UK: Council advises ecstasy downgrade [Archive]

edesignuk

Feb 11, 2009, 04:14 AM

The body that advises the government on illegal drugs is to recommend ecstasy be downgraded to a Class B drug.

Ecstasy is currently grouped with heroin, cocaine, crack and LSD in Class A. Suppliers of such drugs can face a life sentence in prison.

The Home Office has made it clear it will reject the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs' recommendation.

Earlier, a row broke out after the council's head Prof David Nutt likened the dangers of ecstasy to horse riding.BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7882708.stm).

I've never touched it and don't especially want to, but why oh why do the government continually completely ignore and in fact do the opposite of what their knowledgeable advisory councils suggest???

skunk

Feb 11, 2009, 04:24 AM

What they need to do is invest in better drug education (both of rave attendees and rave organisers) rather than prohibition. The son of a friend of ours almost died a few months back from organ failure after taking some e(!) at a rave, and would have, had his friends not insisted that an ambulance be called rather than just let him sit it out, as the nurse in attendance suggested. As in the case of skunk(!), the danger to a small subset of users is acute, the same as with many other drugs both legal and illegal, and rather than ban everything outright the authorities need to inform. Penicillin isn't banned because a few people are intolerant, is it?

Queso

Feb 11, 2009, 04:36 AM

I've never touched it and don't especially want to, but why oh why do the government continually completely ignore and in fact do the opposite of what their knowledgeable advisory councils suggest???
Because the government are more worried about the frothing at the mouth headlines that will vomit out of Associated Newspaper's HQ than they are about genuine evidence and reasoning.

edesignuk

Feb 11, 2009, 04:58 AM

Because the government are more worried about the frothing at the mouth headlines that will vomit out of Associated Newspaper's HQ than they are about genuine evidence and reasoning.It was really more of a rhetorical question :p but thank you for spelling it out! :D

arkitect

Feb 11, 2009, 05:02 AM

…after taking some e(!)… As in the case of skunk(!), the danger to a small subset of users is acute…

Mad, bad and dangerous to know.
;) :p

JG271

Feb 11, 2009, 05:57 AM

Yep just like the government ignored the surgeon general's advice on upgrading weed from class C to B. Forget what the trained doctor said, it made a nice article in the tabloids for Gordon Brown.

I think our county's entire drug legislation is wrong. Go after the drugs and drug dealers that cause the most harm to people, either directly or indirectly (by way of people committing crime to fund a drug habit etc)

The government listens to nothing but their own agenda.

és:

Feb 11, 2009, 07:33 AM

This is one of those situations where joe public doesn't know best but is still being played up to. I think most people in the street will say they want drugs banned and higher punishment for use but have no real knowledge of the situation.

The government should do what is best, not what the uneducated public want. It's a tyranny, I tells ya.

SLC Flyfishing

Feb 11, 2009, 07:54 AM

In the US, Ecstasy is a schedule 1 drug (which I gather is the same idea as class A) but oddly enough, Cocaine and Meth-amphetamine are schedule 2 drugs and under certain situations may be prescribed by a properly licensed physician.

I though that was quite odd.

SLC

GorillaPaws

Feb 11, 2009, 01:31 PM

It is my understanding that Ecstasy(MDMA) was originally prescribed to couples by marriage councilors in the early 80's or something along those lines.

Peterkro

Feb 11, 2009, 01:42 PM

It is my understanding that Ecstasy(MDMA) was originally prescribed to couples by marriage councilors in the early 80's or something along those lines.

It was certainly used in a variety of therapeutic settings in the late seventies and I'm sure some of the more radical relationship councillors made use of it. The military were experimenting with it and similar substances from the late fifties onwards.

NT1440

Feb 11, 2009, 01:48 PM

nick9191

Feb 11, 2009, 03:11 PM

Didn't they recently upgrade weed to Class B despite it being significantly less dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol?

Tossers.

GorillaPaws

Feb 11, 2009, 03:22 PM

Didn't they recently upgrade weed to Class B despite it being significantly less dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol?

Tossers.

I thought weed was more carcinogenic/damaging to the body than a filtered cigarette? It's certainly less dangerous than alcohol though, unless you count the people who eat themselves to death from the munchies...

FreeState

Feb 11, 2009, 04:49 PM

What they need to do is invest in better drug education (both of rave attendees and rave organisers) rather than prohibition.

I agree with this 100%. I do not attend Raves or Dance clubs anymore - I did in my 20's - many people suffered needlessly because the lack of education and a safe place to go to get help. Very basic things like drink water and go to a quiet supervised place and rest if your having a bad reaction can save lives.

And just an FYI - E effects everyone differently - that being said if you have any anxiety disorders I highly recommend you stay away from it.

MOFS

Feb 12, 2009, 02:19 PM

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7882708.stm).

I've never touched it and don't especially want to, but why oh why do the government continually completely ignore and in fact do the opposite of what their knowledgeable advisory councils suggest???

While your question is rhetorical, the issue is that pure MDMA is relatively safe, but often it will be mixed with [insert random white powder here].;) That, and the hyrocephalus caused by ingesting ecstasy with large quantities of water (not an uncommon occurrence - its what actually killed Leah Betts) make MDMA dangerous.

Part of the issue here is the classification system. I'm more in favour of a system in which all illegal drugs hold the same punishment, with worsening punishments for dealing etc. This would be a far simpler solution. The truth is that an unregulated system requires definitive and clear punishments.

Mord

Feb 12, 2009, 04:01 PM

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126954.500-ecstasys-legacy-so-far-so-good.html

Interesting new research and papers seem to be popping up all over the place, I highly doubt the drug will be reclassified though, unfortunately politics come before common sense.

I go to raves regularly and am quite fond of the substance I've taken it for years on/off about every month or so and it's never done me any considerable harm. it certainly has it's dangers much like anything fun. I don't drink or smoke and I'm generally in good health.

I agree with skunk in that education should be aimed at reducing harm. I was taught at school that ecstasy could randomly kill me, not much further explanation was given other than the fact that it causes one to overheat. All this served to do was disillusion me when I got older and did a little research of my own. There are quite real dangers, the drugs propoganda just seem to focus on the sensationalist ones without providing enough information to be useful.

Personally I find the dangers of dancing all night not on the substance to be about as dangerous in that regard, clubs are often hot and stuff places. Any sports person knows the importance of maintaining levels of salt and the importance of avoiding heat stroke the same applies to going out clubbing. Why this can't be taught as a simple good sense if you intend to dance all night I don't know. When do you ever see clubs selling isotonic sports drinks?

There are very very few cases of MDMA directly causing death, usually it's in combination with harder drugs and alcohol.

I thought weed was more carcinogenic/damaging to the body than a filtered cigarette? It's certainly less dangerous than alcohol though, unless you count the people who eat themselves to death from the munchies...

Tobacco is massively physically addictive, weed is not.

MOFS

Feb 12, 2009, 04:13 PM

Didn't they recently upgrade weed to Class B despite it being significantly less dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol?

Tossers.

All three are dangerous. Ideally all 3 would be illegal, as all are modern vices, but it would be logistically impossible to ban alcohol and cigarettes.

Mord

Feb 12, 2009, 04:27 PM

All three are dangerous. Ideally all 3 would be illegal, as all are modern vices, but it would be logistically impossible to ban alcohol and cigarettes.

While on a personal level I dislike all three of those drugs I have to ask why do you think these things should be banned? Why not just ban fun.

I'm not equating fun to drugs, I'm merely equating many fun entirely legal things to drugs in terms of danger.I certainly think that addictive drugs that have serious health risks certainly shouldn't be freely available though.

MOFS

Feb 12, 2009, 04:50 PM

While on a personal level I dislike all three of those drugs I have to ask why do you think these things should be banned? Why not just ban fun.

I'm not equating fun to drugs, I'm merely equating many fun entirely legal things to drugs in terms of danger.I certainly think that addictive drugs that have serious health risks certainly shouldn't be freely available though.

The issue I have is the social consequences of these as well as the personal. It is difficult to see how smoking is "fun" - the appealing aspect of it is the social (ie group smoking and habitual) appeal of it. Alcohol's effects are similarly social - people have fun with it with other people, not as a direct consequence of the drug. Alcohol is a depressant. Drink driving, passive smoking, COPD, alcoholic liver disease, cirrhosis and lung cancer are some of the blights of the modern society, and yet alcohol is seen as this harmless benign liquid with a culture supported in this country. The positive effects of these are dubious (1 glass of wine [125 ml of 8%] a day reduces the risk of heart disease, but the percentage of the population who follows this is miniscule) and while these are fun, no other forms of commercially available "fun" are so widely abused and available. The truth of the matter is that if alcohol and cigarettes were invented now, they'd be illegal too.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41949000/gif/_41949092_drugs_graph_416.gif

iJohnHenry

Feb 12, 2009, 06:18 PM

While on a personal level I dislike all three of those drugs I have to ask why do you think these things should be banned? Why not just ban fun.

Because the Government likes to think that they own your ass from birth to death. Self-determination is largely a myth.

Look no further than the stone-walling on physician-assisted suicide, for terminal patients with NO quality of life.

Mord

Feb 13, 2009, 04:12 AM

The issue I have is the social consequences of these as well as the personal. It is difficult to see how smoking is "fun" - the appealing aspect of it is the social (ie group smoking and habitual) appeal of it. Alcohol's effects are similarly social - people have fun with it with other people, not as a direct consequence of the drug. Alcohol is a depressant. Drink driving, passive smoking, COPD, alcoholic liver disease, cirrhosis and lung cancer are some of the blights of the modern society, and yet alcohol is seen as this harmless benign liquid with a culture supported in this country. The positive effects of these are dubious (1 glass of wine [125 ml of 8%] a day reduces the risk of heart disease, but the percentage of the population who follows this is miniscule) and while these are fun, no other forms of commercially available "fun" are so widely abused and available. The truth of the matter is that if alcohol and cigarettes were invented now, they'd be illegal too.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41949000/gif/_41949092_drugs_graph_416.gif

As I said, I dislike those intoxicants intensely for pretty much identical reasons to those you stated. Ironically my use of MDMA put me off them most, when I go out clubbing I don't become obnoxious or annoying to others, I don't get angsty like drunk people do, I don't smell like smokers do and I don't sit about doing nothing stoned. I spent the night in an entirely positive blissed out mindset with my friends. I don't feel bad the next day either, or experience any significant mid week low. The cost to society as you put it is non-existent in my case and the case of most clubbers.

The LD50 is about 6.5 grams of pure MDMA, It takes but 1/4g to have one in such a state for ~8 hours. It's not addictive, in fact it's self regulating in that regard as if you take it too often it simply stops working. The substance is class A because it's incredibly enjoyable not because it's incredibly dangerous and I know for a fact that it's classing causes clubbers to think that other substances are harmless, they often think that cocaine is as safe as ecstasy, amphetamine is better for you as it's a class B and that ketamine is entirely safe and ok to take as much as you like.

As a result I have friends who have lost kidneys not realising the danger the put themselves in by trying other drugs in the class, I'm somewhat passionate about the subject primarily for them.

The statement from the home office just causes myself and others to lose even more respect for the drug laws. They do far more harm than good on a personal level and a societal level. Heroin was never a big problem in this country while it was legal and being prescribed to registered addicts, it's use only skyrocketed when this was stopped so as to appear "tough on drugs"

Because the Government likes to think that they own your ass from birth to death. Self-determination is largely a myth.

Look no further than the stone-walling on physician-assisted suicide, for terminal patients with NO quality of life.

*dreams of a self sufficient small holding in the middle of no where*

és:

Feb 13, 2009, 04:27 AM

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41949000/gif/_41949092_drugs_graph_416.gif

Thanks for posting that image. I was going to contribute something about how skewed the classification structure has become but I didn't have the time.

Peterkro

Feb 13, 2009, 05:43 AM

Anyone willing to bet against Mephedrone being Class A before the year is out?

Mord

Feb 13, 2009, 06:17 AM

Anyone willing to bet against Mephedrone being Class A before the year is out?

Tbh it doesn't look like a particularly appealing compound, it's too strong a stimulant to be safely freely available. unlike MDMA it's habit forming as the addictive stimulant effects are maintained after the serotonergic effects die off from tolerance, Somewhat like they do with Methamphetamine.

Methylone a related substance seems to be a fairly basic analogue to MDMA just a bit weaker, it looks far less harmful than Mephedrone yet given MDMA's long established record of relative safety and the higher dose of mephedrone needed I don't personally see the point in it.

"legal highs" in my experience generally are far worse for you than illegal ones.

Allot of people seem to like them as they have slightly different methods of action therefor they don't share tolerance to varying degrees so they can abuse one then move on to another until that stops working and then move onto another yet. Personally I'd rather use one substance responsibly.

MOFS

Feb 13, 2009, 11:42 AM

As I said, I dislike those intoxicants intensely for pretty much identical reasons to those you stated. Ironically my use of MDMA put me off them most, when I go out clubbing I don't become obnoxious or annoying to others, I don't get angsty like drunk people do, I don't smell like smokers do and I don't sit about doing nothing stoned. I spent the night in an entirely positive blissed out mindset with my friends. I don't feel bad the next day either, or experience any significant mid week low. The cost to society as you put it is non-existent in my case and the case of most clubbers.

The issue is that were it to be legalised, the number of people ingesting it would skyrocket and all the issues associated with it would multiply. MDMA is not associated with crime (its too cheap), and legalising it would bring a whole deal of medical problems associated with it. Seriously, how many people out of the general population would stop drinking to take ecstasy? You may be well aware of the problems caused by a combination of the two, but it would be a nightmare seeing every Friday and Saturday night seeing loads of people admitted for boozing and Eing.

The statement from the home office just causes myself and others to lose even more respect for the drug laws. They do far more harm than good on a personal level and a societal level. Heroin was never a big problem in this country while it was legal and being prescribed to registered addicts, it's use only skyrocketed when this was stopped so as to appear "tough on drugs"

So whats wrong with Methadone? If a heroin addict seriously wants to give up the habit, then Methadone via a Drugs and Alcohol Team is the best way forward. Heroin is a massive problem - having worked in such a service I've seen the worse effects of it, and methadone is ideally the way forward. It changes the habit of injecting yourself, and is controlled by a reputable organisation. Evidently your views are based on your personal use and those of others - seeing those in clinic whose lives have been horrendously torn apart by illicit drug use is a real eye-opener.

Mord

Feb 13, 2009, 12:26 PM

The issue is that were it to be legalised, the number of people ingesting it would skyrocket and all the issues associated with it would multiply. MDMA is not associated with crime (its too cheap), and legalising it would bring a whole deal of medical problems associated with it. Seriously, how many people out of the general population would stop drinking to take ecstasy? You may be well aware of the problems caused by a combination of the two, but it would be a nightmare seeing every Friday and Saturday night seeing loads of people admitted for boozing and Eing.

The two combined arn't *massively* dangerous, at least not significantly more dangerous than drinking is in the first place. It's also just not massively pleasant, I've drunk while on E a couple of times and both times it's only ever made me feel sick to my stomach. The MDMA experience is so profoundly more enjoyable than being drunk that very very few ravers bother with booze. Half a million Brits already take the stuff regularly, I hardly think that use would skyrocket and even if it did the deaths per year in relation to the number of users are miniscule and would be even more so were simple precautions to become common knowledge. you simply can't abuse the drug like you can most intoxicants, if you take it regularly it starts to have almost no effect, abstain for a reasonable amount of time and it'll start working again.

I don't see how the drug would be remotely near as dangerous as alcohol is were it to be legal. It's not going to happen though and to be honest I don't much care. It's very easy to obtain very pure MDMA and likely will be for a good long while.

The substance also has pretty well established use in theraputic settings such as treating addicts, alcoholics, post traumatic stress and various other psychiatric conditions. The drug completely opens you up emotionally and lets you deal with your problems with a brief holiday from your emotional baggage.

So whats wrong with Methadone? If a heroin addict seriously wants to give up the habit, then Methadone via a Drugs and Alcohol Team is the best way forward. Heroin is a massive problem - having worked in such a service I've seen the worse effects of it, and methadone is ideally the way forward. It changes the habit of injecting yourself, and is controlled by a reputable organisation. Evidently your views are based on your personal use and those of others - seeing those in clinic whose lives have been horrendously torn apart by illicit drug use is a real eye-opener.

It's every bit as addictive and it's not as fun. it really depends on the user really, personally I'd rather see addicts who don't have a will to change their way prescribed the stuff rather than incur the societal cost of the crime they'll likely commit.

Kardashian

Feb 13, 2009, 12:33 PM

Have they put Ketamine on the list of classified drugs yet?

Last I heard, it was still unclassified.

I can't believe cannabis is on there and this vile stuff isn't*

[as far as I'm aware...]

Mord

Feb 13, 2009, 01:01 PM

Ket is class C, which is odd given that it's an addictive psychedelic drug that can be quite damaging to one's physical health. Why on earth the stuff is class C when LSD is class A I have no idea, The latter has zero negative impact on one's physical health and is not at all addictive.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126953.300-editorial-drugs-drive-politicians-out-of-their-minds.html

Another interesting article on the topic at hand.

iJohnHenry

Feb 13, 2009, 01:15 PM

Why on earth the stuff is class C when LSD is class A I have no idea, The latter has zero negative impact on one's physical health and is not at all addictive.

Physical being the operative word in this case.

LSD users quickly develop a high degree of tolerance for the drug's effects.

Which leads to increasing the dosage to get the same effect.

Some have fried their brains, for life, doing this drug.

Mord

Feb 13, 2009, 02:08 PM

Physical being the operative word in this case.

Which leads to increasing the dosage to get the same effect.

Some have fried their brains, for life, doing this drug.

The dose is not the cause of such problems, the fact that one gains tolerance quickly (and loses it equally as fast) works against such behaviour being possible. The ill effects are not from the quantity of LSD but from the psychological impact of tripping that long combined with being an utter mental in the first place.

If someone chooses to trip for that long then they clearly have mental problems in the first place. Any normal person would find it insanely boring. I used to trip pretty heavily though I never did so more often then twice in a single week and that was a very rare occasion.

MOFS

Feb 14, 2009, 03:55 AM

The dose is not the cause of such problems, the fact that one gains tolerance quickly (and loses it equally as fast) works against such behaviour being possible. The ill effects are not from the quantity of LSD but from the psychological impact of tripping that long combined with being an utter mental in the first place.

You should come to a Drug and Alcohol Service. Seriously. The majority of the users (especially the heroin users) are those that have increased their doses due to increasing tolerance, leading to a greater risk of overdose and hypoventilation. People do not stop because their dose has increased. On drugs, the vast majority of people reporting just ramp up what they're injecting. At lot of these people didn't have pre-existing psychiatric disorders prior to admission.

Peterkro

Feb 14, 2009, 04:06 AM

Mord

Feb 14, 2009, 04:12 AM

You should come to a Drug and Alcohol Service. Seriously. The majority of the users (especially the heroin users) are those that have increased their doses due to increasing tolerance, leading to a greater risk of overdose and hypoventilation. People do not stop because their dose has increased. On drugs, the vast majority of people reporting just ramp up what they're injecting. At lot of these people didn't have pre-existing psychiatric disorders prior to admission.

Certainly, though I wasn't talking about other *ADDICTIVE* drugs, if you were experienced with tryptamines you'd be aware of the fact that tolerance is gained rapidly to the point of having to over double the dose every day to gain the same effects, for a decent dose of LSD that's 4 tabs the first day 8 the second 16 the third 32 the fourth 64 the fifth 128 the sixth 256 the seventh. Hippies don't tend to be particularly well off and given the lack of addictiveness it's highly unlikely to push a person to crime unless they were already predisposed.

Addictiveness combined with moderate tolerance is certainly very very dangerous, acute tolerance with a complete lack of addictive nature is not. Citing that *some* mentalists could harm themselves with the substance is not an excuse to consider it extremely dangerous. Such people will mess themselves up regardless, they certainly don't have any respect for the law.

MDMA is similar, once you've released all your serotonin the drug just won't work no matter how much you take until you've replenished your levels with time.

I've known junkies in my time, I know what they're like, I'm also friends with a couple of people who've worked in such centres. if you think I'm advocating meth/heroin/crack/ect I'm not.

MOFS

Feb 14, 2009, 04:23 AM

I'm sure Mord can answer this herself but the reference was specifically to LSD. The more you take and the more often you take it the effects lessen with time so physical addiction isn't going to happen.

Ah - I apologise I wasn't being clear. My work experience is with Heroin. Heroin has physical dependance, and I got confused because we'd been discussing heroin and MDMA prior. My complaint stands: My experience is with hundreds of people presenting to our services having had their lives torn apart by the social, psychogical and physical problems caused by drug abuse (including alcohol). I think the current classification gives a confused message (I agree that alcohol and tobacco are just as bad, but I completely disagree with the New Scientist saying that because they're legal we should legalise the rest.)

EDIT: I apologise in advance but I didn't want to DP, so if any subsequent posts don't make sense but ...

Take alcohol.

Alcohol causes liver damage in small quantities (above about 4 glasses of wine in women, in about 7 pints a week in men due to differing amounts of water between the genders).

How many people actually follow those guidelines?

I would say honestly and truthfully that a significant proportion of the population are what we call "problem drinkers" - and the majority of them don't know it despite millions being spent on infomercials.

They're not mentalists. It is fair to say that as a nation we have a social dependency on alcohol, with a significant proportion having a physical dependency.

Change the drug and its still the same. Claiming that its only "*some* mentalists could harm themselves with the substance is not an excuse to consider it extremely dangerous. Such people will mess themselves up regardless, they certainly don't have any respect for the law" is ignoring our past mistakes and the follies of today.

I'm out of this. I'm liberal, and don't like the state interfering too much. But these are genuine problems and if we neglect the lessons learnt from drug abuse today, we are merely doomed to repeat them.

Mord

Feb 14, 2009, 04:28 AM

Ah - I apologise I wasn't being clear. My work experience is with Heroin. Heroin has physical dependance, and I got confused because we'd been discussing heroin and MDMA prior. My complaint stands: My experience is with hundreds of people presenting to our services having had their lives torn apart by the social, psychogical and physical problems caused by drug abuse (including alcohol). I think the current classification gives a confused message (I agree that alcohol and tobacco are just as bad, but I completely disagree with the New Scientist saying that because they're legal we should legalise the rest.

I don't see how New Scientist said that myself, all they did is point out how there are discrepancies. Hell, I certainly wouldn't like to see all drugs less harmful than alcohol legalised, I find it irritating enough to put up with alcoholics. What I would definitely like and what New Scientist is posing is that these laws should be changed to make a little bit more sense and actively try to reduce harm.

WinterMute

Feb 14, 2009, 08:37 AM

marbles

Feb 14, 2009, 08:47 AM

<snip>

I'm of the opinion that all drugs should be de-classifed on the understanding that no free treatment for damage resulting from drink, drugs or cigarettes will be available on the NHS.

If you continue to abuse these substances after that, it's your choice and you accept the consequences.

I'd repeal seatbelt and crash-helmet laws under the same conditions.

Too many stupid people are making it to breeding age.

+ 1
I believe also that no one should be able to say one cannot use a substance as long as the use does not directly affect someone else.

Legalize it all, make each and every substance available with condition, no treatment on NHS will be free if substances are used on a regular basis, so obviously use would have to be recorded.

But, if this hard line with NHS funding is taken then we should all be aware of the massive shortfall that will be missing, the coffers from tax on cigarettes alone pays for much more than those who are affected with smoking related illness.

People will take drugs if they want to, regardless of law, if things where legalized the streets would, without doubt be a safer place as the police wouldn't be chasing smack/crack head burglars all day, every day !.
and those that choose to consume for pleasure and not addiction could do so knowing that the money they hand over is not going to organized crime, but something useful - such as local amenities etc, local users pay for local amenities, that would make such a change, wouldn't it be fr the better?

WinterMute

Feb 14, 2009, 08:56 AM

But, if this hard line with NHS funding is taken then we should all be aware of the massive shortfall that will be missing, the coffers from tax on cigarettes alone pays for much more than those who are affected with smoking related illness.

Are there figures to support this, I was of the impression the cost of treating smoking and alcohol related illness far outweighed the revenue?

Besides, legalising the drugs will deliver revenue streams too...;)

MOFS

Feb 14, 2009, 09:46 AM

The son of one of my wife's friends died after taking e at a club, in very similar circumstances to the case Skunk described, the coroner left no doubt as to the cause of death, it killed him in 4 hours.

That said, I watched 2 acquaintances drink themselves to death, and alcohol is legal and socially acceptable.

I'm of the opinion that all drugs should be de-classifed on the understanding that no free treatment for damage resulting from drink, drugs or cigarettes will be available on the NHS.

If you continue to abuse these substances after that, it's your choice and you accept the consequences.

I'd repeal seatbelt and crash-helmet laws under the same conditions.

Too many stupid people are making it to breeding age.

Right, I said I wasn't gonna come back to this thread, but this is slightly different. As someone who is going to be a doctor in 4 months, I think it is unfair not to treat someone because of a choice they made, unless it is clearly going to interfere with your treatment (eg a liver transplant for alcoholics could affect their compliance on immunosuppressants). My issue is where do you stop? No treatment for STDs because you didn't use a condom? No treatment for people with problems because of obesity. Seriously, if we only treated people who didn't have self-inflicted illnesses or disease that have risk factors of a self-inflicted nature then very few people would get treated.

marbles

Feb 14, 2009, 04:10 PM

Right, I said I wasn't gonna come back to this thread, but this is slightly different. As someone who is going to be a doctor in 4 months, I think it is unfair not to treat someone because of a choice they made, unless it is clearly going to interfere with your treatment (eg a liver transplant for alcoholics could affect their compliance on immunosuppressants). My issue is where do you stop? No treatment for STDs because you didn't use a condom? No treatment for people with problems because of obesity. Seriously, if we only treated people who didn't have self-inflicted illnesses or disease that have risk factors of a self-inflicted nature then very few people would get treated.
I think that's just a little bit extreme a response, I did a plus one to that guys statement because I agree that if smack heads want to do that to themselves then why should others foot the massive bill? why should a non smoker pay for a smokers health care. Why should an old dear wait for a bed while some alcoholic is sat waiting for a liver transplant, hard and maybe morally.wrong to 'play god' like that, but where does the money come from !.
Mind you , if the NHS sacked 50% of all managers/clip board holders checking if there is enough toilet roll or pens in the nurses office and took a step back, we'd save a fortune and improve care imo oh, and the apathy that is rife could do with trimming back...see what you can do when you start work in 4 months.

For me it is all about a fair distribution of care. Some kind of system needs to be worked out so that the guy who has looked after himself all his life, then gets cancer or something gets top notch care over and above that of what a smack head would get, an extreme difference and it is hard to evaluate people but smoking and drug use could be a factor in maybe putting those folks further down the waiting list in favour of a child (for instance) who has leukemia . At the end of the day, if you are about to become a Dr, (congrats btw) you will know only too well how these things are all down to money, if you don't you soon will.

A kind of voucher scheme or something??, some way of distributing the care in a more fair way, somehow.

Are there figures to support this, I was of the impression the cost of treating smoking and alcohol related illness far outweighed the revenue?

Besides, legalising the drugs will deliver revenue streams too...;)

No, no evidence as such , personal opinion really along with some casual math, I should have wrote 'IMHO' or something.yeah I suppose legalizing would deliver a revenue stream, imagine the adverts, they be hilarious! ,

Anyone remember that channel4 pot night years ago where they had some guy( a sixties singer if I remember rightly , can see his face but can't remember the name ) propose a whole advertising campaign for cannabis as if it where actually legal, right down to merchandising etc, it was quite funny at the time

WinterMute

Feb 15, 2009, 04:24 AM

My issue is where do you stop? No treatment for STDs because you didn't use a condom? No treatment for people with problems because of obesity. Seriously, if we only treated people who didn't have self-inflicted illnesses or disease that have risk factors of a self-inflicted nature then very few people would get treated.

There are always going to be grey areas, and alcoholism, lung cancer and drug addiction are not the same as STD ignorance or a genetic pre-disposition to storing fat...

The dividing line is simple, if you damaged yourself by doing stuff that is clearly bag of hammers stupid, then you get to pay for the treatment for the results of your stupidity. I wasn;t suggesting no treatment, I was suggesting handing them the bill.

I have no problem with your last statement.

This comes down to freedom, safety and personal responsibility. Everyone wants to be free, everyone wants to be safe, however it's almost impossible to have both. Safety means public regulation, rules and laws. Freedom also means the freedom to kill yourself in interesting and creative ways with no help from the state should you choose to do so.

You want the freedom to take drugs and ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Fine by me, but you should take responsibility for the damage you do to yourself when the ***** goes down. Don't expect me to be happy about paying for your stupidity.