Alcohol worse than ecstasy on shock new drug list

[ProudDad]

Source: Guardian Unlimited

Some of Britain's leading drug experts demand today that the government's classification regime be scrapped and replaced by one that more honestly reflects the harm caused by alcohol and tobacco. They say the current ABC system is "arbitrary" and not based on evidence.

The scientists, including members of the government's top advisory committee on drug classification, have produced a rigorous assessment of the social and individual harm caused by 20 substances, and believe this should form the basis of any future ranking.

By their analysis, alcohol and tobacco are rated as more dangerous than cannabis, LSD and ecstasy.

They say that if the current ABC system is retained, alcohol would be rated a class A drug and tobacco class B.

Read more: http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,,2040887,00.html

[Lautremont]

1. I'm not sure who this list would shock.

It certainly doesn't shock me.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. Bureaucrats. n/t

[firefox_fan]

2. Completely agree!

!

[SteppingRazor]

3. Hmmm.... imagine a world where alcohol and tobacco were illegal and...

LSD, weed and X were not.

[olddad56]

14. I've thought about how different things might be in Northern California...

What if pot was legal and alcohol wasn't. The cops would be flying around the Napa valley ripping out the illicit grape plants, and tourists would be flocking to places like Mendocino and Humboldt counties to stay in bed and breakfast inns, enjoying themselves their holidays going weed tasting at fabulous Weederies.

Weed would be affordable and a good bottle of Merlot would cost $250.

Somehow corporate America would screw it up.

[tridim]

4. I fully agree that Cannabis is less dangerous

and I know for a fact that LSD is pretty safe if you don't over do it, but ecstasy I'm not so sure about. It's the day long "crash" that most users describe that worries me. I'm not a user, so I could be speaking out of my ass.

Nothing would end the war on (some) drugs faster than scheduling alcohol and tobacco with the rest of the hard drugs, like Cannabis is now.

[heliarc]

18. From what I've seen...

Just some observations. The day long crash after an ecstacy episode affects a certain smaller percentage of those who take the drug. It is a complex that sometimes involves conscience and introspective behaviour and can sometimes result in depression over longer periods of time. Ecstacy lubricates social markers and inhibitions and gentler personalities sometimes feel that they will not be able to reconcile these heightened social experiences without the drug. This can create a crisis of faith. It has been heartbreaking for some friends of mine who I have spoken to at length about their use. For others this has not been a problem at all, and ecstacy can be a pleasurable experience without the issues of conscience.

Cannabis? Well, I've seen people go off the deep end using all sorts of drugs, but friends who have used cannabis that is very pure often have paranoid episodes that can be dangerous to themselves and to others. The effect is often paralyzing which is a comfort, but can create psychological pathology over longer periods of time.

MHO

[femrap]

21. Speed kills. nt

[babylonsister]

22. I know two people who had LSD episodes they never got over,

and they're both older than I am (I'm 51). So LSD wasn't all it was cracked up to be for some people. Of course, they both probably took way more than was tolerated by most people.

[olddad56]

26. I had an LSD experience in the early 70s that a huge positive change in my life

and thank God I have never gotten over it. And I don't advocate the use of LSD.

[lildreamer316]

36. Please to read here, tridim:

The 'crash' only really comes about because the MDMA is not pure; since it's illegal. It is the other additives that have the draining effect on the body and sometimes the mind. AND can be very dangerous.

As per many other drugs; ecstasy has been made much more dangerous by making it illegal. In it's pure form; it has (anectdotal) performed wonders for those suffering from terminal diseases (emotionally helped, I mean) and especially for sufferers from PTSD. Fortunately, there is currently an ongoing study specifically to measure it's helpfulness in this area (and boy, are those returning soldiers gonna need it!)

If you or anyone is interested in more research and info, I have links.

[LostinVA]

5. I wish they would do that here

[Iwasthere]

6. ectasy used to be a legal drug (recently)... I loved that one before I quit all alc and drugs in 86

[slackmaster]

7. The brewing, distilling, and tobacco industries won't stand for this

Bringing hosesty and logic into play.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. When I was a Psychiatric Case Manager...

I took some courses for substance abuse counseling. They were taught by one cool daddy of substance abuse counseling, Cody Bryant. Big biker-looking dude with a braid to his ass. Completely pragmatic and honest, he had no agenda save effective treatment for substance abusers. He was not a closet fundy or prohibitionist. We had a lot of them in the class and he had his sport with them, oh yes he did.

In the course, we learned what ETOH abuse does to the human body and nervous system. Jeebus. Just jeebus. All in all, what ETOH abuse does to the brain, in the long run, could be accomplished in shorter time and less expense with a 24 oz. framing hammer.

[hedgehog]

9. ETOH?

I'm wondering about Ecstasy - is it a relative of meth despite the fairly benign image?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

12. ETOH=Alcohol

n/t

[David__77]

10. I don't know, I've seen prolonged ecstasy use really screw people up.

It seems like the mental effects are profound and they did not seem to diminish years after cessation. This is of course anecdotal and therefore an unscientific observation.

[youngdem]

11. Facts are shocking? Bizarre.

We live in a fucked up world.

Alcohol and tobacco kill more people than all illicit drugs combined. And alcohol is the ONLY commonly abused drug from which you can die from withdrawal. And tobacco is a drug that DOESN'T GET YOU HIGH BUT STILL KILLS YOU. What a fucking FRAUD that is !!!!

Frankly, I think that many people could use a mandatory joint or two once in a while. Besides, I have never seen a stoner cause a fight, because as Bill Hicks said 'it is fucking impossible'.

[Psephos]

17. Tobacco does get you high, in ways that, over time, smokers feel are indispensable

Nicotine broadly stimulates neurotransmitter activity, the way acetylcholine does. Except, nicotine is not regulated by the body, as acetylcholine is. So, a smoker becomes in charge of his/her own cholinergic feedback loop. Like nearly all positive-feedback loops in biological systems, this is bad news. (Picture the cocaine rats frantically pressing the bar that releases another drop of cocaine. They die of hunger or thirst because those two sensations are no longer as powerful as the craving for more cocaine.)

Here is some info cadged from howitworks.com

Nicotine produces its effects through:

* Increased release of acetylcholine from the neurons, leading to heightened activity in cholinergic pathways throughout your brain. This cholinergic activity calls your body and brain to action, and this is the wake-up call that many smokers use to re-energize themselves throughout the day. Through these pathways, nicotine improves your reaction time and your ability to pay attention, making you feel like you can work better.

* Stimulation of cholinergic neurons promotes the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine in the reward pathways of your brain. This neural circuitry is supposed to reinforce behaviors that are essential to your survival, like eating when you're hungry. Stimulating neurons in these areas of the brain brings on pleasant, happy feelings that encourage you to do these things again and again. When drugs like cocaine or nicotine activate the reward pathways, it reinforces your desire to use them again because you feel so at peace and happy afterwards.

* Release of glutamate, a neurotransmitter involved in learning and memory - Glutamate enhances the connections between sets of neurons. These stronger connections may be the physical basis of what we know as memory. When you use nicotine, glutamate may create a memory loop of the good feelings you get and further drive the desire to use nicotine.


Bottom line: nicotine makes you feel more energized, less hungry, more able to concentrate, and sharper in memory. It gives you coping power.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/nicotine4.htm

[hedgehog]

28. Nicotine is the perfect corporation drug

It allows you to work better, harder, longer without losing alertness. Then it kills you off when you're ready to retire!

[Psephos]

29. lol, you got that one right! n/t

[sam sarrha]

34. baby boom bomb

[ProudDad]

20. Ah, where's Bill Hicks

now that we need him...



http://www.billhicks.com/

[Matariki]

13. don't you have to factor the potential for going to jail in the rating system

years in jail *can't* be good for a person's health...

[ProudDad]

15. Years in jail

is definitely contra-indicated for substance abuse.

[ProudDad]

16. To clarify my position

I believe that they ALL should be decriminalized.

The money for the phony "war on drugs" would be better spent on effective community treatment programs and prevention -- like a govt. jobs programs like the ones FDR put in place.

More money for arts and sports in schools.

We'd need fewer cops and there'd be fewer guns on the streets if drugs were de-criminalized and priced accordingly.

I don't use alcohol or drugs. Haven't for years.

My only dog in this hunt is living in an urban area where the phony "war on drugs" is destroying neighborhoods, crippling the police from working on actual criminal behavior and causing the murder and theft rates to soar.

[hedgehog]

19. I'm with you, ProudDad

Alcohol has certainly taken out a number of the people in my extended family before their time, but at least they stayed sober enough during the week to earn a living. I can't imagine what would have happened if they had ended up in jail every time they had a drink!

Just make it absolutely socially unacceptable for people to drive under the influence. I say socially unacceptable because I know too many drunks who think that's it's OK to drive drunk. It looks to me like wealthier people can lawyer their way out of a DWI, so that stricter laws end up landing on the poor (big surprise). I'm sure a lot of social drinkers have become more careful about driving after a few drinks, but I don't know if or how the binge drinkers have changed their habits.

[ProudDad]

24. It's interesting to speak on Recovery

to a DUI class. I've done it a few times.

Nearly every one knows they did NOTHING to get there...

I did find a way to communicate with them though.

I tell them they are no doubt in one of three groups:

Group 1: They don't have a problem and just were unlucky
Group 2: They have a problem but don't know it yet
Group 3: They have a problem and realize it

The largest number in these classes belong to group 2, you can tell by the way they talk.

The House of Denial...

But I'm DAMN grateful that they're in that class instead of in jail. Jail ain't worth SHIT for substance abuse recovery. I know!

[hedgehog]

27. I worked with some people who thought it was a hoot to "get blasted"

every Weekend and drive from bar to bar. Since they were still walking around, they all figured they "could handle it".

I also worked with someone who had several chances to get his life back and manged to screw himself every time by getting drunk and then getting picked up by the cops behind the wheel of a car.

I don't know why some people get hooked and some people don't, and I'm not even sure that being hooked on one drug is that much better or worse than being hooked on another. What I really have to laugh at is middle class junkies feeling superior to lower class junkies. Somehow cocaine and ecstasy (3-4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) are superior to crack and me th. And of course, everyone looks down on people who inject their drug! I just know we've wasted too much money on cops and prisons without even putting a dent in the problem.

I've seen people use alcohol in moderation, and I'm willing to accept that other drugs can be used in moderation. I believe that there are some people who would feel compelled to use the most benign drug to excess. We need to figure out how to reach those people and help them .

[Nevernose]

30. Of course, 80% of the criminal behavior

Is related in some way to substance abuse. Either someone intoxicated or someone looking for money to get intoxicated.

I'm still with you, though: addressing the larger issue rather than chasing down drug dealers is the way to go. Otherwise you're treating the symptom and not the disease.

Did you happen to see that HBO special "Addiction?" Excellent, for the most part. An interesting note was that in mandatory treatment (like for first or second offenders) versus voluntary treatment, there's no statistical difference in success. THe only difference is that one is more likely to get off drugs with help than without it.

Prison actually INCREASES the likelihood a person will use drugs.

I hate absurdity.

[happyslug]

32. One caveat, NO ADVERTISING

If you make drugs legal, drugs will be sold by large corporations who would than "market" them by adversing Drugs. People will find out about drugs (they do now) without a Madison Avenue Ad campaign, you will surely see drugs sue go up if Madison Avenue gets to be the pushers.

Another Rule I would adopt is Civil Service Protection. I live in Pennsylvania, one of two states (Idaho is the other) where hard liquor is sold exclusively by the state. While teens still get Hard Liquor in Pennsylvania, it is harder for Hard liquor is sold by Civil Servants who can only be fired for Good Cause (including selling to minors). I just feel better if the person selling the drug is a Civil Servant protected by Civil Service laws as oppose to an at-will employee who has to do what his employer wants him or her to do or be fired. Private Employers do NOT tell their clerks to push Alcohol, but they are ways for employers to put pressure on their employees to "Improve Sales".

Now Pennsylvania only sells its hard Liquor through its own stores (this includes Wine). Beer is sold by private companies and it is easily available do to the fact beer is sold by private at will employees. Remember Civil Servants are NOT known to be Customer friendly, but do you want a customer friendly legal drug pusher? The answer is NO, you want someone who will sell the product but only to those people who are legally allowed to do so. Civil Service regulations protect State Employees from retaliation if they deny someone anything if the Civil Servants think that sale would be illegal. The same is NOT true for private employees. For example cigarette sales which, even in Pennsylvania, is sold by private employers. Such private employers can fire any employee for any reason or no reason, and the burden of proof is on the Employee to show an illegal termination. On the other hand when it comes to Civil Service, the Government (who is the employer) has the burden to show why an employee was fired (Plus the Courts have ruled such employment, being from the government, is a property right and thus have protection beyond Civil Service protection, protections NOT available for private employees whose right to the job is at will).

Thus I would agree to legalizing drugs provided those two conditions are included (and I would extend both rules to Beer and all other alcohol, I am even tempted to include Nicotine to the list of "Drugs"). With advertising restricted, and all drugs (Including Alcohol) sold by the State you can control, to a limited extent, who gets the drugs, while at the same time those people who MUST have it have ready access to the Drugs (and that includes Alcohol). Thus you retain control, at the same time Organized crime will find the profit margin to slim (People will pay a premium for something legal over something illegal, thus Alcohol is abused way more than illegal drugs).

[sam sarrha]

23. i essentially blacked out on my first drink and woke up 25 yrs later.. i was only able to quit using

marijuana and meditation.. i use the weed to break the craving cycle and meditation to center my new found sanity.. i no longer use weed and have 7 years of sobriety.. i continue to meditate

[ProudDad]

25. Congratulations!

Quit the weed and continue the meditating?

Good choice...


I do Yoga and live a very happy, fulfilled life. Much better than drugs and alcohol...


On Edit: March 30th at 7pm will be 8 years...but who's counting... :)

[sam sarrha]

33. i only used marijuana for a about 2 or 3 weeks.. and no alcohol, then quit it, i had been listening

pema chodrons 'When Things Fall Apart' and meditating in the mornings and had cut my drinking to afternoons, i had a job but drank when i got home.. it was very addictive compulsive.. nothing i could do would stop it, i had quit using weed and knew it was easy to stop and tried to substitute easy for hard.. my previous addiction to Tobacco had showed if i could quit for a time it was easier, but the space was nearly imposable.. i quit that too.. i liked yoga too..

[kdpeters]

31. Duuuhhhh!!!!

I could have told anyone that little factoid. Sheesh!!

[lildreamer316]

35. Delete.

[Zhade]

38. It's still flawed if it lists cannabis as dangerous, period.

NT!

[ends_dont_justify]

39. It shows you: no one's really paying attention

Drugs are merely a political talking point. People who drink alcohol and smoke won't care about these tests, pot users won't care, etc. The only thing people care about is legality...and that rarely stops people, too.

The biggest drug is MSM kool-aid, ban that and get rid of the drug addicts in congress and maybe we wouldn't need a reason to drink or smoke ;)

[NC_Nurse]

40. I once read that something like 70% of patients in the hospital at any given

time are there due to alcohol related injuries or illness. If you factor in smoking, it would probably be higher.
Lots of people do both, hence the rapidly rising incidence of laryngeal and esophageal cancers.

I suppose since the others you mentioned are not widely studied after long term use, for obvious reasons...it's hard to say what the health consequences would be.
I bet they wouldn't be any worse. Who knows?

[ProudDad]

41. The Dutch know

They've proven that decriminalization works.

Last time I was there the big "crime problem" in Amsterdam was...bicycle theft...

[Nikia]

42. Although I understand their selections due to their criteria

I disagree with their order on basis of occasional use of small amounts.
For example, LSD is rated realtively less dangerous, but it is a powerful psychedelic which can effect some people very negatively.