|
Legalize MDMA?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yohan |
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...uld-save-lives/
| quote: | Jesse Kline: Legalizing ecstasy would save lives
Jesse Kline Jun 15, 2012 – 12:41 AM ET | Last Updated: Jun 15, 2012 9:54 AM ET
Getty Images / iStockphoto
It is often easier to buy ecstasy than it is to find beer in the underground party scene. But consumers of that drug have no way of knowing what they’re getting.
Comments Email Twitter Tucked within industrial districts on the outskirts of downtown Vancouver lie innocuous-looking warehouses that, on any given weekend, play home to the city’s vibrant underground party scene.
Inside an array of stimuli tingle the senses: The floors reverberate with the blare of electronic music; lights flash; and the air becomes sticky and pungent as a mass of people dance until the wee hours of the morning.
Related
Poll: Should ecstasy be legalized?
Legalize pure ecstasy and sell it like alcohol, B.C. health chief says
Deaths spur research into exactly what’s in little pills calling themselves ‘ecstasy.’ Hint: It isn’t always MDMA
Ecstasy-related deaths in B.C., Alberta spark debate over how to fix poisonous problem
One thing that distinguishes the underground scene from mainstream clubs is the distinct lack of alcohol at most events: It is often easier to buy ecstasy than it is to find beer.
Unfortunately, consumers of that drug have no way of knowing what exactly they’re getting.
“Most of the samples of what is passed off as MDMA [the original chemical used in ecstasy] on the street is of really unknown quality, unknown purity, unknown dose and is almost guaranteed to be contaminated with a variety of other drugs like PCP, ketamine or methamphetamines. So it’s potentially dangerous,” said Dr. Perry Kendall, B.C.’s Provincial Health Officer. Indeed, at least 16 people have died over the past year in Western Canada from a tainted batch of ecstasy that was laced with a deadly chemical known as PMMA.
DMA has been illegal in Canada since 1976, but that has hardly stopped people from using ecstasy. It even appears to be growing in popularity Dr. Kendall caused quite a stir when he was reported on Thursday as saying that taking ecstasy can be done in a safe manner, and that it should be legalized and distributed by the government. Later in the day, he told a TV news crew he was “not advocating for the legalization of ecstasy or its distribution from government liquor store-type outlets,” but that he does believe the drug is safe, when it’s not mixed with other substances.
The assertions that MDMA — the entirely pure form of ecstasy — is relatively safe, are backed up by a growing body of evidence. A 2010 study published in The Lancet medical journal, written by David Nutt, the former chairman of the U.K. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, found that pure ecstasy is much less harmful than many other narcotics. Out of 20 substances, alcohol was found to be the most harmful, while MDMA ranked 17th.
Another study in the journal Addiction compared the cognitive functions of ecstasy users to non-users and “failed to demonstrate marked residual cognitive effects in ecstasy users.” Likewise, a study conducted by The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies has given the drug to over 500 people, without any serious health effects.
Still, Canadian police blocking the import and manufacture of illegal MDMA and its ingredients means producers have had to resort to more dangerous ecstasy cocktails. And the problem for those attending after-hours parties in Vancouver, and other recreational drug users across the country, is they have no way of knowing if the pills they’re buying are the safe kind or the deadly kind. It’s too bad Dr. Kendall reversed his stance on legalization, because allowing the product to be produced and sold out in the open would be much safer than the current situation.
Our experience with illegal narcotics mirrors many of the unintended consequences that were seen during the Prohibition era. During that time, alcohol became much more potent, too — why sell beer, when hard liquor is stronger, and the punishment is the same? — while many people ended up dying from bad batches of moonshine. (Those who didn’t just got really drunk.)
Today, a majority of the harm that comes from illicit drugs is due to the fact that these substances remain illegal. Gang violence is a big problem in many Canadian cities, and the ecstasy-related deaths that have been in the news as of late never would have happened in a regulated environment.
We don’t know where the tainted ecstasy that recently popped up, with deadly consequences, in Western Canada was originally produced When an outbreak of listeriosis was found at a Maple Leaf Foods plant in 2008, the company suffered a considerable loss of business. When it suspected another problem with its food in 2009, it promptly issued a voluntary recall of the product.
These same free market forces do not work so well when the product in question is traded on the black market. We don’t know where the tainted ecstasy that recently popped up, with deadly consequences, in Western Canada was originally produced, because those who made it are forced to operate underground. Dealers often have no way of knowing whether the product they resell is dangerous, and customers cannot pick and choose from a variety of manufacturers to find the best, and safest, product.
MDMA has been illegal in Canada since 1976, but that has hardly stopped people from using ecstasy. It even appears to be growing in popularity. Instead of imposing harsher restrictions on the substance, as the federal Tories have done, governments should think about the words of Dr. Kendall and look at ways to reduce harm by allowing the drug to be produced and sold in a safe, regulated environment.
National Post
|
|
|
|
| jchung52 |
| Good idea but how do you regulate how much each person can get, how many they do a night, and other factors that would need to be ironed out before this ever happened. The government better start growing Safras trees to meet the demand. Watched Drugs Inc. on E and it takes a lot of tree root to make safras oil |
|
|
| Prometheus Xex |
| quote: | Originally posted by jchung52
Good idea but how do you regulate how much each person can get, how many they do a night, and other factors that would need to be ironed out before this ever happened. The government better start growing Safras trees to meet the demand. Watched Drugs Inc. on E and it takes a lot of tree root to make safras oil |
Seen that show. The amount of damage they were causing to get such little root from so much of a tree was disturbing. I'd say the closest comparison would be like killing a full grown rhino just for it's horn. |
|
|
| Euphorica |
| legalizing a lot of drugs would go a long way to saving lives imho... |
|
|
| PurpleHaze |
 |
|
|
| Nicolas Oliver |
| Pure MDMA is one of the safest psychoactive drugs on the planet. But having ecstasy confined to the black market creates a host of dangers that wouldn't otherwise exist. |
|
|
| LightsOut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nicolas Oliver
Pure MDMA is one of the safest psychoactive drugs on the planet. But having ecstasy confined to the black market creates a host of dangers that wouldn't otherwise exist. |
And consequently, legalizing psychoactive drugs creates a whole other host of dangers that wouldn't otherwise exist.
Its a fine line. You can smoke a joint and be coherant and functional. You can't drop a gram of mdma and have the same sense of normalicy. Legalized MDMA is never going to happen. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| Vibrant underground scene in vancouver? bowr? |
|
|
| Nicolas Oliver |
| quote: | Originally posted by LightsOut
And consequently, legalizing psychoactive drugs creates a whole other host of dangers that wouldn't otherwise exist. |
Where's the evidence to support this assertion? Are you implying that drug use rates increase following legalization? Data from countries where drugs have been decriminalized (re: personal possession) do not support such a suggestion. For instance, more people in the U.S. use cannabis than in the Netherlands. Are you suggesting that drug use patterns will necessary become more dangerous? If so, why?
I agree that MDMA will likely never be legalized. But I wish to point out that legalization is not equivalent so some sort of 'free-for-all' where drugs are handed out like candies. |
|
|
| LightsOut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nicolas Oliver
Where's the evidence to support this assertion? Are you implying that drug use rates increase following legalization? Data from countries where drugs have been decriminalized (re: personal possession) do not support such a suggestion. For instance, more people in the U.S. use cannabis than in the Netherlands. Are you suggesting that drug use patterns will necessary become more dangerous? If so, why?
|
No, I'm not asserting that usage rates will increase. Although, I would suggest they possibly would in the short term, which IS what happened in the Netherlands following legalization (if you can even call it that, because its technically still illegal but falls in a grey area). Also, the usage rate stats from the Netherlands are based on its own residents, once you factor in the millions of tourists that go there every year just to get high on truffles and weed, it paints a different picture. Hence, why they're amending the law to prevent tourists from purchasing it.
More importantly though, marijuana and MDMA are two very different drugs, and any data supporting the benefit(s) gained from the 'legalization' of marijuana, cannot just be blanket applied to all other controlled substances.
I favor the common sense approach. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that an idiot group of 19 year olds shouldn't be able to walk into a convenience store and purchase a few grams each of MDMA. A bit of weed though? Sure. Maybe some hash? Why not. |
|
|
|
|
