Report: Legalising drugs would save UK plc huge packet [Archive]

edesignuk

Apr 7, 2009, 07:05 AM

New research has confirmed a reality which is obvious to many, but which can seldom be acknowledged in British mainstream politics: that it is primarily the fact of drugs being illegal which makes them so damaging to society. Furthermore, if drugs were legalised - even assuming a huge increase in their use - the public purse would gain substantially.

The confirmation comes in a report from the thinktank Transform, funded by charitable foundations and individual donors. In it, the authors note the poor record to date of today's prohibitive drug laws, which were "established with the clear aim of reducing drug supply and use, but have achieved the exact opposite on a consistent basis". In the year 1970, the UK had fewer than 2000 dependent heroin and cocaine users; by the turn of the century there were 100,000 in government treatment programmes and as many as 200,000 more in the population.

The report's authors also note the rather capricious nature of the UK's drug laws: dangerous alcohol and tobacco are regulated but permitted, and comparatively innocuous substances such as ecstasy and cannabis forbidden. This backfires, of course: as alcohol is mostly supplied by legal and regulated channels, a parent - for instance - actually has more visibility of and control over a teenager's alcohol consumption than his or her possible heroin, cocaine or skunk habit.

...continues...The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/07/legalising_drugs_report/).

Shocking! :eek: :p :rolleyes:

Shivetya

Apr 7, 2009, 08:14 AM

I am all for legalizing marijuana. It takes quite a bit to mess up others and we have lots of DUI/DWI laws that can cover misuse in a motor vehicle.

As for ecstasy/etc, uh no.

I think the misguided war on drugs; at least in the US; started during the Nixon administration needs to be seriously changed. We could tax the piss out of MJ and ensure its safe delivery by retail...

of course we could still keep it illegal to grow it yourself, that way they don't lose a tax revenue.

The real problem we face is that we have too many petty criminals in jail (for minor drug offenses) that we can't keep the loonies in.

Cromulent

Apr 7, 2009, 08:18 AM

As for ecstasy/etc, uh no.

What is wrong with Ecstasy? It is a pretty safe drug and people high on it are unlikely to get violent hence the term "loved up on E". Now, alcohol on the other hand is pretty much the mirror image of Ecstasy, dangerous and drinkers are very likely to get violent.

Queso

Apr 7, 2009, 08:18 AM

Ecstacy and milder forms of cannabis yes, but skunk, heroin, coke are probably not such good ideas.

Eraserhead

Apr 7, 2009, 08:24 AM

In 1998 the UN General Assembly committed member countries to achieving a “drug-free world” and to “eliminating or significantly reducing” the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008.

That is the kind of promise politicians love to make. It assuages the sense of moral panic that has been the handmaiden of prohibition for a century. It is intended to reassure the parents of teenagers across the world. Yet it is a hugely irresponsible promise, because it cannot be fulfilled.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13237193

I haven't seen a serious case for keeping drugs illegal to be honest.

Mord

Apr 7, 2009, 08:33 AM

Ecstacy and milder forms of cannabis yes, but skunk, heroin, coke are probably not such good ideas.

I'd pose to make a sane level of cannabidiol a requirement in legal cannabis, modern superskunk is much higher in THC but does not contain equivalent amounts of cannabidiol which is an anti-psychotic, I'd have nothing against stronger varieties being legal if they had a high cannabidiol level too.

Most people I know prefer more balanced "giggly" weed so I doubt the populace would have an issue with this.

For E I'd only be in favour of legalising it if properly safe use was common knowledge or by having it a legal requirement to sell it cut with anti-oxidants and perhaps 5-htp. The neurotoxicity can be entirely blocked with ease but most people just don't know enough about the drug to take the relevant precautions.

Most of the drug harm is due to poor education IMO, it sends completely the wrong message to have a fairly harmless popular drug like ecstasy in the same class as heroin and crack, I know countless people who've tried E then moved onto other class A's assuming that they're just as safe. if only physically addictive and seriously harmful drugs were illegal people would have far more respect for the drug laws, especially if they were educated honestly about the true relative harm.

As for ecstasy/etc, uh no.

The only reason ecstasy pills are harmful is what it's all too often cut with (meth, PMA, MDA, mCPP and a multitude of more dangerous drugs many of which are legal)

As a pure compound it's remarkably safe, you'd have to consume ~5g of the stuff to put your health at serious risk and the typical dose is 1/50th of that

Eraserhead

Apr 7, 2009, 08:42 AM

For E I'd only be in favour of legalising it if properly safe use was common knowledge or by having it a legal requirement to sell it cut with anti-oxidants and perhaps 5-htp. The neurotoxicity can be entirely blocked with ease but most people just don't know enough about the drug to take the relevant precautions.

Given how paranoid the UK is on health and safety I'm sure it would be cut with something appropriate if it was legalised - just like other prescription drugs.

Most of the drug harm is due to poor education IMO, it sends completely the wrong message to have a fairly harmless popular drug like ecstasy in the same class as heroin and crack

+1

iBlue

Apr 7, 2009, 08:45 AM

I'd pose to make a sane level of cannabidiol a requirement in legal cannabis, modern superskunk is much higher in THC but does not contain equivalent amounts of cannabidiol which is an anti-psychotic, I'd have nothing against stronger varieties being legal if they had a high cannabidiol level too.

Most people I know prefer more balanced "giggly" weed so I doubt the populace would have an issue with this.

For E I'd only be in favour of legalising it if properly safe use was common knowledge or by having it a legal requirement to sell it cut with anti-oxidants and perhaps 5-htp. The neurotoxicity can be entirely blocked with ease but most people just don't know enough about the drug to take the relevant precautions.

Most of the drug harm is due to poor education IMO, it sends completely the wrong message to have a fairly harmless popular drug like ecstasy in the same class as heroin and crack, I know countless people who've tried E then moved onto other class A's assuming that they're just as safe.

The only reason ecstasy is harmful is what it's all too often cut with (meth, PMA, MDA, mCPP and a multitude of more dangerous drugs many of which are legal)
I completely agree. Bolded is a very good point, I hadn't thought of the message that sends out.

Although I am not sure how easily a strain (skunk) can be weeded out, as it were. Might need to just let that one go with a warning ("High THC, low CBD = intensely not funny high") and let the people decide for themselves.

Oh in an ideal world where people can make choices like this.

I imagine the government won't back down. They've spent huge sums sending out BS propaganda to people. politicians do not like admitting they are wrong.

Eraserhead

Apr 7, 2009, 08:53 AM

I imagine the government won't back down. They've spent huge sums sending out BS propaganda to people. politicians do not like admitting they are wrong.

Why not? They can blame the last lot for getting it wrong.

iBlue

Apr 7, 2009, 08:56 AM

Why not, they can blame the last lot for getting it wrong.

Well then someone needs to get that absolute cundiddlyunt Jacqui Smith out of there! It's our only hope! :p

WinterMute

Apr 7, 2009, 09:47 AM

Sure, legalise drugs, you'd simultaneously kill the worst of the illegal drug trade and the dependancies and violence that goes along with it, plus you'd make a fortune for the Exchequer in tax revenue.

While you about it repeal the seatbelt laws and the crash helmet laws, and lower the age of alcohol use to, say, 12.

Then instruct the populace that no drug or alcohol related illnesses or accidents will be paid for by the NHS and that only private healthcare will cover these diseases.

That way we make those who chose to take drugs/drink to excess/drive without seatbelts or helmets pay for themselves when they get f*cked over by their drug of choice.

You can have all the choices in the world, but you have to take responsibility for them.

chrmjenkins

Apr 7, 2009, 09:57 AM

Eraserhead

Apr 7, 2009, 10:31 AM

Ecstacy and milder forms of cannabis yes, but skunk, heroin, coke are probably not such good ideas.

I'd think the truly dangerous stuff (i.e. anything that is worse for you than alcohol) would only be available on prescription. I certainly don't think you should be able to go down to your local store and pick up some heroin, you'd certainly need a prescription, like you would for morphine or any other dangerous drug that's only available on prescription.

Though to be perfectly honest being able to go down to your local store (well make a couple of phonecalls) to get heroin basically what the position is in the UK right now.

Eraserhead

Apr 7, 2009, 10:38 AM

WinterMute

Apr 7, 2009, 10:45 AM

Obviously drugs would only be legal for users over 18, like alcohol and cigarettes are right now.

Whatever makes it politically palatable...;)

The trick is to ruin the criminals profit margin, thus putting him out of business.

People already have the choice to take drugs, and legalising them won't mean everyone and his wife will be shooting up.

As I said, offset the cost of the healthcare with private provision, hell you could make it a condition of sale that you have sight of a private health scheme ID card. You could sell the schemes right on the packs.

I see an emerging market!!

Mord

Apr 7, 2009, 10:58 AM

Whatever makes it politically palatable...;)

The trick is to ruin the criminals profit margin, thus putting him out of business.

People already have the choice to take drugs, and legalising them won't mean everyone and his wife will be shooting up.

As I said, offset the cost of the healthcare with private provision, hell you could make it a condition of sale that you have sight of a private health scheme ID card. You could sell the schemes right on the packs.

I see an emerging market!!

I'd only support that there was a set amount of risk that disallowed you NHS treatment, horse riding kills more than ecstasy does. Both habits are purely "for fun" why should the drug user be discriminated against when others live currently legal precarious lifestyles.

Never mind the fact that this would just push drug use underground again, if I had a choice between losing NHS cover and buying illicit black-market MDMA I'd go for the black market stuff every time. It's not like it stays in your urine for more than a couple of days.

I don't personally drink and everything I do do is very low in health risks (bar riding pillion on a motorcycle occasionally) I don't see why I should be penalised because I indulge in low risk drugs occasionally. I get my liver/kidneys tested on a regular basis due to prescription meds I'm on and I can tell you for a fact from experience that alcohol is harder on the body than typical MDMA use. Interesting though my liver function was worst while on a drug I was needlessly prescribed by the NHS!

yojitani

Apr 7, 2009, 11:02 AM

This is important for us Americans too, especially because of our border violence. I wonder what effect it would have on this to legalize the milder drugs while keeping the hard ones illegal. Legalization isn't a magic wand, but I definitely think it would do more good than harm.

In the case of marijuana especially, it is something that can be cultivated at home or at least domestically. If cultivation were legalized, the border trade in marijuana would end very quickly... I'm an avid gardener and would certainly do my bit:D.

I guess times have changed on attitudes towards E. I wouldn't say it's harmless or even less harmful than alcohol.

I'm all for complete legalization of all currently illegal drugs. With that said, I do not buy the arguments comparing those drugs to alcohol. We do not, or at least I do not, drink alcohol in order to impair my senses. I CAN, but I typically do not. One beer, especially in America! :(, isn't the equivalent of one joint or one quick hit on a pipe or whatever. Perhaps the potential danger is greater with alcohol...

Yes, education is key here. My drugs education in the UK (at school) was pretty weak (I'm sure the people teaching it were sedated at my school anyway), but here in the US I've noticed from the information coming back from my son's school that there is a huge problem with scare tactics and misinformation... It's also criminal how kids caught with drugs are closed off from loans, effectively ending their higher education (unless they are funded by wealthy parents).

Eraserhead

Apr 7, 2009, 11:04 AM

People already have the choice to take drugs, and legalising them won't mean everyone and his wife will be shooting up.

Of course not, but the users will pay money to the government as tax rather than criminals in exchange for the risk of illegally getting the stuff into the country.

yojitani

Apr 7, 2009, 11:05 AM

Of course not, but the users will pay money to the government as tax rather than criminals in exchange for the risk of illegally getting the stuff into the country.

From one type of criminal to another, eh? :p

WinterMute

Apr 7, 2009, 11:07 AM

I'd only support that there was a set amount of risk that disallowed you NHS treatment, horse riding kills more than ecstasy does. Both habits are purely "for fun" why should the drug user be discriminated against when others live currently legal precarious lifestyles.

Never mind the fact that this would just push drug use underground again, if I had a choice between losing NHS cover and buying illicit black-market MDMA I'd go for the black market stuff every time. It's not like it stays in your urine for more than a couple of days.

OK, go for a sliding scale, if you bust your neck riding a horse, but you were wearing correct protective gear and under supervision, fine you get the NHS treatment, if you were hacking through woodland in a t-shirt and shorts, tough. Hope your insurance is paid up.

Same with the drugs, overdosed on your "heroin-R-Us" supply? No worries, go to the private clinic your paying for. Too much dancing on your E, get treated for the dehydration and possible death on the NHS....!

The horse and the heroin (oh the irony) are both for "fun", and used correctly should put the user in no danger, incorrect use carries a penalty.

I might be playing devils advocate here a little btw, but I'm bored and writing a report.

Just read your edit:

I'd stop the alcoholics and smokers getting NHS treatment too. ;-)

Eraserhead

Apr 7, 2009, 11:10 AM

OK, go for a sliding scale, if you bust your neck riding a horse, but you were wearing correct protective gear and under supervision, fine you get the NHS treatment, if you were hacking through woodland in a t-shirt and shorts, tough. Hope your insurance is paid up.

Same with the drugs, overdosed on your "heroin-R-Us" supply? No worries, go to the private clinic your paying for. Too much dancing on your E, get treated for the dehydration and possible death on the NHS....!

The horse and the heroin (oh the irony) are both for "fun", and used correctly should put the user in no danger, incorrect use carries a penalty.

What about fat people getting no NHS treatment? After all they could eat less :p.

I might be playing devils advocate here a little btw, but I'm bored and writing a report.

You surprised me to be against this actually ;).

WinterMute

Apr 7, 2009, 11:10 AM

Of course not, but the users will pay money to the government as tax rather than criminals in exchange for the risk of illegally getting the stuff into the country.

Exactly, and the risk of contacting criminal organisations for your supply, of getting bad junk and of arrest and incarceration.

The country wins all round really.

Mord

Apr 7, 2009, 11:11 AM

I'm all for complete legalization of all currently illegal drugs. With that said, I do not buy the arguments comparing those drugs to alcohol. We do not, or at least I do not, drink alcohol in order to impair my senses. I CAN, but I typically do not. One beer, especially in America! :(, isn't the equivalent of one joint or one quick hit on a pipe or whatever. Perhaps the potential danger is greater with alcohol...

You've merely gained tolerance to alcohol, nearly everyone is a lightweight when they start. I can drop a typical (80mg) pill and it won't impair me in the slightest, hell I can also function as I normally would on a modest dose of LSD. Tolerance is not indicative of safety.

The difference is that alcohol is a pleasurable thing to drink for the taste, pills taste horrible, no one would do them unless they intended for them to have significant effect. The point your raise is a significant danger with alcohol, you can drink it and drink it day after day without significantly impairing your judgement however it will cause organ damage over time.

Believe me, I know.

Eraserhead

Apr 7, 2009, 11:11 AM

Whatever makes it politically palatable...;)

That's not totally fair. Now they have serious ID requirements for alcohol (driving licence/passport) I'd be surprised if it wasn't much harder to get under age.

WinterMute

Apr 7, 2009, 11:13 AM

What about fat people getting no NHS treatment? After all they could eat less :p.

You surprised me to be against this actually ;).

You really want me to go there?

Against legalisation of drugs? I'm not really, I just don't want to pay for other peoples stupidity.

That's not totally fair. Now they have serious ID requirements for alcohol (driving licence/passport) I'd be surprised if it wasn't much harder to get under age.

Fair point, it just makes the case for legalisation easier to cost.

mactastic

Apr 7, 2009, 11:16 AM

Eraserhead

Apr 7, 2009, 11:18 AM

You really want me to go there?

Aside from taking the thread off topic, why not?

WinterMute

Apr 7, 2009, 11:20 AM

Why spread the burden among private health care payees? Wouldn't it make the most sense to insist that the person taking the risk pay for ALL of the consequences of their choices?

Well, ok but that seems a bit heartless.

You can't stop people taking out private healthcare, although I doubt current schemes would cover drug abuse etc.

I forsee a new level of insurance cover that pays out specifically on overdoses, embolisms and abscesses caused by dirty needles. The market will adapt to the new challenge.

bartelby

Apr 7, 2009, 11:21 AM

horse riding kills more than ecstasy does.

If you're talking about the Professor David Nutt stuff, you haven't read the figures closely enough.

The professor said horse-riding accounted for about 10 deaths a year and was associated with more than 100 road accidents. He went on: "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 around 30 deaths a year, up from 10 a year in the early 1990s.

Horse-riding accounted for about 10 deaths a year with no other involvement. The other 100 include any rta with a horse. So it could be nothing do do with the rider/horse, eg hit by a speeding car.

Last year 47 died with any mention of Ecstasy on the death certificate, 28 people died from Ecstasy with no other drugs present (17 with alcohol present.
( http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/HSQ39.pdf Table 2 pages 84-85)
What if they included figures of Ecstasy users who were run over?

To include RTAs involving horses skews the figures horrendously.

Eraserhead

Apr 7, 2009, 11:21 AM

Why spread the burden among private health care payees? Wouldn't it make the most sense to insist that the person taking the risk pay for ALL of the consequences of their choices?

Because to an extreme that would mean the insurance company would have to pay someone to follow you around all the time to calculate your risk - and that would be very expensive.

WinterMute

Apr 7, 2009, 11:21 AM

Aside from taking the thread off topic, why not?

Food as addiction huh? That's not off topic by much.

Or are our overweight brethren "big boned" or "hormonal"?

yojitani

Apr 7, 2009, 11:22 AM

You've merely gained tolerance to alcohol, nearly everyone is a lightweight when they start. I can drop a typical (80mg) pill and it won't impair me in the slightest, hell I can also function as I normally would on a modest dose of LSD. Tolerance is not indicative of safety.

I rarely drink and I've been-there-done-that with excessive amounts of drugs. You don't take e or acid just to put it in your mouth, you do it for the buzz, not so with alcohol.

The difference is that alcohol is a pleasurable thing to drink for the taste, pills taste horrible, no one would do them unless they intended for them to have significant effect.

Quite so

The point your raise is a significant danger with alcohol, you can drink it and drink it day after day without significantly impairing your judgement however it will cause organ damage over time.

Yes, but that is alcohol abuse. Most people don't abuse alcohol in that way. If you are drinking all day everyday, your judgement is beyond impaired.

Like I said, I believe drugs should not be illegal at all. It's just that the argument comparing pot to alcohol strikes me as disingenuous because the way in which they are used is different.

Eraserhead

Apr 7, 2009, 11:22 AM

28 people died from Ecstasy with no other drugs present (17 with alcohol present.

So really 11 people died from Ecstasy with no other drugs present. I'd count alcohol as a drug - though it is a legal one.

WinterMute

Apr 7, 2009, 11:24 AM

If you're talking about the Professor David Nutt stuff, you haven't read the figures closely enough.

snip...

To include RTAs involving horses skews the figures horrendously.

There you go, the public purse can probably support our horsey friends accidents then.

Cromulent

Apr 7, 2009, 11:30 AM

Why spread the burden among private health care payees? Wouldn't it make the most sense to insist that the person taking the risk pay for ALL of the consequences of their choices?

They already would have in the form of taxes.

This is what annoys me when people moan about smokers costing the NHS money. The fact of the matter is smokers pay so much in tax that they cover the cost of all smoking related dieses and more besides each year.

iJohnHenry

Apr 7, 2009, 11:32 AM

From one type of criminal to another, eh? :p

Governments are all ready up to their arm-pits in allegators on that score. Anything illegal is only so because they don't have the taxation structure in place for it yet. Booze and cigarettes have been mentioned, but gambling is way up there too. Not very moral of them, eh??

There you go, the public purse can probably support our horsey friends accidents then.

:eek:, did Sarah Jessica have an accident???

bartelby

Apr 7, 2009, 11:33 AM

So really 11 people died from Ecstasy with no other drugs present. I'd count alcohol as a drug - though it is a legal one.

No, 28 people died. The Alcohol indicator is only used on the last set of figures.

Deaths mentioning Ecstasy from 2003:
2003 - 50
2004 - 43
2005 - 58
2006 - 48
2007 - 47

Without other drugs
2003 - 29
2004 - 24
2005 - 33
2006 - 27
2007 - 28

with one or more drugs and Alcohol
2003 - 12
2004 - 13
2005 - 14
2006 - 9
2007 - 17

I looked into the figures Nutt was using and could not come close to his horse related deaths. I think he was using police accident reports.

Cromulent

Apr 7, 2009, 11:36 AM

No, 28 people died. The Alcohol indicator is only used on the last set of figures.

Deaths mentioning Ecstasy from 2003:
2003 - 50
2004 - 43
2005 - 58
2006 - 48
2007 - 47

Without other drugs
2003 - 29
2004 - 24
2005 - 33
2006 - 27
2007 - 28

with one or more drugs and Alcohol
2003 - 12
2004 - 13
2005 - 14
2006 - 9
2007 - 17

I looked into the figures Nutt was using and could not come close to his horse related deaths. I think he was using police accident reports.

Deaths that mention Ecstasy are not necessarily caused by Ecstasy.

iJohnHenry

Apr 7, 2009, 11:38 AM

As in "misadventure"??

bartelby

Apr 7, 2009, 11:40 AM

Deaths that mention Ecstasy are not necessarily caused by Ecstasy.

Same for the horse deaths. Underlying cause.

Here's the "only ecstasy" equivalent for horse deaths in 2007:
V80* Animal-rider or occupant of animal-drawn vehicle injured in transport accident
Males 4
Females 5

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/DR2007/DR_07_2007.pdf

Table 5.19 page 214

* includes the following
V80.0 Rider or occupant injured by fall from or being thrown from animal or animal-drawn vehicle in noncollision accident
Overturning:
· NOS
· without collision
V80.1 Rider or occupant injured in collision with pedestrian or animal
Excludes: collision with animal-drawn vehicle or animal being ridden ( V80.7 )
V80.2 Rider or occupant injured in collision with pedal cycle
V80.3 Rider or occupant injured in collision with two- or three-wheeled motor vehicle
V80.4 Rider or occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck, van, heavy transport vehicle or bus
V80.5 Rider or occupant injured in collision with other specified motor vehicle
V80.6 Rider or occupant injured in collision with railway train or railway vehicle
V80.7 Rider or occupant injured in collision with other nonmotor vehicle
Collision with:
· animal being ridden
· animal-drawn vehicle
· streetcar
V80.8 Rider or occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object
V80.9 Rider or occupant injured in other and unspecified transport accidents
Animal-drawn vehicle accident NOS
Animal-rider accident NOS

As you can see this actually includes Rider or occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck, van, heavy transport vehicle or bus.

Mord

Apr 7, 2009, 11:58 AM

I looked into the figures Nutt was using and could not come close to his horse related deaths. I think he was using police accident reports.

Ta for the headsup, though given that the vast majority of horse riding takes place on the road it's hardly unsurprising that most of the reports are traffic related incidents. Either way it's still a comparable level of risk and 7 deaths per million for ecstasy is still very low, I highly doubt the figure would be so high if it was legal and regulated.

There are however very very few confirmed cases of where the drug MDMA and the drug MDMA alone have killed, "ecstacy" is not the same as MDMA, it's merely a street name for tablets which supposedly contain MDMA.

Allot of the current deaths are due to the fact that piperazines are legal, piperazines are a poor imitation of the drug, have very unpleasant side effects and they inhibit the enzyme that breaks down MDMA, given that piperazines work by a similar mechanism of action if someone were to take two pills one containing mCPP and one containing MDMA they'd likely experience serotonin syndrome be in for a very dangerous unpleasant and potentially lethal experience. I know people who've lost friends to this and many who've had the most unpleasant experience of their life.

There's no reason for piperazines to be legal, I can only assume that they still are as once they're made illegal pills will become good again.

bartelby

Apr 7, 2009, 12:04 PM

Esctasy is the street name for MDMA

methylenedioxymethamfetamine (MDMA, ‘ecstasy’)

It's all the same stuff.

Here's the BNF (British National Formulary) entry:
Ecstasy
Ecstasy (methylenedioxymethamfetamine, MDMA) may cause severe reactions, even at doses that were previously tolerated. The most serious effects are delirium, coma, convulsions, ventricular arrhythmias, hyperthermia, rhabdomyolysis, acute renal failure, acute hepatitis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, adult respiratory distress syndrome, hyperreflexia, hypotension and intracerebral haemorrhage; hyponatraemia has also been associated with ecstasy use.

Treatment of methylenedioxymethamfetamine poisoning is supportive, with diazepam to control severe agitation or persistent convulsions and close monitoring including ECG. Self-induced water intoxication should be considered in patients with ecstasy poisoning.

‘Liquid ecstasy’ is a term used for sodium oxybate (gamma-hydroxybutyrate, GHB), which is a sedative.

But I agree, it's a "safe" drug compared to the others.

But for Nutt to say it's safer than horse riding is just flat out wrong.

Drugs related deaths is the most interesting part of my job... :o

mactastic

Apr 7, 2009, 12:07 PM

Well, ok but that seems a bit heartless.
Seems a bit heartless to toss them out of the NHS to me, but to each their own definition of heartlessness, right?

You can't stop people taking out private healthcare, although I doubt current schemes would cover drug abuse etc.
People engage in risky behavior all the time. Shall we boot those who don't use condoms from the NHS rolls when they contract cervical cancer as a result of decades-ago unprotected sex? How about bungee jumpers or hang gliders or hobbyist woodworkers?

"I cut my finger off on my tablesaw."

"Well, was that in the course of your job, or do you just do it for fun?"

"It's a hobby."

"Sorry, you'll have to live without that finger unless you can pay for it yourself."

I forsee a new level of insurance cover that pays out specifically on overdoses, embolisms and abscesses caused by dirty needles. The market will adapt to the new challenge.
I foresee a whole lot of additional costs due to paperwork...

Because to an extreme that would mean the insurance company would have to pay someone to follow you around all the time to calculate your risk - and that would be very expensive.
See above. ;)

WinterMute

Apr 7, 2009, 12:18 PM

Sorry mactastic, you must have missed the "devils advocate" bit, I was just running the idea to a logical (and right-wing) conclusion, being as my government has developed an alarming right lean lately...!

I don't enjoy the thought of paying for the stupidity of others, but I understand the strength of the welfare state. I personally offset my own brand of stupidity (studying aikido) with private insurance against physical damage.

However: (deep breath)

I'd have to say that extreme sports people get the logical extension of their choices, as do DIY muppets, it doesn't take brains to run a table saw, and if you lop a finger off I'm afraid you had it coming.

The NHS will sew you up, no worries, and I'll carry on paying for it.

Legalising drugs is a good idea from the reduced criminality PoV, but will result in a lot of dumb people damaging and killing themselves. People whose treatment costs I contribute towards.

The dead ones I can live with, Darwin wins, it's the ones that are too dumb to kill themselves that really piss me off...;)

Queso

Apr 7, 2009, 12:29 PM

Esctasy is the street name for MDMA

methylenedioxymethamfetamine (MDMA, ‘ecstasy’)

It's all the same stuff.
Does it mention anywhere the proportion of those deaths caused by toxicity from the impurities currently mixed in with the MDMA? The "street" quality stuff has all sorts of nasties in it.

Or so I'm told.

skunk

Apr 7, 2009, 12:38 PM

While you about it repeal the seatbelt laws and the crash helmet laws, and lower the age of alcohol use to, say, 12.

Then instruct the populace that no drug or alcohol related illnesses or accidents will be paid for by the NHS and that only private healthcare will cover these diseases.

That way we make those who chose to take drugs/drink to excess/drive without seatbelts or helmets pay for themselves when they get f*cked over by their drug of choice.

You can have all the choices in the world, but you have to take responsibility for them.You may be playing Devil's Advocate, but I couldn't disagree more strongly. Driving, riding a motorbike, hang-gliding, bungee-jumping, taking some drugs, both legal and illegal, are risky activities. So is running in the street, crossing a road, swimming, climbing a tree, being a builder, any number of other activities. Some of these risks you can insure against, others are just part and parcel of living in our world, some are avoidable, others can be mitigated by caution/good practice/protective clothing. Some people are at particular risk because of the colour of their skin, their home environment or their genetic predispositions. Do you propose to pick and choose which cases to support according to some opaque and subjective criteria? The only defensible approach is to cover all outcomes irrespective of cause or responsibility.

bartelby

Apr 7, 2009, 12:41 PM

Does it mention anywhere the proportion of those deaths caused by toxicity from the impurities currently mixed in with the MDMA? The "street" quality stuff has all sorts of nasties in it.

Or so I'm told.

Well, the toxicology results may have that detail but it's not compulsory to include the data on the death cert/coroners reports.

Scotland includes it IIRC, but not England and Wales.

But on the filp side too much information can cause problems.

But either way, the death would still be recorded against MDMA

WinterMute

Apr 7, 2009, 12:50 PM

You may be playing Devil's Advocate, but I couldn't disagree more strongly. Driving, riding a motorbike, hang-gliding, bungee-jumping, taking some drugs, both legal and illegal, are risky activities. So is running in the street, crossing a road, swimming, climbing a tree, being a builder, any number of other activities. Some of these risks you can insure against, others are just part and parcel of living in our world, some are avoidable, others can be mitigated by caution/good practice/protective clothing. Some people are at particular risk because of the colour of their skin, their home environment or their genetic predispositions. Do you propose to pick and choose which cases to support according to some opaque and subjective criteria? The only defensible approach is to cover all outcomes irrespective of cause or responsibility.

...or cover none at all, for sure.

As I said I was bored, I didn't expect a sense of humour failure from you skunk. (Unless of course, you're playing the advocate too....)

I'm happy for people to take risks and minimise them as they see fit, I take risks in the course of my pursuit of fun and frolics, I offset the risk with skill and protection, but I could get injured or killed. I don't expect people to pay for my mistakes.

Take drugs all you want, legalising it means the money goes to the country not the criminal, damage yourself with them. At least your tax money goes to support your treatment then.

mactastic

Apr 7, 2009, 12:59 PM

skunk

Apr 7, 2009, 02:09 PM

This is supposed to be a debate. It's no bloody good if we all agree, is it?

Cromulent

Apr 7, 2009, 02:11 PM

It's no bloody good if we all agree, is it?

I disagree.

Mord

Apr 7, 2009, 02:17 PM

Does it mention anywhere the proportion of those deaths caused by toxicity from the impurities currently mixed in with the MDMA? The "street" quality stuff has all sorts of nasties in it.

Or so I'm told.

^the truth though it's worse than that, the majority of "ecstasy" tablets in the uk curently don't contain any MDMA at all, just check www.pillreports.com 9/10 are bad.

I've not come across a pill with actual MDMA in over a year now and I go to raves regularly, hell the last one I did contained quite a hefty dose of amphetamine in it!

blackfox

Apr 7, 2009, 05:44 PM

I am all for the legalization of certain drugs here in the US - due to the unfair criminalization of relatively harmless recreational drug use, the unnecessary burden it puts on the prison/justice system, and for the potential revenue it could produce for the government - there is another side currently being debated here in Oregon.

Oregon has had legal medicinal marijuana for a decade now. It is legal to use, grow and possess with a card. There is a current debate in the State Legislature, however, about having Government fields of marijuana and taxing the distribution of medical pot from a centralized (ie state) source. This could make a lot of money for a cash-starved state like Oregon. The number being bandied about is a tax of $93 per ounce, although even half that number would still bring in substantial revenue.

Certain Pot advocates are up-in-arms, however, concerned that patients will be priced out of getting their medicine (pot) and that the Pharmaceuticals will distort the market - they'd rather the individual still be allowed to grow.

The State counters that not everyone can/wishes to grow, it is easier to police the centralised system, and the state's revenue stream is good for every Oregon citizen.

Both sides have good points, and it is purely a warm-up argument at this point - as Oregon would not have State-grown fields of Pot when it is still classified as an illegal drug under Federal Law.

Thoughts?

mactastic

Apr 7, 2009, 11:09 PM

Thoughts?
I think it's a terribly stupid idea to legalize it for medicinal use, but then forbid people from growing their own. What kind of two-headed jackass comes up with a scheme like that?

Oh right, one that wants to become the legal dealer with his clients over the same barrel the illegal dealer used. :rolleyes:

There's plenty of people who will be willing to pay for the convenience of smoking 'the kind', without having to put the effort into producing it, to produce tax revenue. But without the private growers, prices will be subject to whim; not to any fair market value.