Legalize Drugs & Solve the Depression

[Almanac]

How would it effect you if he smokes a joint at home?

It may not affect me but it may affect his family especially if he begins to suffer from paranoia or becomes demotivated and apathetic.

[Almanac]

You forgot alcohol. Extremely neurotoxic, as anyone who has experienced a hangover will testify.

Only when used in excess I believe though I can't be 100% sure. (A recent study showed that even moderate use of wine stretched over a lifetime had a brain-shrinking effect, although moderate use of beer didn't.)

[JCSkinner]

It may not affect me but it may affect his family especially if he begins to suffer from paranoia or becomes demotivated and apathetic.

So you agree that it is of no concern to you whatsoever whether he chooses to indulge in cannabis in the comfort of his home?

[Dreaded_Estate]

It may not affect me but it may affect his family especially if he begins to suffer from paranoia or becomes demotivated and apathetic.

How is that any different to the harm caused to a family of an excessive drinker or a heavy smoker? Yet we ban neither

[JCSkinner]

Well the chances of dying are certainly slim but there is a great deal of research which shows that Ecstacy has very serious long-term effects on health even at moderate doses and with infrequent use.

You won't mind citing some then.

It is far more neurotoxic than either cocaine or amphetamines.

I sincerely doubt that. Got any evidence?

It's difficult to see how it could be judged less harmful than alchohol.

SIGNIFICANTLY less harmful than alcohol. One of the least harmful commonly taken substances in Britain in fact. Marginally more dangerous than poppers (amyl nitrate), and much less dangerous than alcohol, tobacco or indeed prescription drugs like barbiturates and methadone.

BBC NEWS | Health | Scientists want new drug rankings

[Almanac]

You won't mind citing some then.

I sincerely doubt that. Got any evidence?

SIGNIFICANTLY less harmful than alcohol. One of the least harmful commonly taken substances in Britain in fact. Marginally more dangerous than poppers (amyl nitrate), and much less dangerous than alcohol, tobacco or indeed prescription drugs like barbiturates and methadone.

BBC NEWS | Health | Scientists want new drug rankings

Try the top of this page.

[JCSkinner]

Try the top of this page.

The top of this page has you wittering in a speculative manner about someone who you do not know's family under hypothetical circumstances.
Are you trying to tell us in a roundabout fashion that you have no evidence to support your assertions whatsoever?

[Almanac]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 20000miles
Really, so you're saying there's a strong disincentive when it comes to using dangerous drugs. You still haven't come to grips with the fact that alcohol and tobacco are far more unhealthy than cannibis and ecstasy will ever be.



[FONT=Verdana]The highly misleading "study" which forms the basis for the above chart consisted of asking psychiatrists, police officers and legal experts their opinion as to which drugs are the most dangerous. I have to say I have my suspicions about this “study”, leaving aside the fact that it has no scientific basis and is utterly unsupported by the findings of empirical research. What motivated it, I wonder? It sounds like a crude attempt to prop up the pro-legalisation argument. The sad thing though is that a piece of nonsense like this, as is clear here, inevitably seeps into the public consciousness and spreads misinformation.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]It would be great if drugs were in fact harmless. Unfortunately, its actually pro-legalisation advocates who are blinded by liberal ideology and wishful thinking, to the point of willfully ignoring the evidence. To give an example of wilful blindness: a British minister with close links to the pro-legalisation movement refused to meet Professor Murray of the University of London, an expert on the subject whose work has been cited thousands of times in peer-reviewed journals, to even discuss the dangers of cannabis. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Given that law plays an important part in influencing attitudes and shaping behaviour as well as often functioning as a moral reference point, the legalisation of drugs would be a catastrophe of epic proportions.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Let's have a look at two of the more common "soft" drugs mentioned by 2000miles, who asserts that they are less dangerous than tobacco and alcohol:[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Research completed in 2005 by Professor Robin Murray demonstrated that those who smoked hash regularly at 18 were 1.6 times more likely to suffer serious mental health problems, including schizophrenia, by their mid-twenties. And the younger the use the greater increased risk, since those who started at 15 had a rate of mental illness 4.5 times greater than normal. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]The British Medical Journal writes: [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]"There is accumulating and converging evidence that cannabis use may be a risk factor for psychotic symptoms."[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]This is not to mention the myriad other negative effects on health associated with cannabis consumption including all kinds of respiratory diseases and increased risk of various kinds of cancers.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Ecstacy is one of the most dangerous illegal drugs available, certainly more so than heroin or cocaine. It is directly neurotoxic unlike cocaine. What does this mean practically? (Suggesting that alcohol is more dangerous than Ecstacy is utterly absurd)[/FONT]

(This is my own compilation, not a cut and paste)

[FONT=Verdana](1) Permanent brain damage- even after just experimental use. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]A study headed by Wei Liu MD and published in December 2006 linked Ecstacy use to brain damage- even in those who are first time users. Research from [FONT=Verdana]the[/FONT] University of Amsterdam has shown Ecstacy can affect blood flow in the brain and alter [FONT=Verdana]the[/FONT] memories of short-term users. Researchers recruited 188 participants that were thinking of trying Ecstacy but who had not yet tried it. All subjects underwent brain scans and memory testing. After an 18-month period, 59 subjects decided to try Ecstacy. The same tests were repeated in these subjects, as well as 59 controls. On average, those who tried Ecstacy used only 6 pills. The results showed that those who tried Ecstacy had a lowering in blood flow in specific parts of the brain. In addition, those who tried the drug had subtle changes in their memories. (see below)

(2) Long-term irreversible memory damage.
Another recent Dutch study headed by Liesbeth Reneman, MD investigated whether the long-term effects of MDMA use on cortical 5-HT neurons in humans and memory function. To quote the study's conclusion: "The present study suggests that, while the neurotoxic effects of MDMA on 5-HT neurons in the human cortex may be reversible, the effects of MDMA on memory function may be long-lasting."

The full study available free in the peer-reviewed Archives of General Psychiatry.

(3) A damaged immune system.
At the British Association Festival of Science in Dublin in September 2005, Dr. Thomas Connor of Trinity College Dublin said Ecstasy damages the nerve cells in the brain that produce serotonin, an effect that can last for years and can lead to anxiety and depression. Additionally, he said the drug has important immuno-suppressive properties that can dampen down the normal functioning of the immune system which has the potential to increase an individual's susceptibility to disease.

(4) A risk of lifetime depression.
Lynn Taurah and Chris Chandler studied 519 subjects including current and past Ecstasy users, people who used other drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines but not Ecstasy, and people who did not use illicit drugs. The researchers asked participants to fill out a questionnaire measuring depressive symptoms, with a score of 25 or more indicating clinical depression. Subjects were divided into three categories: frequent Ecstasy users (more than 20 times), infrequent users (one to 19 times), and nonusers. The researchers found that people who did not use Ecstasy, including subjects who took other drugs, had average depression scores of about four points. In contrast, Ecstasy users—including those who had used the drug only one or two times—had scores as high as 16 or 17, and chronic users had scores as high as 28. Taurah says, "People often think taking Ecstasy just once or twice won't matter, but what we're seeing is evidence that if you take Ecstasy a couple of times you do damage to your brain that later in life will make you more vulnerable." She adds, "[W]e've got a group taking every other kind of drug, including amphetamines, ketamine and cocaine, and they haven't got these depression scores." This, she says, argues against the idea that the depressive symptoms of Ecstasy users predated drug use.

(5) Increased aggressiveness and suicidal ideation.
The above researchers' findings support those of laboratory scientists who are reporting that Ecstasy damages neurons which produce the neurotransmitter serotonin. Serotonin abnormalities are linked to depression as well as to other psychiatric problems including impulsive aggression and suicide attempts. In addition, the drug appears to damage neurons involved in the production of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Among recent findings:

• Researcher Andy Parrott reports that a review of the literature on Ecstasy shows that "repeated doses of MDMA cause serotonergic neurotoxicity in laboratory animals, and there is extensive evidence for long-term neuropsychopharmacological damage in humans." He notes that even after stopping their use of the drug, regular Ecstasy users "often display reduced levels of 5-HT, 5-HIAA, tryptophan hydroxylase and serotonin transporter density," all evidence of impaired serotonin system function. In addition, he says, studies of Ecstasy users show deficits in learning and memory, higher cognitive processing, sleep, appetite, psychiatric well-being, and sexual desire.
• Using PET scans, R. Buchert and colleagues in Germany found that compared with non-drug users, Ecstasy users showed significant alterations in serotonin transporter distribution in several brain regions.
• Johns Hopkins researchers reported that primates exposed to several doses of Ecstasy "developed severe brain dopaminergic neurotoxicity, in addition to less pronounced serotonergic neurotoxicity." They concluded, "MDMA users may unwittingly be putting themselves at risk, either as young adults or later in life, for developing neuropsychiatric disorders related to brain dopamine and/or serotonin deficiency."
Una McCann and colleagues caution, too, that reports that Ecstasy damage may be at least partially reversible should not lead to a false sense of security. "Axonal regeneration in the adult brain may lead to abnormal, dysfunctional circuitry," they say, adding, "Experimental studies report that MDMA's neurotoxic effects on serotonin neurons in primates are extremely long-lasting and may be permanent." McCann and George Ricaurte cite research showing that in the dorsal neocortex, the density of serotonin axons remains markedly reduced for up to seven years following exposure to Ecstasy.
-----
Research by Lynn Taurah and Chris Chandler reported at the annual conference of the British Psychological Society, March 15, 2003. Quotes appear in "Single Ecstasy tablet could lead to brain damage and depression," L. McDougall, Sunday Herald, March 16, 2003, and "Ecstasy makes users depressed for life," S. Goodchild and K. Johnson, U. K. Independent, March 16, 2003.
-- and --
"Long-term effects of 'Ecstasy' use on serotonin transporters of the brain investigated by PET," Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 44, No. 3, March 2003, 375-84. Address: R. Buchert, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
-- and --
"Assessing long-term risks of MDMA (Ecstasy)," George Ricaurte and Una McCann, The Lancet, Vol. 358, No. 9296, December 1, 2001, 1831-2. Address: George Ricaurte, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21224.
-- and --
"'Ecstasy' and serotonin neurotoxicity," U. McCann, G. Ricaurte, and M. Molliver, Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 58, October 2001, 907-8. Address: Una D. McCann, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 725 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205.
-- and --
"Human psychopharmacology of Ecstasy (MDMA): a review of 15 years of empirical research," A. C. Parrott, Human Psychopharmacology, Vol. 16, No. 8, December 2001, 557-77. Address: A. C. Parrott, Department of Psychology, University of East London, Romford Road, London, U.K. E15 4L2.
-- and --
"Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA ('Ecstasy')," G. A. Ricaurte, J Yuan, G. Hatzidimitriou, B. J. Cord, and U. D. McCann, Science, Vol. 297, September 2002, 2260-3. Address: George Ricaurte, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21224. verage, those who tried Ecstacy used only 6 pills. The results showed that those who tried Ecstacy had a lowering in blood flow in specific parts of the brain. In addition, those who tried the drug had subtle changes in their memories.
[/FONT]

[JCSkinner]

And the reason why most, if not all of that research is fatally flawed is laid out below. But to summarise, they're not actually testing the effects of MDMA.
(As proven here: EcstasyData.org: Ecstasy Lab Testing & Analysis Results - Ecstasy Pill Reports)

What is consumed under the generic name as 'ecstasy' is not always pure MDMA3, indeed testing suggests it rarely is - with pill contents frequently containing a range of other psychoactive substances, individually or in combination with MDMA. Doses of MDMA and other substances in pills sold as ‘ecstasy’ also vary enormously. Reflecting this perhaps, what used to be referred to as ‘ecstasy’ or ‘e’ by both sellers and users are now frequently referred to merely as ‘pills’. Transform staff have been involved pill-testing at parties (using the marquis reagent) when none of the pills tested contained any MDMA at all. This raises serious questions about what harms are being evaluated and the limits of any conclusions that can be drawn. The significant differences between pharmaceutical grade MDMA, and the generic street ‘ecstasy’ or ‘pill’ needs to be clearly defined.
• This seemingly unfortunate situation, however, also presents a potentially instructive opportunity. A comparison can be made between the literature describing risks/harms associated with legal pharmaceutical MDMA used under controlled
medical supervision, and literature considering the evidently far wider spectrum of risks/harms associated with use of illicitly produced, supplied and consumed ‘ecstasy’ pills. The contrast between these two bodies of literature will give a specific indication of the impact of illegality on ‘ecstasy’ harms. Drug harms are directly impacted by legal status. Pills and powders of unknown strength, purity and often containing unknown drugs are (unless they contain no drugs at all, which is not uncommon) intrinsically more risky than pharmaceutical grade drugs from legally regulated sources with dose, purity and safety information on the packaging.
• Transform note that such an opportunity was missed in the Nutt et al 2007 Lancet paper regarding heroin. The Lancet paper only reviewed harms associated with illicit heroin use despite the fact that there is a substantial parallel body of evidence on licit prescribed heroin that would have provided an informative control group with obvious and important policy implications.
• It is important to note illicit ‘ecstasy’ pills are rarely used in isolation. Poly-drug use with one or more of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, cannabis, cocaine, ketamine and amphetamines is very much the norm amongst most ‘ecstasy’ users. Teasing out which harms are associated with MDMA alone is therefore even more problematic. An ABC classification system is woefully inadequate for describing or tackling such complex interactions of variables and behaviours.
• ‘Ecstasy’ death statistics are an epidemiological minefield. What is recorded on death certificates does not imply the direct causality with ecstasy use that raw death stats commonly reported in the media suggest. As the Leah Betts case demonstrated, related behaviors (over or under-hydration, over heating etc) can cause or contribute to deaths, as can poly-drug use or other individual predispositions. A recent study suggested that 60% of recorded 'ecstasy deaths' are of people already ‘known to drug services'.
• The content of the ‘ecstasy’ pills, and patterns of use has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. They have become far cheaper and (generally) weaker (consequently used in much greater volume) as well as less often containing MDMA. Older research being considered may not still be relevant to today's patterns of use.
• There is also an emerging split in the market between the comparatively cheap ‘ecstasy’ pills and more expensive ‘up market’ MDMA powder (usually referred to as ‘MDMA’, and thought to be more reliably pure MDMA, although this is by no means guaranteed). Again, patterns of use of each are very different and over-generalised conclusions about harms from ‘ecstasy’ will not be useful for determining more nuanced policy decisions and the necessary spectrum of public health responses.

Taken from here: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Transform%20A...submission.pdf

[Almanac]

Are you trying to tell us in a roundabout fashion that you have no evidence to support your assertions whatsoever?

It's always good to actually read the posts before responding.