Ecstasy Safer than Alcohol says UK Government Advisor

SpAcEd OuT

Alcohol is more harmful and causes more deaths than the drug ecstasy, a leading scientist who advises the Government on drug safety is warning.

Professor David Nutt, a senior member of the drugs panel which recommended the downgrading of cannabis, is calling for the current system of drugs classification to be widened, to reflect the dangers posed by excessive drinking.

The addiction expert says only 10 premature deaths a year in the UK can be blamed on ecstasy, compared with at least 22,000 attributable to drinking. He highlights the fact that alcohol is exempt from an official system of harm rating despite being the cause of 10,000 assaults a year, unlike ecstasy, which is not linked with violence.

Professor Nutt says in the latest edition of the journal Psychopharmacology that the Tory leader, David Cameron, is "correct in his logic" in suggesting that E, currently a class A drug, should be in a lower category than drugs such as heroin and cocaine.
The scientist, who chairs the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) technical committee, writes: "Why is ecstasy illegal when alcohol, a considerably more harmful drug, is not? When we consider that the possession of a drug that is much less dangerous than alcohol can lead to a seven-year prison sentence, whereas alcohol use is actively promoted, perhaps David Cameron did not go far enough."

But Professor Nutt's comments have enraged drugs prevention charities, who say he is wrong to compare the harm caused by drugs such as ecstasy with the effect on health from excessive drinking.

"Ecstasy kills at random and there is a lot of cumulative harm," said David Raynes from the National Drugs Prevention Alliance. "Although there is a lot of harm from alcohol, very few people just die from drinking alcohol, but they do die from taking E. If the Government does downgrade E, then it sends a signal that it's less harmful than it was before."



To the people that are going to say that a lot more people drink, yes, more people drink than take ecstasy, but (in the UK at least) the difference is nowhere near the order of magnitude suggested by the difference in death rates. That is, there aren't 2000 times more drinkers than ecstasy takers.


"Ecstasy kills at random and there is a lot of cumulative harm," said David Raynes from the National Drugs Prevention Alliance. "Although there is a lot of harm from alcohol, very few people just die from drinking alcohol, but they do die from taking E. If the Government does downgrade E, then it sends a signal that it's less harmful than it was before."

What a stupid statement, a lot of things kill at random, statistically you're more likely to choke and die on a peanut than you are to die from taking ecstasy shall we ban peanuts as well?? they say a lot of people die from taking E well with 10 deaths per 250,000 than you are A LOT more likely to die from taking alcohol than using E

Discuss

DOLEMAN

Yes I would agree the damage done by alcohol is shocking, and the damage done by things like ecstasy/cocaine are mild in comparison, but my brother (a post-doc pharmacologist) said the (long term) experiments he did on rats with ecstasy led to dementia.

Also, I don't think anyone has ever died from one beer, but people have died from one esctasy.

More interesting is the amount of people who die from legal drugs (aspirin etc.)

psilocybe

The word ecstasy really has no meaning other than a pill which may or may not contain MDMA as well as other much more dangerous substances. It would be very rare for anybody to die from a normal dose, or even a high dose of MDMA. The problem is that the other drugs frequently found in pills are much less forgiving.

Kernel

Playing russian roulette with 2 bullets is more dangerous than with 1, but that doesn't mean I want to play with 1.

I knew 1 person dead from ecstacy, a couple who almost died and others who complain of depression and neurological problems. There are also those who seem fine. Alcohol is established in our society, and is a big problem because many cannot use it responsibly - but does that mean we need more drugs or should decriminalise them? No, we don't, so give up the drugs, and the crusading for drug users.

scop

Liek anything its usually fine unless its done to excess. MDMA is almost too good anyway, and the sharp decline from the high is awful.

Newaglish

I daresay that the fact that less people die from ecstasy than drink is partially down to the fact that a hell of a lot more people drink a hell of a lost more alcohol than take ecstasy?

That or i'm seriously missing out here. I need my fix!!!

scojones

link?

Ag marbh

I would also agree that ecstasy(assuming its MDMA) is safer than alcohol.

Ag marbh

Newaglish wrote:

I daresay that the fact that less people die from ecstasy than drink is partially down to the fact that a hell of a lot more people drink a hell of a lost more alcohol than take ecstasy?

That or i'm seriously missing out here. I need my fix!!!

Totally wrong.

There have been little or no deaths from the use of MDMA alone. It's usually an irresponsible user.

Ag marbh

DOLEMAN wrote:

Yes I would agree the damage done by alcohol is shocking, and the damage done by things like ecstasy/cocaine are mild in comparison, but my brother (a post-doc pharmacologist) said the (long term) experiments he did on rats with ecstasy led to dementia.

Also, I don't think anyone has ever died from one beer, but people have died from one esctasy.

More interesting is the amount of people who die from legal drugs (aspirin etc.)

It's a fact that the long term effects of MDMA are simply not known.

Scientists say it is ok to consume MDMA four times a year and recommend staying under 250-300mgs where it can become toxic. The average pill will contain 50-125mgss.

My data collection has been mainly from the www.dancesafe.com forum from over the years, you will find links to a number of researched subjects related to MDMA.

Rb

Link?

ronbyrne2005

mdma is neurotoxic ,i know several people who have taken e once and become badly depressed for years .maybe it doent kill many but a significant minority of people develop mental health probs that they may not have develpoed otherwise.

Ag marbh

Kernel wrote:

Playing russian roulette with 2 bullets is more dangerous than with 1, but that doesn't mean I want to play with 1.

I knew 1 person dead from ecstacy, a couple who almost died and others who complain of depression and neurological problems. There are also those who seem fine. Alcohol is established in our society, and is a big problem because many cannot use it responsibly - but does that mean we need more drugs or should decriminalise them? No, we don't, so give up the drugs, and the crusading for drug users.

Could you explain how they died from ecstasy alone?

Ag marbh

rb_ie wrote:

Link?

Look through yourself.

Ag marbh

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

mdma is neurotoxic ,i know several people who have taken e once and become badly depressed for years .maybe it doent kill many but a significant minority of people develop mental health probs that they may not have develpoed otherwise.

I would be very sceptical of that. Infact I find it hard to believe that a healthy person consumed ecstasy once and then developed mental health difficulty for years. Most people even after years of heavy use return to perfect mental heatlh with excercise, a good diet and general healthy living.

ronbyrne2005

Ag marbh wrote:

Could you explain how they died from ecstasy alone?

a few percent of population are liable to die from e as it messes their osmo regulation and thermo regulation and leads them to drink too much water and/or overheat.

Ag marbh

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

a few percent of population are liable to die from e as it messes their osmo regulation and thermo regulation and leads them to drink too much water and/or overheat.

Over all of the years researching MDMA with an amateur interest I never heard of such a thing so out of interest could you tell me where you heard about this?

ronbyrne2005

Ag marbh wrote:

I would be very sceptical of that. Infact I find it hard to believe that a healthy person consumed ecstasy once and then developed mental health difficulty for years. Most people even after years of heavy use return to perfect mental heatlh with excercise, a good diet and general healthy living.

most do yes but i can certify that many dont or it takes a long time.

Ag marbh

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

most do yes but i can certify that many dont or it takes a long time.

But the main thing is that the majority can and will recover.

DOLEMAN

Ag marbh wrote:

It's a fact that the long term effects of MDMA are simply not known.

Well, the scientists in UCD might disagree with you

I should have said it was long term heavy usage. Not simply one pill a year (etc.)

Ag marbh

DOLEMAN wrote:

Well, the scientists in UCD might disagree with you

I should have said it was long term heavy usage. Not simply one pill a year (etc.)

It's still my belief that top scientists and researchers don't know the long term effects of light/medium/heavy use. The info is out there, Have a look through that site I posted above if you don't believe me.

On the whole subject. ecstasy users should check www.pillreports.com uk/ireland section out to see what is currently circulating. It allows users to add reports on the quality of pills and watch out for bad ones. I contribute to the site and alot more people should for safer use.

An E tester is always good to purchase also!

psilocybe

sjones wrote:

link?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article362535.ece

ronbyrne2005

Ag marbh wrote:

Over all of the years researching MDMA with an amateur interest I never heard of such a thing so out of interest could you tell me where you heard about this?

http://mdma.net/waterintox/index.html
http://mdma.net/hyperthermia/body-temperature.html

Ag marbh

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

http://mdma.net/waterintox/index.html
http://mdma.net/hyperthermia/body-temperature.html

Cheers

frobisher

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

mdma is neurotoxic ,i know several people who have taken e once and become badly depressed for years .maybe it doent kill many but a significant minority of people develop mental health probs that they may not have develpoed otherwise.

I very rarely condemn any posts straight out of hand.... BUT..... What you say is only likely if you either work in a hospital or the people around you are just incredibly unlucky. Other than that, you're talking the kind of utter nonsense that seruiously needs to be removed from the drugs debate. People should know the truth, not the propoganda, what ever side it's from.

Ag marbh

frobisher wrote:

I very rarely condemn any posts straight out of hand.... BUT..... What you say is only likely if you either work in a hospital or the people around you are just incredibly unlucky. Other than that, you're talking the kind of utter nonsense that seruiously needs to be removed from the drugs debate. People should know the truth, not the propoganda, what ever side it's from.

I totally dismiss it also but will certainly give the two links posted an open minded read.

Ag marbh

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

a few percent of population are liable to die from e as it messes their osmo regulation and thermo regulation and leads them to drink too much water and/or overheat.

Totally dismiss what you say with the information from the links provided. Nothing in them suggests a few % of people are liable to die/drop dead from consuming ecstasy!

Boston

Ag marbh wrote:

Totally dismiss what you say with the information from the links provided. Nothing in them suggests a few % of people are liable to die/drop dead from consuming ecstasy!

Really, what about the people that take their own life, due to the terrible lows. Doesn't the drug dehydrate you massively and raise your body temp to a dangerous level, haven't people die from this, just drop dead on the dance floor. Anyway, wasn't the drug orginally developed to treat depression or something similiar, and was found to have sever side effects, both physically and metally.

Btw, I love the "If you take only a couple pills a year" line. How many E users only take 2 - 3 pills a year? How much alcohol would have have to consume to do the same long term damage that taken E every weekend does, even if pure.

scojones

Ag marbh wrote:

It's usually an irresponsible user.

The same can be said for alcohol. MDMA and Alcohol shouldn't be compared like this. It's just silly.

Rb

sjones wrote:

The same can be said for alcohol. MDMA and Alcohol shouldn't be compared like this. It's just silly.

I agree, its ridiculous.

psilocybe

rb_ie wrote:

I agree, its ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous?

Ag marbh

LiouVille wrote:

Really, what about the people that take their own life, due to the terrible lows. Doesn't the drug dehydrate you massively and raise your body temp to a dangerous level, haven't people die from this, just drop dead on the dance floor. Anyway, wasn't the drug orginally developed to treat depression or something similiar, and was found to have sever side effects, both physically and metally.

I would believe people who do that already have underlying mental conditions(bad depression) not that I personally know someone who has done it myself. It can dehydrate you massively if you're dancing alot but this is why harm reduction is better information to get across than condemning the drug because whether people like it or not the drug isn't going anywhere. People dropping dead on the dance floor due to heat stroke still doesn't back up his claim that a few % of the population are liable to drop dead after
consuming MDMA.

LiouVille wrote:

Btw, I love the "If you take only a couple pills a year" line. How many E users only take 2 - 3 pills a year? How much alcohol would have have to consume to do the same long term damage that taken E every weekend does, even if pure.

Given the average amount of MDMA found in an ecstasy tablet, it would be possible to consume <snip> pills per session to be extremely safe about it. I know plenty of people who take ecstasy in moderation and would not even use the drug four times per year.
There are alot of factors involved in the final question, how many pills per weekend? the individuals body? mental health?. Along with the damaging physical effects alcohol has on the body there is also the concern of peoples behaviour on alcohol.

scojones

psilocybe wrote:

Why is it ridiculous?

Alcohol is a controlled substance. Before it can be sold it has to pass certain quality standards that ensure it is safe for consumption. Can the same be said for E tablets? No, anyone can put whatever they like in an E tablet and you would be none the wiser.

Ag marbh

sjones wrote:

The same can be said for alcohol. MDMA and Alcohol shouldn't be compared like this. It's just silly.

It's not silly at all.

nesf

DOLEMAN wrote:

Well, the scientists in UCD might disagree with you

Link to the peer reviewed articles.

There are some very odd MDMA and mice articles out there though. It can have very strange effects.

psilocybe

sjones wrote:

Alcohol is a controlled substance. Before it can be sold it has to pass certain quality standards that ensure it is safe for consumption. Can the same be said for E tablets? No, anyone can put whatever they like in an E tablet and you would be none the wiser.

The study being discussed is about MDMA. Not dodgy pills with ****-knows-what in them. It is pointless to equate ecstasy tablets to MDMA.

nesf

Ag marbh wrote:

Given the average amount of MDMA found in an ecstasy tablet, it would be possible to consume <snip> pills per session to be extremely safe about it.

There's a fine line between a debate on drugs and statements which are dangerous. Please refrain from guesstimating "safe dosage levels". It's neither here nor there in this debate tbh.

scojones

psilocybe wrote:

The study being discussed is about MDMA. Not dodgy pills with ****-knows-what in them. It is pointless to equate ecstasy to MDMA.

Ok, fair point. Then the topic of this thread needs to be changed don't you think?

Ag marbh

nesf wrote:

There's a fine line between a debate on drugs and statements which are dangerous. Please refrain from guesstimating "safe dosage levels". It's neither here nor there in this debate tbh.

I was just going on what I know but you're right it's not here nor there on this thread

psilocybe

Yes TBH. Though it is the title of the news article posted.

Cake Fiend

LiouVille wrote:

Doesn't the drug dehydrate you massively

No, and I'm amazed that in 2006 people are still under this impression. Dehydration-related deaths were usually caused by the victim dancing for hours in a hot club/party/whatever without drinking enough water to replace lost fluids. Ecstasy can inhibit the thirst reflex, so people are more likely to drink too little water, but the drug itself can't be blamed for the dehydration. If you take some pills and sit down at a party, you're obviously not going to die from fluid loss.

LiouVille wrote:

and raise your body temp to a dangerous level

Again, any 'dangerous level' of temperature is going to be brought on by dancing for hours or whatever. If you're sitting down relaxing, you won't die of overheating. Also, many legal stimulants can raise your body temperature, I don't see anyone crusading against them.

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

a few percent of population are liable to die from e as it messes their osmo regulation and thermo regulation and leads them to drink too much water and/or overheat.

Ecstasy-related 'water intoxication' deaths started happening after several people died from dehydration-related deaths and word spread that you should drink plenty of water when on E. Unfortunately, several morons thought they should drink pints and pints of water even when not actually sweating, thus dying. As with the dehydration deaths, ignorance was more at fault than the drug.


Just to play the devil's advocate, I'm curious as to whether anyone thinks ecstasy/MDMA should be moved to a lower classification. If so, why?

fits

Sico wrote:

Just to play the devil's advocate, I'm curious as to whether anyone thinks ecstasy/MDMA should be moved to a lower classification. If so, why?

I'm not sure if it should, purely because of the after effects. Its not addictive though, and that would be a pretty good reason to lower the classification.

Although maybe all drugs should be legalised so what goes in them can be controlled.

I really dont know

psilocybe

I think it should be downgraded to Class C, if not legalised. I believe that anyone
over the age of 18 should be free to choose what to put into his/her body. Saying that, I also believe that anybody who takes any psychoactive substanse without doing even basic research is a fool. I fear that most people would be fools in this respect.
Maybe some kind of a written test to get a "drugs license", which would be shown on demand to any member of the Gardai if you are in possesion of drugs.

nesf

fits wrote:

Although maybe all drugs should be legalised so what goes in them can be controlled.

I sympathise with that viewpoint a lot, the problem arrises with "if we legalise it and control it, then people can use it". There are a lot of drugs, like heroin, which the vast majority of people opppose.

It's the whole society vs individual liberty argument as per usual.

SpAcEd OuT

Sico wrote:

No, and I'm amazed that in 2006 people are still under this impression. Dehydration-related deaths were usually caused by the victim dancing for hours in a hot club/party/whatever without drinking enough water to replace lost fluids. Ecstasy can inhibit the thirst reflex, so people are more likely to drink too little water, but the drug itself can't be blamed for the dehydration. If you take some pills and sit down at a party, you're obviously not going to die from fluid loss.



Again, any 'dangerous level' of temperature is going to be brought on by dancing for hours or whatever. If you're sitting down relaxing, you won't die of overheating. Also, many legal stimulants can raise your body temperature, I don't see anyone crusading against them.



Ecstasy-related 'water intoxication' deaths started happening after several people died from dehydration-related deaths and word spread that you should drink plenty of water when on E. Unfortunately, several morons thought they should drink pints and pints of water even when not actually sweating, thus dying. As with the dehydration deaths, ignorance was more at fault than the drug.


Just to play the devil's advocate, I'm curious as to whether anyone thinks ecstasy/MDMA should be moved to a lower classification. If so, why?

Exactly a lot of people think that the ecstasy causes this.

If you were to dance for hours on end and not drink water even without ecstasy in your system chances are you would die from dehydration.

Same can be said for the Leah Beats case, believe it or not the ecstasy didnt cause her death, her drinking pints upon pints of water did, even if she wasn't on ecstasy she would have died drinking that much water.

and no, ecstasy doesnt make you think your thirsty or make you think your hydrated most of these deaths are caused because not enough info is open to the public.

Despite what the media have led us to believe ecstasy is a very safe drug even if your afraid of harmful chemicals being added this can be countered by buying your own testing kit on www.eztest.com or to a lesser extent by going to www.pillreports.com and checking your region

Giblet

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

and no, ecstasy doesnt make you think your thirsty or make you think your hydrated most of these deaths are caused because not enough info is open to the public.

You will need to drink water, the biggest problem is that you seemingly forget and get cotton mouth. Some people may get that into their heads and start getting very paranoid and keep drinking, people such a Leah Betts, who drank too much water purely because she thought she needed too due to bad advice given to her and instead of sipping a pint of water she went through a few litres in 90 minutes.

The media is partly responsible for the bias against E, they demonised it because of the whole "oh my god she took and pill and died" thing, which would scare anyone. It wasn't her first but she was uneducated.

E still does horrible things to your body and it will affect different people in different ways. It's not safe in it's current state as it contains many unknowns. How many people are educated on what exactly is in each pill and what effects it will have on them? There lies the danger. Testing kits could help but that's hardly going to be very convient for anyone now really.

psilocybe

Now that I think of it, do any head shops on Ireland sell reagent test kits, a mate of mine had to order one off the net.

BrenC

Why bother taking it anyway? :P

johnthesavage

I think an adult should have the right to choose what they do or do not put into their own body.

Ecstasy tablets are often impure, sometimes due to deliberate addition of substances other than MDMA, and sometimes due to poor manufacturing processes. Controlling MDMA, rather than prohibiting it, would solve this problem.

Alcohol is one of the leading causes of death in Ireland and yet it is not only legal but is the subject of a multi-billion euro advertising campaign encouraging its use. To allow the use of some harmful (and highly profitable) drugs but not others is illogical and hypocritical.

If government truly wished to minimise the harm done to society by drugs (I include alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs) surely control would work better?
How about a complete ban on promotion and advertising?
Use of tax revenue to fund awareness and treatment programmes?
Freely available and accurate information allowing adults to decide for themselves?

Unfortunately instead of intelligent and rational debate leading to logical and beneficial policies it is easier for politicians to exaggerate the problem and accuse their opponents of not doing enough.

Ag marbh

psilocybe wrote:

Now that I think of it, do any head shops on Ireland sell reagent test kits, a mate of mine had to order one off the net.

I've never found one in Dublin.

Ag marbh

Sico wrote:

Just to play the devil's advocate, I'm curious as to whether anyone thinks ecstasy/MDMA should be moved to a lower classification. If so, why?

I think it would be sensible to legalise MDMA. It would then be a controlled substance, the government would surely get a nice tax cut, it would put drug dealers out of business and surely have an effect on crime.