Quote:

The Sunday TimesMay 4, 2008 Ecstasy is the key to treating PTSD At last the incurably traumatised may be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. And controversially, the key to taming their demons is the ‘killer’ drug EcstasyAmy Turner An Ecstasy tablet. That’s what it took to make Donna Kilgore feel alive again – that and the doctor who prescribed it. As the pill began to take effect, she giggled for the first time in ages. She felt warm and fuzzy, as if she was floating. The anxiety melted away. Gradually, it all became clear: the guilt, the anger, the shame. Before, she’d been frozen, unable to feel anything but fear for 10 years. Touching her own arms was, she says, “like touching a corpse”. She was terrified, unable to respond to her loving husband or rock her baby to sleep. She couldn’t drive over bridges for fear of dying, was by turns uncontrollably angry and paralysed with numbness. When she spoke, she heard her voice as if it were miles away; her head felt detached from her body. “It was like living in a movie but watching myself through the camera lens,” she says. “I wasn’t real.” Unknowingly, Donna, now 39, had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). And she would become the first subject in a pioneering American research programme to test the effects of MDMA – otherwise known as the dancefloor drug Ecstasy – on PTSD sufferers. Some doctors believe MDMA could be the key to solving previously untreatable deep-rooted traumas. For a hard core of PTSD cases, no amount of antidepressants or psychotherapy can rid them of the horror of systematic abuse or a bad near-death experience, and the slightest reminder triggers vivid flashbacks http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3850302.ece

Quote:

Warm glow from magic mushrooms lasts and lasts: study July 2, 2008 - 6:04PM The feelings of well-being and life satisfaction brought on by the hallucinogen psilocybin, found in "magic" mushrooms, can last for months, a new study revealed. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland found that the majority of 36 volunteers who took psilocybin in controlled conditions continued to feel the beneficial effects for more than a year afterwards, the study, published Monday, showed. "Most of the volunteers looked back on their experience up to 14 months later and rated it as the most, or one of the five most, personally meaningful and spiritually significant of their lives," said Roland Griffiths, a professor in the department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Neuroscience. The first results of the clinical trial, aimed at uncovering the secrets of the "magic" mushrooms that have been used for religious or healing purposes in some cultures for centuries, were published in 2006. Fourteen months after the trial, the 36 volunteers -- all in good physical and mental health -- were given the same questionnaire as well as some follow-up questions. Results show that about the same proportion ranked their experience in the trial as one of the most personally meangingful or spiritually significant events of their lives. "This is a truly remarkable finding," said Griffiths, lead author of the study which appeared in the Journal of Psychopharmacology. "Rarely in psychological research do we see such persistently positive reports from a single event in the laboratory." He said the results gave credence to claims that the mystical-type experiences some people had during hallucinogen sessions may help patients suffering from cancer-related anxiety or depression. Psilocybin could also be used as a possible treatment for drug dependance, the professor said. He said his team was "eager" to continue their research, adding that although some of the volunteers had reported fear and anxiety immediately after receiving psilocybin, "none reported any lingering harmful effects." However, the team warned against giving hallucinogens to people at risk of psychosis or other serious mental disorders, and said it was important that it be administered under controlled conditions. Psilocybin is a plant alkaloid that affects some of the same brain receptors as serotonin, a neurotransmitter. http://news.smh.com.au/world/warm-glow-from-magic-mushrooms-lasts-and-lasts-study-20080702-30lh.html

While I don't feel (illegal) drugs are "good" for you.
Neither are legal ones.

The legal system would be VERY unlikely to change their failed punitive method.
it keeps them all in a job.

Psylocybin, like most halucinogenics, has vastly different effects dependant upon dosage, surroundings, and current state of mind.

A low dose, will just provide the mild euphoria the researchers describe, but larger doses are not something I would encourage, unless the subjects are particularly well balanced to star with, fragile minds can be traumatised by a full on trip.

The doors of perception are well and truly flung wide in full trip mode, but that is not something that everyone can handle.

MDMA, is from the 'Speed' family, and that family is the trailer trash scum side of the drug world, it may be the best of the 'speed' type drugs, but that family are all headbuggerers, and ones I would never counsel any one to try, unless you have sinus problems.

So scientists are playing with drugs, let's hope they get some 'professional' advice. ;D

Well there is evidence that red wine in moderation is good for you, but you don't need the alcohol for that. I occasionally have a Dr Red punch which is practically alcohol free.

They've already used ecstacy for psychotherapy back in the 70s before it was classified as a Schedule A drug. Mainly used during clinical sessions thereby enhancing communication, reducing patients' psychological defenses, and increasing capacity for therapeutic introspection. However, no formal measures of these putative effects were made and blinded or placebo-controlled trials were not conducted. Also, the effects of long term use weren't known then. These days the effects are known based on documented studies conducted in Europe - such as paranoia, memory loss, serotonin depletion causing depression and anxiety, and liver damage. Portentially, the sufferer can end up worst than before especially if they have an addicitive personality or if they have a low mental and emotional resistance (obviously so, otherwise they wouldn't be visiting a psychologist) to its euphoric effects. It's quite likely that the controlled environment will quickly deteriorate when the patient starts self-medicating.

SA Democrats MP Sandra Kanck, urged the SA Government to consider a trial of the drug MDMA, to treat war veterans

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/19/2280156.htm

Look what happened to her!

http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?query=kanck+mdma&collection=abcnews&form=news&num_ranks=20

This was a very low spot in SA politics The Rann government should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

Some drugs are:

Guy goes to visit his 85-year-old grandfather in the hospital. "How are you grandpa?" he asks.

"Feeling fine," says the old man.

"What's the food like?"

"Terrific, wonderful menus."

"And the nursing?"

"Just couldn't be better. These young nurses really take care of you."

"What about sleeping? Do you sleep OK?"

"No problem at all - nine hours solid every night. At 10 o'clock they bring me a cup of hot chocolate and a Viagra tablet and that's it. I go out like a light."

The guy is puzzled and a little alarmed by this, so rushes off to question the Sister in charge. "What are you people doing," he says, "I'm told you're giving an 85-year-old Viagra on a daily basis. Surely that can't be true?"

"Oh, yes," replies the Sister. "Every night at 10 o'clock we give him a cup of hot chocolate and a Viagra tablet. It works wonderfully well. The hot chocolate makes him sleep, and the Viagra stops him from rolling out of bed."

Here's thought for you.

Say a middle aged man, mid forties say, and his wife, a proffesional couple, well educated, responsible, good parents, pillars of the community, enjoy on an infrequent basis, an "E" and viagra evening at home, just having good sex, chemically enhanced.

Say they are caught in possession of an "E" each, what punishment should they recieve?

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 13^th, 2008 at 10:26am:

Here's thought for you. Say a middle aged man, mid forties say, and his wife, a proffesional couple, well educated, responsible, good parents, pillars of the community, enjoy on an infrequent basis, an "E" and viagra evening at home, just having good sex, chemically enhanced. Say they are caught in possession of an "E" each, what punishment should they recieve?

Probably a fine if it was their first offense. A suspended sentence at the most.

Are you speaking from experience here?  ;D

No I'm not, fortunately.  :)

It did happen to a couple I knew back in blighty.

They were fined, but his name ended up in the local rag. Due to this  he lost his job, they lost their house, and ended up having to claw their way back into society.

Now who did they harm?

Pommy - that has been my thoughts for some time.

The illegality of some drugs is much worse than the effects of those drugs.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 14^th, 2008 at 9:04am:

Pommy - that has been my thoughts for some time. The illegality of some drugs is much worse than the effects of those drugs.

Marijuana and MDMA as Shedule A drugs are gross overreactions brought on by the Drug, Firearms and Tobacco wing of the US dept. It's ironic considering the worst aspects of the products under its umbrella - firearms and tobacco are mostly not illegal in that society.

Prohibition does have a pretty poor track record.

The consequences of creating a whole sub-culture who move into a world of illegalities, because they choose to consume one of the illegal drugs, is usually far more problematic, than the effects of the drugs themselves.

I do loathe the speed family, and have seen devastating psychological consequences for those who use them, but even in that instance I would still prefer taking an educative approach, and if other less harmful drugs like heroin, were available on prescription, we may see a lower uptake of the truly damaging drugs.

I used heroin as the counterpoint for it's shock value, because heroin actually has relatively few side effects when used at non lethal levels, it is the social consequences of the drugs expense, and legal status which causes most of the worst outcomes for addicts of the opioids.

I also believe that the rebellious, nature of youth makes them more likely to associate hard drug use with glamourous music stars, and celebrities, and if it were just seen as an addictive medicine, that a small group of addicts get prescribed, it would lose much of this mystique.

Mozzaok - I agree entirely.

Prohibiting a substance gives crims a torrent of profits, and increases the desire for it.

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 14^th, 2008 at 8:58am:

No I'm not, fortunately.  :) It did happen to a couple I knew back in blighty. They were fined, but his name ended up in the local rag. Due to this  he lost his job, they lost their house, and ended up having to claw their way back into society. Now who did they harm?

They probably didn't harm as many people as drink drivers do. They certainly don't cost society as much as smokers do. Their main harm was in supporting the drug trade.

In that example it was a question of society attitudes that probably led to their demise. In the UK, they seem to take a tough line on sex scandals and drugs.

Would a British candidate for PM who admitted drinking in a strip club have an increase or a decrease in popularity as a result of his admission, assuming he made a full apology? We all know how much it helped Rudd.

I don't know. The place might have changed since I last visited there.  I seem to vaguely remember Jeremy Thorpe being outed for being gay, and being unseated as a result. Nowadays in Australia, Bob Brown never seems to stop telling everybody about how wonderful his boyfriend is  ;D

I keep thinking of a film based in England where a middle aged English Widow starts growing a marijuana crop  in order to save the house. Her gardener was Scottish if I remember rightly. There was one hilarious scene where the local ladies decide to try this new 'tea' and end up in a giggling fit.

'Saving Grace' I think it was called. It was a good movie.

Yes, not to be cofused with "Saving Grace" the TV series.





Margaret : [high on weed] May I help you?

Diana : [also high on weed] Would you like some Cornflakes? They're heavenly.

Quentin : No thank you I've already eaten.

Margaret : Would you like a chocolate ice cycle?

Quentin : I'm looking for Lilac House. I'm trying to contact Grace Trevethyn.

Diana : I love Grace. I really, really love her. She has wonderful hair... soft and silky like a lovely Angora rabbit.

Quentin : Right. Where do I find her?

Diana : In a lovely, lovely house. I love her.

Quentin : And how do I find the lovely, lovely house?

Diana : Up the uppity uppity hill.


** edit **

I forgot to paste the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYGnmVAD2fQ&NR=1

Is that the one where her greenhouse lights up the night sky?

Yeah, that's the one.

never seen it  ;)

muso wrote on Jul 14^th, 2008 at 1:38pm:

They probably didn't harm as many people as drink drivers do. They certainly don't cost society as much as smokers do. Their main harm was in supporting the drug trade.

They only "supported" the drug trade as there was no other way to obtain this little bit of fun enhancer though, surely?

muso wrote on Jul 14^th, 2008 at 4:05pm:

I keep thinking of a film based in England where a middle aged English Widow starts growing a marijuana crop  in order to save the house. Her gardener was Scottish if I remember rightly. There was one hilarious scene where the local ladies decide to try this new 'tea' and end up in a giggling fit. 'Saving Grace' I think it was called. It was a good movie.

The spin off TV series, which I enjoy, is "Doc Martin", though it has little to do with the movie.

I used to live not far from where it was filmed.

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 5:44pm:

muso wrote on Jul 14th, 2008 at 1:38pm: They probably didn't harm as many people as drink drivers do. They certainly don't cost society as much as smokers do. Their main harm was in supporting the drug trade. They only "supported" the drug trade as there was no other way to obtain this little bit of fun enhancer though, surely?

There is. It's called imagination. Ecstacy (MDMA) causes huge peaks in the  seratonin levels and has implications for the melatonin cycle in the brain.  It's just not natural to play chemistry with the brain like that.

What goes around comes around.

muso wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 9:52am:

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 21st, 2008 at 5:44pm: muso wrote on Jul 14th, 2008 at 1:38pm: They probably didn't harm as many people as drink drivers do. They certainly don't cost society as much as smokers do. Their main harm was in supporting the drug trade. They only "supported" the drug trade as there was no other way to obtain this little bit of fun enhancer though, surely? There is. It's called imagination. Ecstacy (MDMA) causes huge peaks in the  seratonin levels and has implications for the melatonin cycle in the brain.  It's just not natural to play chemistry with the brain like that. What goes around comes around.

You have the same level of "high" by watching a funny movie or having sex. The measured increase in the level of serotonin is the same or comparable. The serotonin production is natural and the depletion back to normal levels is gradual.

Of course, it's not as "fun" as the "enhancements" but the impact of rapid depletion (comedown) and long term sustained depletion are more pronounced. The serotonin is below the normal level during comedowns. The lag and drag effect one feels (days) afterwards is where the body produces and bring the level back up to normal. Of course, MDMA use week in and week out will evetually slow and stop the serotonin production.

i agree with you there acid

though drugs are not as harmful as the legal punishment, life is more fulfilling overall without them.

muso wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 9:52am:

There is. It's called imagination.

Imagination does not have the same effect as "E", if it did the "E" trade would die. Also "E"  has a supressant effect on the ability to ejaculate, while giving the user a hightened tactile senory experience.

Nowhere close I'm afraid.


Quote:

Ecstacy (MDMA) causes huge peaks in the  seratonin levels and has implications for the melatonin cycle in the brain.  It's just not natural to play chemistry with the brain like that. What goes around comes around.

Taking any medicine can have similar effects. Prozac for example, or Clozapine, should we ban their use too? Alcohol has many effects within the brain and body, a fair case can be made for it having more dire physical and mental effects than "E", should we hand it over to the bootleggers to regulate quality and supply/profit?



Quote:

You have the same level of "high" by watching a funny movie or having sex.

Utterly wrong. I take it you are not speaking from experience here.


Quote:

The measured increase in the level of serotonin is the same or comparable. The serotonin production is natural and the depletion back to normal levels is gradual.

And would be more easily measured and allowed for in a legal safely produced product, or in the illegal ones available now?


Quote:

Of course, it's not as "fun" as the "enhancements" but the impact of rapid depletion (comedown) and long term sustained depletion are more pronounced. The serotonin is below the normal level during comedowns. The lag and drag effect one feels (days) afterwards is where the body produces and bring the level back up to normal. Of course, MDMA use week in and week out will evetually slow and stop the serotonin production.

No gain without pain, I agree. But there again, this skirts the issue.

What harm is there in "E" use that makes it so illegal?

Here you go;


Quote:

Scientists want new drug rankings   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm The drug classification system in the UK is not "fit for purpose" and should be scrapped, scientists have said. They have drawn up an alternative system which they argue more accurately reflects the harm that drugs do. The new ranking system places alcohol and tobacco in the upper half of the league table, ahead of cannabis and several Class A drugs such as ecstasy. The study, published in The Lancet, has been welcomed by a team reviewing drug research for the government. The Academy of Medical Sciences group plans to put its recommendations to ministers in the autumn. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42718000/gif/_42718419_drugs_graph2_416.gif

Makes you think eh?

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

Interesting graph. Is it based on total harm done to society, or potential ahrm to users?

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 2:09pm:

Taking any medicine can have similar effects. Prozac for example, or Clozapine, should we ban their use too? Alcohol has many effects within the brain and body, a fair case can be made for it having more dire physical and mental effects than "E", should we hand it over to the bootleggers to regulate quality and supply/profit?

However, those medication you have cited are controlled and pescribed by a medical practisioner. I'm guessing that is not what you are wanting for the distribution of E.


Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 2:09pm:

Utterly wrong. I take it you are not speaking from experience here.

Which do you mean? Watching a funny movie, having sex or taking an E?  ;) Nevertheless, I'll put my hand up for all three and many more (I'm not totally innocent LOL).

Utterly wrong?
Fact: There are tests and studies done in the Netherlands that shows the measured level at the time of laughter when watching a funny movie is comparable to the serotonin level brought on by an E with 25mg MDMA; and at the point of orgasm the natural serotonin level is comparable to 100mg MDMA pill. There figures are from memory but I think they're fairly right.



Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 2:09pm:

What harm is there in "E" use that makes it so illegal?

Um, maybe its the fact that it is a psychotropic drug and that they alter mood, mind and emotion.

I'll concede that Schedule A (UK) or Schedule I (US) is a little extreme and that it could be pegged back to either Schedule C or III. It's the same for marijuana. However, that still won't make it freely available to the party people.

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 2:13pm:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42718000/gif/_42718419_drugs_graph2_416.gif Interesting graph. Is it based on total harm done to society, or potential ahrm to users?

What does the score reflect?

Thanks for the replies.

Some thoughts.


Quote:

However, those medication you have cited are controlled and pescribed by a medical practisioner. I'm guessing that is not what you are wanting for the distribution of E.

Available under license from a reputable pharmacy should suffice.


Quote:

Fact: There are tests and studies done in the Netherlands that shows the measured level at the time of laughter when watching a funny movie is comparable to the serotonin level brought on by an E with 25mg MDMA; and at the point of orgasm the natural serotonin level is comparable to 100mg MDMA pill. There figures are from memory but I think they're fairly right

And that laughter/orgasm lasts seconds, whereas the "high" from an "E" (or more than one) lasts for 8 + hours, so they are not comaparable. Unless you claim the abillity to piss yourself laughing, or come, for 8+ hours? (If so, I'm very jelous!!)


Quote:

Um, maybe its the fact that it is a psychotropic drug and that they alter mood, mind and emotion. I'll concede that Schedule A (UK) or Schedule I (US) is a little extreme and that it could be pegged back to either Schedule C or III. It's the same for marijuana. However, that still won't make it freely available to the party people.

I wouldn't disagree with that, although I'd prefer it to go further.

The graph " assesses drugs on the harm they do to the individual, to society and whether or not they induce dependence. "

The graph " assesses drugs on the harm they do to the individual, to society and whether or not they induce dependence. "

So the graph also reflect the extent of the use of the drug and is not limited to the nature of the drug itself?

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 4:08pm:

And that laughter/orgasm lasts seconds, whereas the "high" from an "E" (or more than one) lasts for 8 + hours, so they are not comaparable. Unless you claim the abillity to piss yourself laughing, or come, for 8+ hours? (If so, I'm very jelous!!)

Well, I once had a laughing fit that lasted over an hour and probably nearly killed me with exhaustion but then again, that was under the influence - and lets not go there. It was a long time ago. LOL.  ;)


Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 4:08pm:

The graph " assesses drugs on the harm they do to the individual, to society and whether or not they induce dependence. "

Yeah, I gathered that. But what do the numbers actually represent - eg: heroin is scored at approx 2.75 out of a scale of 3. It means nothing unless you relate it to something like (say) 2.75 out of 3 people (92%) die when taking heroin.

And, what sort of harm do they mean - long term harm or risk of (say) overdose. I've noticed that GHB is almost level with ecstasy despite the fact that one can OD on GHB more easily than E.

As you have noted the "harm" level of each drug, as posited by this study is multi-dimensional;

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2007/5367.html

gives a good indication of how the study was done.

Thanks for the link.


Quote:

Professor David Nutt from the University of Bristol, Professor Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, and colleagues, identified three main factors that together determine the harm associated with any drug of potential abuse: 1.   the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug 2.   the tendency of the drug to induce dependence 3.   the effect of drug use on families, communities, and society Within each of these categories, they recognized three components, leading to a comprehensive 9-category matrix of harm.

Point 3 is rather subjective isn't it? I mean, drug addiction has different impacts on individuals and their family. I used to know a guy who can stop using heroin at a drop of the hat with no major impact to himself. However, the impact to communities and society is measurable such as drug related crimes, health care, medical expenses, hospital resources to cope with drug addiction, mental health care, rehabilitaion and post rehab etc.

Also, it would be nice to know what the 9 category matrix of harm is.

Quote:

Expert panels gave scores, from zero to three, for each category of harm for 20 different drugs. All the scores for each drug were combined to produce an overall estimate of its harm.

I thought there was a lot more to it. Not very scientific, don't you think. A roomful of experts cast a vote between 0 to 3 and the total is then averaged out and there's your chart?? Is that scientific method going to convince the UK govt to change their drug classification?

So expert panels of people with real expertise in dealing with drug use, harm, enforcement, and treatment, gave their opinions which were filtered down to give a matrix, vs the random "ooh that's a drug, better ban it and bang people up for using it" as we have now.

Which would you prefer? :)

Perhaps if they asked the experts to consider the traits of the drug itself and ignore issues derived from prevalence of use then the results would have been more meaningful. Perhaps they did do this, but it is ambiguous at best.

Why do you think that?

Well, I was hoping for something more detailed than that.

First of all who are these experts? Are they abolitionist or pro-legalisation? Their personal bias counts and will affect the overall average score. What are their field of expertise? Are they research fellows, scientists, counsellors or general practitioners? Eg: an counsellor for AA would have no experience with someone experiencing severe lysergic induced psychotic episodes

What research papers are they using to back up their personal opinions and hence their personal score of 0-3.

Some examples:
"Psychiatric Effects of Cannabis" - A. John, research paper published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, 2001

"Adolescent Drug Use and Pyshological Health" - J Shedler, J Block, research paper published in the American Psychologist, 1990

"Effects of Alcohol on Human Agression" - BJ Bushman, HM Cooper, research paper published in the Psychological Bulletin, 1990

Because it is useful to know how much specific drugs are used in our society. It is also useful to know how 'inherently dangerous' each drug is. But if you mix the two measures, you lose information rather than gaining it. A bit like entropy really.

I'm sorry acid monkey, you seem to have mistaken me for the reports author, and  am not a Nutt!  >:(

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 6:00pm:

I'm sorry acid monkey, you seem to have mistaken me for the reports author, and  am not a Nutt!  >:(

;D ;D ;D

Here you go;


Quote:

The ACMD is required to have at least 20 members, among them representatives of the practices of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine and pharmacy, the pharmaceutical industry, and chemistry (other than pharmaceutical chemistry); and members who have a wide and relevant experience of social problems connected with the misuse of drugs. Membership currently stands at 38, including the Chair. The current term of office for members began on 1 January 2005. It will expire on 31 December 2007. All members are unpaid, although expenses are reimbursed. A listing of its members, as of July 2006: Professor Michael Rawlins (Chairman) - Professor of Pharmacology, University of Newcastle Dr Dima Abdulrahim - Briefings Manager, National Treatment Agency Lord Victor Adebowale - Chief Executive, Turning Point Mr Martin Barnes - Chief Executive, Drugscope Dr Margaret Birtwistle - Specialist GP, Senior Tutor - Education and Training Unit, St George's Hospital & Forensic Medicine Examiner Reverend Martin Blakeborough - Director, Kaleidoscope Drugs Project, Kingston upon Thames Dr Cecilia Bottomley - Specialist Registrar in Obstetrics and Gynaecology Ms Carmel Clancy - Principal Lecturer in Mental Health and Addictions, Middlesex University. Professor Ilana Crome - Professor of Addiction Psychiatry, Keele University Medical School, Harplands Hospital. Ms Robyn Doran - Registered Mental Health Nurse & Service Director, Substance Misuse CNWL Mental Health Trust. Ms Dianne Draper - Public Health Policy Support Officer, Leeds Mr Robert Eschle - School Teacher and Magistrate Ms Vivienne Evans - Chief Executive, ADFAM Professor C Robin Ganellin FRS - Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry Dr Clare Gerada - General Practitioner (London Practice) and Primary Care Lead for Drug Misuse & Chair at the Royal College of General Practitioners. Mr Patrick Hargreaves - Adviser for Drugs and Alcohol, Durham County Council Education Department Mr Paul Hayes - Chief Executive, National Treatment Agency Mr Andrew Hayman - Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police, Chair of ACPO Drugs Committee Mr Russell Hayton - Clinical Nurse Specialist & Clinical and Services Governance Manager, Plymouth Drug & Health Behaviour Ms Caroline Healy - Director, Childline. Dr Matthew Hickman - Deputy Director, Centre for Research on Drugs & Health Behaviour, Senior Lecturer in Public Health Mr Alan Hunter - Director, Law Regulatory & Intellectual Property and Secretary to the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries Professor Leslie Iversen - Professor of Pharmacology, University of Oxford His Honour Judge Trevor Joseph - Resident Judge, Croydon Crown Court Professor Michael Lewis - Professor of Oral Medicine, Cardiff University Dr John Marsden - Research Psychologist, Institute of Psychiatry. Mr Peter Martin - Former Chief Executive, Addaction. Mrs Samantha Mortimer - Head of PSHE and Citizenship, St Paul's Catholic High School, Manchester Professor David Nutt - Director of Psychopharmacology Unit, University of Bristol Mr Richard Pates - Consultant Clinical Psychologist & Clinical Director Community Addiction Unit, Cardiff Mr Trevor Pearce - Acting Director General, National Crime Squad. DCC Howard Roberts - Deputy Chief Constable, Nottinghamshire Police Mrs Kay Roberts - Lead Pharmacist - Royal College of General Practitioners, National Drug Misuse Training Programme. Dr Mary Rowlands - Consultant Psychiatrist in Substance Misuse, Exeter Dr Polly Taylor - Veterinary Surgeon Ms Monique Tomlinson - Freelance Consultant in Substance Misuse Mr Arthur Wing - Assistant Chief Officer, Sussex Probation Area

Whoa!
Cool. Thanks.
I'll check it out.

:)

If you've the desire, and the patience, you may enjoy this;

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031.pdf

PDF file, 1.5mb.

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 4:08pm:

Available under license from a reputable pharmacy should suffice.

Schedule C will make them available from pharmacies but by prescription only.

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 6:13pm:

If you've the desire, and the patience, you may enjoy this; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031.pdf PDF file, 1.5mb.

Thanks anyway, but I've already read this.

:)

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 4:08pm:

Available under license from a reputable pharmacy should suffice.

If it was available under prescription, I'd be happy with that. On your point about it being less harmful than... whatever, I'd make the point that if tobacco was only just discovered as a drug, it would probably be made illegal because of the harm it does. I would be in favour of controlling tobacco and alcohol by prescription too, because they are too widely available.

Why should I have to pay so much for my Medicare levy just because most people eat suicide food and smoke suicide drugs?

Apart from an occasional cup of coffee, my only drug is running, or the endorphines that result from it.

I hope you don't expect medicare to pay for a knee reconstruction just because you spent your youth pounding the pavement while high.  :D

freediver wrote on Jul 27^th, 2008 at 10:03pm:

I hope you don't expect medicare to pay for a knee reconstruction just because you spent your youth pounding the pavement while high.  :D

No I don't, because I took time to strengthen my leg muscles so that my joints would not be affected. I also carefully plan my runs so that I run on alternate days.  Now that I'm older, I always try to run on grass when training as much as possible.

OK, I was being provocative, but I have no sympathy for people who take drugs like E or ice. They are the ones who will have irreparable brain damage when they're older. These stimulants tend to increase the seratonin levels as Acid said. The first few times, they get a good high. But as it becomes a habit, the seratonin becomes more and more depressed between trips,  then it's just a question of wanting the next hit to get back to normal levels. To do that, they have to take a bigger and bigger dose.  

The overall result is brain damage. Methamphetamine is obviously a lot worse than Ecstacy, but continued overdosing will result in damage to the brain for exactly the same reason. Ice smokers tend to die early, but E users are more likely to survive as vegetables - a burden to those who have to look after them as they become incontinent and unable to look after themselves.  

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 2:09pm:

Utterly wrong. I take it you are not speaking from experience here.

Pommy,

I don't know how old you are, but from reading between the lines, you seem to be implying that you use E. It's none of my business, but take my advice and assess your habits. Older drug users are the most difficult to rehabilitate.

For your own sake, it might be worth reading a bit more into it before you down the road of higher and higher doses.

I probably should have let this go, and I'll probably get some kind of reaction to which I won't respond. No offense intended. It's just concern.

muso wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 7:35am:

I don't know how old you are, but from reading between the lines, you seem to be implying that you use E. It's none of my business, but take my advice and assess your habits. Older drug users are the most difficult to rehabilitate. For your own sake, it might be worth reading a bit more into it before you down the road of higher and higher doses. I probably should have let this go, and I'll probably get some kind of reaction to which I won't respond. No offense intended. It's just concern.

And you have my thanks for that concern.

I first took "E" in the rave explosion of the late 80's. I have done so, on and off, since. I have neither increased my dose, or frequency of use, in fact quite the opposite.

I can honestly say this holds true for most people I know who indulge.

My sister gets in to the disco, and she has been taking pills for a number of years.

She definately isn't that same person she used to be.

E is a bad drug. Everyone bar the user can see the changes happening to the person.

e seems to me to be described as a soft drug in the media

easel wrote on Jul 29^th, 2008 at 3:52pm:

She definately isn't that same person she used to be.

How is she different, if you don't mind me asking?

I'd be interested too.

Also what age is she?

Did the commencement of "E" using occur at the same time as other life changes?

More importantly, is she good looking?  ;)

She's not the same person.

She is far more selfish, self centred, manipulative and insincere.

She is 22.

Commencement of E occured at around 16/17, no significant life changes at that time that I am aware of.

Hmmm. They're not the usual traits of long term ecstacy or substance abuse.

Perhaps she's changed because of the people she hangs out with? Or perhaps, she's just grown up - she may not be that sweet little girl anymore?

Quote:

She's not the same person. She is far more selfish, self centred, manipulative and insincere. She is 22. Commencement of E occured at around 16/17, no significant life changes at that time that I am aware of

A lot of that has to do with her age Easel - she should start being nice again around her mid 20's, but I know a few young people who use E when they go out to concerts or clubs.

It's terrifying how easily available and cheap it is and the kids use it as an enhancer to alcohol.  The problem is you have no idea what mixture of chemicals have been used and each time a tablet is taken - they gamble with their life.  

I agree with Muso on alcohol and cigarettes that theoretically they should be restricted to prescription - although it wouldn't work practically.

With our younger people - there's not much we can do really - just wait till their party days run their course, although there will always be some who want to keep the party going forever and they're the ones who need the help.

easel wrote on Jul 29^th, 2008 at 7:42pm:

She's not the same person. She is far more selfish, self centred, manipulative and insincere. She is 22. Commencement of E occured at around 16/17, no significant life changes at that time that I am aware of.

None of those changes are in any way "symptoms" of "E" use.


Quote:

occured at around 16/17, no significant life changes at that time that I am aware of

My ROTFLMCO moment of the day.  ;D ;D ;D  (Apologies)

This Topic was moved here from Drug Policy by freediver.