|
Recreational Drugs |
|
Why are alcohol and tobacco legal recreational drugs - and other less harmful
ones not? |
|
|
|
Penn
& Teller: Drug War
|
The Big Question: Is the 'war on drugs' really making the
problem worse?
Why are we asking this now? Because if confirmation were
needed that crackdowns on drug use in the UK were having little effect, it
came in a report by the UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC), an independent
group set up to examine the state of the nation's drug trade.
By Michael Savage
Thursday, 31 July 2008
The report, published yesterday, paints a grim picture, suggesting that the
billions of pounds spent on attempts to reduce the availability of drugs on
the streets have been in vain. It said there was "remarkably little
evidence" that action by customs officials, police and the Serious Organised
Crime Agency has had any significant effect in disrupting illegal drug
markets. The report argued that the UK should try a radically different
approach to tackling the misery brought about by drug-dealing and the crime
and social disorder associated with it. Others advocate taking the ultimate
step – legalisation.
What is the state of the UK drugs trade?
The report said the UK's illegal drug market was one of the most lucrative
in the world, with the trade worth a hefty £5.3bn – a third of the size of
the country's tobacco market and 41 per cent of the alcohol market, despite
the vast sums spent on attempts to limit supply. Half of the trade centres
on two of the most addictive and destructive drugs, crack cocaine and
heroin.
The UK's drugs trade is made up of about 3,000 wholesalers and 70,000
street-level dealers. When it comes to the "Mr Bigs" keeping shipments of
drugs flowing into the country, there are far fewer. About 300 major
importers are bringing in the drugs, said the report.
What do we spend trying to cut supplies?
Taxpayers currently shell out £1.5bn on measures designed to tackle the UK's
drugs problems. Within that is the £380m that goes towards the reduction of
supply, the main target of the report's criticisms. A further £573m goes
towards drug abuse treatment. That doesn't even include the massive bill
that results from drug-related crime. In 2003-04, that was estimated to have
cost the public purse £4bn.
Do seizures have any effect?
The report was unequivocal. It said: "Despite significant drug and asset
seizures and drug-related convictions in recent years, drug markets have
proven to be extremely resilient. They are highly fluid and adapt
effectively to government and law enforcement interventions." It added:
"While the availability of controlled drugs is restricted by definition, it
appears that additional enforcement efforts have had little adverse effect
on the availability of illicit drugs in the UK."
How do we know?
A sure sign that attempts to strangle the supply of
drugs have come to little is the fact that prices have continued to fall.
Street prices for heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and cannabis have all fallen
since the start of the decade. The average price for a gram of heroin in
2000 was £70, but that had fallen to £45 by last year. Cocaine has more than
halved in price in some areas – from £65 a gram in 2000 to as little as £30
a gram last year.
Even though the number of seizures more than doubled between 1996 and 2005,
that only makes up 12 per cent of heroin and nine per cent of all cocaine.
The crux of the problem is that experts believe authorities would need to
seize between six and eight times more than that to make a real dent in the
drugs business. That doesn't seem realistic, leading some – current and
former policemen among them – to call for a change in tactics.
The results of the study came as no surprise to Danny Kushlick, head of
policy at the pressure group Transform. He said: "This is nothing new –
we've known that prohibition measures haven't worked for 20 years. But the
situation is actually worse than the report suggests. It is the measures of
prohibition that have caused drugs problems, and pushed the trade into the
hands of organised crime and street corner dealers."
Why do current tactics have so little effect?
One of the problems is that the drug trade is
extremely adaptable. According to the report, even when a major drug
seizure is made or a high-level dealer is convicted, little changes on the
streets. Other dealers move in, or the remaining supplies are made less pure
so they last through the period of shortage. The dealing and buying, in most
cases, carries on regardless.
What needs to change?
For a start, the obsession with big drugs busts. Police having their picture
taken in front of table-loads of captured drugs may make a good photo
opportunity, but do not do much to help the communities affected by drug
dealing, the report said.
David Blakey, a former president of the Association of Chief Police Officers
and a commissioner for UKDPC, said the police were still being judged on old
measures, such as seizure rates. "This is a pity as it is very difficult to
show that increasing drug seizures actually leads to less drug-related
harm," he said. "Of course, drug dealers must be brought to justice, but we
should recognise and encourage the wider role that the police and other law
enforcement officials can play in reducing the impact of drug markets on our
communities."
Instead, more emphasis should be placed on hitting drug markets that cause
the most "collateral damage" to surrounding communities – such as dealing
associated with prostitution, human trafficking and gang violence.
Anything else?
Instead of going after the never-ending supply of bad guys, it suggests
tackling issues from the point of view of the communities hardest hit by the
drugs trade. Above all, it claims that forming partnerships between police,
local communities and other related workers is vital in ridding an area of
drug problems. It also advocates prevention – tackling problem-spots before
they get out of hand.
Should we just legalise drugs and have done with it?
According to its advocates, including the Chief Constable of North Wales
Police, Richard Brunstrom, and Transform, legalisation would turn
drug-taking from a crime issue into a health issue. Drugs could be vetted
for their quality, while the trade would be taken from the grasps of
criminal gangs and drug lords. |
Legalisation seems to be making a lot of sense to many. Even some
politicians admit to being sympathetic to the idea in private. But there is
one glaring problem with the policy – the Amsterdam issue. When hedonists
around the world got wind of the city's liberal drugs laws and hash cafes,
they all started making the pilgrimage. Would many people really tolerate
the influx of a new type of hedonist holiday-maker? Probably not. Until the
whole world agrees to end prohibition at the same time, it will probably
remain impossible.
So is the approach counter-productive?
Yes...
* Preventing supply has been very unsuccessful – the drugs trade is worth
£5.3bn
* A sharp fall in street prices since 2000 suggests more than ever is
getting through
* Even after big seizures and arrests, other dealers simply move in to fill
the gap
No...
* Tackling supply is only one strand of the strategy – more is spent on
treatment
* Police must make high-profile seizures for as long as they are judged on
them
* Trying other approaches to the problem should not mean drug dealers escape
justice |
 |
|
True cost of drug addicts revealed
A drug addict costs the taxpayer more than £800,000 over his
or her lifetime, according to a shocking Government report.
[Erm, and how much does alcohol abuse and nicotine use cost the tax
payer???]
Press Assoc.
June 13, 2008
The study also advised Justice Secretary Jack Straw that drug-free prisons
were not a realistic possibility, and raised the prospect of handing out
clean needles to prisoners to inject heroin.
Ministers had attempted to keep the report secret for months. Prisons
minister David Hanson finally released the data after "considerable interest
in the report", which was drawn up by independent auditors
PricewaterhouseCoopers.
The authors said: "The creation of drug-free prisons is an expensive option
and was not considered to be practical in the current resource climate."
They added that it would be "an option" to give junkies a supervised "retoxification"
course near the end of their sentences - in other words, to give them drugs
to prevent them overdosing on release.
The report highlighted the failings of mandatory drug tests, which have
frequently been hailed by ministers as a success in reducing drug use behind
bars.
It said: "Staff and prisoners generally felt that mandatory drug testing
should not be used to monitor the behaviour of individuals since it was open
to manipulation (with clean urine often being used as a currency), and other
problems such as recreational users of cannabis moving to opiate use to
avoid detection."
The authors of the report admitted that even the massive £800,000 cost of
each addict was likely to be an under-estimate, because they had adopted
"the more conservative" figures throughout the exercise.
They calculated the astonishing sum from the additional cost on the NHS as
well as other factors such as lost earnings and expenditure on law and
order.
More than £730,000 could be saved if an addict was successfully brought into
treatment by the age of 21, it added.
|
Now this IS funny:
METRO, 18 March, 2008

|
|
First person
Forty years ago Mary Finnigan stashed some cannabis in her handbag
while researching a story on drugs. It was a mistake that would alter the
course of her life ...
August 20, 2007
Guardian
At dusk on a warm evening
towards the end of The Summer of Love I met a man called Larry at a shop
called Time Out of Mind, just off Ladbroke Grove in west London. I'd taken
on a journalistic assignment to investigate who was using what drugs, and
where they were buying their supplies.
Larry and I took the tube to Shepherd's Bush - me in Biba mini-dress, he
in crushed velvet bellbottoms, floral shirt and magician's cloak. I was
enjoying his company and by the time we reached our destination I was in a
cheerful mood. Larry plunged towards a basement doorway. As it opened we
were welcomed into what seemed like a dream world from Hindu mythology.
There were low lights and candles, mirrored hangings and gaudy pictures of
Buddhist deities. Rose and sandalwood incense perfumed the air, mingling
with a more acrid aroma, which even in 1967 I recognised as dope smoke. A
raga tinkled from column speakers and in one corner, a chap with
shoulder-length blond hair played along on a sitar.
Bemused and feeling somewhat square, I wandered from one room to another
and in each the scene was much the same. The girls wore floaty hippy
ensembles, the blokes velvet bellbottoms, beads and baubles. Some couples
were entwined in overtly sexual embraces. Most were in their late teens or
early 20s.
There was a tap on my shoulder:
"Did you come with Larry?"
I nodded - in the dim, smoky light discerning an older man in more
conventional attire.
"I'm Pete," he said. "Larry says you want to score."
I said "yes please" and he asked "how much?" and "hash or grass?" I
hadn't a clue, so I made a guess: "Oh ... er - grass will do fine, thank
you, and about three quid's worth?" I wanted the photographer to take a
picture of it for my report.
Pete vanished, to return a few minutes later with a 35mm film canister. I
lifted the lid and sniffed the contents. It was extremely pungent.
"Good stuff," said Pete the dealer. "Durban Poison."
At this point I made a mistake that would alter the course of my life.
Instead of keeping the canister in a pocket, I buried it deep inside my
shoulder bag. A few moments later a blow smashed open the front door and a
loud voice shouted, "Police - nobody move."
All around me people were emptying their pockets - I spotted Larry
tipping a bagful of marijuana on to the floor. I was frozen in terror - body
and brain immobilised. A detective barged into the room, switched on the
overhead light and barked at us to form an orderly queue.
One by one we were marched into the kitchen to be searched. When my turn
came, I extracted the film canister from my bag and handed it over -
explaining my mission and the provenance of some prescription medicine I was
carrying. The police officers were underwhelmed. I could see "a likely tale"
from the expressions on their faces.
It turned out that only Pete and his two flatmates plus one other woman
and I were arrested. Larry vanished into the night with a horror-stricken
glance in my direction. I was charged with illegal possession of herbal
cannabis and as yet unidentified pills - despite the fact that they were in
a prescription bottle with my name on it. Some time after midnight a friend
arrived to bail me out. He drove me to my home in the suburbs, where I lived
with my two young children and a Swiss au pair. At the time my life was
rooted in middle-class mores. I had no idea how drastically this was about
to change.
I was sure the charges against me would be dropped but it soon became
clear that this was not the case. My medicine was analysed and found to
contain small quantities of amphetamine. The pills stayed on the charge
sheet. My doctor promised to exonerate me.
It transpired that Pete and his flatmates were big-time dealers. Kilos of
hashish and marijuana and several hundred doses of LSD were found in the
flat. The police had been watching the premises for weeks - it was my rotten
luck they chose to pounce when they did.
On December 19 1967 I surrendered to bail. I had one brief meeting with
my counsel, believing he had been comprehensively briefed by my solicitor.
This confidence started to drain away when the prosecuting counsel turned
his attention to me. His words were loaded with factual error. He claimed
the police had "found" the film canister of cannabis, whereas I had
volunteered it. He claimed I had not mentioned that my pills were on
prescription. My counsel failed to challenge these errors and nor did he
call my photographer colleague to give evidence in my favour.
I found myself remanded in custody to Holloway prison. By the time the
court reconvened the following week I was a bewildered wreck. Before my
arrest I had tried only a toke or two of cannabis. I had never been anywhere
near psychedelic drugs. I pleaded guilty because technically I was guilty of
possession. I was also guilty of extreme naivety. I don't think the judge
recognised the difference between the 106 grains of herbal cannabis I was
charged with and the kilos found in the flat. When he sentenced me to nine
months in prison, I fainted into the arms of a prison officer.
A friend came to visit me in Holloway, shortly after my conviction. He
told me to appeal against the sentence, dismiss my existing legal team and
instruct a solicitor with experience of drug cases, recommended by the
counselling service Release. Nine weeks passed before my case was heard at
the court of appeal. During that time I spent three weeks in Holloway and
six at an open prison called Hill Hall. The former was relentlessly grim.
Hill Hall was an altogether different institution, with an atmosphere that
reminded me of boarding school. I was given a plum job, working in the
gardens. On February 14 1968, I was planting tomatoes in the greenhouses
when the governor's assistant came striding by. When he told me I was free,
I threw my bucket of compost into the air and danced with delight. I was
granted an absolute discharge.
After my release I went to Switzerland to ski for a couple of weeks and
took with me a small nugget of hashish. One of my pleasures was to smoke a
joint in the chairlift then slip weightlessly over the crystalline slopes as
the sun rose over the Alps. Those moments were a celebration of freedom -
and an acknowledgment that a miscarriage of justice had turned me into a
criminal.
I had been born into comfortable bourgeoisie in Manchester and had barely
touched on the drug culture before I was busted, but the hippies and freaks
I met between my arrest and imprisonment became friends who remain to this
day - artists, poets, musicians, political activists, filmmakers and
entrepreneurs. They turned me on to a whole new cultural landscape, and I
became painfully aware of my conventional mindset. Over the months following
my release, my lifestyle changed from respectable bourgeois single mother
into hippy dropout. I joined CND and became fascinated by oriental cultures
and religion. I went to meditation classes and transformed the family diet
from meat and two veg to tofu and brown rice. I took a full-time job, but
gave up after a year: alternative life was just too attractive.
One afternoon I was sunbathing in the garden of my flat in Beckenham,
south London, under the influence of a dose of tincture of cannabis. The
domestic chores were done and the kids were at school. Some very interesting
music reached my ears from the top-floor flat.
"Who's playing?" I called.
A pale, thin face with a halo of blond curls appeared at the open window.
It belonged to a young musician called David Bowie. I invited him to join me
in the sunshine and the tincture. A week or so later he moved into our flat
as a lodger. Our home became a music studio - with amplifiers, microphones
and festoons of wiring cascading out of David's room. The children were
delighted, they adored David and there were times when both of them bunked
off school to hang out with him. He put the finishing touches to his first
hit, Space Oddity, during this time, and dedicated the B-side to my son
Richard.
Loosening the shackles of respectability was an enthralling learning
curve - but it was not always so wonderful for my children. As my lifestyle
changed, their needs were sidelined in favour of my great adventure. I
frequently abandoned them for extended periods, and hosted loud, all-night
parties. My mother and ex-husband were constantly berating me for my wicked
ways. At one point my mother called in social services. Eventually the
children went to live with their father and I ended up in a squat in north
London.
That move signalled another turning point - but this time back towards a
more conformist lifestyle. In the squatting community in Kentish Town I had
one of the most elegant houses, beautifully restored by my architect
boyfriend. Soon after moving in, I became pregnant with my third child,
Daniel. When I went back to work I was probably the only person to have an
au pair in a squat.
My total commitment to the counter-culture lasted about five years. Today
I live an outwardly respectable life in a very nice house in the south-west
of England, but I have remained true to the 1960s world view. All three
children grew up into intelligent, capable adults. I am still a pacifist,
still intrigued by the mysteries of consciousness, and a practising Buddhist
in the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition. I still believe all drugs should be
decriminalised but I hardly ever use cannabis these days and it's 20 years
since my last dose of LSD.
|
Alcohol worse than ecstasy on shock new drug list
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.
James Randerson, science correspondent
Friday March 23, 2007
Guardian
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.
|
The Metro, Friday 9 March, 2007

|
Smoking alters brain 'like drugs'
Smoking cigarettes causes the same changes to the brain as
using illicit drugs like cocaine, a study suggests. US researchers compared
post-mortem brain tissue samples from smokers, former smokers and
non-smokers.
BBC Online
Feb 2007
Their findings, published in Journal of Neuroscience, suggested smoking
causes changes to the brain which are evident years after someone has quit.
A UK expert said the changes might explain why smokers found it hard to stop
- and why they then relapsed.
The researchers from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Nida) looked at
samples of human brain tissue from the nucleus accumbens and the ventral
midbrain - brain regions that play a part in controlling addictive
behaviours.
Eight samples were taken from people who had smoked until their deaths,
eight from people who had smoked for up to 25 years before their death and
eight non-smokers.
All died of causes unrelated to smoking.
Relapse
The scientists looked at levels of two enzymes - protein kinase A and
adenylate cyclase. Both translate chemical signals, such as dopamine, which
exist outside the cells, into a form that can be understood inside.
Smokers were found to have higher levels of these enzymes in the nucleus
accumbens, a part of the brain that processes information related to
motivation and reward, which virtually all illicit drugs act upon.
But levels of both enzymes were also found to be high in the area of the
midbrain that responds to dopamine, which acts as a "reward chemical" in
smokers and former smokers.
The same changes had previously been seen in the brains of rats given
repeated injections of cocaine and morphine.
Writing in the Journal of Neuroscience, the team led by Dr Bruce Hope, said:
"The present study confirms that drug-induced neuroadaptations [brain
changes] observed in animals can also be observed in humans."
The researchers suggest that the differences seen in both smokers' and
non-smokers' brains "may contribute to long-lasting alterations in
nicotine-induced reward and addiction in humans".
The researchers say this suggests that the changes persist long after
smoking has ceased and could contribute to drug relapse.
Dr John Stapleton, of the National Addictions Centre at King's College
London, said: "It would be surprising if taking large doses of a drug such
as nicotine many times a day over many years did not result in lasting
changes in the brain.
"The new results may take us closer to understanding these changes.
"The key question remains as to whether such changes are partly responsible
for the intractable nature of smoking and relapse after many months or years
of stopping."
|
Caffeine abuse becoming health problem
Use of caffeine as a stimulant is becoming a problem among
U.S. young people who can't get enough of it, Northwestern University
researchers say.
CHICAGO, Nov. 25
Science Daily.com
The Chicago Tribune reported Saturday that the researchers analyzed three
years' of cases that were reported to the Illinois Poison Center and found
more than 250 cases of medical complications resulting from ingesting too
many caffeine supplements.
The findings were presented at this fall's annual meeting of the American
College of Emergency Physicians held in New Orleans. Twelve percent of those
overdose cases required hospitalization; some of the cases required
intensive care, especially when simultaneous use of other substances, legal
or illicit, was involved, according to the research. The average age of the
caffeine abusers was 21.
Caffeine as a new drug of choice, lead researcher Dr. Danielle McCarthy
suggested, was the result of "aggressive marketing of high-content
caffeine-containing beverages."
Symptoms of caffeine overdose include "everything from nausea, vomiting and
a racing heart to hallucinations, panic attacks, chest pains and trips to
the emergency room," the Tribune said.
|
|
Small ecstasy use 'harms brain'
Even small amounts of the illegal drug
ecstasy can be harmful to the brains of first time users, researchers say.
BBC Online
30 Nov 2006
The University of Amsterdam team took brain scans and
carried out memory tests on 188 people with no history of ecstasy use but at
risk in the future.
They repeated the tests 18 months later, and found for
the 59 people who had used ecstasy there was evidence of decreased blood
flow and memory loss.
Long-term ecstasy use is already known to be harmful.
The class A drug is used by about 500,000 people in
the UK, mostly on the club scene.
We know long-term use has a lasting impact so it
makes sense that damage starts as soon as someone starts to use the drug
-Dr Fabrizio Schifano, of the University of
Hertfordshire
Lead researcher Maartje de Win said: "We do not know
if these effects are transient or permanent.
"Therefore, we cannot conclude that ecstasy, even in
small doses, is safe for the brain, and people should be informed of this
risk."
Research has shown that long-term or heavy ecstasy use
can damage neurons and cause depression, anxiety, confusion, difficulty
sleeping and decrease memory.
However, no previous studies have looked at the
side-effects of low doses of the drug on first time users.
The study, presented to the annual meeting of the
Radiological Society of North America, said there was no evidence of damage
to the neurons or alteration to mood and it was unclear whether the effect
of early use of the drug was permanent.
Blood provides the brain with energy, and decreased
flow can lead to memory loss and attention problems.
Of the people who were tested who had taken ecstasy,
the average use was six tablets.
Dr Fabrizio Schifano, professor of pharmacology at the
University of Hertfordshire, said it was clear that early use of the drug
did have some effect, but what there was not a consensus on was how long
that would last.
He said: "We know long-term use has a lasting impact,
so it makes sense that damage starts as soon as someone starts to use the
drug.
"But we cannot say exactly how much damage is sustained
at the start and need more research to be categorical about this."
|
MPs accuse ministers of twisting science for political
purposes
Evidence distorted to give figleaf of respectability
Inquiry highlights drug policy and crime statistics
James Randerson, science correspondent
Nov 8, 2006
Guardian
The government often hides behind a figleaf of scientific respectability
when spinning unpalatable or controversial policies to make them acceptable
to voters, according to a report by MPs critical of the way science is used
in policy.
The parliamentary science and technology select committee said that
scientific evidence was often misused or distorted to justify policy
decisions which were really based on ideological or social grounds.
The report, the culmination of a nine-month inquiry, calls for a "radical
re-engineering" of the way the government uses science. "Abuse of the term
'evidence based' ... is a form of fraud which corrupts the whole use of
science in government," said Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrats' science
spokesman and a member of the committee. "It's critical that the currency of
an evidence base is not devalued by false claims."
The investigation highlighted several examples of misuse of science,
including a witness who told the MPs that his work on crime statistics had
been twisted by the Home Office to give the best possible spin.
"I had pointed out prior to the Home Office publishing this that I thought
their interpretation differed from our own and I had identified where I
thought the difference lay," said Tim Hope, a criminologist at the
University of Keele who appeared before the committee in May. "Despite that,
they proceeded to publish their own analysis. The inferences from that
analysis were, let us say, rather more favourable to the political interests
in this programme than were my own."
Professor Hope added that several researchers at a conference in 2003 were
told at the last minute not to present work paid for by the Home Office,
even though they were already on the conference programme. He believed this
was because the Home Office wanted to control the way the information was
released.
Some of the worst examples of false claims, says the committee report,
Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making, came in drug
policy, which Dr Harris described as an "evidence-free zone". Magic
mushrooms, for example, are classified in the most dangerous drug category,
class A, even though there is scant evidence that they are harmful.
The committee also criticised government claims that the ABC drug
classification system reduces crime, saying there was no evidence to back
that up.
"Governments have a right when they are elected to make policy because of
sociological reasons or because of political imperatives," said Phil Willis,
the committee's chair, "but what they don't have a right to do is to say
that that is based on sound scientific evidence when it isn't."
The report calls on government departments to state clearly when statements
are based on scientific evidence, and when they are going against evidence
for political reasons.
The MPs also recommend the creation of a government scientific service made
up of independent expert advisers and that the government's chief scientific
adviser, currently Sir David King, be given a seat on the Treasury board.
The committee challenges the perception that industry representatives on
scientific advisory committees are "frequently seen as less trustworthy"
than representatives of non-government organisations. It said technical
committees should not routinely have lay members.
The MPs call for change in the culture of the civil service, where a
scientific background is often seen as a barrier to promotion.
A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said it recognised
there was room for improvement, but added: "The UK has rightly developed an
international reputation for its world-leading use of science in government,
for example in climate change, health issues and international development."
Facts and fallacies
The science and technology select committee found numerous examples of the
misuse of science by government departments:
Government claims that the ABC drug classification system reduces crime.
Magic mushrooms placed in the most dangerous class A category.
Over-zealous regulations proposed for medical technicians using MRI
scanners with no evidence base.
Homeopathic remedies allowed to be licensed by the Medicines and
Healthcare Regulatory Agency despite not meeting the same standards of proof
as conventional medicines.
Cost estimates on ID cards published before key technical decisions were
taken.
Wide misuse of the term "precautionary principle".
|
Shocking! If you believe in imaginary gods
in the sky you're allowed to take drugs legally, but not if you're dying of
cancer!
From: The God Delusion by Richard
Dawkins, p22 :

|
'25% of smokers' get lung disease
At least a quarter of long-term smokers will develop the
incurable lung condition chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a
study suggests.
BBC Online
20 Oct 2006
COPD describes a range of conditions, including bronchitis and emphysema,
which make it difficult to breathe. Over 8,000 people aged 30 to 60 were
studied by UK and Danish researchers for 25 years in the Thorax study.
A spokesman for the British Lung Foundation said the study should act
as a "wake-up call" to UK smokers.
COPD
It is estimated that 13.3% of Britons over 35 may have developed features
Between 600,000 and 900,000 people in the UK have been diagnosed with COPD
COPD is the sixth most common cause of death in England and Wales, killing
more than 30,000 a year
Of the people studied, who all lived around Copenhagen, 5,280 were smokers,
1,513 had never smoked and 1,252 were ex-smokers.
At the end of the study, the researchers found that at least 25% of the
smokers without any initial symptoms of the disease had "clinically
significant" COPD, while up to 40% had some signs of the condition.
Over the 25 years, 2,900 people died, with 109 dying from COPD.
Nine out of 10 of those who died were smokers at the start of the study,
while just two non-smokers died of the disease.
The risk of COPD was reduced in those who gave up smoking early on in the
study - none of the ex-smokers developed severe COPD and only seven died.
At the end of the study, the lungs of almost all the male non-smokers
continued to function well.
However, the same was true for only six out of 10 of those who continued
smoking.
Around nine out of 10 female non-smokers had lungs that functioned well at
the end of the study compared with only seven out of 10 female smokers.
Most smokers 'susceptible'
Writing in Thorax, the researchers who were led by Dr Peter Lange of
Hvidovre Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark, said: "Our main finding is quite
simple - the longer people smoke, the higher the risk of developing COPD."
In an editorial in the journal, Dr Nick Anthonisen of the University of
Manitoba in Canada, said: "The message is that many smokers develop airway
obstruction if they live long enough and continue to smoke, and that the
number that do so is increasing.
"An argument can be made therefore that many, perhaps most, smokers are
'susceptible' to COPD if they live long enough."
But he said there were long-term smokers who did not develop the condition,
and more work was needed to find out why there was such a distinction.
Professor Stephen Spiro, from the British Lung Foundation, said: "This is an
important study showing that people are even more at risk of COPD than we
previously thought.
"It should act as a further wake-up call to smokers to get their lungs
tested and to get help to stop.
"It's also a wake-up call to the UK - COPD is our fifth biggest killer, yet
it's a hidden disease."
|
|
Drugs and prohibition
Ben Goldacre
Saturday August 5, 2006
Guardian
Certain areas of human conduct lend
themselves so readily to bad science that you have to wonder if there is a
pattern emerging. Last week the parliamentary science and technology
committee looked into the ABC classification of illegal drugs, and found it
was rubbish. This is not an article about that report, but it is a good
place to start: drugs, they found, are supposed to be ranked by harm, in
classes A, B, and C, but they're not; and the ranking is supposed to act as
a deterrent, but it doesn't.
Watching this small area of prohibition collapse like wet tissue paper
got me thinking: how does the world of prohibition match up against our gold
standards for bad science, like the nutritionists or the anti-MMR movement?
Have any of the prominent academic papers been retracted? Yes, they have.
Professor George Ricaurte, funded by the National Institute for Drug Abuse,
published an article in Science, describing how he administered a comparable
recreational dose of ecstasy to monkeys: this dose killed 20% of the
monkeys, and another 20% were severely injured.
Even before it was announced - a year later - that they'd got the bottles
mixed up and used the wrong drug, you didn't need to be Einstein to know
this was duff research, because millions of clubbers have taken the
"comparable" recreational dose of ecstasy, and 20% of them did not die. It's
no wonder animal rights campaigners manage to persuade themselves that
animal research makes a bad model for human physiology.
That's before you even get started on workaday bad science. Like the food
gurus, prohibitionists will cherry pick research that suits them, measure
inappropriate surrogate outcomes, and wishfully over-interpret data: a
prohibitionist will observe that less cannabis has been seized, and declare
that this means there is less cannabis on the streets, rather than less
police interest.
For textbook bad science we'd also want to see the media distorting
research: overstating the stuff it likes, and ignoring stuff it doesn't,
especially negative findings. We used to read a lot about cannabis and lung
cancer in the papers. The largest ever study of whether cannabis causes lung
cancer reported its findings recently, to total UK media silence. Lifelong
cannabis users, who had smoked more than 22,000 joints, showed no greater
risk of cancer than people who had never smoked cannabis.
While no journalist has written a single word on that study, the Times
did manage to make a front page story headed "Cocaine floods the playground:
use of the addictive drug by children doubles in a year," out of their
misinterpretation of a government report that showed nothing of the sort.
There are even optimists who believe in quick fix treatments for drug
habits - the heroin detox in five days, or painless withdrawal in just 48
hours, under general anaesthesia.
Why are drugs such a bad science magnet? Partly, of course, it's the
moral panic. But more than that, sat squarely at the heart of our discourse
on drugs, is one fabulously reductionist notion: it is the idea that a
complex web of social, moral, criminal, health, and political problems can
be simplified to, blamed on, or treated via a molecule or a plant. You'd
have a job keeping that idea afloat.
|
Drug 'treats depression in hours'
An anaesthetic can treat depression within hours, US research
suggests.
BBC Online
Aug 2006
The study involving 17 patients found ketamine - used as an anaesthetic but
also taken as a recreational drug - relieved symptoms of depression.
Most existing treatments for depression take weeks or even months to relieve
people's symptoms.
But the team, writing in Archives of General Psychiatry, said ketamine would
need to be altered so it lost its existing hallucinatory side-effects.
This is the first report of any medication or other treatment that results
in such a pronounced, rapid, prolonged response
Dr Thomas Insel, NIMH
Scientists from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) injected 17
patients with either a very low dose of ketamine or a placebo of saline
solution.
The participants were all depression sufferers who had tried an average of
six treatments that had failed.
The researchers then measured their levels of depression minutes, hours and
days after the dose was given.
Lead researcher Dr Carlos Zarate Junior, head of the mood and anxiety
disorders programme at NIMH, said: "Within 110 minutes, half of the patients
given ketamine showed a 50% decrease in symptoms."
By the end of day one, he added, 71% had responded to the drug. And at this
point the team found 29% of these patients were nearly symptom free.
The researchers also discovered one dose lasted for at least a week in more
than one-third of the participants.
Brain pathways
Dr Thomas Insel, director of NIMH, commented: "To my knowledge, this is the
first report of any medication or other treatment that results in such a
pronounced, rapid, prolonged response with a single dose.
"These were very treatment-resistant patients."
Many antidepressants target levels of brain chemicals, such as serotonin and
dopamine, and, over time, the accumulation of these chemicals can affect a
patient's mood. But this can take several weeks.
But the team believes ketamine is having a faster effect because it is
targeting a different brain-protein, called the NMDA receptor, which is
thought to play a critical role in learning and memory.
The team says ketamine, in its current form, would not be appropriate for
medication because of side-effects at higher doses, which include
hallucinations and euphoria.
Dr Zarate said: "This study is a tool to help us understand what part of
ketamine is causing this effect so we can refine and develop better drugs.
"We are also looking at ways that we could use ketamine maybe in lower doses
or with drugs that block its perceptual effects so we could perhaps use it
clinically."
Professor John Henry, a clinical toxicologist at St Mary's Hospital in
London, said: "This is a very interesting piece of work, very neatly done,
with promising results.
"More studies need to be done to see if ketamine would work over a longer
period given in repeated doses.
"The benefit of having a fast-working drug would mean people could return to
work quickly, and it could reduce risk of self-harm or suicide that could
happen during the time-lag that occurs with other drugs."
|
Drug classification rethink urged
The designation of drugs in classes A, B and C should be
replaced with one more closely reflecting the harm they cause, a committee
of MPs has said. The Science Select Committee said the present system was
based on historical assumptions, not scientific assessment.
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News
Aug 2006
BBC News has seen details of a system devised by government advisers which
was considered by former Home Secretary Charles Clarke but is now on hold.
It rates some illegal drugs as less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.
The new system was based on the first scientific assessment of 20 legal and
illegal stimulants used in contemporary Britain.
Alcohol was rated the fifth most harmful drug, ahead of some current class A
drugs, while tobacco was listed as ninth. Cannabis, currently rated a class
C drug, was below both those legal stimulants at 11th.
The MPs said including alcohol and tobacco in the classification would give
the public "a better sense of the relative harms involved".
They also denounced the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs - which
provides scientific guidance to the government - for "dereliction of duty"
in failing to alert ministers of "serious flaws" in the rating system.
Phil Willis, who chairs the committee, said the current classifications were
"riddled with anomalies" and "clearly not fit for purpose".
Controlled drugs are currently put into alphabetical categories, reflecting
the level of penalties offences such as possession and dealing can attract.
Class A, which is the highest category, contains substances such as heroin,
cocaine, ecstasy and magic mushrooms.
Class B includes speed and barbiturates. Cannabis and some tranquilisers are
graded as class C substances.
Systematic
Mr Willis said the only way to get "an accurate and up to date
classification system" was to "remove the link with penalties and just focus
on harm", adding that this meant social consequences as well as harm to the
user.
He went on: "It's time to bring in a more systematic and scientific approach
to drug classification - how can we get the message across to young people
if what we are saying is not based on evidence?"
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said: "In 1971 when the
classification system was launched, that was right for the time.
"What we've had is a huge societal change over that period and what we've
seen is that putting a drug into Class A does not stop people using it at
all."
Alcohol
The alternative system was prepared by Professor David Nutt, a senior member
of the Committee that advises the government on drug classification, and
Professor Colin Blakemore - chief Executive of the Medical Research Council.
There are three class A drugs in the top five of the system, as well as one
Class B and alcohol.
Tobacco is listed as the ninth most harmful drug and cannabis, a class C
drug, comes in at number 11.
Perhaps most surprising is the presence of two Class A drugs - ecstasy and
LSD - in the bottom six.
This places them well below tobacco and alcohol and a number of class B and
C drugs.
Professor Blakemore told BBC News alcohol and tobacco were included in the
ranking to give a "calibration of what these levels of harm mean".
He added: "That's not to say there's any argument that alcohol should be
banned but it does give one a feel for the relative harm".
CURRENT DRUG CLASSIFICATION
Class A
Cocaine/crack
Heroin
Ecstasy
LSD
Magic mushrooms
Crystal meth (pending)
Class A/B
Amphetamines
Class C
Cannabis
Ketamine
MOST HARMFUL DRUGS |

|
GLOSSARY
Benzodiazepines: Wide-ranging class of prescription tranquilisers
Buprenorphine: Opioid drug used in treatment of opiate addiction
4-MTA : Amphetamine derivative sold as 'flatliners' and ecstasy
Methylphenidate: Amphetamine-like drug used to treat ADHD
Alkyl nitrites: Stimulant often called amyl nitrites or 'poppers'
|
Study finds no marijuana-lung cancer link
Marijuana smoking does not increase a person's risk of developing lung
cancer, according to the findings of a new study at the University of
California Los Angeles that surprised even the researchers
CNN.com
May 2006
They had expected to find that a history of heavy marijuana use, like
cigarette smoking, would increase the risk of cancer.
Instead, the study, which compared the lifestyles of 611 Los Angeles County
lung cancer patients and 601 patients with head and neck cancers with those
of 1,040 people without cancer, found no elevated cancer risk for even the
heaviest pot smokers. It did find a 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer in
people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
The study results were presented in San Diego Tuesday at a meeting of the
American Thoracic Society.
The study was confined to people under age 60 since baby boomers were the
most likely age group to have long-term exposure to marijuana, said Dr.
Donald Tashkin, senior researcher and professor at the UCLA School of
Medicine.
The results should not be taken as a blank check to smoke pot, which has
been associated with problems including cognitive impairment and chronic
bronchitis, said Dr. John Hansen-Flaschen, chief of pulmonary and critical
care at the University of Pennsylvania Health System in Philadelphia. He was
not involved in the study.
Previous studies showed marijuana tar contained about 50 percent more of the
chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco tar, Tashkin said. In
addition, smoking a marijuana joint deposits four times more tar in the
lungs than smoking an equivalent amount of tobacco.
"Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there's less filtration
through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled,"
Tashkin said in a statement. "And marijuana smokers typically smoke
differently than tobacco smokers -- they hold their breath about four times
longer, allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lung."
He theorized that tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, a chemical in marijuana
smoke that produces its psychotropic effect, may encourage aging, damaged
cells to die off before they become cancerous.
Hansen-Flaschen also cautioned a cancer-marijuana link could emerge as baby
boomers age and there may be smaller population groups, based on genetics or
other factors, still at risk for marijuana-related cancers.
|
Magic mushroom users turn to exotic alternatives to get
high without breaking law
They have exotic names like Funk Pills, Amsterdam Gold,
Kratom Leaf and Ayahuasca Sacrament and promise effects which range from the
mildly euphoric to "ecstasy-style" energy rushes and hallucinogenic
experiences.
Terry Kirby, Chief Reporter, The Independent
30 May 2006
But these are not drugs where you have to break the law to sell, buy or
consume them - they are all completely legal. Dozens of new and ancient
types of "legal highs" - derived from herbs, plants and cacti from South
America and Asia and synthetic stimulants from New Zealand - are available.
They can be bought, often at low prices, from internet-based companies and
an increasing number of high-street "head" shops.
Ironically, the trade has been stimulated by the Government's decision last
year to ban "magic mushrooms", which contain the hallucinogenic psilocin,
which had been sold openly through the internet and in places such as Camden
market in north London. The ban left a gap in the market, with consumers and
vendors looking for new products.
Mark Evans, of everyonedoesit.com, one of the leading internet-based mail
order operations, said the increase in trade since last year had been
"massive". He added: "There is a huge gap in the market. These consumers are
not going to disappear, they are just looking for alternatives." Mr Evans,
whose company also sells cannabis seeds for growing, said there had been a
change in the culture of people who consumed recreational drugs. "We do a
lot of festivals and speak to people who say they are fed up with dealers
and taking drugs - like ecstasy - where they cannot always be confident that
they know what is in the pill. People want something which will not poison
them and they [want to] know what they are buying."
Although many of the organic-based legal highs have, it is claimed, been
used in primitive communities for millennia, the current biggest seller,
Funk Pills, have only been in existence for a few years. Sales have rocketed
in the past six months. Selling for between 5 and 7, they come from New
Zealand, where they are made by companies licensed by the government there,
after it decided that they were a less-harmful substitute for illegal drugs
such as methamphetamine.
Also known as pep pills, they contain the stimulant benzylpiperazine -
banned in the US, Denmark and Australia - with other chemicals from the
piperazine family, which are also used to create Viagra.
According to DrugScope, the independent advice body, while some users are
keen on the pills, attributing genuine ecstasy-style effects, others are
more sceptical. The pills come with warnings about dosage, driving or using
machinery, and side effects can include those normally associated with
ecstasy or amphetamines, such as dehydration, anxiety and insomnia.
Another big seller is the Spice Smoking Blend, a new version of the herbal
mixes which are traditional legal alternatives to cannabis. "Herbal
substitutes were always a bit of a joke, but many people say these are the
closest thing to marijuana yet," said Mr Evans.
At the other end of the scale from Funk Pills are the 12 peyote cacti sold
by Chris Bovey, who runs another mail-order company, Potseeds.co.uk, based
in Totnes in Devon. Peyote cacti contain the hallucinogenic drug mescaline,
which has a similar effect to LSD and was the drug used by Aldous Huxley
before he wrote The Doors of Perception, which encouraged the use of
mind-altering drugs in the 1960s. Native American tribes have used it for
centuries as a shamanic plant that can create visions of an alternative
world. "It is a lot more in demand since the mushroom ban," he said.
Mr Bovey said consumers broadly divided into two groups - older "hippie"
types, used to smoking cannabis and younger buyers seeking to replicate the
"E" experience. Instances of addiction, abuse or harmful effects were almost
non-existent. The Home Office said there was no reason to examine the legal
status of any of the substances on the market.
Nevertheless, DrugScope issued advice to students in London earlier this
year, cautioning that any drug which has a psychological effect can prove
difficult to stop if used regularly. It added: "Proper controlled research
is sparse, and therefore side effects and possible dangers when taken with
other drugs and even foods is not known."
Harry Shapiro, a spokesman for DrugScope, added: "People with mental health
problems should not take them. If you are going to experiment, do so in a
safe and secure environment."
Herbal pleasures
* PEP PILLS: Marketed as Funk Pills or Party Pills and made from a chemical
derived from the pepper plant. Developed as a worming treatment for cattle.
Replicates the rush of ecstasy, but users should be careful of overdosing.
5-7 for 2-3 pills
* AMANITA MUSCARIA (FLY AGARIC): Red- capped, white-spotted mushroomlong
known for its psychoactive effects. Not covered by the Government's ban on
"magic mushrooms" since it does not contain psilocin. Users should start
with low doses. 14 for 12g
* KRATOM LEAF (above): Leaves of the Mitragyna speciosa tree of Malaysia and
Thailand. Described by PotSeeds as "one of the most effective and
pleasurable psychoactive herbs". Said to cause a dreamy sensation. Can be
addictive. 9 for 5g
* SALVIA DIVINORUM: Herb that can create an intense high lasting less than
an hour. Not recommended as a recreational drug. 10-17 a bag
* AYAHUASCA SACRAMENT: A shamanic plant potion, it can induce vomiting
before narcotic effects begin. Should not be mixed with with antidepressant
drugs. 4.99 for 30g
|
A mountain of anomalies
Politicians need to face up to the fact that there is no
rhyme or reason in the (UK) drug classification
system
James Randerson
Monday April 24, 2006
Guardian
'It's there because it's there." That was the frank answer from the head of
the government's top drug advisory body on why magic mushrooms are in the
most dangerous category - with heroin, crack and cocaine. Professor Sir
Michael Rawlins was admitting to MPs last month that the UK's drug
classification system is stacked with inconsistencies, ad hoc judgments and
historical accidents.
His testimony as chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD)
blew the gaff on government claims that its drug policy is "evidence-based".
The reality is that the classification system for illegal drugs is riddled
with anomalies and doesn't work.
On Wednesday, there will be another difficult hearing before the
parliamentary science and technology committee to probe the evidence base
for the entire drug classification system. The answers matter: No home
secretary has ever gone against the ACMD's recommendations.
You don't need to be a pharmacologist to realise that heroin is a lot more
dangerous than magic mushrooms. Between 1993 and 2000 there was one death in
the UK from magic mushrooms, but 5,700 from heroin. The government's Talk to
Frank drug education website says: "Magic mushrooms are not addictive in any
way."
Putting magic mushrooms into class A is indefensible by any "evidence-based"
criteria, but it was refreshing that Prof Rawlins did not try to defend it.
Moving it down would be unwise, though, he said, because it might encourage
use of what is undoubtedly a dangerous substance.
Another anomaly is the position of methamphetamine or crystal meth, a highly
addictive and dangerous dance drug that has yet to take off in Britain. In
November, the ACMD reviewed its status in class B and, despite deciding it
was more dangerous than other class B drugs, opted not to move it up to
class A. "Why?" asked the MPs.
Moving it could have the perverse effect of making it a more desirable
product for users and so stimulate demand, Prof David Nutt, a distinguished
psychopharmacologist and chair of the ACMD's technical committee told the
MPs. So moving mushrooms down might stimulate demand, but moving crystal
meth up would have the same effect?
A shift up the scale could well give a drug more kudos, as Prof Nutt
suggests. But that undermines one of the key tenets of UK drug laws - that
more dangerous drugs are placed in higher categories because of their
greater risks. The higher penalties attached to those drugs tell would-be
users that cocaine, for example, is more dangerous than cannabis.
Next up is the distinction between cocaine and coca leaves, both placed in
class A despite solid evidence that the unrefined plant is far less
dangerous. Amphetamines are classed differently depending on what form they
are in, so why not cocaine as well? "That's a very good question," said Prof
Nutt. But he didn't have an answer. And, asked why ecstasy sat in class A,
he replied that it too was "an anomaly".
Drug treatment charities have argued for years that the classification
system is inconsistent and is failing to protect the most vulnerable. Why,
if it is really designed to reduce harm to the user and to society, do the
two most dangerous drugs not form part of it? Alcohol contributes to around
1.2m assaults a year and smoking kills 130,000.
That these are not classified is the biggest anomaly in an antiquated system
that has utterly failed to prevent drug use from rocketing. The blame lies
not with the ACMD, but with the framework within which it is forced to
operate. Only if politicians acknowledge the system's faults will we have
any hope of building a legal framework that will protect users and society
effectively.
James Randerson is the Guardian's science correspondent
|
|

Credit:
The Onion
|
The strange case of the man who took 40,000 ecstasy pills
in nine years
Usage increased to 25 tablets a day at peak
Memory problems and paranoia may be lasting
David McCandless
Tuesday April 4, 2006
Guardian
Doctors from London University have revealed details of what they believe is
the largest amount of ecstasy ever consumed by a single person. Consultants
from the addiction centre at St George's Medical School, London, have
published a case report of a British man estimated to have taken around
40,000 pills of MDMA, the active ingredient in ecstasy, over nine years. The
heaviest previous lifetime intake on record is 2,000 pills.
Though the man, who is now 37, stopped taking the drug seven years ago, he
still suffers from severe physical and mental health side-effects, including
extreme memory problems, paranoia, hallucinations and depression. He also
suffers from painful muscle rigidity around his neck and jaw which often
prevents him from opening his mouth. The doctors believe many of these
symptoms may be permanent.
The man, known as Mr A in the report in the scientific journal
Psychosomatics, started using ecstasy at 21. For the first two years his use
was an average of five pills per weekend. Gradually this escalated until he
was taking around three and a half pills a day. At the peak, the man was
taking an estimated 25 pills every day for four years. After several severe
collapses at parties, Mr A decided to stop taking ecstasy. For several
months, he still felt he was under the influence of the drug, despite being
bedridden.
Hallucinations
His condition deteriorated and he began to experience recurrent tunnel
vision and other problems including hallucinations, paranoia and muscle
rigidity. "He came to us after deciding that he couldn't go on any more,"
said Dr Christos Kouimtsidis, the consultant psychiatrist at St George's
Medical School in Tooting who treated him for five months. "He was having
trouble functioning in everyday life."
The doctors discovered that the man was suffering from severe short-term
memory problems of a type usually only seen in lifetime alcoholics. But
evaluating the full extent of his condition was difficult as his
concentration and attention was so impaired he was unable to follow the
simple tasks involved in the test.
"This was an exceptional case. His long- term memory was fine but he could
not remember day to day things - the time, the day, what was in his
supermarket trolley," said Dr Kouimtsidis. "More worryingly, he did not seem
aware himself that he had these memory problems."
With no mental illness in his family and no prior psychiatric history, the
doctors concluded that his unique condition was direct result of his intense
ecstasy use.
"This is obviously an extreme case so we should not blow any observations
out of proportion," says Dr Kouimtsidis. "But if this is what is happening
to very heavy users, it might be an indication that daily use of ecstasy
over a long period of time can lead to irreversible memory problems and
other cognitive deficits."
For 10 years, MDMA has been suspected of causing these kinds of effects in
heavy users. It is thought to be due to its disruption of the regulation of
serotonin, a brain chemical believed to play a role in mood and memory. It
remains unclear whether these effects are the result of permanent neurotoxic
damage or just temporary reversible alterations in the brain.
A special two-part MDMA study in recent issues of the Journal of
Psychopharmacology (available online at sagepub), suggests long-term
side-effects may be temporary. The researchers from the University Of
Louisiana could find no significant relationship between depression and
recreational ecstasy use.
In the case of Mr A, a structural MRI brain scan failed to show any obvious
damage or atrophy in his brain. However, these results, says Dr Kouimtsidis,
are difficult to interpret. "A scan of this type is not sensitive enough,"
he said.
Such limitations in brain scanning technology, along with ethical and legal
barriers to giving MDMA to human test subjects, have limited direct
observation of the drug's effects in humans.
Instead, scientists have had to use recreational drug users as subjects in
their studies. Conclusions from this are often flawed because few, if any,
drugs users use ecstasy in isolation.
Cannabis user
Mr A was also a heavy cannabis user, and when he was encouraged to decrease
his use, his paranoia and hallucinations disappeared and his anxiety abated.
But his memory and concentration problems remained, leading the doctors to
suspect that these may be permanent disabilities.
When he was admitted to a specialist brain injury unit and put on
anti-psychotic medication, he did start to show some improvement.
"Unfortunately, he discharged himself before we were able to complete the
assessment," says Dr Kouimtsidis. "We continued to support him. But he
started to use cannabis again and he dropped out. We tried to re-engage him
but we lost him about a year ago."
The Guardian made several attempts to find the man without success.
Effects of ecstasy
MDMA is one of the most intensely studied recreational drugs in history. But
despite thousands of research papers and studies, scientific evidence on the
side-effects remains inconclusive.
Death by overdose
Undoubtedly, large amounts of ecstasy can lead to over-heating which in
turn, in rare cases, can trigger fatal heat stroke. Many factors contribute:
number and strength of pills taken, environment, alcohol-consumption, body
weight - but women seem more at risk. The bulk of ecstasy-related deaths
around the world have been young women.
Water-poisoning
Panicking users, fearing they are overdosing, drink too much water and
provoke hyponaetraemia (water-poisoning). Leah Betts died after drinking 14
pints in just 90 minutes. The recommended amount of water to drink per hour
is one pint.
Toxic reactions
Much of the reports of toxic reactions are muddled with overdose or
water-poisoning deaths. There is no clear evidence that some people suffer
allergic reactions to ecstasy. However, around 10% of Western users do lack
a key liver enzyme CYP2D6 needed to break down MDMA. This may make them more
sensitive to the effects and more prone to accidental overdose.
Depression
Many weekend users report a mid-week mood dip. This is suspected to be
related MDMA's effect on serotonin, but hard evidence is lacking. In heavy
users, dips can turn to crashes and depression. However studies suggest this
effect reverses after a 2-3 month abstinence.
Positive effects
Users still claim "long lasting improvements in self-awareness, self-esteem,
openness and insight into personal problems", reports the study from the
University Of Louisiana. In the US, research continues into the use of MDMA-assisted
psychotherapy to treat Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
|
The Onion Report:
92 Percent Of Souls In Hell There On Drug Charges
October 12, 2005
|
The cocaine paradox
Cocaine is an addictive Class A drug, its use widely deplored. Yet, as
recent events perhaps show, its sphere of influence is wider than we might
think. So, do we have a paradoxical attitude to the drug?
By Jonathan Duffy
BBC News Magazine
Oct 2005
Everyone enjoys a party now and again, so who could begrudge those
celebrities who populate the pages of the tabloid press with tales of their
"partying" antics? Yet all is not what it might seem with such stories.
One interesting aspect to emerge from the deluge of coverage following last
month's allegations that Kate Moss had snorted cocaine was the use of the
word "partying". Frequently it is a euphemism for doing drugs.
"Celebrities are forever saying in interviews: 'X was partying a lot at that
time'," wrote author and journalist Anna Blundy. "What they mean is that
they were addicted to drugs."
This revelation will come as no surprise to many insiders. From LA to
London, cocaine has long been known as a social lubricant.
It is a stimulant, helping users feel alert and socially confident. It dulls
the inhibitions that most of us have, to a greater or lesser extent, when
mixing with a bunch of people we don't know very well.
In some parts of some industries - fashion, public relations, the media,
city trading, pop music, to name just a few - socialising into the small
hours is part of the job. And coke is part of the scene.
Robbie Williams last weekend highlighted what he saw as hypocritical views
towards the drug in the media, saying he had personally taken cocaine with
journalists who had criticised Kate Moss for doing the same.
For all its associations of glamour, cocaine use is not condoned by modern
mainstream society - though things were different in the 19th Century, when
it could be found in dozens of medicines on sale in High Street chemists.
While legalisation of cannabis, a so-called soft drug, is a perennial
debate, heroin and crack occupy the other end of the spectrum. Hard and
highly addictive, they draw in the desperate, and turn them into junkies.
But despite having the same Class A status, cocaine occupies a more
paradoxical place. While the media overtly abhors it, in the very same
breath it laps up the glamorised celebrity culture that cocaine helps
perpetuate.
What's more, sections of society have increasingly come to imitate these
values, as individuals become accustomed to spending more on going out and
enjoying themselves. The falling cost of cocaine has also made it more
accessible.
Mark is 33, owns his own flat, rides a scooter around London and knows how
to apply himself in his skilled job of website development. He also enjoys
cocaine.
'Socially acceptable'
He is just the sort of person Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police
commissioner, had in his sights when last year he vowed to target middle
class cocaine users who think it is "socially acceptable".
COCAINE FACTS
Street price has fallen to about 40 per gram
Bought as a 'wrap', can be padded out with sugar, starch etc
Effects are short-lived, can result in a flu-like 'hangover'
Cocaine use has risen sharply in the past nine years, albeit from a low
base. Latest figures show 2.4% of 16-59-year-olds in England and Wales had
used cocaine in the past 12 months - up from 0.6% in 1996.
In the mid-90s ecstasy and hallucinogenic drugs were more popular than
cocaine. Today, coke is the second most popular illegal drug, after
cannabis. The steepest rise has been within the 25-34 age group - which
includes Mark - where almost 6% took coke in the previous year.
Mark first tried cocaine when he was 19 and his usage now goes in fits and
starts.
"I'm waiting for a delivery now, for the weekend. It's a friend's birthday.
But it's been six weeks since I last took it," he says. Last year, though,
there was a two-month stretch where he took cocaine every weekend.
He likes the drug's ability to "perk you up" on a Friday night, at a bar
with a drink after a tiring week, and how it oils the wheels in a social
situation.
"There's also the social aspect of going to the loos with a friend and
giving them a line of coke. It's a friendly act, and it's also a bit
naughty."
Health issues
The drawbacks of snorting coke include damage to the lining of the nose,
which leads to surges in blood pressure caused by the narrowing of coronary
arteries. Users can suffer chest pains which can lead to heart attacks or
strokes, and some experience an itch, known as "cocaine bugs".
Aside from the physical problems, regular use can also lead to psychosis and
severe depression, say experts. And, as with all illegal drugs, it can
create a divide between those friends and family who also use them, and
those who don't.
So far though, Mark has seen nothing of these effects - either in him, or
his network of about 15 friends who also take coke.
"You might have a bad night, but you'd have that on alcohol. None of us has
been hospitalised from coke."
The alcohol point is an important one for Mark and those like him, who argue
there is a moral equivalence between alcohol and drugs like cocaine. Yet one
is legal and one is banned.
"You go into the bars where I work and you know people are taking it. It's
going on and everyone knows it. Celebrities take coke all the time, but it's
just not reported. It's like [comedian] Bill Hicks said - you've got to have
a war on something."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Add your comments to this story using the form below:
I'm a 30 year old professional who uses coke from time to time. I like to
party every now and then, for special occasions. Sometimes it's very
infrequent, with several months in between, other times you might have a
more hectic month. The media are hypocrites. Cocaine use by the press, and
by people in TV in general is rife. However, I'm glad it's illegal because
it would get out of hand - like drink is for wider society today. But
generally speaking, the addictiveness and social corruption that is
portrayed as going hand-in-hand with cocaine is one of those urban myths.
Most users do it very casually, in modest amounts every now and then and it
is not a problem.
Andy, London, UK
Although I do not condone drug use of any kind, cocaine is so over rated . I
have seen more deaths, violence and anti social behaviour from effects of
alcohol. But this is a nice taxable drug so nothing is ever done about it. I
would like to see figures comparing deaths from drug related abuse compared
with deaths from alcohol related abuse, I think the figures speak for
themselves. Let's face it, at around 60 a gram who can afford cocaine,
apart from the rich and socialites. You can get 24 cans of Carling for 10..
TC, UK
I occasionally take cocaine, and so do most of my friends. I know several
people who have had problems with drink, but no one who has become addicted
with cocaine, mainly because its to expensive to take regularly.
Neil, Birmingham
Quite apart from the legal and health questions, what strikes me as odd is
that the same metropolitan types who would only ever buy organic and
fair-trade food see it as "socially acceptable" to perpetuate the world's
most immoral industry, which thinks nothing of participating in every crime
from arms dealing to people trafficking, prostitution and murder. How can
they say it is just like alcohol?
Seb, London
Would the person in the story be happy about taking those drugs if he was
aware of the misery caused to get him his 15 minutes of happiness?
Chris Wills, UK
Good to see a more honest, less knee-jerk report on cocaine use. One thing
that the article fails to mention is that people on coke generally become
arrogant and obnoxious.
Will, UK
I'm not sure where this view of Cocaine being socially deplored comes from.
Certainly no-one in my group of friends has a particularly negative attitude
towards it. It seems the only people thinking cocaine is the worst thing
since the invention of the gun are those enforcing its illegality.
Andy, Reading, UK
Why is Cocaine socially unacceptable? It is used in every walk of life, from
plumbers to policemen. I don't use it myself, but would never condemn
someone else for it - it's very small minded to portray it as a celebrity
drug - or that people taking it are aping celebrities. It's been in every
area of society for a long time and I'm surprised it's even a topic for
discussion.
Magnus, Switzerland
You have totally missed one fundamental point about cocaine in your story.
And that is the effect on other people around you. For several years I
worked with a few people who had coke habits. And the whole experience was a
nightmare. It makes people paranoid, utterly selfish and gives them a hugely
inflated opinion of themselves and their abilities. It was the hardest job I
ever had, purely because of this horrible substance that they thought was
"fashionable" to take.
John, UK
Thank you for publishing this interesting and thought-provoking article.
It's great to see journalists moving beyond the far too simplistic "drugs
are bad" mantra. Although it's for each to make up his/her own mind on this
difficult issue, at least different sides of the debate are being aired.
Deepak Nambisan, London
Why waste your lives on addictive drugs? There is a lot more mature ways to
enjoy yourself out there! Take a drink or play a sport. It's healthier!
Dennis O Rourke, Ireland
One thing not mentioned in the article about regular consumers of cocaine is
how obnoxious many people become when on the drug. That's what does the
long-term damage.
Anna, UK
My friends got into cocaine, and after a few months of dabbling, they
couldn't go out without it. The mix of alcohol and coke always turned them
into violent, aggressive people, and they became more and more selfish and
self-consumed, turning their backs on family and friends alike, just to get
high. I am no longer friends with these people, and personally I don't think
the drug should be treated as 'recreational'. It is almost more damaging to
society than binge-drinking and turns even the nicest person into an angry,
and needy being, sometimes even a criminal, just for the sake of a line.
Hazel Miller, England
A friend of mine takes an awful lot of coke which started off as a weekend
thing and then he suddenly realised that he was doing it on a Monday...
Tuesday and then my goodness, is it really Thursday? Almost the weekend
again and time for more 'sniff!' When I pointed out that he will end up
suffering from "Westbrooke nostril syndrome" he said, "Ah, well... I will be
able to fit more in that way!"
Sean C, UK
Quote: "Celebrities are forever saying in interviews: 'X was partying a lot
at that time'," wrote author and journalist Anna Blundy. "What they mean is
that they were addicted to drugs. "No what they mean is that they were
TAKING drugs. How can a supposedly bona-fide journalist twist the term
'partying' into addiction. Christ!
Edd, UK
The collusion between the media and celebrities over the years has served to
make cocaine usage seem very normal, fashionable, a bit naughty but
ultimately safe. On the one hand, says the press, it's OK as long as you
don't get found out, but if you do get found out we will feign horror. None
of the coverage is at all helpful to ordinary people like me trying to raise
children to aware of the dangers of drugs.
Lorraine, St Albans, UK
Compare how many people die from class A substance use with the number
killed by 'socially acceptable' drugs such as alcohol, and the danger of
illegal substances is shown to be negligible. Politicians and journalists
alike love a tipple of course, so no stigma is attached to G&Ts. Some people
would call that hypocrisy.
Chris Lockie, UK
Well done for showing a balanced view on this subject.
,
The one thing that puts me off cocaine ahead of anything else is the sheer
misery it causes in the countries where it's produced, and the manipulation
and intimidation of the "mules" - usually vulnerable women - who are used to
bring it into the country. Reading your recent story on here about Sonia who
was forced to choke down cocaine or face threats to her children, I wonder
that anyone can justify their weekend high when it costs such a high price
to someone else.
Chandra, England
Take it - or don't - but it's unfair of the media and politicians to accept
that the use of cocaine is rife when it suits them and to stigmatise people
on a whim.
Cheryl,
If anyone wants a moral reason not to do cocaine, it's because it's the
worst cash crop in existence - there are many thousands of farmers in South
America who are forced to grow it because it's the only crop that will make
them any money. Developed countries dump subsidised surpluses on them, and
local farmers can't compete with the prices. This means they get locked into
a cycle of poverty where they have to grow coke - they hardly see any
profits, as most of the money is taken by the local cartels who then rule
with an iron fist. It's ironic that celebrities and the middle class, who
are so eager to support fair trade initiatives on one hand, should
nonetheless effectively support such a corrupt system with the other.
Rob, UK
I think there are some very pertinent questions raised in this article,
especially about the hypocrisy of tabloid journalists. They scream for the
sacking of Kate Moss but one wonders how many of them would go straight from
work and do much the same.
Chris, UK
|

|
Coming soon: the recreational drug with no side-effects
The Independent
Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
12 August 2005
It is the news that clubbers have been waiting for. Scientists are working
on a range of recreational drugs that can produce similar effects to alcohol
but with fewer of the side-effects.
Experts looked 20 years into the future to discover what kind of drugs we
would be taking, and came up with a surprising range of findings, that open
up the prospect of Sunday mornings without a thumping hangover or the
"parrot's cage" mouth.
They have also been able to separate the effect of one psychoactive
substance from its addictive properties, leading an expert panel to advise
Government ministers that "this could pave the way to non-addictive
recreational drugs".
One of the new substances has even been found to reduce the side effects of
recreational drugs. "Such compounds might allow users to shape their drug
experience," said the panel headed by Sir David King, the Government's chief
scientific adviser.
His report to the Trade and Industry Secretary, Alan Johnson, raises the
possibility that, in a generation, Britain's dinner parties could become
more like Woody Allen's "orb" scene in the futuristic film Sleeper, where
guests get high by rubbing the orb instead of inhaling a joint.
The report said: "There are a number of new and developing technologies that
could be used to deliver drugs in new ways. Examples include patches,
vaporisers, depot injection and direct neural stimulation ... this may
encourage the development of technology for the slower release of
recreational psychoactive substances, which could reduce the risk of
addiction."
Some drugs developed to tackle health problems are capable of being used for
improving the performance of the brain. Madafinil, which was introduced to
treat narcolepsy, can keep normal people awake for three days, says the
report.
Other drugs could be used to stop alcohol triggering a need for a cigarette.
"Drinking with friends might no longer create a trigger for an individual to
smoke tobacco," the panel said.
Illicit laboratories that have supplied the black market with drugs for
years may also accidentally discover drugs that could help sufferers from
degenerative diseases in old age. "Perhaps the next major breakthrough in
treatments for Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, may come from some informal
developer seeking to find the next rush," says the report.
However, the report could give ministers a hangover. It raises questions
that they would prefer to be swept under the carpet.
In addition to raising the possibility that new drugs could remove the nasty
side-effects of recreational drugs, it raises taboo subjects such as whether
in future, prohibition is the right way to stop young people using drugs
such as ecstasy.
It says an early warning of new drugs on the scene is essential in order to
manage their use. "Such insights could play a key role in limiting the harm
of any new recreational substances. It might also become apparent that some
psychoactive substances are less harmful. Their use might be encouraged to
replace more harmful ones."
Such a move would require a change in the drug laws because such drugs would
be illegal. Sir David says in a foreword to the report: "We are on the verge
of developments which could possibly move us into a world where we could
take a drug to help us learn, think faster, relax, sleep more efficiently or
even subtly alter our mood to match that of our friends."
The expert team ran a number of different workshops with members of the
public to find out their views on how society would react to new drugs, and
also did extensive scientific reviews. They also looked into the prospect of
medical advances for tackling mental illnesses -such as clinical depression
- by incorporating drugs in food.
|
Pupils 'reject more drug offers'
BBC NEWS
2005/06/06Teenagers are five times more likely to have
been offered illegal drugs than in the late 1980s. But the number of school
pupils actually taking drugs is similar to a decade ago, shows research from
the Schools Health Education Unit.
The unit's research manager, David Regis, says this suggests that young
people are being successfully taught to reject drugs.
"There is evidence here that schools' efforts are working," he says.
The report looks at changes in the availability and the use of drugs among
secondary school pupils between 1987 and 2004.
'Refusal skills'
It shows a very steep increase in availability between the late 1980s and
the early 2000s - with the number of 14 and 15-year-olds reporting that they
had been offered drugs rising about fivefold to around one in two.
This growth in pushing drugs at school-age youngsters, which includes a
range of narcotics including cannabis, ecstasy and heroin, appears to have
flattened off in the past few years.
But the figures for the numbers of young people saying they have taken drugs
peaked in the mid-1990s and since then has generally fluctuated between 20%
and 30% of 14 to 15-year-olds.
When the sampling methods have been taken into account, this is seen as
showing that illegal drug use has flattened off and remained broadly
constant for the past decade.
At present, the survey finds that 29% of 14 to 15-year-olds have taken
cannabis.
In the mid-1980s, before the decade-long surge in drug use, there were only
about 5% of young people who had taken any illegal drug.
This overview of two decades shows a pattern of young people having a great
deal more opportunity to experiment with drugs - but that since the
mid-1990s, the increase in supply has not been matched by a similar surge in
demand.
Dr Regis says that this could mean that the "market is saturated" in terms
of how many young people are susceptible to offers of illegal drugs - and
regardless of availability, larger numbers are not going to be tempted to
experiment.
But he says it also demonstrates that young people are being successfully
equipped with the skills to reject offers of drugs.
Drug education lessons in schools can include role play where pupils
practise rejecting the temptation to experiment, he says.
"They practise in the classroom where a pupil says 'just try one, it won't
do any harm' and the other pupil has to learn to find a form of words to
hold their line.
"They are being trained in refusal skills and clearly a lot of young people
have this capacity to refuse unwelcome offers, which is good news," said Dr
Regis.
The survey from the Exeter-based unit, based on a sample of 370,000 people
aged between 10 and 15, also disproved stereotypes that inner-city areas
were more likely to experience drug problems than rural schools, said Dr
Regis.
Instead, he said that the biggest differences were often between schools
close together, but which had entirely different experiences of drug
problems.
"You can walk across a road and see a dramatic difference between two
schools - in one drugs are around and in the other one they are not. You can
cross a street and be in a different social world," he says.
The survey also found little evidence of a widespread problem with hard
drugs such as heroin.
And Dr Regis cautioned that despite the attention paid to illegal drugs,
"the drugs that they are most likely to experiment with and which are most
likely to kill them are tobacco and alcohol".
|
|
Real-world information
about recreational drugs from
OCADU (Oxfordshire Council on Alcohol and Drug Use)
here
|
'Infomania' worse than marijuana
Workers distracted by email and phone calls suffer a fall in
IQ more than twice that found in marijuana smokers, new research has
claimed.
BBC NEWS 22/04/05
The study for computing firm Hewlett Packard warned of a rise in "infomania",
with people becoming addicted to email and text messages.
Researchers found 62% of people checked work messages at home or on holiday.
The firm said new technology can help productivity, but users must learn to
switch computers and phones off.
Losing sleep
The study, carried out at the Institute of Psychiatry, found excessive use
of technology reduced workers' intelligence.
Those distracted by incoming email and phone calls saw a 10-point fall in
their IQ - more than twice that found in studies of the impact of smoking
marijuana, said researchers.
More than half of the 1,100 respondents said they always responded to an
email "immediately" or as soon as possible, with 21% admitting they would
interrupt a meeting to do so.
The University of London psychologist who carried out the study, Dr Glenn
Wilson, told the Daily Mail that unchecked infomania could reduce workers'
mental sharpness.
Those who are constantly breaking away from tasks to react to email or text
messages suffer similar effects on the mind as losing a night's sleep, he
said.
|
Ecstasy trials for combat stress
American soldiers traumatised by fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan are to be offered the drug ecstasy to help free them of
flashbacks and recurring nightmares.
David Adam, science correspondent
Thursday February 17 2005
The Guardian
The US food and drug administration has given the go-ahead for the soldiers
to be included in an experiment to see if MDMA, the active ingredient in
ecstasy, can treat post-traumatic stress disorder.
Scientists behind the trial in South Carolina think the feelings of
emotional closeness reported by those taking the drug could help the
soldiers talk about their experiences to therapists. Several victims of rape
and sexual abuse with post-traumatic stress disorder, for whom existing
treatments are ineffective, have been given MDMA since the research began
last year.
Michael Mithoefer, the psychiatrist leading the trial, said: "It's looking
very promising. It's too early to draw any conclusions but in these
treatment-resistant people so far the results are encouraging.
"People are able to connect more deeply on an emotional level with the fact
they are safe now."
He is about to advertise for war veterans who fought in the last five years
to join the study.
According to the US national centre for post-traumatic stress disorder, up
to 30% of combat veterans suffer from the condition at some point in their
lives.
Known as shell shock during the first world war and combat fatigue in the
second, the condition is characterised by intrusive memories, panic
attacks and the avoidance of situations which might force sufferers to
relive their wartime experiences.
Dr Mithoefer said the MDMA helped people discuss traumatic situations
without triggering anxiety.
"It appears to act as a catalyst to help people move through whatever's been
blocking their success in therapy."
The existing drug-assisted therapy sessions last up to eight hours, during
music is played. The patients swallow a capsule containing a placebo or
125mg of MDMA - about the same or a little more than a typical ecstasy
tablet.
Psychologists assess the patients before and after the trial to judge
whether the drug has helped.
The study has provoked controversy, because significant doubts remain about
the long-term risks of ecstasy.
Animal studies suggest that it lowers levels of the brain chemical
serotonin, and some politicians and anti-drug campaigners have argued that
research into possible medical benefits of illegal drugs presents a falsely
reassuring message.
The South Carolina study marks a resurgence of interest in the use of
controlled psychedelic and hallucinogenic drugs. Several studies in the US
are planned or are under way to investigate whether MDMA, LSD and
psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms, can treat conditions
ranging from obsessive compulsive disorder to anxiety in terminal cancer
patients.
|
|
Treating agony with ecstasy
Dancefloor drugs dismissed as merely recreational may have medicinal
benefits - helping patients to get the most out of therapy. David Adam
investigates
David Adam
Thursday February 17, 2005
Guardian
In 1960 a 40-year-old psychology lecturer at
Harvard University took a trip that changed his life. In Mexico for a
holiday, the academic tried magic mushrooms, triggering an interest in the
psychological effects of hallucinogenic drugs that would ultimately lead to
him being sacked, arrested, kidnapped and having seven grams of his mortal
remains blasted into space after he died.
The lecturer was Timothy Leary, better known as the 1960s drug guru who
urged America's youngsters to "turn on, tune in, drop out". Leary believed
that hallucinogens could alter behaviour in unprecedented and beneficial
ways, and in experiments at Harvard he doped graduate students with
psilocybin - the active compound in magic mushrooms - and LSD.
He argued that the results of his experiments could help to treat
alcoholics and reform criminals; but they enraged parents and unsettled
colleagues. Harvard sacked Leary and his colleague Richard Alpert (later
known as Ram Dass) in 1963 and the episode has left an embarrassing stain on
the university's reputation ever since.
Now, more than 40 years later, research using psychedelic drugs is
returning to Harvard.
John Halpern, a psychiatrist at the university's McLean Hospital, is set
to study whether a compound called MDMA can help ease anxiety in terminal
cancer patients. MDMA - or to chemists 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine -
is better known as the dancefloor drug ecstasy.
The study is the latest example of revived interest in the medicinal
properties of controlled hallucinogenic or psychedelic drugs, loosely
defined by their ability to alter perception, cognition or mood. Some
researchers place MDMA in a different class, the empathogens, because it
influences emotions.
Trials of MDMA for post-traumatic stress disorder are already under way
in America, and psilocybin is being tried for anxiety and
obsessive-compulsive disorder. There are even moves to reintroduce research
on LSD at Harvard, where Halpern wants to test its abilities to treat
cluster headaches - severe attacks that strike at the same time each day for
weeks at a time.
"Drugs can be controlled but that doesn't stop them being useful,"
Halpern says. "That's what doctors are supposed to focus on and that's what
I'm trying to do. The Leary connotations are understandable for a popular
culture that is still struggling to resolve what happened in the 1960s.
"Let's face it, it was a huge fiasco back then, but Tim Leary was not a
physician and didn't come to this from a medical approach."
Halpern's MDMA trial is different: 12 cancer patients with less than a
year to live will be given varying doses under controlled conditions and
strict supervision. Crucially, the trial was given the green light by
several ethical review boards and approval from the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in December. One hurdle remains: Halpern has yet to
receive a licence from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to handle
the drug, though he expects to obtain one within weeks.
The ecstasy is not a chemical fix for the patients' anxiety, instead it
is intended to help them to open up and get the most from conventional
counselling. Halpern says the drug allows people to talk about topics they
would otherwise avoid.
"It's really tough doing psychotherapy with people who have anxiety
disorders because when you get to the heart of the matter it causes a panic
attack. For somebody who has a particularly gruesome time trying to talk
about important end-of-life issues it bubbles into anxiety and nothing gets
achieved," Halpern says.
"MDMA may be potentially useful in that it doesn't induce that reaction.
We want to see if that can translate into decreased anxiety and meaningful
increases in the quality of life for these people."
The alternative, he says, is heavy doses of sedatives such as Valium. "At
the moment these people have a choice of being over-sedated and not having
anxiety or being alert and suffering panic attacks."
Patients volunteering for the trial will receive up to 125mg of MDMA over
two experimental sessions several hours apart - about the same or a little
more than in a typical ecstasy tablet. They will also receive more
conventional help during several non-drug sessions. Psychologists will
assess their mental state before and after the trial to judge whether the
drug has helped.
Rick Doblin, the founder and head of the Multidisciplinary Association
for Psychedelic Studies, which funds the Harvard research, says the study
could bring one step closer his goal of making MDMA a prescription medicine.
"It's going to be a hurdle but as we get pilot studies that show promise
I think it will get easier and easier to raise money for the research,"
Doblin says. "A lot of people think what we're trying to do is impossible
and so don't bother to help out. Now we've shown that it is possible."
His group is funding the world's only current clinical trial of MDMA. At
his South Carolina clinic, psychiatrist Michael Mithoefer has given the drug
or a placebo to victims of rape and sexual abuse who suffer from
post-traumatic stress disorder. The trial started almost a year ago and five
of a total of 20 patients have been treated so far. Two more - the victim of
a random shooting and a police officer involved in a violent incident - are
lined up, and Mithoefer is preparing to extend the study to American
soldiers traumatised by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan after receiving
permission from the FDA.
The research is controversial and getting it off the ground proved
difficult. The FDA originally approved the South Carolina study in November
2001 but insisted that Doblin's group also get permission from an
independent ethics review board; these oversee research and are usually
attached to universities. The first seven applications to separate boards
were rejected because of fears of legal action, experimental bias or in some
cases with no explanation at all.
The dangers of ecstasy remain uncertain. In 2003, researchers at Johns
Hopkins School of Medicine led by George Ricaurte were forced to retract
claims that a single tablet could cause irreversible brain damage and even
death in monkeys after they discovered a labelling mix-up meant they used
the wrong drug in their experiments. Just 18 days later, the South Carolina
trial got the go-ahead from its eighth ethics review board.
But significant doubts over the long-term risks of MDMA remain: animal
studies show that it can lower levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin. It
is difficult to judge whether similar changes occur in the brains of human
users - though there is indirect evidence to suggest they do - and there is
little evidence on what long-term effect, if any, this could have.
Some politicians and anti-drug campaigners have argued that research into
the medical potential of illegal drugs presents a false reassuring message
about their safety.
Doblin rejects this, arguing that several controlled drugs already have
"dual use" and are used both for recreation and medicine. Heroin is
routinely prescribed as a painkiller (though not in the US where synthetic
versions are used) and cocaine is used as a local anaesthetic for surgery
around the nose because it numbs tissue so effectively. "No one has been
saying that the rise in street use of methamphetamine is because some kids
with attention deficit disorder get prescribed it," Doblin says.
"We have to recognise there is no risk-free strategy. We're not trying to
sell what we're doing as the way to solve all the problems with drugs. You
look at the people who are taking MDMA for post-traumatic stress disorder
and you would say that's the opposite of ecstasy. They're crying and
shaking. They're not saying 'Oh I'm so happy and I love the guy who did this
to me,'" he adds.
Some people who take ecstasy in clubs break through emotional barriers to
memories of childhood or other abuse, he says. Deliberately suppressing
these feelings if they feel unable to talk about them with their friends at
the time can then make the situation worse. "I think that's the real risk of
MDMA, more significant than the few cases of people who overheat and die and
drink too much water and die."
The results of the South Carolina trial are expected at some point next
year. Doblin says the next stage will be two larger trials involving
hundreds of people: one would take place in the US and the second probably
in Israel or Spain, where smaller studies are already planned.
Jose Carlos Bouso of the Autonomous University of Madrid started his own
study of MDMA for patients with post traumatic stress disorder in 2001.
Spanish drug-enforcement officials halted the work in 2002 after political
pressure, but Doblin is hopeful that it will restart soon.
It's not just interest in MDMA that is on the rise. Francisco Moreno at
the University of Arizona at Tuscon is currently writing up the results of a
trial of eight people with obsessive-compulsive disorder treated with
psilocybin. Psychiatrist Charles Grob at the University of California, Los
Angeles, is also testing psilocybin, to relieve anxiety in terminal cancer
patients.
Elsewhere, a team at the Orenda Institute in Baltimore has asked the FDA
for permission to give cancer sufferers LSD and a Russian group in St
Petersburg led by Evgeny Krupitsky are investigating whether heroin addicts
can be helped by treatment with the psychedelic drug ketamine, which is
commonly used as a horse tranquilliser.
A small clinic in Peru is also treating drug addicts with a hallucinogen
- the native brew Ayahuasca, which is unusual because it contains
dimethyltryptamine or DMT, the only psychedelic compound our bodies produce
naturally.
Mithoefer, who leads the South Carolina MDMA trial, says it is too early
to tell if the compound has clinical benefits, though the early signs are
good. "The trend that we're noticing so far is that people are able to
connect more deeply on an emotional level with the fact that they are safe
now."
The trial is double-blind - meaning neither the patients nor the
scientists know who has been given the MDMA - but Mithoefer says there are
several tell-tale signs, not least that pulse rate and blood pressure
increase.
"It's a little hard to describe, there's just a real sense of somebody
having a new experience and connecting with their trauma."
Each drug-assisted session lasts about eight hours, during which patients
lie down and music is played - though psychedelic classics such as the
Beatles' Sergeant Pepper are out. "None of that stuff, because it has
lyrics," Doblin says. "Lyrics plant images into people's minds and we really
want people to be free to bring up their own content."
Halpern at Harvard hopes to get his trial of MDMA in cancer patients
under way by the spring. "If it doesn't work then I'll feel bad about that
but I'll get another paper published and that will further my career and I
suppose that's nice," he says.
"But if it [MDMA] does help it should be compelling, and that shouldn't
be thrown away because of the controversy over how some people end up
abusing it."
|
|
Anger over 'harmless heroin' study
A new study claiming that heroin
can be taken without damaging health or job prospects has been condemned by
drug addiction groups.
Debbie Andalo and agencies
Thursday February 3, 2005
SocietyGuardian.co.uk
Researchers said the study proved that some users of the class A drug can
find work, hold down a job and achieve educational qualifications which
compare to non-drug users.
The study was based on 126 long-term heroin users who were not in
treatment recruited in Glasgow over a four-year period. All had used opiates
at least 10 times in the past two years, and had been using heroin for seven
years.
Of those users, the majority were married, 74% were employed and 64% had
gone into higher or further education. Only 5% had no educational
qualifications and 15% were unemployed.
David Shewan from Glasgow Caledonian University, who carried out the
research with colleague Phil Dalgarno, said the findings exposed a hidden
population of drug users who have previously been ignored.
He said: "The important thing about the study is that it shows while
there are heroin users with problems, there | |