Channel 4's - drugs live: the ecstasy trial

[josht]

Live scientific drugs test are happening live on channel four. After 30 years of ecstasy been around actual scientific results are been given to see what happens to your brain when taken the drug.

Don't know what to make of this show :/

 

[BigAl]

Saw this on Twitter:

Can't believe there's a program on tonight on channel 4 called drugs live People taking MDMA for a scientific study #Missedthataudition

This jem is courtesy of Danny Dyer.


I'm not watching the show so I'll have to read what anyone else writes about it.

 

[Tom]

It was frankly a load of rubbish, with constant "bu we'll be discussing that in tomorrow nights show" interjections during interviews.

A publicity stunt that Varney himself would be proud of.

Edit: Moderately naughty word removed, I mistakenly thought this was in the Tavern. :-X

 

[Plastic Person]

I thought it was alright - fairly well presented. If you like MDMA or have no qualms with it then you wouldn't have felt one way or the other, and if you don't, then you were probably that soldier.

 

[T]

Nothing interesting at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Team Edit: Expletive removed.

 

[Sam]

Interesting, but just confirms what anyone with even a vague respect for science already knows: ecstasy is clearly less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, and its continued prohibition is a slap in the face to people who suffer from depression.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tom]

The long-term effects are what are far from understood and nothing about this pathetic programme is going to change that.

 

[Dave]

Interesting, but just confirms what anyone with even a vague respect for science already knows: ecstasy is clearly less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, and its continued prohibition is a slap in the face to people who suffer from depression.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Fair respect for medical science here and I don't get the idea about it been a slap in the face of people with depression. There is evidence that it has an anti-depressive action when used but also a significant body of evidence that use of E increases the level of depression in users over time.

If your thinking of self medicating with drugs for a mental issue (which I wouldn't recommend), then read the literature. Not the propogander of the pro-drug lobby.

 

[Sam]

Re: Re: Channel 4's - drugs live: the ecstasy trial

The long-term effects are what are far from understood and nothing about this pathetic programme is going to change that.

What about the huge scientist-ran trial headed by David Nutt, probably the most respected drugs scientist in the country?

Or was that "pathetic" too because the actual results didn't seem to fit with your backwards and anti-scientific world view? 'I'm all for properly organised medical trials except when they disagree with my pre-conceived Daily Mail opinions. We don't need research because drugs are bad mmkay?'

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dave]

Re: Re: Channel 4's - drugs live: the ecstasy trial

The long-term effects are what are far from understood and nothing about this pathetic programme is going to change that.

What about the huge scientist-ran trial headed by David Nutt, probably the most respected drugs scientist in the country?

Or was that "pathetic" too because the actual results didn't seem to fit with your backwards and anti-scientific world view? 'I'm all for properly organised medical trials except when they disagree with my pre-conceived Daily Mail opinions. We don't need research because drugs are bad mmkay?'

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Nutts a great scientist and speaks a lot of sense on drugs but his study's tend to look at impacts on society ( eg heroin has a lower impact on society than alcohol but a higher impact on the individual).

But you can't look at individual studies, E is almost certainly fine for most people (but most should note street bought E is often contaminated with carcinogens). But a lot of research though backing the short term anti-depressive effects of E have shown that people with depression are at risk of a long term worsening of their condition if they take the drug.

Scientific research is not as cut-and-dry as the lobbyists from either side of the argument would like.

 

[Plastic Person]

The programme is undoubtedly flawed. Nobody taking MDMA either recreationally or for medical purposes usually drops it and then steps into a fridge for monitoring.

 

[Sam]

Decriminalise drug use, say experts after six-year study
Advisors say no serious rise in consumption is likely if possession of small amounts of controlled drugs is allowed

A six-year study of Britain's drug laws by leading scientists, police officers, academics and experts has concluded it is time to introduce decriminalisation.

The report by the UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC), an independent advisory body, says possession of small amounts of controlled drugs should no longer be a criminal offence and concludes the move will not lead to a significant increase in use.

The experts say the criminal sanctions imposed on the 42,000 people sentenced each year for possession of all drugs – and the 160,000 given cannabis warnings – should be replaced with simple civil penalties such as a fine, attendance at a drug awareness session or a referral to a drug treatment programme.

They also say that imposing minimal or no sanctions on those growing cannabis for personal use could go some way to undermining the burgeoning illicit cannabis factories controlled by organised crime.

But their report rejects any more radical move to legalisation, saying that allowing the legal sale of drugs such as heroin or cocaine could cause more damage than the existing drugs trade.

The commission is chaired by Dame Ruth Runciman with a membership that includes the former head of the British Medical Research Council, Prof Colin Blakemore, and the former chief inspector of constabulary, David Blakey.

The report says their analysis of the evidence shows that existing drugs policies struggle to make an impact and, in some cases, may make the problem worse.

The work of the commission is the first major independent report on drugs policy since the influential Police Foundation report 12 years ago called for an end to the jailing of those possessing cannabis.

The UKDPC's membership also includes Prof John Strang, head of the National Addictions Centre, Prof Alan Maynard, a specialist in health economics, and Lady Ilora Finlay, a past president of the Royal Society of Medicine.

The report says that although levels of illicit drug use in Britain have declined in recent years, they are still much higher than in many other countries. The UK has 2,000 drug-related deaths each year and more than 380,000 problem drug users.

The 173-page report concludes: "Taking drugs does not always cause problems, but this is rarely acknowledged by policymakers. In fact most users do not experience significant problems, and there is some evidence that drug use can have benefits in some circumstances."

The commission's radical critique says the current UK approach is simplistic in seeing all drug use as problematic, fails to recognise that entrenched drug problems are linked to inequality and social exclusion, and that separating drugs from alcohol and tobacco use makes it more difficult to tackle the full range of an individual's substance use.

It says the £3bn a year spent tackling illegal drugs is not based on any evidence of what works, with much of the money wasted on policies that are not cost-effective.

It argues that even large-scale seizures by the police often have little or no sustained impact on the supply of drugs; that Just Say No campaigns in schools sometimes actually lead to more young people using drugs; and that pushing some users to become abstinent too quickly can lead to a greater chance of relapse or overdose and death.

The commission argues a fresh approach based on the available evidence should be tested. Its main proposals include:

• Changing drug laws so that possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use would be a civil rather than criminal offence. This would start with cannabis and, if an evaluation showed no substantial negative impacts, move on to other drugs. The experience of Portugal and the Czech Republic shows that drug use would not increase and resources can be directed to treating addiction and tackling organised crime.

• Reviewing sentencing practice so that those caught growing below a specified low volume of cannabis plants faced no, or only minimal, sanctions. But the production and supply of most drugs should remain illegal.

• Reviewing the level of penalties applied against those involved in production and supply, as there is little evidence to show that the clear upward drift in the length of prison sentences in recent years has proved a deterrent or had any long-term impact on drug supply in Britain.

• Reviewing the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act so that technical decisions about the classification of individual drugs are no longer taken by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) or politicians but instead by an independent body with parliamentary oversight.

• Setting up a cross-party forum including the three main political party leaders to forge the political consensus needed to push through such a radical change in approach.

Blakemore said: "Medicine has moved past the age when we treated disease on the basis of hunches and received wisdom. The overwhelming consensus now is that it is unethical, inefficient and dangerous to use untested and unvalidated methods of treatment and prevention. It is time that policy on illicit drug use starts taking evidence seriously as well."

Blakey, who is also a former president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said the current approach of police taking action against people using drugs was expensive and did not appear to bring much benefit. "When other countries have reduced sanctions for low-level drug users, they have found it possible to keep a lid on drug use while helping people with drug problems to get into treatment," the former chief constable said. "But at the same time, we need to continue to bear down on those producing and supplying illicit drugs. This is particularly important for those spreading misery in local communities."

Runciman said government programmes had done much to reduce the damage caused by the drug problem over the past 30 years, with needle exchanges reducing HIV among injecting drug users and treatment programmes which had helped many to rebuild their lives. The commission's chair said: "Those programmes are supported by evidence, but much of the rest of drug policy does not have an adequate evidence base. We spend billions of pounds every year without being sure of what difference much of it makes."

The home secretary, Theresa May, last month ruled out any moves towards decriminalisation, saying it would lead to further problems.

She told MPs she considered cannabis a gateway drug: "People can die as a result of taking drugs, and significant mental health problems can arise as a result of taking drugs."

This study seems to have a great deal of legitimacy and weight, and their findings are very conclusive. Unless you believe there is some sort of massive conspiracy amongst scientists, I don't see how you can be against the decriminalisation of cannabis on scientific grounds (of course, moral objections are a different matter).

If we leave aside other drugs for the moment and just take cannabis, there is an obvious scientific consensus emerging about this: it's vastly less dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco, and the legislation is completely inconsistent and haphazard.

 

[Ash]

As I have said to others, the drug itself has a large degree of mid and body altering change to an individual. Not necessarily that negative on health reasons, but in terms of changing them physically, mentally and emotionally they are large.

When people become sober again its the experience and change people can become addicted to and unable to handle.

People cant be trusted with alcohol (and rightly so) so why on earth do you think Ecstasy would somehow be better for the rest of us I have no idea, but I guess I care more about the safety of the majority than the freedoms of the individual.

 

[TheMan]

Many social studies, including the governments own, show that moderate recreational drugs have a far less destructive affect on society than the main two you can buy in any local store. I haven't got them to hand, they're around on the webs.

The thing is, when judging a "drug" you CANNOT judge it on it's own. YOU MUST put it up against what is already available, that someone high up DECIDED you were ALLOWED to take (even though, most common recreational drugs are NATURAL occuring, NOT processed).

You cannot go drugs are good/bad. Caffeine is a drug. Quite a potent one at that! Those who sit and judge, are only allowing their own personal viewpoints to take stock.

Do you eat chips? Hows about I start telling you how bad they are for you, to the degree I take away your freedom of choice to eat them.

Ecstacy, I took half a one once, MANY, MANY years ago now (can I say that lol for purposes of discussion, and seeing as they're doing it LIVE on TV now lol?) - and you know what?

I found it vile!

It was wierd, it made me physically sick, and I never went near one again - that was when it was in it's heyday and it was pretty much a "norm" out clubbing. You know something else, I think alcohol is more damaging from personal family experience. Never once met someone violent, threatening etc who was out taking an E.

I personally, largely, cannot stand either, though I enjoy an occasional glass of wine or dram of whiskey. That being said, once again, we do not have a level playing field here. Who decides, what level of freedom, of personal choice an individual has?

Well, you won't find beer outlawed anytime soon, that's for sure, and neither would I wish it to be. What is more, it is obvious that keeping this stuff underground, creates a criminal element far more damaging. Brad Pitt came out today, saying very similar, that it was in fact criminal to keep an element of society downtrodden by making taking drugs a crime.

You may want to go and research, WHO first made cannabis illegal also... the answer may surprise a few of you, it CERTAINLY wasn't for medical/psychological reasons, that is for sure!