highly illegal with extreme sentencing attached to those that deal in them. I do believe, though, that if people want to destroy their bodies with chemicals then they should be free to do so and should they require the NHS they should be permitted only one admission due to drugs and then be told that further admissions will not be accepted.
However, I see no reason why “safe”, non-addictive drugs like ecstacy must remain at the top of the Government’s drugs classification. If people want to buy and take them, they will do, so by keeping them illegal the risk is increased, crime is increased, public spending is increased, and nobody benefits.
UPDATE: According to today’s Gasjet, 22 year old Stephanie Balcarras died by taking the legal GBL, also known as liquid ecstasy. Who knows, if real ecstasy were legal, would she have resorted to consuming the far more dangerous, but legal, substance that killed her?
UPDATE: The Government have now sacked Professor Nutt for not spewing out Government rhetoric and actually proffering an alternate viewpoint. Begs the question what the point of Government “advisors” are if they are paid to solely endorse Government policy and sacked if they don’t.
loading…
According to today’s Gasjet, 22 year old Stephanie Balcarras died by taking the legal GBL, also known as liquid ecstasy.
That’s the interesting thing about that article… The headline says one thing, but the body of the story goes on to say that a post-mortem proved ‘inconclusive’ and that the results of a toxicology test are yet to be expected.
I blame the lack of mature and impartial discussion on substance use (and misuse – there’s a difference between the two) for a number of deaths that could have been avoided. The Government (and the Daily Fail et al) continue to stick their fingers in their ears, go along with the pretence that they can stop everyone using drugs (“for the sake of the children!”) and just carry on saying bad things about drugs – the FRANK ad campaigns are a joke, for example – why should anybody heed advice from a service that patronises people with scare tactics that they simply do not relate to? The elephant in the room is that, for most people, like alcohol, illegal drugs don’t have a corrosive effect on lives.
If this woman had been using GBL, was she aware of harm reduction in its usage? The information just isn’t available from public sources, so many people (and particularly young people) rely on anecdotal guidance on how to use substances. The story also doesn’t mention whether or not she’d been using any other drugs, like alcohol.
Taking in to account the volume of users, the proportion of deaths from MDMA is lower than that of alcohol. Sure, those numbers will be acute versus chronic (and you still can’t trust the number of alcohol-related deaths, given that government and quango sources can’t even make their minds up about the numbers), but nobody has yet put up the idea of mass chronic deaths from MDMA use.
What I found interesting was your comment about legalising heroin and cocaine, which you said you are against – would you be in favour of decriminalising them, though?
I think the pre-1971 methods we used and the current Portuguese approach, which has seen a decrease in usage and costs across the board, are worth consideration.
Will we ever have a more thoughtful and intelligent outlook on the matter? Not in the near future, I would imagine. I suspect that, as the judicial system overheats, there will just be more summary justice. Despite its reclassification to Class B, police forces have said they have little interest in going beyond a caution for many cannabis possession offences. The police have better things to do than arrest people for having a good time.
loading...
About the question you ask I’m not too sure. There’s little point in treating a drug user as a criminal.
However I think addicts that can be shown to have offended in order to buy drugs should be “locked up” in rehabilitation centres. I’m happy for tax dollars to fund that if it works.
My main concern is potential to fuel other antisocial effects such as burglary if the user cannot fund their addiction because I class burglary as a very serious crime: it’s personal, it’s an invasion, it creates fear and even if you catch them and disable them, you end up in fucking prison for it.
loading...
But our prison’a are already “full to bustin’” try bringing back the death penalty that way we can put an end to their miserable life before they do and lessen the majority of user’s and the stretch on our resources as a country!
loading...
I am inclined to believe that many heroin and crack (the distinction is crucial) cocaine users and abusers are predisposed to criminality, anyway.
I am not necessarily of the opinion that these drugs drive people to commit crimes against people and property – more that the opportunity is there to excuse their cavalier attitude towards others and that they could have been committing such crimes prior to drug use. There are addicts from, shall we say, more ‘socially integrated’ backgrounds (no historic criminality, close family and friends, job, savings etc) who have a severe medical problem (the addiction), but don’t necessarily develop a criminal lifestyle to fund their addiction. I’m not, by the way, making hard and fast assertions here.
Where individuals pose a danger to people and their property, then yes, they should certainly be deprived of their liberties and punished – by imprisonment, if necessary. But locking someone up because of a medical problem does not seem to provide an answer to that person’s issues, or society’s. It costs around £40,000 per year for a prison inmate – and there’s virtually no chance of staying addiction-free upon release. Addiction treatment from the NHS costs around £12,000 per year for a heroin addict and, whilst there’s a minor chance (around 30%) of success, the odds make it much better than prison – and cheaper. It is also the moral and ethical choice to make. Clearly, the rational approach to take for an addict who doesn’t pose a danger to the public is to provide them with specialist healthcare, but this is unpalatable to the likes of the Daily Mail’s readership – and who would want to risk upsetting them?
loading...
But no one makes the user take the substance. You only have an addiction once you have become addicted, ergo legalise it , tax it and reap profit’s from the addicted. It only becomes a medical issue once you are addicted surely.
loading...
I haven’t said anything to the contrary – I’m not sure what you’re getting at?
loading...
“There are addicts from, shall we say, more ’socially integrated’ backgrounds (no historic criminality, close family and friends, job, savings etc) who have a severe medical problem (the addiction), but don’t necessarily develop a criminal lifestyle to fund their addiction.”
These afore mentioned people do not have a severe medical problem UNTIL they become addicted, and do “generally” develop a criminal lifestyle.
We need to legalise and educate. Not make excuses and allow ruthless people to pray on the not so fortunate among us.
loading...
There’s nothing in my statement that says anything to the contrary.
With regard to generalising about the development of criminality in the group mentioned, it is documented that this tends not to present itself in the same way or on the same scale as other groups of heroin users. There is nothing controversial about this – it is simply an acknowledgement that one group of heroin users manages their addiction and/ or usage in a different way to others.
Again, with the last paragraph, there is nothing that I disagree with there. Nobody is making excuses for anybody…
loading...
As an addendum to the point about legalising it, rather than just decriminalising it, there are secondary benefits that can be derived from it, namely the problem of our relationship with Afghanistan and the Taliban.
Presently, we’ve pissed off a lot of rural Afghans, because we insist on destroying their livelihood, opium. In turn, they rely on the Taliban to protect them, who allow them to grow the crop and sometimes take a portion of sales.
By legalising it, the value of the crop may drop, rural Afghans might not be so pissed off with us, the Taliban are deprived of a source of income and support and we might even get to stabilise our supply of essential morphine derivatives for the NHS, which recently ran at a shortage.
loading...
Legalise it and tax it, at least that way the government are reaping some profit’s from substance abuse, not just throwing good money after bad at the substance abuser’s via the local G.P or hospital. It won’t stop the abuse, but it may lessen the ease of gaining access to it for the youngster’s, because it will be priced out of their market. My kid’s are well aware of the risk’s involved with substance use and made the educated decision (because we as parent’s educated them,) not to go down that route. We didn’t use scare tactic’s just hard fact’s.
loading...
Totally agree with the article and comments. Heroin & Coke, in their purest forms are nothing like as dangerous. The key is to remove the criminilitaty associated with drugs. That, along with a much better education and awareness programme could make a big difference.
I lost a brother to heroin and earlier this year my best freind lost his son to it as well but it was the ignorance that killed them, not the drug itself.
The NHS spend millions of pounds on the after effects of drug abuse, surely it is obvious that we could spend half of this money just by giving them the pure drugs, weaning them off it and saving hundreds of lives!
loading...
Jon Bamborough for mayor!
He is the man!
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/Deputy-leader-in-cash-gift.5783262.jp
Cunt-fat-fuck Fowler out!
Renwick out!
loading...
Fowler is fucked, why?
cos if he is found that he knew nothing of the donation, the argument would say that he should have done,ie hes either a liar or incompetent.
Its a win win siatuation for proper people.
Well done Jon!
loading...
Back to the post – I’m definitely against reclassifying cannabis as a lower grade drug. Whilst it’s pure form might have some evidence as not being so harmful it is a big starter drug for harder drugs. And whilst not technically addictive, people having had the “high” often want to repeat it again and again. And how does any evidence prove anything? Few people take just cannabis so the stats of long term high usage are usually skewed by other things.
And if we insist on presenting an illegal drug as not so bad, you diminish the concepts of “right and wrong” and following the law by spurious technical arguments that are based on what is probably flawed research. Do you really want any more deaths like this?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/life-style/real-life/2007/10/04/how-could-they-let-my-son-set-fire-to-himself-115875-19895197/
loading...
I don’t understand how presenting illegal substances in context (ie, less dangerous than other groups of drugs) diminishes the concepts of ‘right and wrong’. There is nothing immoral about a normal human activity. It is amoral. The law itself doesn’t argue with this, as the consumption of drugs is not illegal. How could it be?
The idea of cannabis being a gateway drug has long been kicked in to touch.
Any ‘flawed’ research is likely to come from those whose livings rely on the state to pay for them. It’s easier to get funding for your work when you produce outcomes that the politicians you work for can present in policy. We’ve seen what happens to scientists and experts who go ‘off message’…
loading...
Cannabis is a gateway drug in this respect; A lot of the people who like to use cannabis would not normally come into contact with the other more dangerous drugs but because they cannot obtain cannabis legally they are forced into the underworld of drug dealers and criminality that they would normally shy away from.
loading...
Well yeah that’s true, but the drug itself doesn’t lead people to want to use other substances. I accept that drugs culture would, though. But then if someones prepared to try drug X, they’re more prepared to try drug Y.
loading...
Diminished concepts of “right and wrong”? I don’t think people need nannying on the subject of drugs but to be simply educated on them.
Drug classification should not have a “moral compass” at all. It should be a statement of factual reference end of story. The subject is not a ‘spurious technical argument’ but one of the politicization of drug classification vs. a factual / scientific one. I don’t even think the government should be in control of drug classification system; only for there legal state and in turn, punishment under law in general terms.
Considering tobacco is more harmful and more addictive, I don’t think the government have a leg to stand on and sacking that guy was disgraceful.
Look at Global Warming. What started as a scientific theory has been politicized to a state that it no long represents much of the current scientific thinking in many areas or even much of the raw factual data. In other words, you can no longer see the wood from the bullshit.
loading...
Just to add to that. If people go around sacking the men and women that give there valid scientific opinion just becos it contradicts with government, all that will lead to is doctoring of results and fear. Just like Global Warming. What’s next? the deletion of posts and blogs? oh wait….
loading...
I don’t delete
loading...
Legalising of hard drugs now that would be brave of any politician to do but I do think it may be the right thing to do. A lot of drugs are considered a social norm and are taken as such but only criminals supply them. Its rare for such people to be selective in which law to brake in other words they would also be into “other stuff”.
If you legalise the drugs you break the control of the criminals over it and you control the strength and purity of the drug and price. How would you as a politician sell this to middle England?
loading...
Probably in terms of “legalise this and the Government will pay for your marriage tax breaks AND an annual Daily Mail subscription. And we’ll make Paul Dacre a saint”.
loading...
“The idea of cannabis being a gateway drug has long been kicked in to touch”
Total crap there. Of course there have been studies suggesting that from the States but most studies prove the opposite. And with a close family member actually a drug and alcohol dependency consultant psychiatrist, I will go on believing them that the latest NHS belief is that it is. Find a heroin or crack addict that didn’t start out on cannabis if you want to disprove the theory.
loading...
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, of course, but if you do want to believe the gateway theory, then surely alcohol is a much better starting point than cannabis? I’m sure most heroin addicts and users would have started on alcohol, rather than cannabis.
Just because the NHS might be inclined to go with the theory, doesn’t mean it’s correct. People and organisations will always follow the money and if policymakers determine that you must say ‘x’ to get more ‘y’, then they will…
loading...
The gateway theory is a load of bollocks.
It’s about drug culture and culture generally not the drug itself. One which would be smashed with legalisation in many ways.
I mean, if Joe blogs hammers coke up his beak one week and pills the next, which week was he more likely to hammer some heroin? There is no diff as nether drug makes you WANT heroin.
Being inside some kind of drugs culture socially might ‘clear the road’ to upgrading ya drug intake but pinpointing cannabis as a gateway bullet is a bit naive. Its all about whats socially acceptable in ya group.
I mean you could say cigs are a gateway drug for cannabis users but one of the reasons that tie is not fully forming is because cigs are legal. After all u don’t see the little smoker groups at work coming out of the smoking area stoned as basterds even though you could class that as a drug based social group.
loading...
Just talking here from personal experience, Its largely dependant on the individual user – weather or not cannabis or whatever actually is a gateway drug. Ive done weed, pills and cocaine, im not gloating im just saying that at no point have i ever had any inkling to do anything harder.. as i know the consequences of doing such things becase those are the people you see walking around the top end of whitegate drive with weird looks in their eyes. I think i was probably more just a victem to peer preassure – and a sense of “oh fuck it”. I didnt have a spliff once and then decide that i may as well try everything else. Also i didnt really like what cannabis did to me.. i dont really like the come down from pills, and i dont see the point in cocaine its boring. Then again its obvious that some people enjoy that crap a hell of a lot more than i did.
loading...
A further update to this story is that another two Government advisors have resigned off the back of the sacking off Professor Nutt.
Again, what is the point in advisors if they must conform to Government policy?
loading...
That’s not quite right though is it. They don’t have to conform to government policy at all. The committee was split as to whether cannabis and ectascy should be B or C class anyway. Some scientists just don’t agree with his proclamations. What these advisers do have to do though is to give their advice to government and not be so up their own backsides as to make sure the press pick up on their opinions. Nutt had already said, (and it was published in the press at the time too) that he didn’t agree with the reclassification. So why did he relaunch his public campaign on the matter? And given that he wanted to do just that, why didn’t he resign first? I’d much rather have a government making policy than an unelected Quango.
loading...
I’ll give you that.
But on the other hand, the guy is a professor and he was doing a lecture at a university. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for him to give his opinion there, given that that was what the lecture was about.
loading...
There may have been splits on the committee but not amongst the scientists! The real issue here is putting the drugs in order of how dangerous they are. This should be a matter of fact not opinion. The politicians can decide what penalties misuse of the various drugs should carry but they should not be interfering in the classification itself, this is not a matter of opinion, I think you will find that almost all the scientists agree on that.
loading...
The only gateway to hard drugs will be the TALBOT gateway.
loading...
The only people that even think it will materialise must be hallucinating!!
loading...