The war on drugs killed my daughter

[williamj2543]

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.

[Marlo Stanfield]

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.

[zolace]

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.

[williamj2543]

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...

[cryptodevil]

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.

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.

[vokain]

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...

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

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

[noviapriani]

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.

[Benjig]

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.

[commandrix]

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.

[williamj2543]

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...

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

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

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

[umair127]

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?

[Kprawn]

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. 

[vokain]

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

[Benjig]

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.

[pepto]

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.  

[Beans]

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. 

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.

[Ron~Popeil]

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."

[IamCANADIAN013]

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

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

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.

[cryptodevil]

I used to do cocaine from time to time, I knew the risk I was taking.  

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.

Now they are apparently cutting it with fentanyl.  No more cocaine for me, not worth the risk.

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.

I don't see how the war on drugs is to blame on this one.

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.

[vokain]

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.

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.