A legal "high" drug called Methedrone (or meow, as its abbreviated name is MMCAT, due to the chemicals it is made from) distilled from the khat plant in Somalia (the militia men there like to get high on khat) and similar to the illegal ecstasy drug has hit the news recently. Like most people unfamiliar with the more devoted club scenes, I'd never really heard about the stuff until this week when the substance has been implicated (but has not been proved to have caused) in the deaths of two young men, Nick Smith and Lewis Wainwright after a night out in Scunthorpe on Sunday. They along with friends had been on a cocktail of booze, meow and methadone, when they died the following day. This, and along with some other (unconfirmed) reports of meow being involved in deaths of this nature have meant that the government has asked the Misuse of Drugs advisory council to look into the risks this stuff poses in order to consider banning it in the UK. This move has been welcomed by head teachers, some opposition politicians and some of the relatives of those who died. Others like David Nutt have suggested alternatives to this such as putting restrictions on it's sale, and waiting for a more in depth analysis of the risks it poses. It could even be risky to immediately ban its use, as potentially more dangerous new drugs may supplant the now illegal drug. The Sun however decided that weighing up the pros and cons of banning methedrone in a rational and empirical way was a waste of time and demanded action now on the "killer meow" by banning it immediately. They have strung together a series of anecdotal "proofs" that the stuff is extremely dangerous, from post hoc testimonials from the grieving relatives (post hoc means, in the opinion that A (meow) happened before B (the deaths). Therefore A caused B.) The chemical similarities between ecstasy has been mentioned, despite the fact that that really counts for little. Methanol and ethanol, water and hydrogen peroxide, sulphurous and sulphuric acid are similar respectively, but totally different in toxicity and other properties, change one molecule, change a lot. Meow has been called the drug equivalent of putting a loaded gun to the head, without any statistical justification to back that claim up. The Sun has conveniently "forgot" that the reason the review on this stuff has been delayed is because the researcher hire to do this resigned after Professer Nutt was fired (you know the guy the Sun wanted sacked.) It becomes enormously difficult when grieving family members start to throw their weight (I absolutely understand them feeling that way. It's automatic to try and make the senseless death of a loved one have meaning by trying to prevent others from the same fate.) behind the campaign to immediately ban something like this. We remember when the dangers of ecstasy was statistically shown to be less than horse riding and aspirin, that the emotive straw man "tell that to the victims [of E] families." was thrown at the people who pointed this out. I can understand people feeling that way, but I don't think that the subjective risks of a substance should determine an immediate ban.
Now I don't recommend taking this stuff (like anything like this, the user has to analyse the risks by the benefits, with the correct information.). And it would be silly and premature to say it is totally safe. (at least 3 deaths are partially responsible with it being used, according to post mortems.) These testimonials from clubbers highlight that although it has similar sensations to uppers like E's, and isn't contaminated by being cut with other things. the comedowns can be fairly unpleasant and more harsh than it's illegal cousin (and the temptation to redose when on it is fairly high.). Mixing drugs and alcohol, and dosing when worse for wear has extra harm effects added. Abusing or misusing any kind of substance, alcohol or cocaine is a terrible thing to happen to anyone, and it's wise to be aware of this before you dive in. But taking these aside I still don't think prohibiting Mephedrone, or indeed prohibition per se is the solution to this sort of thing. Firstly it doesn't effectively stop what it sets out to do. Despite the families claiming that if the drug was illegal it would not be taken doesn't stop illegal ecstasy being distributed. Perhaps the very fact that something being forbidden is the key to it's appeal and excitement. Secondly prohibition stops quality control (like pushers are going to bother). In a bid to save resources, artificially inflate quantity, or a half brained attempt to up potency, illegal drugs will be "cut" with other stuff like chalk, cleaning powders, and even rat poison, there is no guarantee what you see is what you think you are getting. If this stuff is legitimately produced then cutting it becomes more risky on the producers behalf. The drugs trade is a risky and unpleasant cycle. The dealers can often resort to extortion and violence to keep their trade, and punters are at risk from being ripped off and put in harms way, not to mention risking a criminal record for what they are doing. One of the things that appeals to users of mephedrone, from the testimonials is that it bypasses the hassle of obtaining illegal stuff and it isn't contaminated. It may even be lowering demand for ecstasy, by pushing it out of the market. Lastly, although far from being risk free, these things stand a greater chance of undergoing damage limitation if they are legal. There has been great success in initiatives to lower the numbers of people who smoke, and everyone knows the genuine risks from smoking. With illegal substance these risks are not clear, and are often misunderstood. Things that shouldn't be taken together are taken, because the guidelines are not easy to obtain. Substance abuse is a bad thing for society (recreational drug use is something different, which is not always pointed out.) and there is never going to be a magic wand to make it go away any time soon. But damage limitation is a start, prohibition just seems to create more problems than it sets out to start. Sadly this kind of story puts the emotional cases, and appeals over reason to respond knee jerkingly to a drug the experts freely claim, do not even know much about. Not good.
PS. One of the most eye opening essays I ever saw on this is on Nick Davies brilliant Flat Earth News website. Now I don't know how his thesis shores up scientifically, but I was astounded what I read in THIS article on drug use and prohibition.
No comments:
Post a Comment