Ecstacy, class A- are politicians mad?

[TeaFan]

The question is, does the drug cause the problems with gang violence?

 

Do you get shoot out between Boots & Lloyds? They certainly both deal in drugs, some very powerful ones too.

 

Drug gang violence and associated crime is a perfect example of what is wrong with prohibition.

 

I absolutely agree. Ecstasy isn't entirely safe, but it's safe enough to warrant legalising and deprive violent gangsters of one form of income. But while it is illegal, shouldn't buyers be concerned about where/who it comes from? Of course, if it were legalised it would be a lot easier to do this, but while it's illegal, shouldn't people consider the ethics of who they're giving their money to?

[green]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report

[Phanerothyme]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report

 

 

from the article -

Legalisation of drugs could save UK £14bn, says study

 

...

 

 

Taxing drugs would also provide big revenue gains, says the survey. An Independent Drug Monitoring Unit estimate, quoted in the report, suggests up to £1.3bn could be generated by a £1 per gram tax on cannabis resin and £2 per gram on skunk.

 

Not bloody likely.

[green]

The whole article.

 

 

 

* News

* Society

* Drugs

 

Legalisation of drugs could save UK £14bn, says study

Comments (174)

 

* Duncan Campbell

* The Guardian, Tuesday 7 April 2009

* Article history

 

The regulated legalisation of drugs would have major benefits for taxpayers, victims of crime, local communities and the criminal justice system, according to the first comprehensive comparison between the cost-effectiveness of legalisation and prohibition. The authors of the report, which is due to be published today, suggest that a legalised, regulated market could save the country around £14bn.

 

For many years the government has been under pressure to conduct an objective cost-benefit analysis of the current drugs policy, but has failed to do so despite calls from MPs. Now the drugs reform charity, Transform, has commissioned its own report, examining all aspects of prohibition from the costs of policing and investigating drugs users and dealers to processing them through the courts and their eventual incarceration.

 

As well as such savings is the likely taxation revenue in a regulated market. However, there are also the potential costs of increased drug treatment, education and public information campaigns about the risks and dangers of drugs, similar to those for tobacco and alcohol, and the costs of running a regulated system.

 

The report looked at four potential scenarios, ranging from no increase in drugs use to a 100% rise as they become more readily available.

 

"The conclusion is that regulating the drugs market is a dramatically more cost-effective policy than prohibition and that moving from prohibition to regulated drugs markets in England and Wales would provide a net saving to taxpayers, victims of crime, communities, the criminal justice system and drug users of somewhere within the range of, for the four scenarios, £13.9bn, £10.8bn, £7.7bn, £4.6bn."

 

Titled a Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of the Prohibition and Regulation of Drugs, the report uses government figures on the costs of crime to assess the potential benefits and disadvantages of change. The document, co-written by Steve Rolles, head of research at Transform, uses home office and No 10 strategy unit reports to form its conclusions.

 

It finds: "The government specifically claims the benefits of any move away from prohibition towards legal regulation would be outweighed by the costs. No such cost-benefit analysis, or even a proper impact assessment of existing enforcement policy and legislation has ever been carried out here or anywhere else in the world."

 

Taxing drugs would also provide big revenue gains, says the survey. An Independent Drug Monitoring Unit estimate, quoted in the report, suggests up to £1.3bn could be generated by a £1 per gram tax on cannabis resin and £2 per gram on skunk.

 

The report follows calls for legalisation or a full debate on reform. Last month, the Economist concluded: "Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution."

[s2lass]

The war on drugs. It is complete madness to all sane people. Must be some money making scam by the powers that be. Why make one method of intoxication legal like fags, beer, tea, coffee etc, and others illegal. like weed, heroin, coke, E's etc. If a human being wants to take something that changes his senses for while, is it really that bad. We could be making money of this commodity, and putting it back into the country, not the hands of tax free money making organisation aka drug dealers. A lot of things can kill you. If it was a cheap product like tea, would heroin addicts be mugging our grandparents for a fix. I say let em have there fix I dont mind if there are a few high people about, better than getting mugged.

[Mercenary]

Yet more evidence that ecstacy should not be a class A drug...

 

Link to article

 

There is no evidence that ecstasy causes brain damage, according to one of the largest studies into the effects of the drug. Too many previous studies made over-arching conclusions from insufficient data, say the scientists responsible for the research, and the drug's dangers have been greatly exaggerated.

 

The finding will shock campaigners who have claimed ecstasy poses a real risk of triggering brain damage. They have argued that it can induce memory loss, decrease cognitive performance and has long-lasting effects on behaviour.

 

But experts who have argued that the drug is relatively safe welcomed the new paper. "I always assumed that, when properly designed studies were carried out, we would find ecstasy does not cause brain damage," said Professor David Nutt, who was fired as chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs by Alan Johnson, then home secretary, for publicly stating alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than ecstasy.

 

The study was carried out by a team led by Professor John Halpern of Harvard Medical School and published in the journal Addiction last week. Funded by a $1.8m grant from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, it was launched specifically to avoid methodological drawbacks that have bedevilled previous attempts to pinpoint whether or not ecstasy users suffer brain damage.

 

Ecstasy – or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or MDMA – came into widespread use in the 1980s when taking it was linked to raves and the playing of dance music. Its symptoms include euphoria, a sense of intimacy with others and diminished anxiety and depression. In the US alone, more than 12 million have taken it.

 

But the taking of ecstasy has also been linked to damage to the central nervous system and research in recent years has suggested that long-term changes to emotional states and behaviour have been triggered by consumption of the drug. Possession of it has been made an offence in most western nations.

 

However, Halpern was sharply critical of the quality of the research that had linked ecstasy to brain damage. "Too many studies have been carried out on small populations, while overarching conclusions have been drawn from them," he said. For a start, some previous research has studied users who were taken from a culture dominated by all-night dancing, which thus exposed these individuals to sleep and fluid deprivation – factors that are themselves known to produce long-lasting cognitive effects. Non-users were not selected from those from a similar background, which therefore skewed results. In addition, past studies have not taken sufficient account of the fact that ecstasy users take other drugs or alcohol that could affect cognition or that they may have suffered intellectual impairment before they started taking ecstasy. In Halpern's study only ecstasy users who took no other drugs and who had suffered no previous impairment were selected.

 

The resulting experiment whittled down 1,500 potential participants to 52 selected users, whose cognitive abilities matched those of a group of 59 non-users. "We even took hair samples of participants to test whether they were telling the truth about their drug and alcohol habits," said Halpern. "Essentially we compared one group of people who danced and raved and took ecstasy with a similar group of individuals who danced and raved but who did not take ecstasy. When we did that, we found that there was no difference in their cognitive abilities." In other words, previous studies highlighted problems triggered by other factors, such as use of other drugs or drink, or sleep deprivation.

 

But the drug still posed risks, he said. "Ecstasy consumption is dangerous because illegally made pills often contain contaminants that can have harmful side-effects."

[Saffy]

i'd agree with you m

 

in an ideal world, people would be getting high on ecstasy and loving each other....

 

instead of getting drunk and getting violent.

 

it is sad

I agree wholeheartedly.

[spindrift]

If the decision is risk-based, it makes more sense to ban horse-riding:

 

 

 

Drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts of life. There is not much difference between horse-riding and ecstasy.

 

 

Various cultures use hallucinogens for spiritual purposes, like peyote with the Indians. The debate also highlights how drug use becomes a moral issue. It also raises the question of why is it that prescription drugs are always “good” and “illegal” drugs “bad”.

 

 

 

Various cultures use hallucinogens for spiritual purposes, like peyote with the Indians. The debate also highlights how drug use becomes a moral issue. It also raises the question of why is it that prescription drugs are always “good” and “illegal” drugs “bad”.

[i0mega]

If the decision is risk-based, it makes more sense to ban horse-riding:

 

 

 

Drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts of life. There is not much difference between horse-riding and ecstasy.

 

 

Various cultures use hallucinogens for spiritual purposes, like peyote with the Indians. The debate also highlights how drug use becomes a moral issue. It also raises the question of why is it that prescription drugs are always “good” and “illegal” drugs “bad”.

 

 

 

Various cultures use hallucinogens for spiritual purposes, like peyote with the Indians. The debate also highlights how drug use becomes a moral issue. It also raises the question of why is it that prescription drugs are always “good” and “illegal” drugs “bad”.

 

It's like de ja vu all over again...