Bitcoin Forum

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/6/20/1403303291934/Martha-Fernback-inquest-011.jpg

The war on drugs killed my daughter

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/22/mother-fights-against-war-on-drugs-anne-marie-cockburn-martha-fernback (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/22/mother-fights-against-war-on-drugs-anne-marie-cockburn-martha-fernback)

<< Martha Fernback, 15. died from taking 91% pure ecstasy. Anne-Marie Cockburn is campaigning for drug legalisation to spare others her ordeal. >>

The War on Drugs (and not just in the US, although that is the worst-case example) is a giant joke of the dying beliefs of a conservative society. It is going to end soon, but the thing that upsets me the most is that nobody will go to jail - particularly the private prison industry that makes millions if not billions off this joke of a policy. Just like Chenney, the biggest criminal in the US government is still living lavishly after his role in Iraq.

So the drug wasn't pure enough at 91%?...

Next article:

Brother of terrorist blames the death of his brother ( killed while blowing himself up in front of the us embassy) on the "war on terror".

Article didn't really explain, but I think that the purity was high enough that she overdosed. I think the mom feels that if the drug had been legalized, then dosage would be more consistant and her daughter wouldn't have overdosed. I am not into drugs, but if I was, then I would certainly feel safer using a recreational drug that was legally packaged and distributed by a name brand pharmaceutical company.

This is true, but it might also be possible to engineer a test kit which users could buy to test the potency of various drugs.

No doubt they would not buy it, just saying there are other ways...

So. You. Would. Trust. Big Pharma. With your illegal. Drug? Funny, I thought drug dealers were famous for cutting their merchandise with baking powder or something similar. At 91% she got a great deal. Big pharma, more like 2% and 98% sugary stuff... Just my guess.

Sad story none the less. But mom, you can't blame your lack of good parenting on the drug on war if you could not even tell your own daughter was a dope.

There is no such thing as 91% pure MDMA.  MDMA can only be synthesized to a maximum of 84%.

Our forum idiot would disagree with you.  He believes everything does exist, including 91% pure MDMA.

Not on this planet.  Go ahead and prove me wrong, that would be awesome.

This...  our gen is getting into power... the ...I can not form enough words of hate.. that has ruled our countries for years... many many years did not have control of the INFO on the web.. we learned what is really going on..  Soon there will be freedom for the people.

All of these "wars on" are a BS to get certian people money or power. 

We will not forget.
We will not forgive.
We know what you did.

The deeper reason for such tragedies is this: all parents make the assumption that their own children will not die of a drug overdose, that their own children will not be raped, and that their own children -when they are adults- will not have to get by on zero-hours contracts. In other words, parents universally look at the world through rose-tinted glasses, hence collectively too little is done to reduce drug deaths, rape, and zero-hours contracts. Instead of tending to the real problems at their doorsteps, parents are distracted into supporting destructive foreign policies: wars against foreign countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya), free-trade agreements that transfer power to multinational corporates and unelected commissions.

Same as the Leah betts issue so many years ago this is just a parent avoiding the issue that their kid made a bad choice and it cost them their life! Sad as it is pointing fingers and claiming the government was responsible for her daughters purchase and use of illegal narcotics is like blaming the government if your kid decides to drive at 120 mph and hits a tree, makes no sense it's just a bad decision! At least she has the profits from her book though.......

I didn't know kids were perfect little robots you could control 100%.

my guess is that pure mdma automatically destabilizes and equilibrates down to 84%. either way, mdma belongs to the set of drugs people take for fun that are actually neurotoxic

This is not the same as the Leah Betts case, as she died from water intoxication because she had heard that people had been collapsing on MDMA because they were not drinking enough water. So she drank too much in an effort to do the right thing.

Please note, by the way, the article discusses the purity of the 'Ecstasy' she took, not MDMA. 'Ecstasy' is the street name for a pill which may contain any amount of MDMA, or none at all, along with any other number of substances as filler or 'cut'.

Both of the above girls died of ignorance, not bad choices. They were misinformed and had limited exposure to drug education, as opposed to indoctrination. Particularly the common-use illicit-drug language that implies safety through consensus (everybody does it so it's ok), as in double-dropping, triple-dropping, namely, taking two or three tablets of 'Ecstasy' at a time.

The failed, trillion-dollar, 'War on Drugs' also includes a war on objective information about drugs. Remember kids, just say 'No', because that's all you need to know. Apparently.

EDIT:Citation please.

first bit I do not know, I said I guessed

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mdma+excitotoxicity&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C15
it does not help that mdma bought on the street more often than not is not primarily mdma

fun story: http://www.kissmyangeles.com/view/story/finding_molly

If you google it it can really have max purity of 84%  ::)

I think Vod is saying what our local forum idiot would say, not him.

Honestly I think this "war on drugs" is complete bullshit. I don't give a crap about gangsters in detroit taking drugs and ruining their lives, that's their problem and their choice. I don't care about some college kids smoking some marijuana. The fact that we spend billions on this war on drugs, and jailing these people is outrageous. Its your own choice to be taking these drugs.

I feel for the mother in this case. And I definitely think the war on drugs is a not only a joke, but a travesty. But this doesn't seem to support her point very much. She says her daughter meticulously researched and purchased 91% pure MDMA. She made a conscious decision to take the drug even after researching(and failing miserably at it I might add). Legalization would not have prevented this. If anything it's an argument for the other side of the debate.

I really don't understand how her daughter could have researched MDMA and thought it would be a good idea to take 500 mg(!!!) at ONCE. Spread out over a long period of time would be different(but still a lot, but very, very likely to be completely safe). But to take that amount at once is insane, and I don't understand how she could have researched it and come to the conclusion that it was safe.

The legalization of heroin would be a massive step forward in dealing with both public health problems and crime.The chances of that happening in the lifetime of anyone posting here are unfortunately minimal.

Not sure if sarcastic...

The 'standard' recreational dose for MDMA is <>120mg so I would be wanting to know where she 'researched' it that gave her the idea 500mg was ok.


With regards to the neurotoxicity citation links, can you provide any that don't cite Ricaurte? Most of his research has since been discredited but that didn't stop him being used as an expert government spokesperson and advisor for why MDMA should be banned thirty years ago, as well as being the go-to citation for subsequent 'MDMA is neurotoxic, therefore . . .' fallacious reasoning in research papers since then.

Drug use should be a health issue, not a criminal one.  Criminal behaviours are criminal whether high or sober and should be dealt with as such. Non-criminal behaviour, namely, the self-administration of psychoactive substances should only be dealt with through social support systems, where necessary, not incarceration and punishment.

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/themes/harm-reduction/consumption-rooms

 I still don't personally approve but to each their own

The solution she is proposing is nonsensical. Her daughter would have bought drugs illegally from a dealer anyway as she would be under the legal age to buy regulated drugs just as she would be under the age to legally buy alcohol.

The so-called "war on drugs" is long lost. Our prisons are full with people who resort to crime in order to feed their habits - as well as dealers and drug mules who serve as the foot soldiers for what is a truly global business. The average cost of each prison place to the taxpayer is around £40,000 per prisoner per year.

You would have better luck giving up on the "war on drugs" and treating it as a health issue rather than a criminal issue. What doesn't make much sense to me is that marijuana is illegal but, if you want a pack of cigarettes, you just have to be at least 18 or be friends with somebody who is. Just as many people ruin their lives through alcoholism as through illegal drugs if not more people, and America had proved to my satisfaction that prohibition doesn't work. It just led to the widespread production of bootlegged moonshine. If you take the money out of the equation by making drugs legal, the illegal activity and the sheer number of people in jail associated with it will probably dry up.

I've heard about this approach. I've heard of companies providing clean save needles and bongs, and providing a place to safely use drugs

If drugs were legalized, I doubt very much that 15 year old would be able to get them legally. Those regarded as adults, eg 18 plus, might be able to obtain them, but in limited quantities. People would still resort to illegal methods. There would still be a huge criminal drug industry. There would still be quality control issues. But I expect legalization would increase greatly the amount of drug use. Would that be progress?

Ok, so you legalize, control % of purity, and they still take too much, because they can pay less, for a product, that are less pure, and they overdose, because they took too much in quantity {Who counts, when you stoned out of your head?}

People overdose on prescription drugs every day, they simply take more, than what was prescribed. {And they buy it on the black market, not from a pharmacy}

Or they mix it with other substances, that make it lethal, like alcohol.

No way to stop it, but to ban it, and stop people from killing themselves. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

I wish journalists would write that Leah Betts died after drinking 12 pints of water in 90 minutes, instead of after taking ecstasy. It would be a much more accurate reflection of what actually happened.

The 'purity' of MDMA is expressed as 84 or 86 or whatever percent simply because  MDMA is a pH basic, liquid, and acrid substance that has to be neutralized and crystallized in order to be distributable and palatable. They turn it into a salt with an acid, probably sulfuric. Adderall is made the same way so there's nothing weird going on here. 84/86% pure is really 100% pure, minus the amount of acid needed to turn it into a salt. It's the 84% claim that I would be skeptical of. Chemical reactions such as making MDMA  never result in pure product. Further, it is likely 'cut' from the get go with plain amphetamine precursors or far worse with cheap substituted ones like flouro benzaldehyde that yeilds fenfluramine  (remember fen-fen? this was the first fen in fen-fen and was shown (far too late) to cause potentially fatal pulmonary hypertension and heart valve problems (from wiki).  These mixtures can be separated and decent MDMA obtained. Street/rave  drugs on the other hand count on these contaminates to help *uc* you up and save on expensive purification steps. It's not like they know you or care how you fare.  >:(

The idea is that you would at least know what your taking. If you kill yourself at that point it's your own fault. I don't know why some people think it's any of their business to tell others, what risks they can take. Almost all crime stems from this problem. Heroin addicts have to get it, there not interested in being criminals. They end up broke paying ridiculous prices.

Taking anything at 91% is probably not a good idea. The highest legal percentage of alcohol in many states is 151 rum which is around 75%. That stuff will mess a person up. This is a tragedy but not really related to the "war on drugs." I am a libertarian so I am not a fan of the "war on drugs."

So the war on drugs is to blame how? Newsflash, drugs are dangerous and can kill you.  That's the risk you take, that's why they are illegal in the first place.  I used to do cocaine from time to time, I knew the risk I was taking.  Now they are apparently cutting it with fentanyl.  No more cocaine for me, not worth the risk.

Even if legalized and regulated, there is no way to know how it would affect her.

I don't see how the war on drugs is to blame on this one.  Sounds like the same type of people that blame McDonald's for making them fat.

No you didn't. You probably 'knew' the basic assumptions that most people tended to know as a result of hearsay and anecdote, but did you know at the time that consuming cocaine and alcohol creates the cardiotoxic substance cocaethylene in-vivo? Cocaine is rarely consumed without alcohol, but most people assume the risk is in the cocaine, when it is far more harmful when used in conjunction with alcohol.

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on this claim. That's like the absurd claim that marijuana is sprinkled with [insert far more expensive drug here] in order to increase it's weight and potency.

There are those that will take cocaine with an opiate, commonly known as a speedball, which can lead to the longer-lasting effects of the opiate, at a dose that was previously tolerable while the short-acting cocaine was stimulating the central nervous system, becoming one that is fatal. But no dealer would ever simply cut cocaine with a powerful and expensive opiate drug.

Because it is just as equally a war on knowledge and information about drugs. Objective, unbiased and educational information, not ignorant indoctrination.

You demonise drugs equally, telling children the usual misinformation and lies, you end up with them trying something relatively benign (not entirely harmless but, certainly, proven to be less harmful than alcohol or tobacco), such as marijuana and, when their world doesn't fall apart and they have a giggly time being stoned, they believe they are being lied to about all drugs.

So how do you expect them to then listen to valid warnings about opiate or stimulant drugs if they know they have already been lied to about cannabis?

The girl in this tragic case died, not because she intentionally wanted to take a dangerously high amount of MDMA, but because she couldn't easily gain access to an information resource that would have informed her doses in excess of 120mg were too large and why.

Young people aren't generally stupid and they tend not to want to actually do things which might kill them, so if you let them be educated about the neurochemistry and physiological aspects of drug use, they will be able to see the realities of the situation and judge it for the facts, not the useless scaremongering.

I'm of the opinion that most synthetic/unnatural drugs end up destabilizing the equilibrium under which neural feedback pathways work. Because Ricaurte's studies were so high-profile and foundational, it is only natural that subsequent papers on MDMA tend to cite them. Psychology papers advocating their therapeutic use probably won't cite Ricaurte. I do not care to challenge your devil's advocation of others biases as prudent as it may be because I've many a friend that are in this scene so I've observed quite a bit first-hand, as well as being a student of neuroscience with my own predilections from my own learning.

MDMA is no good and due to the settings and culture it's typically abused in, especially harmful. In the same way to me that amphetamines are no good, but to a much greater extent.

i'm sorry for your loss, or whoevers daughter that was, but why was a 15 year old taking drugs in the first place?

Woah, woah, woah. You are barking up the wrong tree here my friend. There is no such thing as "unnatural". That's a complete fallacy. You're claiming that two chemicals that are identical, one derived from an organism, and the other synthesised in a lab, yet functionally equivalent, will have different effects when consumed in identical situations?

I agree, I think the mother is placing the blame on the wrong person. The article says that her daughter was researching the drug online prior to buying, so she should have been well informed that the more pure the drug was the stronger and more dangerous it is.

If we stopped the war on drugs then many more people would die from overdosing and even more people's lives would be ruined by drugs

LOL! Yeah I know all about how mixing cocaine and alcohol creates a third chemical.  I've read up a lot about cocaine over the years. So yeah, I knew the risks.

As for calling bullshit on the cocaine and fentanyl, there was a recent spike of cocaine overdoses in a city close to where I live.  They apparently tested it, and they found that it was mixed with fentanyl. Same with heroin, spike in overdoses and found it was mixed with fentanyl.

You bring up speedballs like I'm some kind of clueless idiot about drugs.  I lost a friend some years ago from overdosing on a speedball combo.  I live near the city of Vancouver, which has the poorest postal code in Canada.  Drug use is rampant.  Was at The Queen concert last night.  Got to watch a guy shoot up in his neck down a back alley, good times.  Been down around there on and off for 18 years.  My sister was a heroin addict and lived on those streets for years. Seen and learned a lot down there over the years.

Yes, young people generally are stupid.  This had nothing to do with not having access to information.  Basic rule of thumb.  You risk taking harder drugs, there is a chance it can kill you.

Yep, and in reality, the problem would sort itself out.  Darwin would win many rounds.  I don't have much sympathy for people who become addicts.  I've seen first hand how it can ruin lives and the lives of the people around them.

People want them legalized, fine.  But if thats what they want, then I don't want my tax dollars to fund their medical care or their social assistance checks.  i also want the firearms laws changed so I can take out a drugged out idiot on my property if they're trying to break into a vehicle, out build, and/or my house.

Down in Vancouver they have a safe injection site, needle exchange, crack pipe vending machine, etc. It's become a drug haven for addicts.  They claimed it would create less drug addicts. Quick walk down a few streets in the Down town east side proves the opposite.

No; what's more likely to happen is that businesses would begin to sell these drugs in manageable doses (i.e. not at 91% purity, but something marketed as the perfect dose for an enjoyable night for example) whilst street dealers lose their jobs, assuming the government doesn't put some stupid restriction on who can buy what such as a license.  Or perhaps something else would happen; I can't predict the future.  What we do know is that the War on Drugs is not actually stopping anyone from taking drugs, or taking them inappropriately; at best it can scare people into not doing them, which has not proven effective, and at worst it limits a person's knowledge of how to actually take a drug thus leading to more overdosing, not less (which was the argument presented by the mother in this article), due to what is known as the chilling effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect) (e.g., nobody wants to talk about it because they're afraid they'll become noticed by an unfavorable party, such as the DEAs.)

The fallacy you've committed is known as a false dilemma, where you present a limited amount of choices--either imprison a huge chunk of the population in the name of protecting our children, or letting people overdose because everyone is, by and large, too incompetent to take a drug properly--as the only two possible options that we must decide between, when there is in fact more options; you can read more about it here: False dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

Not exactly. I'm claiming that synthetic molecules that would not exist from organically (perhaps co-)evolved processes (i.e. not in a lab from fallible humans playing God) tend to not be meant for our bodies which evolved in for the most part untampered nature for the majority of our timeline. As an example, synthetic Vitamin C (D-ascorbate) is not the full Vitamin C complex (L configuration of ascorbate):
"Ascorbate may also act as an antioxidant against oxidative stress. However, the fact that the enantiomer D-ascorbate (not found in nature) has identical antioxidant activity to L-ascorbate, yet far less vitamin activity,[3] underscores the fact that most of the function of L-ascorbate as a vitamin relies not on its antioxidant properties, but upon enzymic reactions that are stereospecific.

[3]Aboul-Enein HY, Al-Duraibi IA, Stefan RI, Radoi C, Avramescu A (1999). "Analysis of L- and D-ascorbic acid in fruits and fruit drinks by HPLC". Seminars in Food Analysis 4 (1): 31–37.

So, my supposition is that things like MDMA and amphetamines are typically bad for you because 1) the chemical reaction from breaking these molecules down is not something our bodies evolved to break down and 2) the bioactivity from these reactions taking place in our bodies disturb the sensitive equilibrium they were meant to operate at.

What destabilization of neural pathway equilibrium do you mean specifically? Neuroreceptors?

Also, every single drug, prescription or not has been synthesized in a lab.

Take an Organic Chemistry course and learn about the ways molecules interact

Don't condescend me please. If you any sense of reading comprehension, I refer to molecules that are only synthesized in labs and not synthesized in nature. The example I used, D-ascorbate, is not synthesized in nature. I understand that we can mimic natural chemical processes to synthesize the L- enantiomer configuration of Vitamin C and other naturally synthesized chemicals, but we don't always do this.

And yes, neuroreceptors, but that refers to drugs' mechanism of action upon receptors. I was talking about the byproducts of breaking down synthetic unnatural drugs and the chemical effects from said reactions and the oxidative stress they can induce. I understand that metabolism of natural foods cause oxidative stress too, but the interactions of molecules the body didn't evolve to interact with under optimal living conditions are arguably harder on the body, as resilient as the body is.

Destabilization of neural pathways can be inherent in any addictive drug, synthetic or not. For those not familiar, uppers like caffeine, MDMA, cocaine, and amphetamines increase the release of the amine transmitters of serotonin and dopamine (and norepinephrine, but that is not so much a learning neurotransmitter). Our brains have an equilibrium that uses these neurotransmitters for signaling pathways. When uppers are introduced to a delicate equilibriated system, the novel experience, the resulting flood of serotonin and dopamine, disturbs the brain's learned sense of baseline. Afterwards, under normal conditions (without the drug), the brain would never release the same amount of neurotransmitters without these agonists acting upon the receptors to heavily induce signal cascades of said neurotransmitters.  As such, people feel different, or "off" in some sort, after the comedown of drugs . That's why you see people grow to believe they cannot function as well without caffeine or amphetamines (in addition to the reward learning mechanism that comes from dopamine release). That's why people that go to bad concerts chase that good roll but never are able to again without taking higher doses (excitotoxicity, over excitation of receptors and their subsequent destruction also plays a, probably compounding, role). That's why people don't enjoy parties as much without cocaine if they've had a blast doing cocaine before. I've seen it all before, I'm in a frat. It is reversible.

it's the same thing with opiate abuse. Our body has a learned sense of equilibrium of pain. We sit here and we're healthy and nothing is causing us pain, it is because opiate system is in equilibrium. When you flood your opiate receptors with heroin, your brain feels a rush of pleasure and your learned baseline ticks up a bit towards a higher level of opiates for what it considers should be normal. When the opiate leaves the system, since the baseline is adjusted, people feel a bit off because their bodies do not naturally release as many opioid neurotransmitters as compared to when induced by an opiate. If a cycle of abuse is established, the baseline ticks up higher and higher. In the event an addict cannot get more, the pain baseline is so high that without an external agent inducing more opiate release, the normal trickle of opioid neurotransmitters from the brain will not enough for normalcy and addicts actually start feeling pain. Again, reversible, but not easy.

Anyway, what I was trying to say with synthetic psychoactive drugs is that they attempt to specifically target these receptors and as such destabilize the equilibrium and in addition to their possibly unnatural synthesis, the resulting decomposition might have adverse effects on the body as well, perhaps moreso than naturally synthesized analogs.

You add a lot of fluff by defining terms. Thanks captain wikipedia.

The point is there is no source or proof for what you're proposing. It's just your opinion.

I think there's a George Carlin quote for this

Oh ok. I misunderstood what you were getting at. I see what you're trying to say but it's just one of those things that people can only speculate on for now. Personally, I think our bodies have evolved to be quite adept at breaking down a wide variety of molecules. But it's not something we're going to really know the answer to for a long time. It's going to take a lot science to begin to answer those type of questions.

It is the Golden Age of Neuroscience. The field is learning new things every day.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15228154
Human pharmacology of MDMA: pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and disposition.

MDMA metabolism is rather complex and includes 2 main metabolic pathways: (1) O-demethylenation followed by catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT)-catalyzed methylation and/or glucuronide/sulfate conjugation; and (2) N-dealkylation, deamination, and oxidation to the corresponding benzoic acid derivatives conjugated with glycine. The fact that the polymorphic enzyme CYP2D6 partially regulates the O-demethylenation pathway prompted some expectations that subjects displaying the poor metabolizer phenotype may be at higher risk of acute toxicity episodes. In this metabolic pathway a mechanism-based inhibition of the enzyme operates because the formation of an enzyme-metabolite complex that renders all subjects, independently of genotype, phenotypically poor metabolizers after the administration of 2 consecutive doses. Therefore, the impact of CYP2D6 pharmacogenetics on acute toxicity is limited. One of the interesting features of MDMA metabolism is its potential involvement in the development of mid- to long-term neurotoxic effects as a result of progressive neurodegeneration of the serotonergic neurotransmission system.