|
Recreational Drugs |
|
|
Why are alcohol and tobacco legal recreational drugs - and other less
harmful ones not? The hypocrisy is just nauseating. |
|
Penn
& Teller: Drug War
|
|
Cocaine study that got up the nose of the
US
Ben Goldacre
The Guardian
Sat 13 June 2009
In areas of moral and political conflict people will always
behave badly with evidence, so the war on drugs is a consistent source of
entertainment. We have already seen how cannabis being "25 times
stronger" was a fantasy, how drugs-related deaths were quietly dropped from
the measures for drugs policy, and how a trivial pile of poppies was
presented by the government as a serious dent in the Taliban's heroin
revenue.
The Commons home affairs select committee is looking at the best way to deal
with cocaine. You may wonder why they're bothering. When the Advisory
Council for the Misuse of Drugs looked at the evidence on the
reclassification of cannabis it was ignored. When Professor David Nutt, the
new head of the advisory council, wrote a scientific paper on the relatively
modest risks of MDMA (the active ingredient in the club drug ecstasy) he was
attacked by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith .
In the case of cocaine there is an even more striking precedent for evidence
being ignored: the World Health Organisation (WHO) conducted what is
probably the largest ever study of global use. In March 1995 they released a
briefing kit which summarised their conclusions, with some tantalising
bullet points.
"Health problems from the use of legal substances, particularly alcohol and
tobacco, are greater than health problems from cocaine use," they said.
"Cocaine-related problems are widely perceived to be more common and more
severe for intensive, high-dosage users and very rare and much less severe
for occasional, low-dosage users."
The full report which has never been published was extremely critical of
most US policies. It suggested that supply reduction and law enforcement
strategies have failed, and that options such as decriminalisation might be
explored, flagging up such programmes in Australia, Bolivia, Canada and
Colombia. "Approaches which over-emphasise punitive drug control measures
may actually contribute to the development of heath-related problems," it
said, before committing heresy by recommending research into the adverse
consequences of prohibition, and discussing "harm reduction" strategies.
"An increase in the adoption of responses such as education, treatment and
rehabilitation programmes," it said, "is a desirable counterbalance to the
over-reliance on law enforcement."
It singled out anti-drug adverts based on fear. "Most programmes do not
prevent myths, but perpetuate stereotypes and misinform the general public.
"Such programmes rely on sensationalised, exaggerated statements about
cocaine which misinform about patterns of use, stigmatise users, and destroy
the educator's credibility."
It also dared to challenge the prevailing policy view that all drug use is
harmful misuse. "An enormous variety was found in the types of people who
use cocaine, the amount of drug used, the frequency of use, the duration and
intensity of use, the reasons for using and any associated problems."
Experimental and occasional use were by far the most common types of use, it
said, and compulsive or dysfunctional use, though worthy of close attention,
were much less common.
It then descended into outright heresy. "Occasional cocaine use does not
typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems
a
minority of people
use casually for a short or long period, and suffer
little or no negative consequences."
And finally: "Use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects
and has positive, therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous
Andean populations."
At the point where mild cocaine use was described in positive tones the
Americans presumably blew some kind of outrage fuse. This report was never
published because the US representative to the WHO threatened to withdraw US
funding for all its research projects and interventions unless the
organisation "dissociated itself from the study" and cancelled publication.
According to the WHO this document does not exist, (although you can read a
leaked copy at www.tdpf.org.uk/WHOleaked.pdf).
Drugs show the classic problem for evidence-based social policy. It may well
be that prohibition, and distribution of drugs by criminals, gives worse
results for the outcomes we think are important, such as harm to the user
and to communities through crime. But equally, we may tolerate these
outcomes, because we decide it is more important that we declare ourselves
to disapprove of drug use. It's okay to do that. You can have policies that
go against your stated outcomes, for moral or political reasons: but that
doesn't mean you can hide the evidence.
|
|
Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization
Work?
Pop quiz: Which European country has the most liberal drug
laws? (Hint: It's not the Netherlands.)
TIME Magazine
Sunday, Apr. 26, 2009
Although its capital is notorious among stoners and college kids for
marijuana hazefilled "coffee shops," Holland has never actually legalized
cannabis the Dutch simply don't enforce their laws against the shops. The
correct answer is Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country
to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of
drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.
At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing
Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy.
The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that
incarceration is more expensive than treatment so why not give drug
addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found
guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting
of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment
(which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.
The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor,
socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug
possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate
Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of
hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report
commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest
otherwise.
The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after
personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in
Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty
needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug
addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a
resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent
Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the
Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than
virtually every other Western country does."
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are
impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of
lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most
comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally,
more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of
lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell
from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin
use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a
slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in
drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin
and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of
people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to
14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement
allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.
Portugal's case study is of some interest to lawmakers in the U.S.,
confronted now with the violent overflow of escalating drug gang wars in
Mexico. The U.S. has long championed a hard-line drug policy, supporting
only international agreements that enforce drug prohibition and imposing on
its citizens some of the world's harshest penalties for drug possession and
sales. Yet America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the
world, and while most of the E.U. (including Holland) has more liberal drug
laws than the U.S., it also has less drug use.
"I think we can learn that we should stop being reflexively opposed when
someone else does [decriminalize] and should take seriously the possibility
that anti-user enforcement isn't having much influence on our drug
consumption," says Mark Kleiman, author of the forthcoming When Brute Force
Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment and director of the drug
policy analysis program at UCLA. Kleiman does not consider Portugal a
realistic model for the U.S., however, because of differences in size and
culture between the two countries.
But there is a movement afoot in the U.S., in the legislatures of New York
State, California and Massachusetts, to reconsider our overly punitive drug
laws. Recently, Senators Jim Webb and Arlen Specter proposed that Congress
create a national commission, not unlike Portugal's, to deal with prison
reform and overhaul drug-sentencing policy. As Webb noted, the U.S. is home
to 5% of the global population but 25% of its prisoners.
At the Cato Institute in early April, Greenwald contended that a major
problem with most American drug policy debate is that it's based on
"speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the
effects of more lenient drug policies. In Portugal, the effect was to
neutralize what had become the country's number one public health problem,
he says.
"The impact in the life of families and our society is much lower than it
was before decriminalization," says Joao Castel-Branco Goulao, Portugual's
"drug czar" and president of the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction,
adding that police are now able to re-focus on tracking much higher level
dealers and larger quantities of drugs.
Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University
of Maryland, like Kleiman, is skeptical. He conceded in a presentation at
the Cato Institute that "it's fair to say that decriminalization in Portugal
has met its central goal. Drug use did not rise." However, he notes that
Portugal is a small country and that the cyclical nature of drug epidemics
which tends to occur no matter what policies are in place may account for
the declines in heroin use and deaths.
The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data
shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since
that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about
decriminalization, he says, "that is the central concession that will
transform the debate."
|
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating
Fair and Successful Drug Policies
Full report
here
2 April, 2009
On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that
decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal
framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug
possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally
prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be
exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the
criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal
offense.
While other states in the European Union have developed various forms of de
facto decriminalization whereby substances perceived to be less serious
(such as cannabis) rarely lead to criminal prosecution Portugal remains
the only EU member state with a law explicitly declaring drugs to be
"decriminalized." Because more than seven years have now elapsed since
enactment of Portugal's decriminalization system, there are ample data
enabling its effects to be assessed.
Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since
2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political
factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a
widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to
Portugal's decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and
effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be
criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by
preenactment decriminalization opponents from rampant increases in drug
usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug
tourists" has occurred.
The political consensus in favor of decriminalization is unsurprising in
light of the relevant empirical data. Those data indicate that
decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal,
which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU,
particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization
regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly
the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states,
drug-related pathologies such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths
due to drug usage have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts
attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese
government to offer treatment programs to its citizens enhancements made
possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.
This report will begin with an examination of the Portuguese
decriminalization framework as set forth in law and in terms of how it
functions in practice. Also examined is the political climate in Portugal
both pre- and postdecriminalization with regard to drug policy, and the
impetus that led that nation to adopt decriminalization.
Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer and a contributing writer at
Salon. He has authored several books, including A Tragic Legacy (2007) and
How Would a Patriot Act? (2006).
The report then assesses Portuguese drug policy in the context of the EU's
approach to drugs. The varying legal frameworks, as well as the overall
trend toward liberalization, are examined to enable a meaningful comparative
assessment between Portuguese data and data from other EU states.
The report also sets forth the data concerning drug-related trends in
Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization. The effects of
decriminalization in Portugal are examined both in absolute terms and in
comparisons with other states that continue to criminalize drugs,
particularly within the EU.
The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese
decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this
success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates
around the world.
|
|
|
 |
Legalisation of drugs could save UK £14bn, says study
The Guardian
Tue 7 April 2009
The regulated legalisation of drugs would have major benefits for taxpayers,
victims of crime, local communities and the criminal justice system,
according to the first comprehensive comparison between the
cost-effectiveness of legalisation and prohibition. The authors of the
report, which is due to be published today, suggest that a legalised,
regulated market could save the country around £14bn.
For many years the government has been under pressure to conduct an
objective cost-benefit analysis of the current drugs policy, but has failed
to do so despite calls from MPs. Now the drugs reform charity, Transform,
has commissioned its own report, examining all aspects of prohibition from
the costs of policing and investigating drugs users and dealers to
processing them through the courts and their eventual incarceration.
As well as such savings is the likely taxation revenue in a regulated
market. However, there are also the potential costs of increased drug
treatment, education and public information campaigns about the risks and
dangers of drugs, similar to those for tobacco and alcohol, and the costs of
running a regulated system.
The report looked at four potential scenarios, ranging from no increase in
drugs use to a 100% rise as they become more readily available.
"The conclusion is that regulating the drugs market is a dramatically more
cost-effective policy than prohibition and that moving from prohibition to
regulated drugs markets in England and Wales would provide a net saving to
taxpayers, victims of crime, communities, the criminal justice system and
drug users of somewhere within the range of, for the four scenarios,
£13.9bn, £10.8bn, £7.7bn, £4.6bn."
Titled a Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of the Prohibition and
Regulation of Drugs, the report uses government figures on the costs of
crime to assess the potential benefits and disadvantages of change. The
document, co-written by Steve Rolles, head of research at Transform, uses
home office and No 10 strategy unit reports to form its conclusions.
It finds: "The government specifically claims the benefits of any move away
from prohibition towards legal regulation would be outweighed by the costs.
No such cost-benefit analysis, or even a proper impact assessment of
existing enforcement policy and legislation has ever been carried out here
or anywhere else in the world."
Taxing drugs would also provide big revenue gains, says the survey. An
Independent Drug Monitoring Unit estimate, quoted in the report, suggests up
to £1.3bn could be generated by a £1 per gram tax on cannabis resin and £2
per gram on skunk.
The report follows calls for legalisation or a full debate on reform. Last
month, the Economist concluded: "Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the
least bad solution."
|
|
Spot the
hypocrisy:

|
Ecstasy's long-term effects revealed
THEY called it the second summer of love. Twenty years ago,
young people all over the world donned T-shirts emblazoned with smiley faces
and danced all night, fuelled by a molecule called MDMA. Most of these
clubbers have since given up ecstasy and are sliding into middle age. The
question is, has ecstasy given up on them?
11 February 2009
New Scientist
Enough time has finally elapsed to start asking if ecstasy damages health in
the long term. According to the biggest review ever undertaken, it causes
slight memory difficulties and mild depression, but these rarely translate
into problems in the real world. While smaller studies show that some
individuals have bigger problems, including weakened immunity and larger
memory deficits, so far, for most people, ecstasy seems to be nowhere near
as harmful over time as you may have been led to believe.
The review was carried out by the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
(ACMD), an independent body that advises the UK government on drug policy.
Its headline recommendation is that, based on its harmfulness to individuals
and society, MDMA should be downgraded from a class A drug - on a par with
heroin and cocaine - to class B, alongside cannabis.
Read the full report
Nobody is arguing that taking ecstasy is risk-free: its short-term effects
are fairly uncontroversial. MDMA is toxic, though not powerfully so - an
average person would need to take around 20 or 30 tablets to reach a lethal
dose. And for a small fraction of people, even small amounts of ecstasy can
kill. For example, around half a million people take ecstasy every year in
England and Wales, and 30 die from the acute effects, mostly overheating or
water intoxication.
What has been unclear, however, is whether ecstasy use causes long-term
health problems and if so, how much you would need to take to be at risk.
In animal studies the drug has been shown to inflict lasting damage to the
brain's serotonin system, which is involved in mood and cognition. Imaging
studies have found signs of similar damage in human users, but there are
debates over whether this is caused by ecstasy use and whether the damage
has any real-life consequences.
The ACMD based their review largely on a study they commissioned from
Gabriel Rogers and Ruth Garside of the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter,
UK. They pulled together all the research from around the world that
attempted to assess the health of people who have taken ecstasy, and
reanalysed the data from the 110 studies that dealt with long-term effects.
They found that compared with non-users, people who took even a small amount
of ecstasy at some point consistently performed worse on psychometric tests,
which measure mental performance, especially memory, attention, and
executive function, which includes decision-making and planning.
The most pronounced effects are on memory, mainly verbal and working memory.
While the ability to plan is somewhat affected, other aspects of executive
function are not. Focused attention - the ability to zoom in quickly on a
new task - suffers too, though sustained attention does not.
It is a similar story with depression. "There's a small but measurable
effect," says Rogers.
These effects appear not just in current users but also in ex-users who
haven't touched the drug for at least six months, suggesting that the
problems are long-lasting. Strangely, there seems to be no link between the
quantity taken and the severity of cognitive problems, suggesting that even
a few doses can lead to these deficits.
Superficially, this adds up to a pretty depressing outlook for the
e-generation, especially those who dabbled years ago but have since quit.
Not so, says Rogers. Subtle differences in lab tests do not necessarily
translate into real-life problems: "They're statistically significant, but
whether they are clinically significant is another matter."
Subtle differences on lab tests do not necessarily translate into problems
in real life
For example, there is little evidence that people are actually affected by
the memory and attention deficits picked up in the lab tests. "They don't
seem to be very big and it is not clear that they have much effect on
day-to-day functioning," he says.
Meanwhile, people who have taken ecstasy are, on average, still within the
normal bounds on standard depression tests. Although they score worse than
people who haven't taken ecstasy, the scores aren't bad enough to warrant a
diagnosis from a doctor. "There's no indication that they are drifting out
of normal functioning," says Rogers.
He also warns that his results need to be taken with a pinch of salt because
most studies are based on self-reports of ecstasy use, often combined with
other drugs and alcohol, from people who have volunteered to take part.
These confounding factors make it impossible to determine whether you have a
representative sample of users, whether people's reported use correlates
with how much they actually took and what effects can be blamed on MDMA.
Psychopharmacologist Val Curran of University College London says Roger's
analysis "is about the best you can make of the overall mishmash". She
agrees with his conclusion that on average there seems to be no evidence of
any meaningful effects on daily life.
Others have a different take on it. Andrew Parrot of the University of
Swansea, UK, who has been studying the health of ecstasy users since the
mid-1990s says: "We see users who have taken bucket-loads and they have very
severe problems." These include memory deficits, sleep disturbances,
depression, weakened immunity and sexual dysfunction, he says.
Based on his own studies, he believes that almost everyone who has taken 20
tablets in total, or more, reports niggling problems in daily life. "All
fairly minor on their own, but you're ending up with someone who is not as
healthy as they ought to be," he says.
Rogers admits that because he took averages of such large numbers of users,
his analysis may have "ironed out" some of the effects Parrot describes.
Parrot also calls ecstasy a "gateway" drug. "Former users are often heavy
users of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. When you move off ecstasy, you look
for other drugs. Ecstasy use leads to other, more problematic drugs."
Despite this, however, results from the first "prospective" studies are more
encouraging. These studies follow a group of people over many years and
watch the effects of ecstasy unfold over time. Crucially, they are more
reliable than "retrospective" studies because they don't rely on people
remembering what they did in the past.
In 2002 a group in the Netherlands recruited 188 young people who had never
taken ecstasy but were likely to in the future. When they retested them on a
battery of psychometric tests three years later, 58 said they had taken
ecstasy at least once, giving the researchers an opportunity to compare
cognitive performance before and after ecstasy.
They found that on all the tests except for verbal memory, ecstasy users
performed just as well as before, and on a par with abstainers (Archives of
General Psychiatry, vol 64, p 728). The results chime with Rogers's
conclusions: because the effect was so small - a difference of a quarter of
a word on average from a list of 15 - the real world implications are
questionable. Brain imaging revealed no changes to the serotonin system,
although there were signs of damage to white matter and blood vessels. The
practical significance of this is not yet known (Brain, DOI:
10.1093/brain/awn255).
On all the tests except those for verbal memory, ecstasy users performed on
a par with abstainers
Rogers cautions that it is too soon to give ecstasy the all-clear in the
long term, not least because some effects on health might simply kick in
even later. "It's possible that ecstasy has horrific consequences later in
life. Only time will tell."
The low-down on ecstasy:
- Ecstasy usually refers to a compound called MDMA
or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine.
- MDMA was first synthesised by German firm Merck
in the early 20th century but only started to be used as a recreational drug
in the 1980s.
- There are around 450,000 regular users in the
US; half a million people take it each year in the UK. A seriously heavy
user might take up to 40,000 tablets in a lifetime.
- Drug dealers originally wanted to call MDMA
"empathy" because of the powerful feelings of "loved up" warmth it induces.
MDMA is also a stimulant and a mild psychedelic.
- Recent research suggests that most ecstasy pills
on the market contain MDMA as their only active ingredient. Toxic impurities
are often said to be common, but there is very little evidence that this is
the case.
- Most of the ecstasy on the market is in pill
form, with each pill containing around 40 milligrams of MDMA. But very pure
MDMA powder accounts for around 30 per cent of drugs seized, which is
worrying because of the potential for taking very large doses.
- A single ecstasy tablet used to cost £15. Now
they cost just £2.30.
|
Drug adviser dismisses Ecstasy risk
Taking Ecstasy is no worse than riding a horse, the
Government's top drug adviser has claimed.
pa.press.net
07 February 2009
Writing in a medical journal, Professor David Nutt said taking the drug was
no more dangerous than what he called "equasy", or people's addiction to
horse riding.
He is the chairman of the Home Office's Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs (ACMD).
The organisation is expected next week to recommend that Ecstasy is
downgraded from class A to the less dangerous class B classification.
Ministers have outlined their opposition to such a move.
Prof Nutt's article in the latest edition of the Journal of
Psychopharmacology is entitled "Equasy -- An overlooked addiction with
implications for the current debate on drug harms".
He writes: "The point was to get people to understand that drug harm can be
equal to harms in other parts of life. There is not much difference between
horse riding and Ecstasy."
The professor said equasy - short for equine addiction syndrome - caused
more than 100 deaths a year.
He adds: "This attitude raises the critical question of why society
tolerates - indeed encourages - certain forms of potentially harmful
behaviour but not others such as drug use."
Ecstasy use is linked to about 30 deaths a year, up from 10 a year in the
early 1990s. Fatalities are caused by massive organ failure from overheating
or the effects of drinking too much water.
The ACMD has distanced itself from Prof Nutt's comments. A spokesman for the
body said: "The recent article by Professor David Nutt was done in respect
of his academic work and not as chair of the ACMD."
|
Pint of gold top and an eighth of hash milkman who also
delivered drugs
Suspended sentence over sales to elderly customers.
72-year-old said he did it to help their pain relief
Helen Carter
guardian.co.uk
Friday 6 February 2009
Robert Holding leaves Burnley crown court after receiving a suspended
sentence for delivering cannabis on his milk run Photograph: Dave
Thompson/PA
To the casual observer, Robert Holding seemed a kindly milkman who was
attentive to his elderly customers as he delivered their daily pints.
To the less casual observer specifically, a surveillance team from
Lancashire police Holding, 72, turned out to be a drug dealer who was
supplying cannabis from his milk float to an elderly clientele.
His customers, who smoked the resin to relieve their aches and pains, would
leave notes with their empty milk bottles to say how much of the drug they
required. His reputation as a drug dealer spread rapidly among 17 of his
customers in Burnley, Lancashire.
When detectives searched Holding's home last July they were astonished to
find wraps of cannabis resin stashed among the eggs in his milk crates.
Today at Burnley crown court, Holding was given a 36-week jail sentence
suspended for a year after he admitted possessing and supplying the drug.
The prosecution said Holding would get through a 9oz (255g) bar of cannabis
resin every three weeks in sales to his customers and would not make "a
great deal of profit".
Sarah Statham, prosecuting, said: "He said customers would leave notes
saying, 'Can I have an ounce, or an eighth?' He only sold to existing
customers who were old and had aches and pains."
The court heard Holding immediately confessed to supplying drugs but did not
believe he was doing anything wrong.
Judge Beverley Lunt said: "You purport to justify this by saying you are
helping out elderly people with ailments."
She said Holding was wrong in his belief that cannabis was not harmful and
he was not a philanthropist, but a drug dealer. Had he been a
philanthropist, she said, he would have "given it away".
However, she had taken into consideration that his wife is suffering from
Alzheimer's and in a care home, and might not recognise him if he was
jailed.
Philip Holden, in mitigation, told the court: "From the outset there is a
particularly peculiar set of circumstances, and it is a bizarre case." He
said his client was acting in the misguided belief that he was providing a
public service. He suffered from depression and had been "extremely frank"
to police.
Holding told the Guardian. "I don't think what I was doing was that wrong. A
couple of them have got MS and others have got arthritis. I was just giving
them something to help. I have had letters of support from all over the
country, including one from Scotland. I have had a lot of trouble with the
papers and all the lies that have been published."
Holding said his oldest customer had been 92 but was "no longer with us".
Although he is teetotal and does not smoke, he began dealing in cannabis
after being horrified to hear how much one of his elderly customers was
paying for the drug.
"She had arthritis and her husband had MS and was in a wheelchair," he said.
"They wanted it for the pain relief but it was costing them a fortune. I
would sell them an eighth of an ounce for £4.10." The street value is £9.
"I had an old woman who I used to give a bit of cannabis to and she would
put it under her tongue for the pain." He said he had never been tempted to
try it.
Cannabis has been shown in studies to help ease pain from arthritis and
other conditions but it was upgraded to class B last month after concerns by
the government about mental health risks.
Acting on tip-offs from concerned residents, Lancashire police launched a
discreet surveillance operation, tailing Holding as he completed his round
in his milk float. A subsequent search of his home yielded 167g of cannabis.
Local police beat manager John Fisher said: "This was a good example of
community policing after we received information from local residents that
he was up to no good.
"The cannabis was wrapped and ready to go for the next day's delivery.
Whatever he delivered was left on the doorstep with the milk."
He added: "However, there is a very serious side to this because at the end
of the day he has broken the law supplying an illegal substance. It is
certainly unusual in somebody so old.
"He probably thinks he is doing a community service but he is blatantly
breaking the law and has to be dealt with. I would call him an eccentric."
A neighbour of Holding's said many residents were supportive of him. "To be
fair, he did know what he was doing was wrong but the people he supplied to
all had medical problems, so it is said. Although he acts it, at the end of
the day he is not a stupid bloke and he must have realised what he was doing
was wrong."
The MS Society said it did not condone illegal drug use, although there are
clinical trials under way about the benefits of cannabis.
|
MARIJUANA MYTHS
by Paul Hager
Chair, ICLU Drug Task Force
1. Marijuana causes brain damage
The most celebrated study that claims to show brain damage is the rhesus
monkey study of Dr. Robert Heath, done in the late 1970s. This study was
reviewed by a distinguished panel of scientists sponsored by the Institute
of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. Their results were
published under the title, Marijuana and Health in 1982. Heath's work was
sharply criticized for its insufficient sample size (only four monkeys), its
failure to control experimental bias, and the misidentification of normal
monkey brain structure as "damaged". Actual studies of human populations of
marijuana users have shown no evidence of brain damage. For example, two
studies from 1977, published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) showed no evidence of brain damage in heavy users of
marijuana. That same year, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially
came out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. That's not the sort of thing
you'd expect if the AMA thought marijuana damaged the brain.
2. Marijuana damages the reproductive system
This claim is based chiefly on the work of Dr. Gabriel Nahas, who
experimented with tissue (cells) isolated in petri dishes, and the work of
researchers who dosed animals with near-lethal amounts of cannabinoids
(i.e., the intoxicating part of marijuana). Nahas' generalizations from his
petri dishes to human beings have been rejected by the scientific community
as being invalid. In the case of the animal experiments, the animals that
survived their ordeal returned to normal within 30 days of the end of the
experiment. Studies of actual human populations have failed to demonstrate
that marijuana adversely affects the reproductive system.
3. Marijuana is a "gateway" drug-it leads to hard drugs
This is one of the more persistent myths. A real world example of what
happens when marijuana is readily available can be found in Holland. The
Dutch partially legalized marijuana in the 1970s. Since then, hard drug
use-heroin and cocaine-have DECLINED substantially. If marijuana really were
a gateway drug, one would have expected use of hard drugs to have gone up,
not down. This apparent "negative gateway" effect has also been observed in
the United States. Studies done in the early 1970s showed a negative
correlation between use of marijuana and use of alcohol. A 1993 Rand
Corporation study that compared drug use in states that had decriminalized
marijuana versus those that had not, found that where marijuana was more
available-the states that had decriminalized-hard drug abuse as measured by
emergency room episodes decreased. In short, what science and actual
experience tell us is that marijuana tends to substitute for the much more
dangerous hard drugs like alcohol, cocaine, and heroin.
4. Marijuana suppresses the immune system
Like the studies claiming to show damage to the reproductive system, this
myth is based on studies where animals were given extremely high-in many
cases, near-lethal-doses of cannabinoids. These results have never been
duplicated in human beings. Interestingly, two studies done in 1978 and one
done in 1988 showed that hashish and marijuana may have actually stimulated
the immune system in the people studied.
5. Marijuana is much more dangerous than tobacco
Smoked marijuana contains about the same amount of carcinogens as does an
equivalent amount of tobacco. It should be remembered, however, that a heavy
tobacco smoker consumes much more tobacco than a heavy marijuana smoker
consumes marijuana. This is because smoked tobacco, with a 90% addiction
rate, is the most addictive of all drugs while marijuana is less addictive
than caffeine. Two other factors are important. The first is that
paraphernalia laws directed against marijuana users make it difficult to
smoke safely. These laws make water pipes and bongs, which filter some of
the carcinogens out of the smoke, illegal and, hence, unavailable. The
second is that, if marijuana were legal, it would be more economical to have
cannabis drinks like bhang (a traditional drink in the Middle East) or tea
which are totally non-carcinogenic. This is in stark contrast with
"smokeless" tobacco products like snuff which can cause cancer of the mouth
and throat. When all of these facts are taken together, it can be clearly
seen that the reverse is true: marijuana is much SAFER than tobacco.
6. Legal marijuana would cause carnage on the highways
Although marijuana, when used to intoxication, does impair performance in
a manner similar to alcohol, actual studies of the effect of marijuana on
the automobile accident rate suggest that it poses LESS of a hazard than
alcohol. When a random sample of fatal accident victims was studied, it was
initially found that marijuana was associated with RELATIVELY as many
accidents as alcohol. In other words, the number of accident victims
intoxicated on marijuana relative to the number of marijuana users in
society gave a ratio similar to that for accident victims intoxicated on
alcohol relative to the total number of alcohol users. However, a closer
examination of the victims revealed that around 85% of the people
intoxicated on marijuana WERE ALSO INTOXICATED ON ALCOHOL. For people only
intoxicated on marijuana, the rate was much lower than for alcohol alone.
This finding has been supported by other research using completely different
methods. For example, an economic analysis of the effects of
decriminalization on marijuana usage found that states that had reduced
penalties for marijuana possession experienced a rise in marijuana use and a
decline in alcohol use with the result that fatal highway accidents
decreased. This would suggest that, far from causing "carnage", legal
marijuana might actually save lives.
7. Marijuana "flattens" human brainwaves
This is an out-and-out lie perpetrated by the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America. A few years ago, they ran a TV ad that purported to show, first, a
normal human brainwave, and second, a flat brainwave from a 14-year-old "on
marijuana". When researchers called up the TV networks to complain about
this commercial, the Partnership had to pull it from the air. It seems that
the Partnership faked the flat "marijuana brainwave". In reality, marijuana
has the effect of slightly INCREASING alpha wave activity. Alpha waves are
associated with meditative and relaxed states which are, in turn, often
associated with human creativity.
8. Marijuana is more potent today than in the past
This myth is the result of bad data. The researchers who made the claim
of increased potency used as their baseline the THC content of marijuana
seized by police in the early 1970s. Poor storage of this marijuana in
un-air conditioned evidence rooms caused it to deteriorate and decline in
potency before any chemical assay was performed. Contemporaneous,
independent assays of unseized "street" marijuana from the early 1970s
showed a potency equivalent to that of modern "street" marijuana. Actually,
the most potent form of this drug that was generally available was sold
legally in the 1920s and 1930s by the pharmaceutical company Smith-Klein
under the name, "American Cannabis".
9. Marijuana impairs short-term memory
This is true but misleading. Any impairment of short-term memory
disappears when one is no longer under the influence of marijuana. Often,
the short-term memory effect is paired with a reference to Dr. Heath's poor
rhesus monkeys to imply that the condition is permanent.
10. Marijuana lingers in the body like DDT
This is also true but misleading. Cannabinoids are fat soluble as are
innumerable nutrients and, yes, some poisons like DDT. For example, the
essential nutrient, Vitamin A, is fat soluble but one never hears people who
favor marijuana prohibition making this comparison.
11. There are over a thousand chemicals in marijuana
smoke
Again, true but misleading. The 31 August 1990 issue of the magazine
Science notes that of the over 800 volatile chemicals present in roasted
COFFEE, only 21 have actually been tested on animals and 16 of these cause
cancer in rodents. Yet, coffee remains legal and is generally considered
fairly safe.
12. No one has ever died of a marijuana overdose
This is true. It was put in to see if you are paying attention. Animal
tests have revealed that extremely high doses of cannabinoids are needed to
have lethal effect. This has led scientists to conclude that the ratio of
the amount of cannabinoids necessary to get a person intoxicated (i.e.,
stoned) relative to the amount necessary to kill them is 1 to 40,000. In
other words, to overdose, you would have to consume 40,000 times as much
marijuana as you needed to get stoned. In contrast, the ratio for alcohol
varies between 1 to 4 and 1 to 10. It is easy to see how upwards of 5000
people die from alcohol overdoses every year and no one EVER dies of
marijuana overdoses.
WHAT IS THE ICLU DRUG TASK FORCE?
The Indiana Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) Drug Task Force is involved in
education and lobbying efforts directed toward reforming drug policy.
Specifically, we support ACLU Policy Statement number 210 which calls for
the legalization of marijuana. We also support an end to the drug war. In
its place, we favor "harm reduction" strategies which treat drug abuse as
what it is- a medical problem-rather than a criminal justice problem.
The Drug Task Force also works to end urine and hair testing of workers
by private industry. These kinds of tests violate worker privacy to no good
purpose because they detect past use of certain drugs (mostly marijuana)
while ignoring others (e.g., LSD) and cannot detect current impairment. In
situations where public and worker safety is a legitimate concern, we
advocate impairment testing devices which reliably detect degradation of
performance without infringing upon worker privacy.
For more information about the activities of the Drug Task Force, call
the ICLU at (317) 635-4059 or call Paul Hager at (812) 333-1384 or e-mail to
hagerp@cs.indiana.edu on the InterNet.
SOURCES
|
|
Does drinking alcohol shrink your brain?
What's good for the heart may hurt the brain, according to a
new study of the effects of alcohol.
CNN
23 Oct, 2008
People who drink alcohol -- even the moderate amounts that help prevent
heart disease -- have a smaller brain volume than those who do not,
according to a study in the Archives of Neurology.
While a certain amount of brain shrinkage is normal with age, greater
amounts in some parts of the brain have been linked to dementia.
"Decline in brain volume -- estimated at 2 percent per decade -- is a
natural part of aging," says Carol Ann Paul, who conducted the study when
she was at the Boston University School of Public Health. She had hoped to
find that alcohol might protect against such brain shrinkage.
"However, we did not find the protective effect," says Paul, who is now an
instructor in the neuroscience program at Wellesley College. "In fact, any
level of alcohol consumption resulted in a decline in brain volume."
In the study, Paul and colleagues looked at 1,839 healthy people with an
average age of about 61. The patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
of the brain and reported how much they tippled. Health.com: Ten best foods
for the heart
Overall, the more alcohol consumed, the smaller the brain volume, with
abstainers having a higher brain volume than former drinkers, light drinkers
(one to seven drinks per week), moderate drinkers (eight to 14 drinks per
week), and heavy drinkers (14 or more drinks per week).
Men were more likely to be heavy drinkers than women. But the link between
brain volume and alcohol wasn't as strong in men. For men, only those who
were heavy drinkers had a smaller brain volume than those who consumed
little or no alcohol.
In women, even moderate drinkers had a smaller brain volume than abstainers
or former drinkers. Health.com: Six reasons why a little glass of wine each
day may do you good
It's not clear why even modest amounts of alcohol may shrink the brain,
although alcohol is "known to dehydrate tissues, and constant dehydration
can have negative effects on any sensitive tissue," says Paul.
"We always knew that alcohol at higher dosages results in shrinking of the
brain and cognitive deficit," says Dr. Petros Levounis, M.D., director of
the Addiction Institute of New York at St. Luke's -- Roosevelt Hospital
Center, who was not involved in the study. "What is new with this article is
that it shows brain shrinking at lower doses of alcohol." Health.com: Type 2
diabetes and alcohol: Proceed with caution
However, the study did not demonstrate that the smaller brain volume
actually impaired memory or mental function, notes James Garbutt, M.D.,
professor of psychiatry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
And the differences between brain volumes in drinkers and nondrinkers were
quite small -- less than 1.5 percent between abstainers and heavy drinkers.
"We're talking very small differences here," says Dr. Garbutt, who was not
involved in the study. "We're not seeing 10 to 20 percent shrinkage."
However, he says, reduction in brain mass is an interesting finding. "But we
have a long way to go to figure out the implications of it."
|
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 are also heroin users without
problems.
"These people are mostly ordinary people - they are not the Keith
Richards of the world - and there could be an element of good fortune in the
group studied.
"The concept of controlled drug use is still a largely unexplored area of
drug research and these results should be treated with caution, as heroin is
certainly not a safe drug.
"Drug research should incorporate this previously hidden population to
more fully inform theory and practice, and psychological and social factors
have to be taken into account when looking at how to deal with any form of
addiction."
The research was condemned by drug addiction organisations.
Alistair Ramsay of Scotland Against Drugs warned that the findings could
portray the wrong message.
He said: "Anyone reading this who thinks they can take heroin safely
would be wrong. In Scotland, we have 55,800 heroin users who are clearly
unable to function as normal so it cannot be assumed that the findings have
universal application."
A spokeswoman from the Scottish Drugs Forum said: "The majority of heavy
heroin users go on to develop major problems. However, there will be a small
group of people who are able to use heroin in a controlled fashion and live
a fairly normal life.
"How it affects the user depends on environment, background and
psychology."
|
|
Cocaine, anyone?
Is there anything wrong with recreational drugs? The new head of Scotland
Yard says there is. But, says Leo Benedictus, the rise of the middle class
user will be difficult to stop
Thursday February 3, 2005
Guardian
Rarely is the appointment of a new
Metropolitan police commissioner so interesting. On his first day as
Britain's most powerful policeman, Sir Ian Blair decided to let the nation
in on a little secret: "People are having dinner parties where they drink
less wine and snort more cocaine," he said. (How he knows this he didn't
explain.) "I'm not interested in what harm it is doing to them personally,"
he continued, "but the price of that cocaine is misery on the streets of
London's estates and blood on the roads to Colombia and Afghanistan." In
other words: boycott cocaine. Just say "no thanks". Skip the charlie like
you would pass the cheeseboard.
A hundred years ago, cocaine was not a moral issue. Ernest Shackleton was
propelled on his Antarctic adventures by Forced March, a product largely
composed of cocaine, and we now know that Queen Victoria could have given
Jimi Hendrix a run for his money. It was only during the first world war
that the drug began to be imagined as a social problem.
In fact, the legislation that first made possession of cocaine or opium
illegal in this country was an ad hoc wartime gesture to prevent soldiers on
leave in the West End from having too much to distract them. With its
reputation and its legal status confirmed, the idea of cocaine itself as a
morally degenerative substance took hold. The Catholic church even weighed
in, pronouncing in the catechism that the use of drugs "except on strictly
therapeutic grounds" is "a grave offence". Ninety years later, now that
powder cocaine has become more widely used, the argument that it leads
inevitably to ruin has become difficult to maintain. "It is wrong-headed for
a government to tell the entire population that they cannot be trusted to
drink after 11pm," said the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, in the Commons
last week, speaking of another piece of outdated wartime legislation.
Until Blair's remarks on Tuesday, there seemed to be just one argument
left: because cocaine is potentially addictive and can be harmful, even the
most sensible members of society - those who go to dinner parties, indeed -
cannot be trusted to use it.
The problem, again, is that drug users know better. And even non-drug
users, especially those who have to deal with the drug laws' consequences,
may question the sense in devoting vast resources to catching and punishing
people for having a joint or a line. Might being caught not do more harm to
a user than the drug he or she was taking?
Here's a certain Sir Ian Blair in a letter to the Times from January
2004, expressing his support for the reclassification of cannabis: "During
the 30 years of my police service, the policing of possession of small
amounts of cannabis has become increasingly pointless. It was grossly
inefficient for officers to spend hours processing individuals for the
possession of cannabis in amounts about which neither the courts nor
therefore the CPS were prepared to take any action."
Now, with cannabis so widely tolerated that the government has been
forced to place advertisements reminding us all that it's not legal, the
focus has switched to cocaine - and with good reason. Despite its price,
cocaine is now the second most popular illegal drug in Britain, with the
Office for National Statistics estimating that 475,000 people in the UK use
it. And the number of users has nearly tripled since 1997, according to the
Independent Drugs Monitoring Unit. These people cannot all be destroying
their lives, so by saying, "I'm not interested in what harm it is doing to
them personally," Blair seems, for the first time, to be withdrawing the
"save them from themselves" argument. A sensible decision.
Most tellingly of all, though, the price of a gram - from which you'd get
about a dozen lines - is now around 40 in London, down from about 60 a
decade ago, when a number of Colombian cartels are said to have first moved
their attention away from the saturated US market to concentrate on Europe.
"What chance do we have of keeping drugs out of Britain," Billy Connolly
once asked, "if we can't keep them out of prisons?"
Cocaine's success - and thus society's increasingly relaxed attitude to
it - should come as no surprise. From a business perspective, it is by far
the most attractive drug to deal in. As a concentrated white powder, it is
much easier to smuggle than bulky, smelly goods such as cannabis. It is also
easy to adulterate with another neutral substance, which means retailers can
double their profits at a stroke.
It is an effective product, too, that produces a number of pleasurable
effects in the short term, such as self-confidence, sexual arousal and
chattiness.
The drug also, frankly, enjoys a strong prestige positioning, thanks to
decades of countless, usually inadvertent, celebrity endorsements. As a
result, people are prepared to pay more for it than for any other drug. And,
as if all this wasn't enough, it can always be purified into crack with
bicarbonate of soda and sold in to the less affluent, but unfailingly loyal,
junkie market.
What Blair seems to have realised is that this country's coke problem -
if it is a problem - is economic. Suppliers have found that they can sell
cocaine for huge profits without getting caught, and consumers have
responded with a steady increase in demand for a product they evidently feel
free to enjoy, whether or not it is wise to do so. The only argument left is
an appeal to the consumer. And don't middle-class people at dinner parties,
people who buy Fairtrade coffee and drink organic wine, just love to be
ethical?
It may be a clever idea, but it is based on a myth. Where are all these
cocaine dinner parties he talks about? The passing round of the silver tray
to appreciative noises - "It's Peruvian flake. I bought it in an alleyway
behind Borough Market" - is a fantasy. And if the powers that be feel so
strongly about unethical business practices, why are battery chickens still
legal? How about a lecture on where our chocolate comes from? This is, at
last, the first intelligent excuse since the war on drugs started. But soon
it will be time to consider an exit strategy.
The line on cocaine 'So rife it's boring'
Sarah, 31, writer
I don't use cocaine any more, as I became an addict in my mid-20s. But I
still know lots of middle-class people who use it and think it's not
dangerous. I think they are in denial.
My cocaine use was entirely a social thing at the beginning. I would use
it with friends from college or people I met. We would all disappear to the
loo together in a bar to do a line, or people would come to my house and
we'd take it. I would go out and buy five or six grams, which at the time
cost about 300, and invite my mates to come and get it. It was all terribly
middle-class; we thought we were doing something hip, decadent, pseudo-60s.
Certainly nobody was watching the money.
Janine, 30, mental health worker
In certain circles of friends it's so rife that it's got boring. Some
parties you just know people will be huddled in the loos or snorting off
mirrors in bedrooms. I dabble, but have only taken it twice in the past 18
months.
I don't think, in general, users think about the broader implications of
cocaine use; neither did I until I read an article describing a dinner party
where the entire menu was organic and for dessert they served coke, which
probably involved people shooting each other somewhere along the production
process. I've not actually bought it since.
Part of what makes it attractive is the fact that it's illegal and you
have to do it in the loos. But the law needs to be clarified because coke
has become so accessible that people forget it's class A. To me it's as
common as spliff.
Despite all this, I agree with Ian Blair. I'm sick and tired of feeling
unsafe walking down my street. I'd rather get drugs off the streets.
Martin, 37, cartoonist
I think I see less of it around now than I did a few years ago, but
that's probably because of my age. But I know people who will always have
some on them on a Friday night, and if I'm with them I may have a line or
two, but I hardly ever buy it. These people can just call someone and it
will be there in half an hour or so. It's like a courier service.
It could happen at a dinner party, but not necessarily - sometimes it's
just round at someone's house, with a few drinks. And sometimes in the pub,
and we'll just go into the loo to do it, maybe before going on somewhere.
Do I ever worry about where it comes from? Well, yes, more so now than I
used to. You don't know what you're putting into your body. Oh, I see, worry
about what's happened to get it to me, wars and things? Oh, God no. It's
that old thing of whether you'd be prepared to kill a chicken to eat it. I
wouldn't, but I still eat chicken.
Cheryl, 41, a manager
Ian Blair's comments are so draconian. I imagine those comments will have
lost him a lot of support from a lot of middle-class recreational drug
users, and at the end of the day we're a powerful group of people. I would
rather not fund organised crime to buy my cocaine, and I'm not proud of
going to find it that way. I know people have been killed and threatened
along the way to get illegal drugs on to the streets and that's why it's so
important to start looking at alternatives to keeping drugs illegal and
alternatives to clamping down on those who use them.
Jimmy, 28, lobbyist
In my experience, if there are eight people sitting around a table and
someone pulls out a gram of coke, six people will have a bit. Within that
you've got different grades: some people will look forward to it; others
feign surprise.
It always seems to be the same person who makes the trip to the pub, or
on to the estate to meet the dealer. I used to be that man and I found it
kind of intimidating. If you don't actually buy the stuff you don't really
acknowledge the downside. As for the fact that there are private armies
carving up South America to provide this stuff, forget about it.
Bryony, 30, senior civil servant
I've been taking coke for 15 years and I must admit I've never really
thought about where it came from and where my money's going to end up.
Thinking about it now, I can see there are pushers making money, but then
lots of people are doing it. You can't stop it. I don't feel like I'm
personally harming anyone by taking coke. Although I'll probably consider
the implications more now that the issue has been raised.
I fear getting caught now I have a responsible, grown-up job. Even though
lots of middle-class people are doing it, I think being caught would have a
huge impact on my career. My fear is more about my reputation than breaking
the law.
|
Getting out of our heads
Editorial
New Scientist, 13 November, 2004
HOW do you start and end your day? The chances are that a mind-altering drug
plays a part. You probably have a mid-morning drug too, and some more after
lunch. Maybe your entire day is punctuated by trips outside to take drugs.
And Saturday night wouldn't be the same without drugs, would it?
Hard as it is to admit, almost all of us are avid consumers of mind-altering
substances. For most people that means sticking to the legal ones: caffeine,
nicotine and alcohol. But illegal drugs remain hugely, intractably popular.
Intoxication is a near-universal human experience. Researchers argue that
the desire to alter our consciousness is as natural as the appetites for
food and sex.
In the present prohibitionist climate, admitting as much is likely to raise
howls of protest. Drug-taking is widely viewed as a weakness that must be
suppressed, criminalised or medicalised lest it destroy us.
There is some sense in the prohibitionist view: existing drugs, including
the legal ones, can be harmful to individuals, families and society. But
pretending that drug-taking is somehow unnatural and "curable" will never
solve the problem. It is like trying to stamp out AIDS by banning sex. That
is not, however, to advocate a free-for-all that removes all controls.
The legality of alcohol is tacit admission that the quest for intoxication
is part of human nature. We should recognise this, and not be afraid to say
so openly. Then we can set about finding ways to let people explore their
drive for altered consciousness without risking their health, arrest,
addiction and squalor.
|
A window on the mind
by Susan Blackmore
New Scientist, 13 November, 2004
DRUGS provide some of the best evidence we have that the mind is the brain;
that our thoughts, beliefs and perceptions are created by chemistry. Take a
drug, particularly a hallucinogen, and any of these can change. This means
these drugs can be scary and need to be taken with great care and respect.
But it also means they have the potential to reveal some of the deepest
secrets about our minds and consciousness.
A century ago, psychologist William James experimented with the anaesthetic
nitrous oxide. Our normal rational consciousness, he said, is just one
special type of consciousness, while all around it, "parted from it by the
filmiest of screens", are other entirely different forms of consciousness,
always available if the requisite stimulus is applied.
Others meticulously described the effects of inhaling ether, chloroform and
cannabis, and the strange distortions of time, perception and sense of
humour they induced. More curiously, they also described changes in belief,
and even in philosophy. When Humphry Davy took nitrous oxide in 1799 he
ended up exclaiming that "nothing exists but thoughts". Others made similar
observations and found their views profoundly shifted by even brief forays
to the other side of that filmy screen.
This raises the peculiar question of whether what James called "our normal
rational consciousness" is necessarily the best state for understanding the
world. After all, if one's view of the world can change so dramatically with
the aid of a simple molecule, how can we be sure that our normal brain
chemistry is the one most suited to doing science and philosophy? What if
our brain chemistry evolved to help us survive at the cost of giving us
false beliefs about the world? If so, it is possible that mind-altering
drugs might in fact give us a better, not worse, insight than we have in our
so-called normal state.
Take the common hallucinogenic experience of losing our separate self, or
becoming one with the universe. This may seem, to some, like mystical
hogwash, but in fact it fits far better with a scientific understanding of
the world than our normal dualist view. Most of us feel, most of the time,
that we are some kind of separate self who inhabits our body like a driver
in a car or a pilot in a plane. Throughout history many people have believed
in a soul or spirit. Yet science has long known that this cannot be so.
There is just a brain that is made of exactly the same kind of stuff as the
world around it. We really are one with the universe.
This means that the psychedelic sense of self may actually be truer than
the dualist view. So although our normal state is better for surviving and
reproducing, it may not always be best for understanding who and what we
are. Perhaps we ought to try doing science in some of these intoxicated
states.
This was just what psychologist Charles Tart of the University of
California, Davis, suggested in 1972, in the journal Science. He likened
different states of consciousness to different paradigms in science and
proposed creating "state specific sciences", new sciences which would be
done by scientists working and communicating in altered states. These new
sciences might only have limited application but this makes the point that
our normal state may not be the only way to try to understand the universe.
Since Tart's work, most psychedelic drugs have become prohibited and
research has largely been stifled. Perhaps one day, when prohibition is
abandoned, scientists may once again take up the promise offered by those
tiny little chemicals that can tell us who and what we are.
|
LETTERS:
Driven to drugs
New Scientist vol 184 issue 2475 - 27 November 2004, page 27
I was surprised and pleased to see your article on intoxication; it reminded
me once again why I subscribe to New Scientist. I commend you on your
courage in saying things which so many are afraid to say.
I was intrigued by Susan Blackmore's discussion of "state specific sciences"
done under the influence of various drugs (13 November, p 36). But the
observation that "the majority of us are probably under the influence of
caffeine most of the time" (indeed, I am even as I type this) shows that we
are already pursuing a state-specific caffeinated science.
It is an interesting question whether and how this science we are doing
differs from the science we would do without caffeine, and whether this is
of importance or not.
B. H.
Menlo Park, California, US
|
A concise guide to mind-altering
drugs
New Scientist, 13 November, 2004
Alcohol
What is it?
Ethanol produced by the action of yeast on sugars.
What does it do?
Ethanol is a biphasic drug: low doses have a different effect to high doses.
Small amounts of alcohol (one or two drinks) act as a stimulant, reducing
inhibition and producing feelings of mild euphoria. Higher doses depress the
central nervous system, initially producing relaxation but then leading to
drunkenness - characterised by poor coordination, memory loss, cognitive
impairment and blurred vision. Very high doses cause vomiting, coma and
death through respiratory failure. The fatal dose varies but is somewhere
around 500 milligrams of ethanol per 100 millilitres of blood.
How does it work?
At low doses (5 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood), alcohol sensitises
NMDA receptors in the brain, making them more responsive to the excitatory
neurotransmitter glutamate, so boosting brain activity. These effects are
most pronounced in areas associated with thinking, memory and pleasure. At
higher doses it desensitises the same receptors and also activates the
inhibitory GABA system.
Amphetamine-type stimulants
What are they?
A class of synthetic drugs invented (and still used as) appetite
suppressors. Includes amphetamine itself and derivatives including
methamphetamine and dextroamphetamine.
What do they do?
Amphetamines are powerful stimulants of the central nervous system,
producing feelings of euphoria, alertness, mental clarity and increased
energy lasting for 2 to 12 hours depending on the dose. The downsides are
increased heart rate and blood pressure, nausea, irritability and
jitteriness, plus fatigue once the effects have worn off. Overdosing can
lead to convulsions, heart failure, coma and death. The fatal dose varies
from person to person, with some reports of acute reactions to as little as
2 milligrams and others of non-fatal 500-milligram doses. Most deaths from
overdose have been among injecting users.
How do they work?
Their principal effect is to block dopamine transporters, which leads to
higher-than-normal levels of the pleasure chemical dopamine in the brain.
Caffeine
What is it?
An alkaloid found in coffee, cocoa beans, tea, kola nuts and guarana. Also
added to many fizzy drinks, energy drinks, pep pills and cold and flu
remedies.
What does it do?
A stimulant of the central nervous system. Pure caffeine is a moderately
powerful drug and is sometimes passed off as amphetamine. In small doses,
such as the 150 milligrams in a typical cup of filter coffee, it increases
alertness and promotes wakefulness. Caffeine also raises heart and
respiration rate and promotes urine production. Higher doses induce
jitteriness and anxiety. The fatal dose is about 10 grams.
Caffeine raises heart and respiration rate and promotes urine production
How does it work?
Caffeine blocks receptors for the neurotransmitter adenosine, which is
generally inhibitory and associated with the onset of sleep. Also raises
dopamine levels, and stimulates the release of the fight-or-flight hormone
adrenalin.
Cannabis
What is it?
Leaves, buds, flowers and resin from the cannabis plant, Cannabis sativa, a
native of central Asia. The plant contains numerous psychoactive compounds
called cannabinoids, the most potent of which is
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Cannabis is usually smoked in the form
of dried leaves and buds, or as a dried resin (hashish).
What does it do?
Smoked in moderate quantities, cannabis can produces feelings of fuzzy
mellowness and general well-being. It can interfere with memory and increase
appetite ("the munchies"). Some users experience nausea, anxiety and
paranoia. If eaten, the resin can be powerfully hallucinogenic. No fatal
dose has ever been recorded in humans
How does it work?
THC latches onto specific receptors in the brain that are known to be
involved in reward, appetite regulation and pain perception, though their
precise role has yet to be worked out.
Cocaine
What is it?
An alkaloid extracted from the leaves of the coca plant (Erythroxylon coca),
a native of the eastern slopes of the Andes. It is commonly consumed in the
form of the hydrochloride salt, a white crystalline powder which is usually
snorted into the nostrils. Crack cocaine is pure cocaine liberated from the
hydrochloride (hence known as "free base"), which makes it smokeable.
What does it do?
Cocaine is a potent stimulator of the central nervous system; a typical dose
(about 50 to 100 milligrams) rapidly induces feelings of self-confidence,
exhilaration and energy which last for 15 to 45 minutes before giving way to
fatigue and melancholy. Crack cocaine condenses these effects into a shorter
and more intense high. The drug also increases heart rate and blood
pressure, sometimes fatally. Very high doses depress brain stem function,
potentially leading to cardiac arrest and respiratory failure. The fatal
dose can be as low as 1 gram.
How does it work?
Its principal effect is to block the re-uptake of dopamine, serotonin and
noradrenalin into neurons, leading to higher-than-normal levels of these
neurotransmitters in the brain.
Dissociatives
What are they?
A class of hallucinogenic drugs that produce feelings of depersonalisation
and detachment from reality. The most commonly used are ketamine and its
relatives DXM (dextromethorphan hydrobromide) and PCP (phencyclidine, angel
dust).
What do they do?
In small doses (up to about 75 milligrams) ketamine produces a psychedelic
stimulant effect. The effect of higher doses has been described as an
"out-of-body" experience. Users lose all sense of self and feel a detachment
of mind and body, leading to a trance-like state in which they can
experience a "superior reality" full of dazzling insights and visions. Some
people find it wonderful, others terrifying. Effects last about an hour and
wear off rapidly, leaving the user feeling groggy, and sometimes
traumatised. Accidental overdoses are unknown: the drug has a wide safety
margin.
Some people find it wonderful, others terrifying
How do they work?
Ketamine is an inhibitor of NMDA receptors, which normally respond to the
excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate. This has the effect of severely
depressing activity in many parts of the brain while leaving some functions
intact.
Ecstasy
What is it?
The amphetamine derivative MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine).
What is sold as ecstasy on the street, however, often contains no MDMA.
What does it do?
Technically known as a hallucinogenic amphetamine and also as an "empathogen",
MDMA produces feelings of energy, euphoria, empathy, openness and a desire
for physical contact (users are often described as "loved up"), plus mild
visual and auditory hallucinations. Effects last for several hours and are
followed by an equally lengthy period of lethargy and mild depression. MDMA
is not toxic per se but can cause death due to overheating and dehydration.
It also inhibits the production of urine and so can lead to a fatal build-up
of fluid in the tissues.
How does it work?
The drug causes the brain to dump large amounts of the mood-modulating
neurotransmitter serotonin into the synapses, and also raises dopamine
levels.
Hallucinogens/psychedelics
What are they?
A broad class of natural and synthetic compounds that profoundly alter
perception and consciousness. The most widely used are the LSD group,
including LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide), LSA (d-lysergic acid amide), DMT
(dimethyltryptamine, found in ayahuasca) and psilocybin (the main active
ingredient of magic mushrooms).
What do they do?
LSD produces experiences far removed from normal reality, including visual
and auditory hallucinations, synaesthesia, time distortion, altered sense of
self and feelings of detachment. Surfaces undulate and shimmer, colours are
more intense and everyday objects can take on a surreal and fascinating
appearance. The experience can be extremely frightening. After effects
include fatigue and a vague sense of detachment.
LSD is one of the most potent psychoactive substances known. Only 25
micrograms are required to produce an effect; 100 micrograms will induce 12
hours or more of profound psychedelia.
How do they work?
No one really knows. LSD stimulates three subtypes of serotonin receptor,
5-HT2A, 5-HT2C and 5-HT1A, though it is not clear that this alone can
account for its effects.
Opiates
What are they?
Any compound that stimulates opioid receptors found in the brain, spinal
cord and gut. The word "opioid" derives from opium, the narcotic resin
extracted from unripe seed pods of the opium poppy (Papaver somniferum). The
opiates include naturally occurring alkaloids such as morphine (the main
active ingredient of opium), derivatives of these such as heroin, and
entirely synthetic compounds such as methadone.
What do they do?
Heroin, the most commonly used opiate, can induce euphoria, dreamy
drowsiness and a general sense of well-being. The effects of injecting the
drug have been described as a "whole-body orgasm", though some users
experience no pleasurable effects at all. It also causes nausea,
constipation, sweating, itchiness, depressed breathing and heart rate.
Higher doses lead to respiratory failure and death. The fatal dose depends
on tolerance and how the drug is taken but a naive user would probably die
after injecting 200 milligrams.
How do they work?
By activating any of the three subtypes of opioid receptors. These normally
respond to the body's natural painkilling chemicals including endorphins,
which are released in highly stressful situations where pain would be
disadvantageous.
Tobacco
What is it?
Dried leaves of the tobacco plant Nicotiana tabacum, a native of South
America. Usually smoked but can also be snorted as snuff or chewed. The main
active ingredient is the alkaloid nicotine.
What does it do?
Nicotine is a mild stimulant which increases alertness, energy levels and
memory function. Paradoxically, users also report a relaxant effect. It also
increases blood pressure and respiration rate and suppresses appetite.
Larger doses cause hallucinations, nausea, vomiting and death. The lethal
dose is about 60 milligrams; a typical cigarette delivers about 2 milligrams
of nicotine into the bloodstream.
Large doses cause hallucinations and death
How does it work?
Nicotine's principal effect is to stimulate nicotinic acetylcholine
receptors in the brain, which leads to increased levels of the
fight-or-flight hormone adrenalin. Also increases levels of dopamine.
|
The intoxication instinct
New Scientist, 13 November, 2004
From alcohol and cannabis to cocaine and LSD, it seems there
are no limits to our appetite for mind-altering substances. What is it about
human nature that drives us to get out of our heads, ask Helen Phillips and
Graham Lawton
IN THE Smoke Shack, a "head shop" in Nelson, British Columbia, the air is
thick with marijuana and the atmosphere is mellow as the staff stage a demo
of their dope-related paraphernalia. The clients range from tourists and
business types to the dreadlocked and dishevelled. All walks of life are
welcome.
Over the border in the US, the police call to the man in the car for the
last time. If he doesn't step out they will shoot. He stays put - maybe
because he's embarrassed about being caught naked from the waist down,
clearly aroused. Or maybe he's just too high on methamphetamine to care.
High up in the mountains of Peru the men brew coca leaves into a tea. While
they don't approve of the habit of snorting the powdered extract, the tea
gives them a mild buzz that helps fight the headaches and nausea of altitude
sickness. Up here, cocaine is part of life.
Lounging in a restaurant, two old friends share a second bottle of wine,
sinking lower in their seats as they enjoy the numbing haze and warmth it
creates. Later they'll order brandy. The bartender pours himself a cup of
coffee. It's going to be a long shift.
As diverse as these episodes are, there is a clear common thread running
through them: the pursuit of intoxication. Since prehistoric times, humans
have been seeking out and using intoxicating substances. Most people who
have ever lived have experienced a chemically induced altered state of
consciousness, and the same is true of people alive today. That's not to say
that everybody is constantly fighting the urge to get high, nor that
intoxication is somehow a normal state of consciousness. But how many of us
can claim never to have experienced an altered state, whether it be a
caffeine kick to help us get going in the morning, a relaxing beer after
work, a few puffs on a joint at a party or the euphoric high of ecstasy?
In the present prohibitionist climate it is difficult to talk about the use
of psychoactive, literally "mind-altering", substances without focusing on
their harmful and habit-forming properties. And it's true that excessive use
of consciousness-altering drugs, both legal and illegal, is bad for
individuals and bad for society. People who seek intoxication are taking
risks with their health and flirting with addiction. Drugs can lead to
crime, violence, accidents, family disintegration and social decay.
Nonetheless, intoxicants remain a part of most people's lives (see "Under
the influence"). And indeed most of us are able to consume them in
moderation without spiralling into abuse and addiction. Take alcohol, for
example. Its potent psychoactive properties and potential for wreaking havoc
are well known, yet the majority of people still drink and enjoy it without
becoming alcoholics. There's also ample evidence that, despite public health
campaigns and the threat of severe penalties, millions of people every year
join the legions who have experimented with illegal substances, from
cannabis and cocaine to ecstasy, amphetamines and LSD (for a guide to the
most commonly used psychoactive drugs, see "A concise guide to mind -
altering drugs").
It seems that intoxication in one form or another is universal, a part of
who we are. "It's a natural part of consciousness to change one's
consciousness," argues Rick Doblin, who runs the not-for-profit
Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies in Sarasota, Florida.
But why is it that we choose to alter our state of consciousness by dosing
our brains with chemicals?
The answer is straightforward. We seek intoxication for a simple reason that
we are almost too scared to admit - we like it. Intoxication can be fun,
sociable, memorable, therapeutic, even mind-expanding. Saying as much in the
present climate is not easy, but an increasing number of researchers now
argue that unless we're prepared to look beyond the "drug problem" and
acknowledge the positive aspects of intoxication, we are only seeing half
the story - like researching sex while pretending it isn't fun.
A full understanding of intoxication, and the quest to achieve it, could
have numerous pay-offs. For one thing there is the prospect of better ways
to tackle abuse and addiction. There are also good reasons for studying
intoxication as a phenomenon in its own right. What is it about psychoactive
substances that we like? What do they tell us about who we are? Is there a
way to get the good without the bad? Some researchers believe that such
enquiries will lead to a new understanding of the human mind, including the
mysteries of consciousness (see "A window on the mind"), or new treatments
for mental illness. Others go as far as to argue that it is time for society
to accept that intoxication is an inextricable part of human nature, and
find a way to let us explore it openly.
The quest to understand intoxication wasn't always so constrained. Back in
the 1950s, 60s and early 70s, many scientists took a very personal interest
in it. In those more liberal days, researchers such as physician Andrew
Weil, latterly of the National Institute for Mental Health in Maryland, and
ethnobotanist Terrence McKenna charted the effects of many drugs, tested
them in the lab and in the field, explored their mind-altering qualities
first-hand, documented their use in different cultures, and suggested that
many of the compounds had medicinal benefits.
Many of these pioneering researchers came to the conclusion that seeking
intoxication was programmed into human nature. As Weil pointed out in his
1973 book The Natural Mind, from an early age children experiment with
spinning around or hyperventilating to experience mind-altering giddiness.
He suggested that when we get older, this quest to alter our feelings stays
with us but we pursue it chemically as well as physically.
The spirit of personal research, however, was largely quashed in the late
70s and 80s as a US-led "war on drugs" took hold. Drug research became
dominated by the "addiction paradigm", with pleasure and benefits strictly
off-limits. "It was so controversial it had to be shut down altogether,"
says Charles Grob, director of the child and adolescent psychiatry
department at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, California, whose
interests lie with the potential medical use of psychedelics.
But some researchers carried on regardless. Ronald Siegel, now a
psychopharmacologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, was one
of them. As a psychology graduate student in the 60s he busied himself with
studying pigeon memory. One day, a fellow student was arrested for marijuana
possession, and his lawyer asked Siegel what he knew about the drug's
effects. Not much, as it happened, so he brewed up an extract and watched
what happened when a pigeon got stoned.
Ever since, he has been fascinated by intoxication, what it is and why we
and other animals seek it. He managed to keep studying "controlled
substances" such as LSD, mescaline, PCP, cocaine and psilocybin in his
clinic, in animals and in volunteers, all legal and above board. He's passed
out, thrown up, been attacked by intoxicated animals, and even been shot at
by drugs barons - all in the name of research. And he has gained a unique
perspective, spelled out in his 1989 book Intoxication: Life in pursuit of
artificial paradise, which is being reissued next April by Park Street Press
of Rochester, Vermont.
Siegel believes there is a strong biological drive to seek intoxication.
"It's the fourth drive," he says. "After hunger, thirst and sex, there is
intoxication." Whether we are seeking pleasure, stimulation, pain relief or
escape, at the root of this drive, he says, is the motivation to feel
"different from normal" - what has sometimes been called "a holiday from
reality". Some people reach this state through travel, books, art, roller
coasters, sport, religion, exploration, love, social contact or power.
Others use intoxicants. "It's the same motivation," says Siegel. "We
wouldn't live if we didn't seek to feel different."
One of the main "different" feelings we want to experience is pleasure.
Pleasure, neuroscientists believe, is the brain's way of telling us that we
are doing something that is good for survival, such as eating and sex. The
circuits that create the feeling are driven by natural opioids and
cannabinoids. No surprise, then, that we have a penchant for putting
versions of these chemicals into our brains.
But the equation is not quite as simple as chemical in, pleasure out. At
last month's Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego, California,
neuroscientist Kent Berridge of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor
described preliminary work showing that rats given a natural cannabinoid,
anandamide, seemed to become unusually partial to sweet tastes. Rats primed
with anandamide had higher pleasure responses to sugar than unprimed rats.
It seems that the cannabinoid may not just be pleasurable in its own right,
but also enhances other pleasurable experiences, making the world seem a
generally more likeable place. Perhaps this is one aspect of the well-known
"munchies" effect of marijuana, they conclude.
A related idea is that some people take psychoactive substances to suppress
"negative pleasure". George Koob, a neuroscientist and addiction specialist
at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, has proposed that
the brain has a natural system for limiting the amount of pleasure we can
feel. He argues that pleasure has to be transient or humans and other
animals would get so absorbed in it that they would succumb to the next
predator that came along. Koob thinks that the brain has a way of bringing
us down - a kind of "anti-pleasure" mechanism if you like. What if this
system goes into overdrive? "Some people seek excessive pleasure because
they are born with too much anti-pleasure," he says. "They may take drugs to
feel normal."
But there is more to intoxication than simply massaging our pleasure
circuits. Some altered states, Siegel believes, have a utilitarian value.
Just as many animals naturally seek medicinal plants such as antibiotics or
emetics, we seek to medicate our minds. When we are agitated or in pain,
emotionally as well as physically, we seek substances that tranquillise and
sedate. When tired or depressed, we seek stimulants. According to some
researchers, including Grob, this medicinal use is an underlying thread
running through all forms of intoxication.
The drive to medicate mood is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom,
Siegel says, and he and his colleagues have documented thousands of
examples. Elephants, for instance, enjoy the taste of fermented fruit. They
will usually just browse it, but if they lose their mate (elephants usually
mate for life) they may seek oblivion in an alcoholic fruit binge, even
drinking neat ethanol if researchers provide it. It's hard not to conclude
that, like humans, they are drowning their sorrows. Stress can also lead
animals to take intoxicants as a form of escape. When stressed by
overcrowding, elephants are more motivated to seek alcohol. And fear can
take its toll too. During the Vietnam war, Siegel and his team filmed water
buffalo grazing on opium poppies to the point of addiction. And animals
don't just take downers: there are numerous reports of goats guzzling
stimulants such as coffee beans and the herbal amphetamine khat.
Medication with uppers and downers may be fairly easy to understand, but
there are other intoxicants whose attractions are harder to fathom. These
are the hallucinogens, which can't easily be explained in purely survivalist
terms. Most animals actively avoid this category of intoxicant.
Despite this, some researchers believe that psychedelics can have a
medicinal effect in humans. Doblin, for example, argues that the drastically
altered states they induce can play a role in maintaining mental health.
Hallucinogens - and to some extent cannabis and MDMA - allow us to escape,
temporarily, from a reality ruled by logic, ego and time, and explore other
aspects of our consciousness. "The brain functions best when it has access
to altered states," he says.
This might sound like hippy mumbo-jumbo, but there is plenty of evidence in
the medical literature that hallucinogens are effective against mental
illness, including anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcoholism and
heroin addiction. Most of this research was done in the 1950s, but the field
is now showing signs of a revival. Grob recently received approval to test
psilocybin as a treatment for severe anxiety in terminally ill cancer
patients, and there are ongoing studies in the use of psilocybin for
otherwise untreatable cases of obsessive compulsive disorder, and MDMA for
serious post-traumatic stress disorder.
Medicinal properties notwithstanding, there are other ideas to explain why
people take psychedelics. Siegel found that he could persuade monkeys to
voluntarily smoke the hallucinogen DMT (see "A concise guide to mind -
altering drugs") when they were in a situation of severe sensory
deprivation. He had already trained three rhesus monkeys to smoke for a
reward, to study the effects of nicotine. When he laced their smoking tubes
with DMT, they briefly tried it, then avoided it. But after several days in
darkness, with no stimulation, the monkeys began to smoke DMT voluntarily.
They ended up grasping at and chasing non-existent objects and hiding from
invisible dangers. "This was the first demonstration of a non-human primate
voluntarily taking a hallucinogenic drug," Siegel says. "We share the same
motivation to light up our lives with chemical glimpses of another world."
Boredom it seems, will drive animals to experiment, even when the experience
is not altogether pleasurable.
The same drive to seek novelty or stave off boredom could explain why people
take drugs that have overwhelmingly negative effects. PCP, for example,
which some consider to be the most dangerous illegal drug, is a "dissociative"
(see "A concise guide to mind - altering drugs"). Among its myriad effects
are numbness, loss of coordination, paranoia, hallucinations, acute anxiety,
mood swings and psychosis. But for some people the altered state is clearly
worth it - PCP was hugely popular in the US in the 1970s. "People seem to
say they liked feeling different or funny," says Siegel. "When there's
nothing else to do, people will take anything to feel different."
In some ways novelty-seeking is a basic behavioural drive. Literature on
child development reveals that once infants are no longer sleepy, hungry or
thirsty, they will explore and seek new experiences. They wriggle their
limbs, put things in their mouths, touch things, taste things and bash
things together. Without this drive, they wouldn't learn anything about the
world around them. Perhaps this spirit of exploration simply continues into
adulthood in a different form.
There's another drive, too, that probably plays a role: risk-taking. For
some people taking risks is itself pleasurable. According to Koob this might
come from a slightly different brain system to the pleasure circuits. For
animals that forage, there is always the risk of being attacked by a
predator. In other words there is a conflict between seeking new foraging
sites, or novelty, and risk. Evolution has got around this conundrum by
making novelty rewarding and pleasurable in its own right.
Pleasure, excitement, therapy, novelty: seen in this light, the pursuit of
intoxication looks very different from its standard portrayal as a
pathological drive that must be suppressed before it leads to harm,
addiction and squalor. Yet the mainstream debate on drugs, alcohol and
tobacco seems unable to acknowledge that there is anything positive at all
to say about intoxication. Instead it is locked into a sterile argument
between prohibitionists and those who want to reduce the harmful effects by,
for example, making heroin available on prescription. Both groups start from
the belief that psychoactive substances are inherently harmful but disagree
on what to do about it.
Some activists, however, are starting to argue for an entirely different
attitude to intoxication. One prominent critic of the debate is Richard Glen
Boire, director of the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics in Davis,
California. He believes that intoxication is not just a part of human
nature, it is a basic human right. "Why should it be illegal to alter your
style of thinking?" he says. "As long as you don't do any harm to anyone
else, what you do in your own mind is as private as what you do in your own
bedroom." Boire advocates changes to the law that would allow people to
experiment with psychoactive substances at home or in designated public
places. "It's the right of people to explore the full range of
consciousness, and our duty as a society to accommodate that," he says.
Some scientists are moving in the same direction, arguing that instead of
suppressing, medicalising and criminalising our basic drive to experience
altered states we should apply ourselves to making it safer, healthier and
less squalid - in short, to taking the "toxic" out of intoxication.
The approach favoured by Siegel is to tweak existing drugs to make them
better, with shorter effects and no addictive potential. "What it would be
like," he says, "if we had a drug like alcohol, which didn't lead to
violence, fetal damage, liver failure, that was safe, wouldn't lead to drink
driving and never gave you a hangover. What would be wrong with it
medically? Maybe we'd even prescribe this alcohol substitute to help people
relax." We could even design entirely new chemicals that allow us to
experience all the pleasures, thrills and adventures of intoxication without
the downsides. "This is not science fiction," says Siegel. "Civilisation
will eventually take this direction."
Perhaps this would be the greatest contribution a full understanding of the
intoxication instinct could offer - a spur for society to move beyond the
irrational position of sanctioning caffeine, alcohol and tobacco while
fighting a "war" against other psychoactive substances. David Lenson, a
social theorist at the University of Massachusetts in Amhurst and author of
the 1995 book On Drugs, makes this point by comparing the war on drugs with
efforts to eradicate homosexuality: both are based on an incomplete
understanding of human nature. Siegel, too, sees an analogy with sex. "We
can't be expected to solve the AIDS problem by outlawing sex," he says. "We
have to make drugs safe and healthy, because people are not going to be able
to say no."
|
LETTERS:
Driven to drugs
New Scientist vol 184 issue 2475 - 27 November 2004, page 27
Ronald Siegel says intoxication is "the fourth drive, after hunger, thirst
and sex". The three primary drives are sustenance, sex and sleep. The
omission of sleep is inexcusable.
Dream deprivation causes sleepiness; hallucinations are similar to dreams.
Hallucinogens and stimulants reduce or eliminate the need for sleep while
depressants aid sleep.
It seems to me that the various forms of intoxication are parts of the sleep
(or dream) drive, rather than a drive in itself. That conclusion may
undermine a "scientific" justification for legalising intoxicants. But it
does not affect our right to do as we like with our bodies.
J. N.
London, UK
Ronald Siegel's views in "The intoxication instinct" (13 November, p 32)
recalled for me the ominous tenet "A gram is better than a damn" in Aldous
Huxley's dystopian masterpiece Brave New World. Would "new chemicals that
allow us to experience all the pleasures, thrills and adventures of
intoxication without the downsides" be of any benefit to society? Or might
they destroy us?
Altering our state of consciousness as a solution to boredom, stress and
other woes, though initially appealing, could well lead to social stagnation
as the dull, yet necessary, work is cast off in favour of this quick
release. When our "normal" consciousness has got humanity this far, why
should we doubt it?
A.W.
Sheffield, UK
|
Under the influence
New Scientist, 13 November, 2004
HOW common is the use of mind-altering substances? Accurate figures are hard
to come by, largely because most psychoactive drugs are illegal and the task
of keeping tabs on the legal ones is monumental. But it's safe to say from
the available figures that the use of mind-altering substances is a
widespread - if not near-universal - human experience.
According to the latest drug data from the United Nations (World Drug Report
2004), about 185 million people worldwide have used an illicit substance in
the past 12 months. That's around 1 in 20 of the adult population. With 146
million users, cannabis is by far the most popular, followed by amphetamines
(30 million), cocaine (13 million) and ecstasy (8 million). Despite
prohibitionists' best efforts, these figures have remained unchanged since
the first World Drug Report in 1997.
Illicit drug use in western countries is higher than the global average.
According to the 2003 US National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 19.5
million Americans had taken at least one drug, mainly cannabis, in the 30
days before the survey. That's about 1 in 12 of the "adult" population (aged
12 plus). An even higher proportion report having taken illicit drugs at
some point in their lives. According to a recent survey, 77 million
Americans, a third of all adults, have used drugs at least once (Human
Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, vol 17, p 140).
And illegal drugs are just the tip of the iceberg. The World Health
Organization estimates that there are 1.3 billion tobacco smokers worldwide,
30 per cent of the adult population (World Health Report, 2003). Alcohol use
is even more prevalent. In the US, a relatively sober country, just over 50
per cent of adults have had at least one alcoholic drink in the past month.
In the UK, 88 per cent of people drink at least once a month and 48 per cent
drink at least twice a week. Outside the Islamic world very few people
abstain completely. The figure is 20 per cent in Canada, 9 per cent in
Germany, and as low as 4 per cent in some Nordic countries. |
 |
Of all the world's psychoactive substances, however, none can match the
reach of caffeine, the only universally sanctioned drug both legally and
culturally. Its main source, coffee, is immensely popular, with 79 per cent
of the US adult population drinking it regularly, according to the US
National Coffee Association. Add to that all the tea, chocolate and
caffeinated soft drinks consumed in the world, and it's fair to say that
caffeine is the most widely consumed psychoactive substance on Earth. The
majority of us are probably under the influence of caffeine most of the
time.
Overall, it's hard not to conclude that the vast majority of people are
current or former users of psychoactive substances. The clinching figure, of
course, would be one for "lifetime abstinence", the percentage of people who
have never, ever taken anything that alters their consciousness. But it
appears that no one has ever worked out such a figure, perhaps because, to
all intents and purposes, it is zero.
|
Highs and lows
New Scientist, 13 November, 2004
A history of intoxication - and prohibition
50,000 YEARS AGO Neanderthal burial site in Iraq found to contain remains of
the herbal stimulant ephedra. Palaeolithic cave art across Europe and Africa
suggests artists had experience of hallucinogens (or possibly migraines)
10,000BC Earliest agriculture. Some evidence that the first crops included
psychoactive plants such as mandrake, tobacco, coffee and cannabis
7000BC Betel seeds, chewed for their stimulant effects, found in
archaeological sites in Asia
6000BC Native South Americans begin cultivating and using tobacco
4200BC Opium poppy seed pods found in a burial site at Albuol near Granada,
Spain
4000BC Wine and beer making in Egypt and Sumeria
3500BC Bronze-age vessels show evidence of wine consumption in eastern
Mediterranean
3000BC Cannabis cultivation in China and Asia; evidence of cannabis smoking
in eastern Europe
2000BC Coca residues found in the hair of Andean mummies
1500BC - AD400 Greek writers refer to the Eleusian Mysteries, an autumn
festival celebrated with a hallucinogenic brew called kykeon, perhaps based
on ergot or magic mushrooms
1000BC Central Americans erect temples to mushroom gods
800BC Distillation of spirits in India
430BC Greek historian Herodotus records recreational cannabis smoking among
the Scythian people of the Black Sea
AD625 Mohammed orders his followers to abstain from alcohol
1450 Widespread use of coca leaves by Inca peoples
1475 Turkish law makes it legal for a woman to divorce her husband if he
fails to provide her with coffee
1519 Spanish courtier Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes brings tobacco
plants to Europe
1604 King James I of England publishes "A Counterblast to Tobacco"
1633 Ottoman sultan Murad IV bans coffee houses on the basis that they are
hotbeds of political dissent
1675 Coffee houses widespread in England; King Charles II tries to ban them
1805 German chemist Friedrich Sertrner separates morphine from opium
1819 German chemist Friedrich Ferdinand Runge isolates caffeine from coffee
1850s New York bartenders invent the cocktail
1859 German chemist Albert Niemann perfects isolation of cocaine from coca
leaves
1868 In the world's first piece of anti-drug legislation, the UK Poisons and
Pharmacy act makes it illegal to sell opium and other drugs without a
licence
1886 Recipe for Coca-Cola patented, including coca leaves and caffeine-rich
kola nuts
1887 Amphetamine synthesised in Germany
1906 Coca leaves removed from the recipe for Coca-Cola
1909 Opium smoking criminalised in the US
1912 MDMA synthesised by pharmaceutical firm Merck
1914 Harrison narcotic act places cocaine and opiates under stringent
control in the US
1920-33 Prohibition in the US. Alcohol was also illegal in Finland from 1919
to 1932 and in various Canadian provinces at various times between 1900 and
1948
1933 Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann synthesises LSD and accidentally discovers
its hallucinogenic effects. He later takes what he believes is a tiny dose
and discovers LSD's astonishing potency
1951 US tycoon Al Hubbard tries LSD and starts promoting its recreational
use
1961 UN agrees the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which urges member
states to take action against opiates and cocaine
1967 LSD made illegal in the US
1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances urges banning of synthetic
drugs such as amphetamines and LSD
1975 Netherlands licenses sale of cannabis in coffee shops
1978 MDMA starts being widely used as a recreational drug; initially called
"empathy" but quickly becomes known as "ecstasy"
1988 Rave culture sweeps Europe
|
Too many use alcohol as a crutch
Nearly a quarter of adults or 12 million people use alcohol
to fill the 'hole in the soul' created by low self esteem and depression,
experts warn. This percentage is unacceptably high and needs to be
addressed, they say.
The root of the problem is society's acceptance of alcohol misuse as part of
British life, according to Dr Massimo Riccio of the Priory Hospital.
A survey of 2,000 people reveals 60% of UK adults think it is fine for
people to binge drink over the festive season.
"British society takes alcohol misuse lightly"
- Dr Massimo Riccio of the Priory Hospital, Roehampton
The Priory Group research found 23% of adults have a drink to cheer up when
they 'feel a bit low' and 14% use alcohol to give themselves Dutch courage
before work or a social event.
Two in five drink before making love to relax or lose their inhibitions.
The problem appears to be worse in the North of England and escalates around
Christmas.
Nearly a third rely on drinking to get through the Christmas party season,
particularly those living in the North East.
Londoners are the most likely to abstain, with 33% claiming to never drink,
as opposed to 22% of the rest of the population.
Boozing
Over a quarter of adults have stayed in bed all day with a bad hangover and
4.3 million adults aged 16-34 had rung in sick at work because of drinking
too much.
Alcohol statistics:
- Almost 50% of adults have vomited after drinking
alcohol
- 19 million have been embarrassed about their
behaviour the next day after drinking too much
- One-third of adults drink more than once per
week
Source: The Priory Group
Alcohol misuse is also 'upmarket' - nearly 50% of upper-middle class and
upper-class adults are frequent drinkers, compared to 30% of the rest of the
population.
Dr Riccio said drinking to become drunk had become the social norm.
"British society takes alcohol misuse lightly and, in many segments, it's
important to be a 'good drunk' to fit in socially, which is a fertile
breeding ground for future alcohol problems.
"Alcohol is generally the first drug that people take.
"It is socially acceptable, ubiquitous and relatively inexpensive, all of
which contribute to today's widespread misuse," he said.
Sophie Davidson from Alcohol Concern said: "Drinking has become socially
acceptable in a number of situations and this survey highlights the
desperate need for more information and education about the effects of
alcohol misuse."
She said GPs were ideally placed to detect and support people with alcohol
problems.
But she said: "There is a real need to improve early identification and
treatment of alcohol misuse within primary care settings, such staff
training to increase awareness of likely signs of alcohol misuse and better
provision of treatment and care."
|
End of the affair
One pill now costs about the same as a pint of beer - and is
almost as easy to get hold of. But the youth of Britain is starting to turn
its back on ecstasy. Leo Benedictus on how the drug of the 90s fell from
favour
Leo Benedictus
Friday January 16, 2004
Guardian
"I am astounded. Everyone must get to experience a profound state like this.
I feel totally peaceful. I have lived all my life to get here, and I feel I
have come home. I am complete."
When Alexander Shulgin, an eminent Californian professor of biochemistry,
put 120mg of an obscure and unregarded phenethylamine to the test in his
back garden in the summer of 1976, the result was a social revolution and a
$65bn industry. Prof Shulgin has been synthesising and tasting new
mind-altering drugs for more than 40 years, so, as you might expect, he has
seen a few things in his time, but he still considers 3,4
methylene-dioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) to be unique.
At 2.32am on New Year's Day, 2004, I get a phone call from Murray in
Doncaster. I ask him how he feels. "Very, very content," he says. "A bit
wobbly and a bit dry-mouthed." Murray is 25 and has been doing pills since
he was 17. He's had four so far tonight. I read him the note from Shulgin's
journal. Does he feel anything like that? "Doesn't compare," he murmurs.
"It's a nice feeling, but that's about it. I could probably get this feeling
by reading the News of the World in front of the fire."
For the first time since Shulgin's discovery, it seems that the young people
of Britain, once its greatest enthusiasts, are losing interest in ecstasy.
In fact, figures published last month in the British Crime Survey showed
that the number of 16 to 24 year olds who had tried the drug in the past 12
months was down by a fifth on the year before to an estimated 312,000, or
5.4% of everyone in that age group. And this is at a time when the price of
pills has been plummeting - Murray paid just 2.50 for each of his.
After 15 dizzy years in the mainstream, ecstasy is unquestionably
non-addictive, and appears to be "relatively safe in the short term",
according to Professor David Nutt in his advice to the home affairs select
committee. In fact, though the authorities prefer not to make the
comparison, roughly 20 deaths a year ranks ecstasy alongside electric
blankets in a list of Britain's biggest killers. As with most things,
prolonged heavy use is generally agreed not to be a good idea, and only this
week new research from a British team found that regular users are risking
damage to their long-term memory. But a supposed breakthrough linking it
with Parkinson's-like deterioration in the brain was comprehensively
discredited when it emerged that the compound the researchers had been
studying wasn't ecstasy at all. "As each year goes by, I get relatively more
sanguine about the risks, rather than less," says Nutt.
Add to this the fact that pills are cheap and simple to manufacture, as well
as being easy to distribute and consume discreetly, and the mystery only
deepens as to why so many of its core consumers stopped taking it.
Ecstasy's brief history offers a clue. First discovered in the laboratories
of the German pharmaceuticals company Merck in 1912, no one was very
interested in MDMA at the time, because the two researchers who discovered
it, G Mannish and W Jacobsohn, were looking for something else. The drug lay
undisturbed until the 1950s, when the CIA picked it up for a few desultory
animal tests in its search for a truth serum. How the agency's interrogators
planned to determine that their dogs were telling the truth is unclear, but
whatever they saw did not impress, and MDMA never officially made it to
human trials. However, considering that the CIA was routinely slipping LSD
into its operatives' morning coffees at the time, it is entirely possible
that the first ecstasy rush was experienced somewhere in the typing pool at
Edgewood army base in Maryland.
Initially known as "Adam" after the almost prelapsarian bliss first noted by
Shulgin, the drug lived a fleeting clinical life as a tool for forming bonds
of trust between psychotherapists and their patients. Then, in the late 70s
and early 80s, America's recreational pharmacists - never far behind their
academic cousins - began brewing up batches of their own and distributing it
in bars and by mail order, with just one subtle adjustment to improve sales:
they called it "ecstasy".
Despite its energising effects, ecstasy's early users thought of it as a
relaxing drug, best relished in a boudoir full of cushions and naked
friends. Only with the birth of house music in the 1980s ("Sounds wholly or
predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive
beats," to borrow the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act's seductive
turn of phrase) did the drug begin to forge its definitive association with
the dancefloor. Then, in 1988, during what became known as the second summer
of love, ecstasy seemed to have found its spiritual home in a flagging
Thatcher's Britain.
The nation's youngsters began to congregate in their thousands in fields and
warehouses. In acid house they had their music, in fluorescent T-shirts and
smileys they had their fashion, and in ecstasy, at 25 a pill, they had
their drug. Never again would school parties be embarrassingly called
"discos"; from now on, they would be embarrassingly called "raves". Even
today, and probably for all time, ecstasy's public image - that thumping,
sweaty dancefloor in which it is always imagined - is a scene from 1988.
And this, as any brand manager will tell you, is a slump waiting to happen.
Like 501s or Marks & Spencer, ecstasy's image got stuck in the past. "It's a
scruffy drug," says Paul Knight, 26, a promotions manager and DJ from south
London. He has been working in bars and clubs since he was 17, and is a
regular ecstasy user. "There's not much prestige in buying pills, especially
because it's cheaper now. Cocaine is the more prestigious drug, definitely.
The cokeheads probably think we're just a bunch of kids."
In fact, in Britain's illegal drugs market, cocaine has been the clear
success story of recent years. In 1996, at 60-70 a gram, it remained a
banker's special treat, with ecstasy three times, and speed six times more
popular. But last year, at 40-50 a gram, cocaine was the only Class-A drug
to show an increase in users and it established itself as second only to
cannabis among the nation's favourite illicit highs.
At the same time, the traditional pills'n'thrills clubbing experience has
come down from its late-90s apogee. "Five years ago, you went to a club to
take drugs, dance like a loon and leave at six in the morning," says Knight.
"Now it's different; there are lots of different sorts of music. It's a lot
more social. Yeah, there are pills there, but you don't have to take them."
This new, restrained style of socialising, however, has done little to
quench the modern clubber's appetite for intoxication. Britain's dancefloors
now bristle with a hitherto unimaginable variety of powders and potions.
"Before it was just pills, and maybe some coke as well, but that was about
it," Knight explains. "But now I know people who do ketamine quite
regularly, GHB now and again, mescaline, all that stuff. And they mix it up
a bit, too." Next to these fearsome compounds, and the Shulgin-designed
2C-B, ecstasy must seem tame indeed.
Such comparisons, and habituation, no doubt play their part in ecstasy's
decreasing cachet, but then the cut-price tablets now on offer are also, by
common consent, not what they used to be. "Pills are less strong than they
were," says Rob, a full-time drug-dealer from Hackney in east London. Now
25, he's been in the business since he began helping out his friends as a 16
year old. "I don't know what's in the pills that I sell, although I always
try them first. At Glastonbury, I took about 40 over the weekend - that
wouldn't have been possible with the old Mitsubishis [a wistfully remembered
brand of ecstasy from the mid-90s]."
Rob charges 10 for three pills (or 30 for 10), and 50 for a gram of
cocaine, but the news of a fall in the number of young ecstasy users comes
as a surprise to him. "My mark-up is around 1.50 or 2 on each pill and 15
on a gram of coke, and I'd say I make more in total on the pills. It seems
to me as if E's popularity is going up."
If doses have been getting weaker - and both Knight and Murray agree that
they have - then that might explain why people are taking more of them and
keeping Rob busy, while also accounting for a decline in the mystique which
used to attract new users to ecstasy. With recent estimates suggesting that
only around half of all tablets sold as ecstasy actually contain it, could
it be that it is not MDMA but pills that young people have lost their taste
for?
The most compelling evidence for such a theory is the increasing prevalence,
anecdotally at least, of MDMA powder, a product variant that claims to offer
a more quality-controlled source of pure ecstasy. "It's been around for a
while, but it's really taking off now," says Rob, whose MDMA goes for 40 a
gram. "MDMA is a reassurance to people that they know what they're getting.
I get it as crystals, and it's definitely better - a lot cleaner and more
rushy." Murray agrees: "I had MDMA the other week, and it was a completely
different, very intense high - better than any pills you'd take."
The rise of MDMA powder is unlikely to account for the British Crime
Survey's findings - how many among its new users have honestly not taken one
pill in the last year, if indeed they consider it a different drug? But it
certainly suggests a dissatisfaction with the quality of today's tablets. In
this climate, it is easy to understand why some of Britain's more occasional
young drug users might be opting for coke instead of ecstasy on their - now
more soign - nights out, as well as why their teenage brothers and sisters,
without a thriving house music scene to absorb them, try pills much later,
if at all. It's easy to understand, in other words, that ecstasy is not
dead, or dying. But it may just have entered middle-age.
Some names have been changed
|
|

|
|