TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Ecstasy Less Dangerous Than Alcohol
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Ecstasy Less Dangerous Than Alcohol

Wow - this new British study places ecstasy at the bottom of the 'dangerous drugs list', and lists both alcohol and tobacco as more dangerous. Maybe it's time to update our laws?

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/International...=2975214&page=1

quote:

By MARIA CHENG AP Medical Writer LONDON Mar 23, 2007 (AP)� New "landmark" research finds that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs like marijuana or Ecstasy and should be classified as such in legal systems, according to a new British study. In research published Friday in The Lancet magazine, Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University and colleagues proposed a new framework for the classification of harmful substances, based on the actual risks posed to society. Their ranking listed alcohol and tobacco among the top 10 most dangerous substances. Nutt and colleagues used three factors to determine the harm associated with any drug: the physical harm to the user, the drug's potential for addiction, and the impact on society of drug use. The researchers asked two groups of experts psychiatrists specializing in addiction and legal or police officials with scientific or medical expertise to assign scores to 20 different drugs, including heroin, cocaine, Ecstasy, amphetamines, and LSD. Nutt and his colleagues then calculated the drugs' overall rankings. In the end, the experts agreed with each other but not with the existing British classification of dangerous substances. Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth-most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was Ecstasy. According to existing British and U.S. drug policy, alcohol and tobacco are legal, while cannabis and Ecstasy are both illegal. Previous reports, including a study from a parliamentary committee last year, have questioned the scientific rationale for Britain's drug classification system. "The current drug system is ill thought-out and arbitrary," said Nutt, referring to the United Kingdom's practice of assigning drugs to three distinct divisions, ostensibly based on the drugs' potential for harm. "The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary," write Nutt and his colleagues in The Lancet. Tobacco causes 40 percent of all hospital illnesses, while alcohol is blamed for more than half of all visits to hospital emergency rooms. The substances also harm society in other ways, damaging families and occupying police services. Nutt hopes that the research will provoke debate within the UK and beyond about how drugs including socially acceptable drugs such as alcohol should be regulated. While different countries use different markers to classify dangerous drugs, none use a system like the one proposed by Nutt's study, which he hopes could serve as a framework for international authorities. "This is a landmark paper," said Dr. Leslie Iversen, professor of pharmacology at Oxford University. Iversen was not connected to the research. "It is the first real step towards an evidence-based classification of drugs." He added that based on the paper's results, alcohol and tobacco could not reasonably be excluded. "The rankings also suggest the need for better regulation of the more harmful drugs that are currently legal, i.e. tobacco and alcohol," wrote Wayne Hall, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, in an accompanying Lancet commentary. Hall was not involved with Nutt's paper. While experts agreed that criminalizing alcohol and tobacco would be challenging, they said that governments should review the penalties imposed for drug abuse and try to make them more reflective of the actual risks and damages involved. Nutt called for more education so that people were aware of the risks of various drugs. "All drugs are dangerous," he said. "Even the ones people know and love and use every day." Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

definitly time, i mean based on that Peter Jennings report that im sure we have all seen, the first research released on the harmful effects of MDMA were all falsified. its time to get a real study going and possibly the de-criminalization of MDMA, unless there is hard evidence that there are adverse effects on the brain, nerve system etc.

i mean, i wouldnt mind getting perscription MDMA...

Personally I think that one of the main reasons they're not legalizing ecstasy is because they can't control it's production and distribution whereas alcohol and tobacco they can.

exactly, its too hard for them to tax it so forget it.

pricks.

quote:

Originally posted by *~LiSa-LoO~* Personally I think that one of the main reasons they're not legalizing ecstasy is because they can't control it's production and distribution whereas alcohol and tobacco they can.

Of course it is. Legalization of it would mean putting it under some sort of government control and then taxing it. It would be safer, but the price would probably go up.

The real problem really would be having the government reverse their long standing stance on illegal drugs. Look at how long it has taken for pot to get to it's vague status in Ontario. Decriminilization of marijuana will be the first step in the right direction.

In any case, we're years and years away from any reforms. Probably too far in the future for any of us to enjoy...

The real fact of the matter is no matter what a study will prove nothing will change. Multi-billion dollar corporations make too much money on alcohol and tobacco. DO think they actually care about the actual risks they pose? Why do you think other drugs became illegal inthe first place?

What you people are missing is that it is still on a list of dangerous substances!

Just because a legal one is high on the list doesn't mean we should start legalizing all those below it.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Just because a legal one is high on the list doesn't mean we should start legalizing all those below it.

I disagree. It's very hypocritical to allow one drug, that's more dangerous, to be sold to people, and not the ones below it.

Then again, capitalism is full of hypocrisies.

If you guys seen the video 'If drugs were legal' they argued that if any of the drugs were to be legalized that the government would control the distribution and produce it themselves, so in the case of E you would get a standardized same potent high every time you buy it. They also said the cost of it would probably drop, cause the price of illegal substances are high because of the risk that's involved with producing it and distributing it among the market.

quote:

Originally posted by infinity HiGH I disagree. It's very hypocritical to allow one drug, that's more dangerous, to be sold to people, and not the ones below it.

We're not arguing hypocrisy. We're arguing whether dangerous illegal substances should be legalized because more dangerous legal substances exist.

The answer is no - we should not be legalizing things that are dangerous regardless of what "more dangerous" legal things already are available.

I hate to do this but

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...Dangerous+drugs

No new news here. Although I enjoyed reading it thoroughly. It's been a while confirmed that the relative risk/addiction/impact on society of mdma is not as great as people had thought before hand.

It's great they're finally puplishing their studies and showing the public that "ecstacy" is not just a crazy drug ppl use to get FUCKED up at clubs etc. Indeed mdma was actually prescribed back in the day to psychotic patients I believe?

Like said in that documentary on youtube "Ecstacy is the only drug that has MANY happy users, and hardly any unhappy users" the difference separating the two immensly.

As with all the fine things in life, mdma is a delicacy and should be used in moderate amounts on special occasions to enjoy it the most

quote:

Originally posted by _EuG_ I hate to do this but http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...Dangerous+drugs

YES! ^5

Do I need to get on the "don't start double posting threads" horse and start riding it around like a three legged mule?

In regards to the thread though, I did look through the document they are referring to and it is evaluating societal harms, not "should I drink or should I take e which one will harm me more"

Most people don't understand what they are referring to when they say harms.

quote:

Originally posted by shanny Do I need to get on the "don't start double posting threads" horse and start riding it around like a three legged mule? In regards to the thread though, I did look through the document they are referring to and it is evaluating societal harms, not "should I drink or should I take e which one will harm me more" Most people don't understand what they are referring to when they say harms.

I'm not trying to rekindle the much flogged debate. I just saw the article and thought that it was worth sharing. It's an interesting read and does highlight the arbitrary ways in which our government regulates things - be it right or wrong.

This research does not produce any findings which have not been suggested in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by Revival160 Of course it is. Legalization of it would mean putting it under some sort of government control and then taxing it. It would be safer, but the price would probably go up.

The relatively high price of illegal drugs is, for one, a direct function of their illegal status: because manufacturers/producers and sellers subject themselves to considerable risk in terms of potential legal punishment for being detected, the price of substances is inflated accordingly. If substances like marijuana and MDMA were legalized the price would likely decrease not only because legalization (obviously) equates to a lack of criminalization but also because manufacturing the drugs on a large enough scale to meet the needs of the public means producing in bulk and we all know that bulk production means less money spent (which is somewhat reflected in buying illegal drugs on the street: you certainly pay far less per pill/gram if you buy bulk versus only a handful).

quote:

Originally posted by Revival160 It's an interesting read and does highlight the arbitrary ways in which our government regulates things - be it right or wrong.

Arbitrariness typically does not connote something positive; rather, it is usually appealed to in order to express dissatisfaction over a matter of perceived unfairness.

quote:

Originally posted by cenik This research does not produce any findings which have not been suggested in the past.

I'm not saying that it did. I only said that the research was interesting, and the article shed a bit of light on the current situation.

quote:

Arbitrariness typically does not connote something positive; rather, it is usually appealed to in order to express dissatisfaction over a matter of perceived unfairness.

I do understand the definition of the term arbitrary. I was using it here to convey how the government seems to make laws (like with our drug laws) lacking the proper logic or insight to make rational decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by cenik This research does not produce any findings which have not been suggested in the past. The relatively high price of illegal drugs is, for one, a direct function of their illegal status: because manufacturers/producers and sellers subject themselves to considerable risk in terms of potential legal punishment for being detected, the price of substances is inflated accordingly. If substances like marijuana and MDMA were legalized the price would likely decrease not only because legalization (obviously) equates to a lack of criminalization but also because manufacturing the drugs on a large enough scale to meet the needs of the public means producing in bulk and we all know that bulk production means less money spent (which is somewhat reflected in buying illegal drugs on the street: you certainly pay far less per pill/gram if you buy bulk versus only a handful). Arbitrariness typically does not connote something positive; rather, it is usually appealed to in order to express dissatisfaction over a matter of perceived unfairness.

Nick - is school making you grumpy?

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker We're not arguing hypocrisy. We're arguing whether dangerous illegal substances should be legalized because more dangerous legal substances exist. The answer is no - we should not be legalizing things that are dangerous regardless of what "more dangerous" legal things already are available.

Well still alot of people do the drugs regardless of it being legal or not. So legalization wouldn't increase or decrease the amount of it being used by users. It will only control and standardlize the substance. Thus it will be safer for users since they know what they're getting.

Imagine if alcohol was illegal and people would get nonstandard alcohol. wouldn't it be more fatal that what it is now?

EDIT: On the side note legalization can change the face of society by taking a huge money away from drug gangs and providing it to government. It's true that government has already hands in this but by taking the money away from gangs we will have a safer society and far less crimes.
I believe in a civilized world drugs should be legal and controled by the government in order to have a healthier and safer society.

Other drugs on the market means competition for the tobacco and alcohol companies and I don't think they would take kindly to that.

this topic is so old,
it hurts my brain


if you actually kept your ears and eyes open about 6 years ago, after iDance, all of these questions, and misinterpretations were answered

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker We're not arguing hypocrisy. We're arguing whether dangerous illegal substances should be legalized because more dangerous legal substances exist. The answer is no - we should not be legalizing things that are dangerous regardless of what "more dangerous" legal things already are available.

+1 big time!!

quote:

Originally posted by extacy_bomb Well still alot of people do the drugs regardless of it being legal or not. So legalization wouldn't increase or decrease the amount of it being used by users. It will only control and standardlize the substance.

of course it would increase the amount of people doing it .. because your average person would find it more socially acceptable to take that substance therefore getting involved in possibly using it regularly.. then telling his friends how awesome it is and so on .. IMO of course . i dont want people bashing my thoughts lol

quote:

Originally posted by jonnystel of course it would increase the amount of people doing it .. because your average person would find it more socially acceptable to take that substance therefore getting involved in possibly using it regularly.. then telling his friends how awesome it is and so on .. IMO of course . i dont want people bashing my thoughts lol

Research on the Netherlands has demonstrated that a significant increase in the number of individuals using cannabis did not occur following the country's decision to no longer prosecute for possession of the substance.

All drugs are harmful and every single one of them fucks with your head & metabolism. Absurd article.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.