Reclassification of ecstasy

safety

double safety
VIP Junglist
Messages
6,366
Likes
29
#2
a debate? isn't that a little too much like free speach? i thought radio one was more into telling people what to think
 
Messages
191
Likes
0
#3
a debate? isn't that a little too much like free speach? i thought radio one was more into telling people what to think
Haha, I thought about putting 'debate' in inverted commas.

I expect lots of unreasonable anti-drugs texts. Let's fight the pro-drugs corner! Well, not so much pro-drugs, but anti-(anti-drugs).

If alcohol is legal, so must be ecstasy.
 

logikz

I Am Not The King
Tribal Leader
VIP Junglist
Messages
11,117
Likes
2,982
#4
a derate? prism swat i tittle toot notch mike tree weak? a thorough ratio hone wasp smore mint smelling treacle twat two stink
 

Jacomelli

J4COM3LL1
VIP Junglist
Messages
1,609
Likes
3
#6
Yeah there is some mention about X being classed 'B' instead of 'A' as the drug is not as harmful as coke or heroin...

I agree it should be in class 'B' :D
 

Blurr

Wasted Selection
VIP Junglist
Messages
3,025
Likes
3
#7
more than jus radio1 having a debate...

Ecstasy downgrade is considered

The panel will review the latest evidence before making its decision

The body that advises the government on illegal drugs is meeting to discuss whether ecstasy should be downgraded from a Class A drug to Class B.

Senior police officers have written to The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs urging it to leave ecstasy as a Class A drug, the BBC has learned.

Incoming head Prof David Nutt has said ecstasy is less harmful than cocaine or heroin and should be reclassified.

Ministers ignored a recommendation in May, by moving cannabis up to Class B.

The meeting over ecstasy could set the government on another collision course with the Advisory Council, should it recommend reclassification.

The panel will review the latest evidence before making its decision.

As part of the discussions, panel members will consider the submission from the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), stating that transferring ecstasy to class B would send out an "unfortunate message".

"From an operational policing perspective, Acpo does not support any change in classification of ecstasy from its current class A status," said Tim Hollis, chief constable of Humberside Police and Acpo's lead officer on drugs.

A Home Office spokesman said the government firmly believed ecstasy should remain a Class A drug.

"Ecstasy can and does kill unpredictably. There is no such thing as a 'safe dose'," he said.

'Relative damage'

An estimated 250,000 people in England and Wales take ecstasy every month.

About 50 deaths a year involve the use of ecstasy - known to chemists as MDMA - in England and Wales, according to the Office for National Statistics. Figures showed there were 246 deaths between 2003 and 2007.

Professor Colin Blakemore, from Oxford University and the UK Drug Policy Commission, said all drugs were dangerous but that the issue was one of "relative harm".

"The problem, one of the problems, is the assumption that if the advisory council recommends that ecstasy should be downgraded they're in a sense encouraging people to use it - that's not the case at all.

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME

More from Today programme

"They are simply making a statement about the relative damage associated with ecstasy compared with crack cocaine and heroin, where it is at the moment."

The Transform Drug Policy Foundation, a charity that says prohibition is the major cause of drug-related problems, said this latest review would only result in "little more than posturing on all sides".

A spokesman said: "Given that the government overruled the council on cannabis reclassification, the entire exercise is doomed before it has begun."

Life sentence

The penalties for possession and supply of a Class A drug are the most severe.

HAVE YOUR SAY

"Compared to drugs we allow to be sold over the counter, ecstasy is really quite safe, and it doesn't matter if you don't want that to be true."

Dr Reece Walker, London UK

Send us your comments
Possession carries a maximum sentence of up to seven years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.

Dealers face a maximum term of life imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.

Possession of Class B drugs carries a maximum prison sentence of five years, while dealing can attract a term of up to 14 years.

In 2006 a report by the Select Committee on Science and Technology recommended drugs should be rated purely on the basis of health and social risks and not legal punishments.

It said alcohol and tobacco should be included in the ratings system.

In May, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced plans to reclassify Cannabis as a Class B drug.

This was despite the council stating it should remain as Class C.
although i saw a news reprt earlier & the stupid female reporter said if it gets downgraded children and adolescents will start using more and mixing with other drugs, and she used the stat. that 90% of e users smoke weed, she aint got a clue!
 

Jacomelli

J4COM3LL1
VIP Junglist
Messages
1,609
Likes
3
#8
although i saw a news reprt earlier & the stupid female reporter said if it gets downgraded children and adolescents will start using more and mixing with other drugs, and she used the stat. that 90% of e users smoke weed, she aint got a clue!
LOL...word
 
Messages
384
Likes
0
#9
more than jus radio1 having a debate...



although i saw a news reprt earlier & the stupid female reporter said if it gets downgraded children and adolescents will start using more and mixing with other drugs, and she used the stat. that 90% of e users smoke weed, she aint got a clue!

I hate it when certain drugs, like cannabis, are classed as "lead-on" drugs. I used to smoke weed, but I've never touched heroin because I have the common sense to know it's not worth it. If someone takes heroin, it's usually because something's wrong in their life and they want that quick fix, or because the people around them have encouraged them to.

I think most people are aware of the risks with certain drugs and it's a choice they make early on based on their enviroment and lifestyle, not because they had a quick toot on a joint and thought "Fuck this, I'm moving on to meth".

As for ecstacy... Definitly shouldn't be a class A, but I doubt it'll ever get declassified.

Now Mushrooms... They should seriously think about declassifying them, you can't make something that grows out of the ground, naturally, illegal! And what's more... I'm fed up of Liberty Caps, need some variety! :rinsed:
 

Greg P

Active Member
VIP Junglist
Messages
2,173
Likes
1
#10
I hate it when certain drugs, like cannabis, are classed as "lead-on" drugs. I used to smoke weed, but I've never touched heroin because I have the common sense to know it's not worth it. If someone takes heroin, it's usually because something's wrong in their life and they want that quick fix, or because the people around them have encouraged them to.

I think most people are aware of the risks with certain drugs and it's a choice they make early on based on their enviroment and lifestyle, not because they had a quick toot on a joint and thought "Fuck this, I'm moving on to meth".

As for ecstacy... Definitly shouldn't be a class A, but I doubt it'll ever get declassified.

Now Mushrooms... They should seriously think about declassifying them, you can't make something that grows out of the ground, naturally, illegal! And what's more... I'm fed up of Liberty Caps, need some variety! :rinsed:
I agree with everything you say...

Although I'm not sure I buy the "If it grows out of the ground it shouldn't be illegal" reasoning... Coca leaves get you mashed if you eat them, raw opium grows right out the ground, well it seeps out of poppies if you cut the heads...

I dunno man, I just don't get that "if it grows out of the grounf then it's natural so shouldn't be illegal" thing. There's millions of poisinous things that grow out of the ground that will kill someone if they were fed to them. "No your honour, there was no poison, I merely fed him a plant out of the ground"

Sorry to nitpick but I can't see the difference between something being man made or refined, or occurring naturally, it's the effects and dangers that are important, not where it comes from...
 
Messages
191
Likes
0
#11
For what it's worth, here is my text, which didn't get read out:

"If ecstasy is a Class A drug on the basis that it can kill, perhaps alcohol and tobacco should be Class A drugs as well? If drugs were legalised, they could be controlled and users could be given guidance on how to take them safely - much like we currently do with alcohol and tobacco."

I find it ironic that most of the arguments against illegal drugs can also be applied to alcohol. Addictive, causes violence, can be lethal, affects mental health...
 
Messages
191
Likes
0
#12
I agree with everything you say...

Although I'm not sure I buy the "If it grows out of the ground it shouldn't be illegal" reasoning... Coca leaves get you mashed if you eat them, raw opium grows right out the ground, well it seeps out of poppies if you cut the heads...

I dunno man, I just don't get that "if it grows out of the grounf then it's natural so shouldn't be illegal" thing. There's millions of poisinous things that grow out of the ground that will kill someone if they were fed to them. "No your honour, there was no poison, I merely fed him a plant out of the ground"

Sorry to nitpick but I can't see the difference between something being man made or refined, or occurring naturally, it's the effects and dangers that are important, not where it comes from...
Completely agree with this. Ignoring the legal issue, a lot of people argue that natural substances cause less harm. Well, now, if I had a red and white mushroom in one hand and a paracetamol tablet in the other, which would you eat?

Conversely, however, I do believe that some drugs (weed, 'shrooms, cacti, etc.) are there for us to discover and take for recreational or spiritual purposes. But to base your argument entirely on how natural a substance is, I think is foolish.

[The most recent example would be a friend of mine, who smokes a lot of weed, recently told me he doesn't take MDMA anymore because it's a "dirty manmade drug". Well, I smoke weed and I take MDMA. I know which feels cleaner, and it certainly ain't the weed.]
 
Last edited:

Greg P

Active Member
VIP Junglist
Messages
2,173
Likes
1
#13
Completely agree with this. Ignoring the legal issue, a lot of people argue that natural substances cause less harm. Well, now, if I had a bottle of snake venom in one hand and a paracetamol in the other, which would you consume?

Conversely, however, I do believe that some drugs (weed, 'shrooms, cacti, etc.) are there for us to discover and take for recreational or spiritual purposes. But to base your argument entirely on how natural a substance is, I think is foolish.
Exactly, you get what I mean...

Y'know I heard an interesting thing, that if alcohol were to have been discovered yesterday it would almost certainly be immediately classified as an illegal drug... Weird to think huh?
 
Messages
191
Likes
0
#14
Exactly, you get what I mean...

Y'know I heard an interesting thing, that if alcohol were to have been discovered yesterday it would almost certainly be immediately classified as an illegal drug... Weird to think huh?
Weird to begin with, but makes total sense when you realise that the only thing that's fucked is the drugs classification system. It's based on culture and media perception more than it is on potential harm.

Alcohol causes thousands of deaths every year. It's very addictive, it causes people to skip work, to work less efficiently when they do turn up. It causes violence and irrational behaviour, yet it's legal. Why? Because we've been drinking it for thousands of years.

Ecstasy causes 50 deaths per year. Or is that stupid teenagers dehydrating or overhydrating because they don't know what they are doing? Or people with a history of heart problems taking the drug? Plenty of prescription drugs shouldn't be taken if you have a history of heart problems. Misinformation and 'cut' pills, I'd wager, cover at least 50% of those deaths, probably more like 90%. A tiny percent will be people reacting badly to ecstasy itself. It's not dangerous.
 
Last edited:

Barnzee

OmniaInNumerisSitaSunt
VIP Junglist
Messages
1,076
Likes
0
#15
Exactly, you get what I mean...

Y'know I heard an interesting thing, that if alcohol were to have been discovered yesterday it would almost certainly be immediately classified as an illegal drug... Weird to think huh?
makes sense... but I Think the key with most drug use is moderation; Too much of anything is bad for your system, whether its caffeine or cocaine. In moderation, even cocaine- though it is still harmful, is not going to kill you. However, for example, even drinking too much energy drink can mess you up. Drugs like crack and heroin are highly addictive, and thus the element of moderation is taken away- They deserve high rankings because once you are hooked, you cant stay away. E-pills, if done in moderation are something that heighten your entertainment and are relatively safe. Saying that, i know dudes that munch pills everyday. I guess it depends on an individuals nature, and thus i guess it shoud be an individuals choice as to wether they explore certain drugs-- you take the drugs, you deal with the consequences.
 

SLow

Quadrospazzed life-glug
VIP Junglist
Messages
3,573
Likes
30
#16
Keep it class A - if only to maintain the integrity of the classification system - if it was class B, being on the same level as bud, I think a lot more people would do it.

The only people who would benefit from declassification are dealers, at the moment if you're caught with just a few pills its likely the officer will just let you off at his discretion as if it was a 10 bag of weed.
 
Messages
384
Likes
0
#18
Completely agree with this. Ignoring the legal issue, a lot of people argue that natural substances cause less harm. Well, now, if I had a red and white mushroom in one hand and a paracetamol tablet in the other, which would you eat?

Conversely, however, I do believe that some drugs (weed, 'shrooms, cacti, etc.) are there for us to discover and take for recreational or spiritual purposes. But to base your argument entirely on how natural a substance is, I think is foolish.

[The most recent example would be a friend of mine, who smokes a lot of weed, recently told me he doesn't take MDMA anymore because it's a "dirty manmade drug". Well, I smoke weed and I take MDMA. I know which feels cleaner, and it certainly ain't the weed.]
Yeah, but weed nowadays isn't clean because it's been treated, thus technically making it manmade, same with Coca leaves and opium, these natural highs are cut with so much manmade shit that they become extremely harmful... In their natural states they don't do as much harm and personally I feel they shouldn't be illegal... The main reason I don't smoke weed nowadays is because every man and his dog is competing in whatever way they can to make the strongest skunk they and I've personally had mental problems from smoking that shite...

At the end of the day, I'm saying you should treat these plants with respect, but making them illegal because they produce ceratin effects just seems wrong. Poisonous plants aren't illegal, even though they can kill you, and hell, Datura's legal as far as I know, it even grows in our local park. :confused:
 

logikz

I Am Not The King
Tribal Leader
VIP Junglist
Messages
11,117
Likes
2,982
#19
slow, let me promise you this, when the pills come into a ravers hand at the party, it matters not ONE JOT wether its class a or b or yellow or green or second or third
 
Top