Nut is cracked by herb.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But I do think alcohol is rated too high by these studies, simply because the wide spread use of it leads to more obvious problems. And you can't discount the cultural factors--people don't drive to parties, have competitions involving who can take the most LSD, and then drive home.

Im not sure... I think people are just surprised because its such a culturally acceptable thing.. your used to seeing people do it regularly and still living a normal life whereas you don't see this as much with other drugs as its more hidden.

Im not sure about LSD becuase of the hallucinations but I would definately say alcohol is far far more dangerous to drive on than weed, ectascy, amphetamines or most of the minor drugs. The roads would be safer with people going to a party and taking loads of speed than going to a party and drinking loads...

That and generally the effects of the illegal drugs are somewhat over exagerated (or the way thier described makes it sound worse than it is) if we'd had years of drugs adverts against alcohol in the same way you had other drugs you'd probably be surprised at how tame it actually is... you wouldn't even need to lie flat out with alcohol as it sounds fairly bad anyway just put a little spin on it and you have the biggest threat to children since (some child killer of a horror movie)

I only know what I was taught at school, but doesn't ecstacy cause serious physical side effects, sometimes killing poeple pretty quickly? And LSD causes serious halluciations, such as a guy trying to saw off his arm because he thought it was a snake?

ectascy's mostly fairly tame if not taken constantly (somewhat like alcohol) it can in a small minority cause death you need to be careful with your fluid intake. I think alcohol is at least as bad as ectascy if not a little worse...

E can cause Sudden Death, and it can also is stops you from processing water out of your system.

[LittleGrizzly]

E can cause Sudden Death

Sure so can nuts, Alcohol directly to the user and indirectly to many people causes lots of harm, I wouldn't be surprised if taking into account percentage of users that death is a more likely outcome, on alcohol. The likelyhood of dieing on E is very small probably close to the risk you take stepping onto a plane...

and it can also is stops you from processing water out of your system.

It can which is why I said you have to be careful with your fluid intake, it is what makes E potentially deadly so like I said very small percentage

When I compare the two I think both of direct effects to the user and indirect to everyone else... in direct effects to the user E only is worse for those tiny minority... for indirect alcohol loses on pretty much every scale... It would be light on alcohol to call them equally harmful...

[Idaho]

E can cause Sudden Death, and it can also is stops you from processing water out of your system.

Apart from this being untrue, this line of argument is irrelevant to this issue.

The point is that the government appointed scientists to look at the scientific evidence about drug control, then ignored the evidence and sacked the chief scientist.

Or should we base government policy on what you believe rather than scientific evidence?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apart from this being untrue, this line of argument is irrelevant to this issue.

The point is that the government appointed scientists to look at the scientific evidence about drug control, then ignored the evidence and sacked the chief scientist.

Or should we base government policy on what you believe rather than scientific evidence?

I wonder if I've ever actually met you...

Anyway, the comparisons he made were bogus and he does seem to be pushing an agenda. That doesn't make his advice invalid, but it indicates he isn't the best man for the job. Comparing taking ecstacy to horse riding reveals all sorts of cultural prejudices.

Edit: Oh yes, and Hyponatremia is a really danger.

Lea Betts?

So, check your facts before you call "nonsense".

[Aemilius Paulus]

Lea Betts?

Please, common medical drugs have more serious side-effects. According to this BBC article, Lea Betts drank too much water. She may or may not have died had she not taken MDMA, but the point is, it was her own irresponsibility and ignorance that killed her, and not the ecstasy. How many deadly outcomes result from combinations of various chemical compounds found commonly in medicines and other places, such as alcohol for instance? Ecstasy cannot be defined as a "deadly narcotic" if one has to combine it with other agents to induce death.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Please, common medical drugs have more serious side-effects. According to this BBC article, Lea Betts drank too much water. She may or may not have died had she not taken MDMA, but the point is, it was her own irresponsibility and ignorance that killed her, and not the ecstasy. How many deadly outcomes result from combinations of various chemical compounds found commonly in medicines and other places, such as alcohol for instance? Ecstasy cannot be defined as a "deadly narcotic" if one has to combine it with other agents to induce death.

She wouldn't have died had she not taken MDMA, that is quite clear. Her body was unable to process the water she drank because the drug was in her system and her cells litterally started bursting. It's a horrible way to die.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

She wouldn't have died had she not taken MDMA, that is quite clear. Her body was unable to process the water she drank because the drug was in her system and her cells litterally started bursting. It's a horrible way to die.

She died because ecstasy is illegal, obviously. This is what you get when drug education programs offer hysteria instead of facts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

She died because ecstasy is illegal, obviously. This is what you get when drug education programs offer hysteria instead of facts.

No she died because she drank water while high on E. That's it, no E, no death.

Teenagers are complete idiots, and she probably would have done the same thing had the drug been legal. Given the number of women I have virtually had to carry home over the past few years, it is very clear to me that anyone who takes any narcotic drug is not reliable.

The truth is, it would be consistant to ban alchohol and tobacoo. The latter will almost certainly have been banned in some places before I die.

[Aemilius Paulus]

She wouldn't have died had she not taken MDMA, that is quite clear.

Not exactly what BBC said, as they left it in question, but I generally agree. Water intoxication deaths under normal circumstances are quite rare, if outright implausible.


However, I still fail to see how MDMA is such an evil. We all know that almost every other medicinally active compound can cause complication or even the termination of pregnancy. Alcohol taken in conjunction with drugs, legal or illegal, can cause death due to the fatal chemical reactions. Numerous medicines or even "herbal remedies" act as blood thinners, and thousands die from excessive bleeding, mainly during operations. Vaccines regularly kill people, sometimes in droves, as with the 1976 swine influenza vaccine. Common vitamins can be overdoes on with crippling consequences, and likewise interact with various drugs. Should we ban the vitamins then?

Simply go to Wikipedia, search for any random legal drug and you will find a section listing the combinations to be avoided. Not to mention, the water-ecstasy link is not even inherently deadly. Unless you have a large excess of water. The same cannot be said for those common drug interactions, which can lead to death even when the amounts of both are relatively small, no more than common doses of each.

I do not understand how Lea Betts is a good example of the dangers of ecstasy. It is but common sense to check the vital safety facts of medicinally active substances, whether it be a drug, or especially, a narcotic. If one dies from such negligence, then woe to them. If I died in her place, I would have no one but myself to blame.

EDIT:

No she died because she drank water while high on E. That's it, no E, no death.

That's it, no excessive water consumption, no death. Either one is equally correct. Water intoxication is deadly, even when not combined with other factors. MDMA is sometimes, but rarely deadly when overdosed on, and people are more cautious of drug overdoses than of something as seemingly harmless as water. Miss. Betts died due to two equal factors, and she could have sooner died of water overdose than that of ecstasy.

Also, do I even have to list the substances which cause hyponatremia? Too many.

[Idaho]

I wonder if I've ever actually met you...

No I doubt it. You are a student/young conservative farmer type aren't you?

[LittleGrizzly]

The only non narcotic user I can think off (outside a dead grandparent) is a girl who accussed her boyfriend of beating her because one of her other friends had recently had that happen to her so she wanted to 'join in'...

In your non narcotic using group you have probably some of the scariest people (religious fundamentalists) and some of the most incredibly boring people... (probably have some normal people as well but give me the narcotic using group as my friends any day of the week)

[Boohugh]

Right, this is how I see things:

Prof Nutt gives evidence (which hasn't yet been fully published by the way) to the Government that, in the majority of people, cannabis use doesn't seem to cause psychosis/schizophrenia, etc. In fact, it only affects roughly 1 in 5000 young people, although mileage will vary depending on how heavy a user and what sex you are. Prof Nutt says the Government should concentrate on alcohol instead as it causes more social problems in his opinion. The Government looks at that evidence in combination with other factors they need to take into account and decide to reclass some drugs back into Class B. Prof Nutt doesn't understand why the Government seemingly didn't follow his advice, throws a proverbial hissy fit and gets fired for it.

There are a few interlinking points I think need to be brought to attention:

1) Prof Nutt doesn't say that the drugs are harmless. Most of this thread has been addressing the pros and cons of drug use and our esteemed Professor says that they do cause health problems including mental issues such as schizophrenia in young people. In the case of cannabis he says they affect between 1 in 2800 to 10000 young people, depending on whether you are male or female and how much you smoke. Now, going off the 2001 UK Census statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/UK.asp), there were just over 7.2 million people aged 15-24. If it were legal and half of those used or tried cannabis (perhaps even an underestimation of the number that would), that would be somewhere in the region of 1300 and 360 new cases of mental health issues.

So, what you are arguing is that a minority of people should suffer serious mental health issues just so that the majority can get high? And you are seriously surprised that the Government chose not to take this approach? This is ignoring the fact that people who smoke cannabis are also far more likely to use cigarettes (which ironically makes it harder to see the long term effects of cannabis use as we can't currently differentiate what causes the cancer, the tobacco or the cannabis) and so brings the whole set of health problems that go with those.

2) This isn't even an 'either/or' situation for the Government regarding the illegal and legal drugs. It isn't like they have said they are reclassifying these drugs and are going to ignore the social problems alcohol and cigarettes cause. Both issues need to be addressed and just by reclassifying those drugs (either up or down) does not mean one issues has taken precedence over the other.

Claiming that because there are other problems in society, using drugs is ok seems a rather perverse arguement. LittleGrizzly said earlier in this thread:

The roads would be safer with people going to a party and taking loads of speed than going to a party and drinking loads...

That is probably true, but you know what would be even safer? Doing neither!

I'm not trying to defend the Government's policy on drugs or alcohol, over the past 12 years of Labour government I think there has been a marked decline in societal behaviour, especially on the alcohol front. I also think there isn't a clear direction or leadership on the issue of drugs from the Government (but then that's a trait in all areas of government currently) and this constant changing of classifications certainly isn't clearing up the issue. However, I think it terrible that people claim that drugs such as cannabis and ecstacy are fine just because they and their friends have had no issues with them, when others clearly have.

Ignoring the problems of a minority because it doesn't affect the majority is a very slippery slope to start going down. It is this area where I think Professor Nutt was perhaps out of his depth and where the Government was right to say "thank you for your advice, but..." as they need to take into account these social factors and the overall picture, along with the scientific evidence on the drugs themselves.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So, what you are arguing is that a minority of people should suffer serious mental health issues just so that the majority can get high? And you are seriously surprised that the Government chose not to take this approach? This is ignoring the fact that people who smoke cannabis are also far more likely to use cigarettes (which ironically makes it harder to see the long term effects of cannabis use as we can't currently differentiate what causes the cancer, the tobacco or the cannabis) and so brings the whole set of health problems that go with those.

Would you suggest that we make peanut butter illegal and put people in jail for using it?

[naut]

I concur with Sasaki above.

This is ignoring the fact that people who smoke cannabis are also far more likely to use cigarettes (which ironically makes it harder to see the long term effects of cannabis use as we can't currently differentiate what causes the cancer, the tobacco or the cannabis) and so brings the whole set of health problems that go with those.

And this claim is absolute tosh. Do you have any statistics to back up your claim that people you smoke pot are more likely to smoke cigarettes?

And secondly do you have any reliable data of any documented death where the cause was marijuana in its 2000+ years of human usage? Do you have any reliable data of it causing cancer? I can assure you that you won't find cancer marijuana cases, due to the chemical make up of the plant. It doesn't create the same toxic concoction that tobacco does after burning (especially when smoked through a bong). Actually I could list over 200 human illnesses that marijuana is an effective treatment for, so much for health issues.

And that doesn't even take into account the superior quality of fabric hemp produces over, the inefficient to produce, cotton.

[Idaho]

So, what you are arguing is that a minority of people should suffer serious mental health issues just so that the majority can get high?

...

That is probably true, but you know what would be even safer? Doing neither!

The minority already suffer those problems while the majority already get high. How is criminalising it making any difference other than making the quality more questionable, research and help harder to obtain and the criminal gangs richer?

Of course not getting high/drunk/etc would be safer. So would banning private cars, rock climbing, hangliding, cheating on your girlfriend and scratching your butt.