Ecstasy "not actually harmful" ... row erupts

Bard · 02-09-2002 12:48PM #1

From a Sky News headline:

A row has erupted after experts suggested that Ecstasy may not be dangerous and people were being misled about the drug.

Three psychologists strongly criticised animal and human studies which say the drug causes long-term brain damage and mental problems.

Effects 'imaginary'

But anti-drug campaigners and other scientists insisted the harmful effects of ecstasy were undeniable.

Paul Betts, whose daughter Leah died after taking the drug in 1995, described the experts' claims as "despicable".

Writing in the magazine The Psychologist, published by the British Psychological Society, the researchers said reported adverse effects of Ecstasy could even be "imaginary".

Dr Jon Cole, who researches addictive behaviour, and Harry Sumnall, a postdoctoral researcher at Liverpool University, together with Professor Charles Grob, a child and adolescent psychiatrist from California co-wrote the report.

Studies 'flawed'

Dr Cole and his colleagues were highly critical of the way studies involving young Ecstasy users were conducted.

The experts said that studies of Ecstasy users were riddled with confounding factors, and that researchers were guilty of bias.

They pointed out that Ecstasy users took other drugs as well, and some of the symptoms reported mirrored those caused by staying awake all night and dancing.

Although numerous tests were run on volunteers, only positive results were reported in detail, while negative data were ignored, they said.

Most study participants were self-selected and from universities, raising doubts about how well they represented the general population.

'Despicable'

But Mr Betts believed there was a hidden motive behind the Psychologist article.

"I think it's despicable," he said. "It has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that every single Ecstasy tablet destroys parts of the brain. The main thing it destroys is serotonin, and depression follows on from serotonin depletion."

Dr Michael Morgan, senior lecturer in experimental psychology at the University of Sussex said he had found "overwhelming evidence" that regular Ecstasy use causes impulsive behaviour and impaired verbal memory.

Surveys indicate that about 10% of UK adults, aged 15 to 29, have tried ecstasy.

The figure jumps to about 90% for young people regularly attending outdoor raves or nightclubs where ecstasy is said to be widespread.

Between 1993 and 1997 there were 72 deaths in the UK attributed to ecstasy. During the same period there were 158 deaths caused by amphetamine or "speed", another popular dance drug.

Sposs · 02-09-2002 01:09PM

This is a disgrace think of what young ppl who see this now,they are being lead to believe that E is now harmless fun.
Who must be the next to die,before idiotic articules like this are condemned to the rubbish bin where they belong.

Shinji · 02-09-2002 02:07PM

Sigh.

This is the same rubbish we get every time scientists point out the truth - that there is absolutely bugger all evidence to support the claims that ecstasy is a damaging drug. New Scientist ran a feature on research which showed no damages from the drug, followed by this Psychologist piece on seperate research proving exactly the same thing.

I'm very sorry for Paul Betts' loss of his daughter, but he's getting very tiresome now. He's not a scientist and he doesn't know what he's talking about - the fact of the matter is that his daughter wouldn't have died if accurate information about how to take ecstasy safely was available. There are two very famous Ecstasy related cases where death resulted from taking the drug - one where a girl died of dehydration and subsequent heart failure, another where a girl died of drinking TOO much and subseqent heart failure. Both occured because of misinformation about the drug; in the latter case, it was misinformation which came from anti-drug campaigns.

Between 1993 and 1997 there were 72 deaths in the UK attributed to ecstasy.

Note "attributed". There's now extensive evidence which suggests that this is utter bollocks - most of the deaths occured in people who had consumed a cocktail of drugs, and Ecstasy, as the "designer drug" of the time, was blamed in order to promote an anti-Ecstasy agenda.

Vastly more people die every year from taking prescription anti-depressants than die from taking Ecstasy. It's food for thought. And what's Paul Betts' "hidden agenda" claim all about? Are these reputable scientists running out and dealing drugs on a Friday night? Or is the only real agenda here his own determination, along with the rabid anti-drugs campaigners, to prove that MDMA is evil, even if the weight of proof is against them?

Chinafoot · 02-09-2002 02:41PM

Originally posted by Shinji

the fact of the matter is that his daughter wouldn't have died if accurate information about how to take ecstasy safely was available.
[/B]

can i just say, having lost a friend to this disgusting drug, i am sickened that u appear to be against the people who want rid of this disease on society.

and Leah's Betts' father may seem "tiresome" to u, but u cant blame him for wanting to prevent other parents suffering the massive loss he has suffered. by publicly claiming ecstacy is a safe drug, these scientists are merely adding to the drug problem.

Mailman · 02-09-2002 03:07PM

I knew someone who died as a result of taking Ecstacy.
He didn't die from taking contaminated Ecstasy, he died from Ecstacy.
Likewise, he didn't die from misinformation regarding the drug, he died from the drug itself.

I am not active in any anti-drug campaign and I have nothing more to add to this thread.

Shinji · 02-09-2002 03:49PM

Ho hum, knew I'd get this. You're both scientists and doctors I take it? You're able to categorically say you know what your friends cause of death was?

You can make "sickened" noises about diseases on society all you like, but let me tell you what the real problem is here.

There are very evil drugs out there. There are things out there that ruin lives and destroy families. There are truly hideous substances out there that do astonishingly bad things to the human body but are so addictive that we don't even know where to START detoxing people.

Ecstasy is not one of those drugs. It is an almost entirely safe recreational drug, which would be made even safer by legislation which allowed the balance of ingredients in the tablets to be regulated.

However, it is constantly demonised by the anti-drugs types; the people who saw pictures of Leah Betts and believed whatever the newspaper said; the simple and untrue explanation being "she died of ecstasy use", the more complex explanation being a lot harder to sell newspapers with. These people unwittingly contribute to the problem caused by the genuinely evil drugs, because frankly, millions of people take Ecstasy every weekend in Britain and Ireland, and once they've done it once, they KNOW that you're lying about it.

... And if you're lying about Ecstasy, what else are you lying about? Cocaine? Heroin? Crack?

There's a computer security phrase, "security through obscurity" - it refers to trying to protect something by not telling anyone the full facts about the protection system. It's a byword for a system that doesn't work, and that's what we're seeing here - an attempt to cover up FACTS about a drug in order to pursue an agenda and demonise it. Like security through obscurity, it doesn't work; and it does more harm than good.

Tell people the god damned truth, let them know the real risks, and let them make up their own minds. Slamming scientists who publish honest, empirical research that doesn't agree with your own opinions is the action of a complete bloody moron - facts are facts, whether you like them or not, and just because you're blinded by your emotional attachment doesn't change a damn thing about that.

Mailman · 02-09-2002 04:04PM

I can say what killed him, because I went to the trouble of finding out.

I still have nothing more to add to this thread except:

To those of you out there with an open mind:
Do not consider taking this drug unless you have gone to a doctor and your doctor has checked that you have no heart problems and there is no history of mental instability in your family.

Sposs · 02-09-2002 04:12PM

These Three psychologists do not back up their arguement with hard proof,it's merely what there studies have found. I would like a detailed breakdown of these studies outlining where they investigated the actual chemical properties of Ecstasy and their affect over a prolonged period of time.

Also where did these so called scientists get all this ecstasy to carry out thier study? they should be charged with possesion and distrubition.

Venom · 02-09-2002 04:14PM

Shinji both of the case's you mentioned resulted in a needless death. The fact that the taking of Ecstasy contributed indirectly as you claim still calls for the banning of the drug. If the 2 people who died had not of taking Ecstasy then they would still be alive as the drinking to much/not drinking enough water would not have been a factor.

You statement about prescription drugs is also out of wack. More people take prescription drugs then thoese who take Ecstasy so the odd's of having a bad reaction to a prescription drug is much greater. Prescription drug are very dangerious if not taking properly and thats not even factoring in the people who are alergic to certain types of prescription drugs.

More people died in car accidents each year that those who die from walking/messing around on train tracks but that dont mean fooling around on train tracks is safer than driving a car.

Lemming · 02-09-2002 04:19PM

Ok ... first off, I wonder how much "negative" information was ignored by these three researchers and how it might have actually indirectly have affected another result elsewhere ..........

therefore this study is HEAVILY flawed, since they are using assumption that no negative effects have any bearing on the final result.

Secondly, Shinji ... E is not a "harmless" drug. NO drug is harmless. Even prescription drugs can kill/cause lasting damage. What you are advocating is that people are allowed to use chemical substances in an uncontrolled manner as if they would light up a cigarette.

One girl died from lack of water .... a necessity due to taking the tablets (i.e. take water after taking E or you'll die)

ANother girl died from taking too much water .... due to the necessity to take water because of the tablets. (i.e. taking water after taking E)

What was the common factor in both their deaths?

po0k · 02-09-2002 04:26PM

Originally posted by Shinji
There's a computer security phrase, "security through obscurity" - it refers to trying to protect something by not telling anyone the full facts about the protection system. It's a byword for a system that doesn't work, and that's what we're seeing here - an attempt to cover up FACTS about a drug in order to pursue an agenda and demonise it. Like security through obscurity, it doesn't work; and it does more harm than good.

Tell people the god damned truth, let them know the real risks, and let them make up their own minds. Slamming scientists who publish honest, empirical research that doesn't agree with your own opinions is the action of a complete bloody moron - facts are facts, whether you like them or not, and just because you're blinded by your emotional attachment doesn't change a damn thing about that.

I have to agree with you on these points.

There has been quite a bit of evidence recently with regard medial and scientific journals publishing docotored material.
With regard certain studies, future funding is only guaranteed if a positive result is obtained.
And there has abeen an increasing trend towards only publishing positive results or desireable ones.
Medical test results on some developmental drugs have been doctored ( by re-using old info and repackaging it to look like new data) or by 'adjusting' the numbers to fit a certain criteria so as to give the impression of a certain result while being free of any comeback saying that such-and-such was stated etc.

Don't believe everything you read.

Re:Ecstasy, I woudln't take it myself.
More of a gardner then a chemist

logic1 · 02-09-2002 04:29PM

Originally posted by Lemming

One girl died from lack of water .... a necessity due to taking the tablets (i.e. take water after taking E or you'll die)

ANother girl died from taking too much water .... due to the necessity to take water because of the tablets. (i.e. taking water after taking E)

What was the common factor in both their deaths?

Stupidity.

.logic.

RasTa · 02-09-2002 04:40PM

i for once agree with shinji on this one
havent done e in ages and probaly wont again
but it needs to be legalized and made by ppl who have the right conditions to make the pills
instead of sum knacker in his back shed
allthough i wouldnt condone the use of it, it would prevent dodggy pills going around
in amsterdamm in clubs they have places were u can test and see if your pill is safe or not

Lemming · 02-09-2002 05:04PM

Originally posted by logic1

Stupidity.

.logic.

Well .. besides that.

But one of the girls knew that she had to drink water. So she was "edu-mac-ated" in the use of E. But no-one ever mentioned drinking too much water did they?

Shinji · 02-09-2002 05:15PM

Actually Lemming, what wasn't mentioned was the fact that having to drink water is nothing to do with E - it's to do with dancing a lot in a hot club environment. Common sense really! In the second case, the misinformation about E carried by the media (and often by schools) led to a girl who took a tab and didn't dance at all managing to drink several litres of water and rupture her stomach because she was afraid she was going to die if she didn't drink loads of water.

Had basic information about the drug been available to her, as opposed to scaremongering rubbish that sells newspapers, she would be alive today.

You can say "well, if she hadn't taken Ecstasy she'd be fine too", but frankly, you're NOT about to stop people taking E. Twenty five million E tablets are sold in Britain every weekend - millions of regular users of the drug have found it to be a safe, controllable high which gives them a good feeling without the lack of self-control or mood swings associated with alcohol.

Venom - actually, I was talking specifically about anti-depression prescription drugs; I can look up the specific class of drug if you want. I doubt it's been prescribed to anything like the 3 million people who take ecstasy at least twice a month. As I recall, it killed more people than an other substance in the UK last year... with the exception of, er, alcohol.

Shinji · 02-09-2002 05:23PM

Sposs, you get a response post all of your own because you're possibly the single post stupid poster I've seen on Boards.ie in, er... well, about three hours.

These Three psychologists do not back up their arguement with hard proof,it's merely what there studies have found.

Er, their SCIENTIFIC STUDIES are what would generally be called "hard proof" by any reasonable human being. What do you want, an edict written by the hand of God himself?

Besides which, the main thrust of the article is not their own studies; it is an attack on the utterly unprofessional and unscientific manner in which many other researchers have carried out research into Ecstasy.

I would like a detailed breakdown of these studies outlining where they investigated the actual chemical properties of Ecstasy and their affect over a prolonged period of time.

In that case I suggest you get in contact with the back issues departments of both Psychologist and New Scientist. I think Nature carried a piece about this approximately four months ago as well.

For what it's worth, the chemical properties of MDMA are well known and understood - it's a human formulated drug after all - and the long-term effects of the drug over about 20 years have now been studied. All attempts to prove any kind of adverse reaction have proved utterly inconclusive, leaving absolutely no evidence to back up the claims of anti-drugs campaigners in this field.

There is a very famous piece of research which alleged to show that a monkey's brain exposed to MDMA had gradually shrivelled - some of you may have seen the posters the anti-drugs types used, with "before" and "after" shots of the brain. It now transpires that actually this research was utterly unscientific, the results of it were not actually anything to do with MDMA use, and even the chap responsible for the project had now disowned it, claiming that what started as a good bit of science was hijacked by government political agenda.

Also where did these so called scientists get all this ecstasy to carry out thier study? they should be charged with possesion and distrubition.

Dear god in heaven, you really are an idiot. How are we meant to understand these substances if we don't study them? Or should we just sit and believe whatever the tabloids feed us about everything under the sun? Just because YOU are incapable of independent thought doesn't mean that the rest of the human race is so terminally stupid, you know.

Ajnag · 02-09-2002 05:24PM

Yup its quite simple, prohibition kills, Question, if ectasty was legal,regulated and an allergy test available from a docter, how many people would ectasty kill?

far less then alcohol thats for sure.so could all the moralists please refute the failure of prohibition in chicago before going on your rants.prohibition in alcohol resulted in mass organised crime, and many cases of blindness and death from wood alcohol poisoning. it clearly didnt work.

britain maintained 30,000 veterans on morphine and heroin after the first and second world wars after they became addicted, most if not all went on to live full healthy lives because the drugs were administered by physicians not scumbags.

now apply prohibition to opiates, we have junkies stealing, and dieing, who would otherwise be living lives approaching normal, if it were docters not scumbags administering there addiction.and for those of you who would complain about your taxs going on to help these people, the trials in england and switzerland shows that such maintainance programs allow addicts to go back to work and as such pay taxs a far more positive contribution to society then is the case under prohibition.

its quite simple prohibition drives the problem underground and refuses to try and solve the problems.it hasnt worked anywhere and to be quite honest youd have better luck banning dancing of any form.

pragmatism is the word needed here i think.

Sposs · 02-09-2002 06:03PM

Your a sad little man Shinji, i suggest you go take a few ectasty
drink lots of water,then come back and tell me there harmless.

leeroybrown · 02-09-2002 06:20PM

I certainly won't be using Ecstasy and I'll strongly advise anyone else not to use it.

In my opinion the most dangerous thing about most of those chemical based drugs is not the drug itself (with some exceptions) but the wierd shít that is cut into it. When I take prescription drugs from the chemist at least I know that regardless what wierd stuff is in them they are a consistent quality of mixture. E on the other hand is not and can contain anything from Rat Poison to Washing Powder.

Chowmein · 02-09-2002 06:25PM

Originally posted by leeroybrown
I certainly won't be using Ecstasy and I'll strongly advise anyone else not to use it.

In my opinion the most dangerous thing about most of those chemical based drugs is not the drug itself (with some exceptions) but the wierd shít that is cut into it. When I take prescription drugs from the chemist at least I know that regardless what wierd stuff is in them they are a consistent quality of mixture. E on the other hand is not and can contain anything from Rat Poison to Washing Powder.

I think that you just hit the nail on the head there Leeroy.

oh and Sposs, you and idiot.

DeVore · 02-09-2002 06:32PM

I think he has actually.

This all reminds me of Reefer Madness.. back in the 50's and 60's.

Alcohol kills tens of thousands a year here in Ireland and we ignore it.... why IS that?

Read that again. Tens of thousands. Every year. Here in Ireland.
http://www.ias.org.uk/alert/01issue2/celticmyths2.htm

DeV.

The Gopher · 02-09-2002 06:40PM

Between 1993 and 1997 there were 72 deaths in the UK attributed to ecstasy.

Well up to last year from about 1994-2001 around 100 people died from CJD caught from infected British beef-which means eating UK beef is/was as dangerous as taking ecstasy.And yet the EC insists on pushing the rest of europe to buy their disease ridden meat?(even today checks are quite lazy).
Something like 1.5 million pills are taken every week.About 75 million a year.So in 4 years about 300 million.72 deaths of 300 million pills results in a roughly 1 in 4 million chance of death.And many ecstasy deaths happen because the victim has taken a huge amount of pills.
Some over the counter/prescription stuff is as dangerous.

Ronan|Raven · 02-09-2002 06:48PM

The main problem with ecstacy is the way in which it is produced. Somebody producing mass quantities of it in a small gritty lab somewhere will always lead to an unsafe production of the drug. The people who produce these things usually arent to bothered about putting in the correct "ingredients." A large proportion of ecstacy tablets contain little to no MDMA, and usually contain a mostly speed and the likes.

While ecstacy is in no ways harmless I wouldnt consider the drug itself extremly harmful (if produced properly, not the way the masses of it are being produced) Ecstacy can have a very bad effect on certain users, especially if people have underlying mental/physical ailments.

Having known many people who do/still take ecstacy most weekends I am all to aware of its effects/sideffects. I see nothing wrong in people taking any type of drug tbh as at the end of the day it is their choice. Unless of course someone is spiked which is a disgraceful thing for someone to do to someone.

The simple fact of it is, that until ecstacy is produced properly, and by properly I mean produced in hygenic conditions, using the "ingredients" that were meant for the drug to contain, it will never be turely safe and even then depending on the user there may well still be nasty sideffects.

ykt0di9url7bc3 · 02-09-2002 06:54PM

Do not buy drugs from some punk dealer, with the assurance that what you bought is what you get!

If E was a moderated substance then yeah, fine, but it is not, and you really dont know what you are buying....and then you dont know what you are dying from....

..."Im her best friend and she took a tablet before she went on the dance floor and now she is in the hospital"......

sposs, a proposed reality test wont change the discussion, and is pretty unfeasable

Shinji · 02-09-2002 08:01PM

Your a sad little man Shinji, i suggest you go take a few ectasty drink lots of water,then come back and tell me there harmless.

Er, already have done. I have quite a bit of personal experience of the drug - however, unlike the anti-drugs types here, I don't take my personal experience as evidence to back up my argument, because it's not representative of society as a whole. I'm rather more inclined to believe the opinions of scientific experts in this field.

E on the other hand is not and can contain anything from Rat Poison to Washing Powder.

Ah, the famous "E is cut with rat poison" thing... God knows where that came from. The VAST majority of E is cut with glucose, becuase it's cheap and easy to make tablets with. Occasionally tabs contain Speed rather than or as well as MDMA, which is definitely a slightly more dangerous drug than Ecstasy (although still not in the realms of tobacco or alcohol...). Self-test kits like those promoted by Dancesafe help people to identify what's a good MDMA tab and what's to be avoided; regulation of the industry would help a hell of a lot more.

One key thing to remember when spouting rumours about E being cut with dangerous substances - drug dealing is a business, and businesses which kill their customers or make them violently ill do not last for very long.

TacT · 02-09-2002 08:49PM

Shinji hit the nail on the head there, it's a fairly simple task to find out whether or not your pills are coming from a reliable source.

Business is Business and as such dealers can't have people dropping like flies.

This stuff about it being cut with rat poison etc is just stupid. They cut it with glucose, just like speed/coke would be cut.

I've done a few tabs and don't intend to do any more (been there done) but when I wanted to try out my first one (aged 16 going to see the Prodigy play the point I did my own research)

I found plenty of USEFUL information in the various english clubbers/ravers magazines at the time, more specifically what kind of pills to avoid, exactly how much water you should require (shouldn't exceed a pint every hour or two because you may not realise that your body can't handle it and may cause yourself permanent damage/death) right down to how much you can expect to be paying for your high.

It's a pity more people don't exercise the grey matter in their brains before jumping straight in and taking ecstacy or any other drug for that matter.

A good friend of mine at the time who also wanted to try it out was doing his own research and found that anyone with an irregular heartbeat/flutter should steer well clear of it because it may well kill them. He had such a problem with his heart and as such never went near it.

I still go out with people who enjoy taking a tab and going dancing but I won't indulge myself anymore. Nonetheless I also know a person who died from this drug and the reason for it being they did no research, had a small problem with their heart and they paid for it.

Life is fragile, treat it with respect and you will have a fruitful life.

m1ke · 02-09-2002 09:27PM

The whole anti E campaign is just another human quirk - our inaccurate preception of the dangers around us, too many people not really thinking about the dangerous properties of the world.

72 people die of taking E in the UK. I mean about 10 people die by tripping in an attempt to put on a pair of socks each year in the UK - and that is a fact.

Think of how many people die on the roads, think of how many people die of alcohol or alcohol related accidents/incidents. ****ing thousands and thousands of people do - your granny passes away from cancer after smoking for 50 years it doesn't make front page of the sun. People a aren't willing to exercise independant thought but instead are led by whatever is making the media money or whatever is the lattest "fad" way of thinking.

A little danger is good in our lives, it's part of having a healthy will to live - and if more people knew the facts about danger in the world around us then you can be damn sure ther'd be more of us alive.

m0o|Dino · 02-09-2002 09:48PM

all smoke cannabis and yee shall all be happy

Bard · 02-09-2002 10:24PM

Originally posted by Sposs
Your a sad little man Shinji

Actually I've met him, and he's neither sad nor little

... oh,. - and he seems to know what he's talking about - far more so than you, Sposs.

Mailman · 02-09-2002 10:56PM

I don't like being dragged back in here but on the first page of this thread two people replied to say they know 2 people who died from taking Ecstasy and all we see in the following replies is that Ecstacy related deaths aren't that widespread and the risks are low. If I didn't know someone who died from the drug then I might agree with you.
I'd now like to ask everyone else who has contributed to this thread if they personally knew anyone who died from taking this drug and if so are they honestly in favour of the legalisation of this drug.

If they are in favour of selling this drug over the counter then how do they propose to package/deliver it so that some young person who has never had a proper checkup with a bad heart doesn't get a heart attack there and then when they consume it. If you can answer that one then you are on your way to winning the arguement and making themselves a fortune in the process. If you can't then you'll understnad why the product can't be sold legally. The closest we have got to legal E are stimulant drinks and they aren't very safe according to some studies.

If you are selling a product knowing that a small proportion of your customers will die within minutes of consuming it directly as a result of consuming it and not by some misadventure then you have to pull the product from the shelves.

For this thread to progress you are going to have to consider Social responsibility, a consitiutional right to life and bodily integrity because this discussion is going nowhere as it stands.

At the moment the only thing agreed upon here is that Ecstacy can kill but the nature of the risk and the numbers affected are disputed.

Shinji · 03-09-2002 12:52AM

all we see in the following replies is that Ecstacy related deaths aren't that widespread and the risks are low. If I didn't know someone who died from the drug then I might agree with you.

I don't think you quite understand.

It doesn't matter a tupenny damn whether you "agree" or not. Nobody actually cares whether you "agree" or "disagree" with something which is clinically, empirically, scientifically proven. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of pure science - in roughly the same was as "the earth is round" is not a matter of opinion any more.

This is the fundamental point which tabloid readers and the emotionally involved seem to miss all the time - once facts are established, opinions become worthless.

By the way, by your reasoning, we most certainly should not be selling peanuts. A small number of people can die from ingesting a very small amount of peanut, making them a massively dangerous product to a tiny minority of people. Yet we continue to irresponsibly make them available over the counter just because the rest of us selfishly enjoy their salty, peanutty flavour!

By the way, the heart thing is not proven to be a direct effect of E - it's thought to be an effect of dancing for a prolonged time putting your heart under strain it's not used to. An unfit person with a heart problem who tried to run a marathon would die for the same reasons. E makes you want to dance, but if you're not physically fit to, you shouldn't. Alcohol makes you want to make clumsy passes at attractive people and punch unattractive people, but realistically you shouldn't do those things either...

Ecstasy "not actually harmful" ... row erupts

Comments