Psychoactive bill will become (psycho) active from monday

Pace2008

Hammered hippie wrote: »

@ so called moderator
300.000 people used to visit head shops in ireland on a daily basis.
That's more people than there are on the world that can actually stand joe duffy or that wan't head shops gone.

You'll seriously have to back that up; I simply don't believe it.

I doubt you'd get that number visiting off-licences on a daily basis.

Hammered hippie

@Minister

Quote: 'You've obviously taken so many illegal highs that you now believe that Dublin is now in the West Side Story universe'

That is your view of me.

I do enjoy a glass of wine now and then
I don't take legal or illegal highs, so stop assuming my sense of judgement is faulted because of taking drugs.

Oh yeah..I just got a relax tea from the health store..also a legal high that is obviously ok for them to sell as this new law only applies to shops with an alternative/head shop signature to it, which basically makes this law a form of institutionalised discrimination. But who cares.

The_Minister

Can you give a cite for the 300,000 users a day?

Because, assuming that not all users are daily or even weekly, that means that either a huge number of people were either addicted to these drugs so badly that they needed daily hits, or that there were over a million people using, in which case the ban could easily have been averted via political means.

Wompa1

What I don' get is, is the argument being made that Head shops should be re-legalized knowing that their substances are dangerous because people are buying illegal drugs which are possibly more dangerous?...

Yet both sets of drugs are illegal anyway and by right should not be bough by law...I don't think the goverment can take the blame for people being addicts

The_Minister

Hammered hippie wrote: »

@minister

I like to call upon other moderators to moderate you.
He is personally attacking me and accusing me of all sorts, just because of my user name.:mad:

There is a trianglular button on the left side of every post.
Pressing it allows you to file a complaint about the post, so that a mod can action it.
Please keep the complaint short and to the point.

For the record, I am only a moderator on the forums that I moderate.
On this forum, I am only an ordinary user, the same as you.

Hammered hippie

Sorry...I ment 300.000 on a weekly basis.

It is just to show how many head shop users there were

The sum is simple
900 people went to the Nirvana per hour in dublin according to an count done by a journalist
That could be 24*900 =21600 per day potentially.
But that would be a bit too many as the 900 was during rush hour.
Lets moderate it a bit.
Say 10.000 daily for the big one in dublin
There were a 110 shops in Ireland.
Lets be very moderate and give every shop an average of 400 unique customers per day. (some shops will have had thousands, others only dozens..but 400 would be a good number on average)
110*400 = 4400 visitors per day nationwide
44000*7= 308000 per week.

Et voila
Also makes a lot of sense if you look how much head shop stuff was seized by the guards in May

All these people are back to the dealers now
Cheers!

Wompa1

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Sorry...I ment 300.000 on a weekly basis.

It is just to show how many head shop users there were

The sum is simple
900 people went to the Nirvana per hour in dublin according to an count done by a journalist
That could be 24*900 =21600 per day potentially.
But that would be a bit too many as the 900 was during rush hour.
Lets moderate it a bit.
Say 10.000 daily for the big one in dublin
There were a 110 shops in Ireland.
Lets be very moderate and give every shop an average of 400 unique customers per day. (some shops will have had thousands, others only dozens..but 400 would be a good number on average)
110*400 = 4400 visitors per day nationwide
44000*7= 308000 per week.

Et voila
Also makes a lot of sense if you look how much head shop stuff was seized by the guards in May

All these people are back to the dealers now
Cheers!

So what should be done? The government analyze the headshop stuff, take out the bad crap and sell it themselves to optimize profits? But is that bad stuff that gives it its kick?...if it is found to be as bad as expected is it morally sound for them to prohibit the sale of it?

seensensee

308.000 X €60 (average weekly spend) = €18,480,000 or 1 billion gross per year.... dealers are drinking champagne courtesy of dermo.

Pace2008

Hammered hippie wrote: »

Sorry...I ment 300.000 on a weekly basis.

It is just to show how many head shop users there were

The sum is simple
900 people went to the Nirvana per hour in dublin according to an count done by a journalist

900 per hour would mean they were serving 15 people every minute.

In that particular Nirvana branch they only served from a small hatch at night, and there was only one shop assistant serving at any one time. If I recall correctly there were somewhere in the region of 900 customers per night - still a lot of custom, but nowhere near what you're claiming.

Herbal Deity

I'm very pro drug myself, but I can not and will not defend head shops.

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone could think that the head shop situation was ideal.

There was no regulation. Those running the shops had no idea about what they were selling. As much as they stressed that they did in the media, they never really imposed restrictions on minors.

Yes it was knee-jerk-reactionism to ban them outright and a hell of a lot of lies and exaggeration were floating around at the time of their investigation, but they just couldn't remain open in their previous incarnation.

Now, what should have happened was an overall review of our drugs policy. A model for a regulated recreational drug industry should have been investigated. The head shop episode was an opportunity for discourse and a fresh, rational look at drug use and harm reduction.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Instead, the line of thought was, "lets ban everything psychoactive ever", and we got a bill which has attempted to do just that.

Pace2008

Wompa1 wrote: »

So what should be done? The government analyze the headshop stuff, take out the bad crap and sell it themselves to optimize profits? But is that bad stuff that gives it its kick?

It's the unlisted active ingredients - cathinones like mephedrone in the case of the stimulant powders, synthetic cannabinoids like JWH-018 in the case of the smoking blends - that are the potential "bad" stuff.

The cathinones were cut with bulking powder, the cannabinoids sprayed onto inactive plant material. Probably relatively harmless in both cases.

Wompa1

Pace2008 wrote: »

It's the unlisted active ingredients - cathinones like mephedrone in the case of the stimulant powders, synthetic cannabinoids like JWH-018 in the case of the smoking blends - that are the potential "bad" stuff.

The cathinones were cut with bulking powder, the cannabinoids sprayed onto inactive plant material. Probably relatively harmless in both cases.

Its the probably that's the issue at the moment. Could the Head Shop crowd hire somebody to do studies to prove its harmless?

Pace2008

Wompa1 wrote: »

Its the probably that's the issue at the moment. Could the Head Shop crowd hire somebody to do studies to prove its harmless?

If these drugs were to be subjected to the same rigours as medicines currently are, I doubt the head shop lobby would have the financial clout to see their product through, nor the influence to sufficiently distort the facts should the results not bet o their satisfaction.

In an alterate universe ,if any drugs were to be legalised it would probably be those for which there is a large body of literature already available – cannabis, MDMA and the like.

Many of the cathinones have only been synthesised for the first time in the last ten years, and it’s only in the last two that their use has become widespread. Mephedrone’s method of action isn’t even understood yet. By default, we don’t really know anything about their long-term effects.

Herbal Deity

Wompa1 wrote: »

Its the probably that's the issue at the moment. Could the Head Shop crowd hire somebody to do studies to prove its harmless?

Honestly, I think that if scientists proved that there was nothing harmful about a recreational drug when used in moderation, that it would not make an iota of difference to its legality. There would still be people with the idea that taking drugs is morally wrong ingrained in them. Politicians would still disregard the science and err on the side of seeming to be concerned about people's wellbeing.

Currently, it's not a matter of science, it's a matter of changing attitudes.

Science will only matter when people come to accept that it's ok to use drugs besides alcohol for recreational purposes in the first place.

rubensni

Wompa1 wrote: »

What I don' get is, is the argument being made that Head shops should be re-legalized knowing that their substances are dangerous because people are buying illegal drugs which are possibly more dangerous?...

How don't you get it? It's very simple logic that is already applied to alcohol: the government recognises that people are going to drink, so (in theory at least) it structures the laws to allow that in such a way that people can consume it, but in a fashion that lowers the risk of harm to themselves and others: that is why I can buy a bottle of 40% whiskey in my local off licence, but not a bottle of 70% absinthe.

If alcohol was banned we would be treated to much more dangerous high alcohol poitin, speakeasies open 24/7 and an upsurge in violent crime as gangs establish themselves in the booze running business. Anyone who suggests otherwise is deluding themselves, as was shown in the US when they attempted prohibition.

Wompa1 wrote: »

Yet both sets of drugs are illegal anyway and by right should not be bough by law...I don't think the goverment can take the blame for people being addicts

But why are they illegal? It serves no purpose as it has not discouraged their use to any real degree. Beyond filling prisons with non-violent offenders and driving the use of drugs underground it has achieved nothing but add to the misery of users.

It would do less harm to the users of those drugs if they were legal as then people would know what they were getting themselves in for as regards what the drugs are cut with, etc. as opposed to buying "cocaine", or whatever, cut with god know's what. The attitude of the government is that zero tolerance is the best option for society, but all the evidence suggests it is not.

As for the government being expected to "take the blame for people being addicts," this is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that they should do so. Does anyone blame the government for their cigarette addiction, or their alcoholism?

And remember, nobody found the previous situation acceptable: the biggest calls for regulation of the head shops came from the owners of the head shops themselves.

Kurtosis

Pace2008 wrote: »

If you've been on Boards for any length of time I'm sure you're painfully familiar with the Lancet and ACMD papers detailing the relative harm associated with a range of commonly used drugs. Now, unlike some people I realise these papers are not infallible and we can't simply use their findings as axioms in future debates - in the case of the Lancet paper, they researchers admitted that it was difficult to draw accurate comparisons between alcohol and illegal substances and that the conlusions drawn were possibly imperfect - but the fact that both papers judged alcohol to be significantly more harmful overall than cannabis and ecstasy can't simply be disregarded.

I know it's off topic but -

Thank you, at last someone discussing Prof Nutt's study while actually understanding the context of it. The amount of posters who parrot the list/table which came out of that study with no clue about the actual objectives, methods or limitations of the research was getting to be an irritation.

Pace2008

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Honestly, I think that if scientists proved that there was nothing harmful about a recreational drug when used in moderation, that it would not make an iota of difference to its legality. There would still be people with the idea that taking drugs is morally wrong ingrained in them. Politicians would still disregard the science and err on the side of seeming to be concerned about people's wellbeing.

Absolutely. This first came to my attention during the circus that surrounded the psilocybe mushrooms "scandal." I have never seen such a non-issue blown so completely out of proportion.

rubensni

Einhard wrote: »

Oh FFS, I'm sick and tired of this nonsense cranked out about the hypocrisy of banning headshops but not pubs. The simple reason alcohol hasn't been banned is because it would require a massive upheaval in social attitude to do so. It would require a government to tell the 95% of adults who drink that they can no longer do so anymore. It's the same with cigarettes which most governments would love to ban but can't, because so many of their citizens use them. Headshops though, and drugs in general, are different because a comparatively tiny proportion of the population are regular users.

So you're stating that tobacco and alcohol should be held to a different standard than other drugs because it's socially accepted? If that isn't a textbook example of hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

Einhard wrote: »

Also, the reason the negative health stats for alcohol are so much more higher than other substances is because so many more people consume alcohol than those other substances. You can't compare the two in that way because there's such a massive disparity in consumption.

That is nonsense. One only has to look at the tiny number of deaths attributed to cannabis, MDMA, and other soft drugs to realise that despite widespread use they are low risk in absolute terms, and relatively harmless compared to alcohol. Furthermore, serious academic studies which compare alcohol and other drugs have to take account of the fact that there is lower levels of usage and this affects any statistics. Do you really think that you are the first person to come up with this point?

Einhard wrote: »

Furthermore, the average person consuming alcohol at a reasonable rate over the entirety of his adult life, will not experience a significant impact on his health , whereas just one evening using drugs can lead to massive internal damage. And that's without any external factors being applied.

Oh one evening using "drugs" can be harmful, but alcohol carries no such risk?

1. Not all drugs are the same: some are more risky than others.
2. Alcohol is a drug.
3. Plenty of people have had one night "on the sauce" and have died tragically.
4. Many people have used hard drugs their whole life on perscription and they are in perfect health. There is a number of addicts in the UK on heroin prescribed by the NHS and they are leading long, happy and fulfilling lives. I am not advocating this, just making the point that it is usually what the drug is cut with is often a greater risk than the drug itself.

Einhard wrote: »

And last but not least, the fact that headshops were on the main street made the drugs they stocked far more accessible to people who would not otherwise have used them. That's where most of the concern lay. And it's an eminently reasonable concern, and one that deserves to be properly debated, and not patronisingly dismissed as the rantings of a Joe Duffyesque rump.

Absolutely, a debate would be a good thing.

I agree with you that the accessibility of these drugs fueled their use, but what angers me is your assumption that this accessibility was necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I have no problem with another using drugs as my opinion is whatever they want to put into their own bodies is entirely their own business, and my own preference is that where adults choose to do so then the supply of those substances should be let to the private sector with the state regulating and taking a portion of the revenue generated in taxes - just like the situation with alcohol.

Without the headshops, the availabality of various drugs is widespread in Ireland today, but by keeping it brushed under the carpet and in the hands of illegal gangs it is uncontrolled, riskier and adds to the misery of society that has to put up with drug violence (the Limerick city drug gangs' turf war being the best example of this). Pushing more revenue into the hands of these gangs will make things worse for society in my view and I would have the head shops over the gangs any day.

Wompa1

rubensni wrote: »

How don't you get it? It's very simple logic that is already applied to alcohol: the government recognises that people are going to drink, so (in theory at least) it structures the laws to allow that in such a way that people can consume it, but in a fashion that lowers the risk of harm to themselves and others: that is why I can buy a bottle of 40% whiskey in my local off licence, but not a bottle of 70% absinthe.

If alcohol was banned we would be treated to much more dangerous high alcohol poitin, speakeasies open 24/7 and an upsurge in violent crime as gangs establish themselves in the booze running business. Anyone who suggests otherwise is deluding themselves, as was shown in the US when they attempted prohibition.



But why are they illegal? It serves no purpose as it has not discouraged their use to any real degree. Beyond filling prisons with non-violent offenders and driving the use of drugs underground it has achieved nothing but add to the misery of users.

It would do less harm to the users of those drugs if they were legal as then people would know what they were getting themselves in for as regards what the drugs are cut with, etc. as opposed to buying "cocaine", or whatever, cut with god know's what. The attitude of the government is that zero tolerance is the best option for society, but all the evidence suggests it is not.

As for the government being expected to "take the blame for people being addicts," this is the first time I have heard anyone suggest that they should do so. Does anyone blame the government for their cigarette addiction, or their alcoholism?

And remember, nobody found the previous situation acceptable: the biggest calls for regulation of the head shops came from the owners of the head shops themselves.

The Head Shops wanted to be regulated? Weren't they selling stuff as herbal that was laced with chemicals?

The attitude on this is the people that used Head Shops are now going off using dealers..they are big boys and girls they can make their own decisions. If the head shops were taken away there could be the third option of just not doing any illegal drugs...

But these people that don't have problems but just like the stuff are willing to risk their lives apparently to do dangerous dealer type drugs.

I agree with you on the structured laws piece though, its something that should be explored. I don't think leaving Head Shops as legal with them being their own sheriffs was the right thing to do

Kurtosis

rubensni wrote: »

That is nonsense. One only has to look at the tiny number of deaths attributed to cannabis, MDMA, and other soft drugs to realise that despite widespread use they are low risk in absolute terms, and relatively harmless compared to alcohol. Furthermore, serious academic studies which compare alcohol and other drugs have to take account of the fact that there is lower levels of usage and this affects any statistics. Do you really think that you are the first person to come up with this point?

There is more to a drug's potential to cause harm than just the number of deaths it causes.

Furthermore, serious academic studies which compare alcohol and other drugs cannot take account of the numerous differences that could arise due to the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal. This is why one such serious academic study says "direct comparison of the scores [for harm] for tobacco and alcohol with those of the other drugs is not possible".

MagicSean

rubensni wrote: »

So you're stating that tobacco and alcohol should be held to a different standard than other drugs because it's socially accepted? If that isn't a textbook example of hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

You mean textbook example of democracy dont you?

rubensni

penguin88 wrote: »

There is more to a drug's potential to cause harm than just the number of deaths it causes.

Of course, but it's easy to get figures on deaths, whereas "harm" is a subjective concept, thus comparisons are easier to make when deaths are used.

penguin88 wrote: »

Furthermore, serious academic studies which compare alcohol and other drugs cannot take account of the numerous differences that could arise due to the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal. This is why one such serious academic study says "direct comparison of the scores [for harm] for tobacco and alcohol with those of the other drugs is not possible".

Obviously, but looking at the statistics can still be revelatory:

There is approximately 170 premature deaths due to alcohol annually (official estimate is 1700 premature deaths over the last 10 years) with approximately 80% of the population drinking some alcohol in the last 12 months, and a rate of 45% "binge drinking" in the over-18s population.

In an average year there is zero deaths due to cannabis, with about 6% of the population using the substance in the last 12 months, and about 3% using it in the last month.

Thus I can safely say that alcohol is a more dangerous drug than cannabis. Not a direct comparison but, based on the statistics, an obvious conclusion.

Pace2008

penguin88 wrote: »

Furthermore, serious academic studies which compare alcohol and other drugs cannot take account of the numerous differences that could arise due to the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal. This is why one such serious academic study says "direct comparison of the scores [for harm] for tobacco and alcohol with those of the other drugs is not possible".

Such studies are imperfect but the rankings are not completely arbitrary. At the very least they are food for thought and grounds for further research.

One of the difficulties with the drugs debates is the sides are quite polarised, so at one end you'll see people heralding papers like the ACMD's as the alpha and omega in drug studies, while the other disregards them completely because they contradict their doctrine.

Kurtosis

rubensni wrote: »

Of course, but it's easy to get figures on deaths, whereas "harm" is a subjective concept, thus comparisons are easier to make when deaths are used.

It might be easy, doesn't mean it's accurate. You used words like "harmless" and "dangerous" when making comparisons, which there is more too than just the number of deaths. Other things that could be considered include physical damage, mental damage, dependence, impact on productivity/day to day life and quality of life. The danger of a substance is a complex mixture of factors, of which deaths caused is just one factor.

Obviously, but looking at the statistics can still be revelatory:

My comment related to your reply to another user about studies that have been carried out on the topic. Alcohol and tobacco's legality is very difficult to account for in comparisons in such studies and could have a number of effects. Would the fact that they are much more easily available effect a comparison? Would the wide social acceptance of both of them twinned with the social stigma of illegal drugs effect things?

Pace2008 wrote: »

Such studies are imperfect but the rankings are not completely arbitrary. At the very least they are food for thought and grounds for further research.

I agree completely. The Lancet study is of great value. It has some surmountable and insurmountable faults, the latter which are unavoidable and the former which can be improved upon in further research and so give more meaningful findings.

flash1080

F***ing hippies making up bulls*** to support their agendas. Some f***wits who choose to break the law for luxury recreational drugs end up having adverse reactions and take up space in hospitals, f*** them.

Pace2008

flash1080 wrote: »

F***ing hippies making up bulls*** to support their agendas. Some f***wits who choose to break the law for luxury recreational drugs end up having adverse reactions and take up space in hospitals, f*** them.

Meth?

Prof.Badass

penguin88 wrote: »

Furthermore, serious academic studies which compare alcohol and other drugs cannot take account of the numerous differences that could arise due to the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal. This is why one such serious academic study says "direct comparison of the scores [for harm] for tobacco and alcohol with those of the other drugs is not possible".

This sentence (while you may have meant it in earnest) is exactly the type of excuse an anti-drugs person would give to avoid engaging in any sort of rational argument, effecitvely giving themselves (and others of a moral-based anti-drug position) an excuse to close their minds, because for a lot of the anti-drug crowd (i'm not saying all), their argument isn't based on rationality, it's based on morality (and not even sound logical morality, but hypocritical morality that was deliberately concocted and fed to the masses decades ago, purely to aid with the efforts of prohibition).

Take, for example nicotine. On a rational, scientific, harm reduction level i just cannot understand why cigarettes are available in every corner shop, while the much safer nicotine-replacement products are only available through pharmacies for those wishing to give up nicotine altogher. It just doesn't make any sense (i mean ask the right person and they'll trip over themselves to concoct flimsy justifications, but really?)

As for the ACMD study. The idea that "harm" can be given in a single ranking is highly flawed (although afaik, the study was meant to be compared directly to the uk's current classification scheme (which is also one-dimensional)).
The most misleading ranking in that paper imo is the ranking of MDMA. Afaik, it achieved it's low ranking because a) it is not very addictive and b) it causes very little social harm (it being the love drug and all). And while the jury may still be out on it's neurotoxicity, a huge amount of anecdotal evidence does seem to point towards it having a long-term effect on the brain i.e "losing the magic" (which may not be due to damage, but rather serotonin receptor downregulation as a result of the dramatic see-sawing of serotonin levels in the brain of a regular user). A slight increase in the risk of depression, short-term memory loss, who cares? How about a decrease in your ability to feel close to others (is that even clinically measureable?). I'm not suggesting MDMA does have those effects, just that i'm afraid with prolonged heavy use it might. So "safe" from a government point of view doesn't = lets all go out and do it every day!!!

Btw, have there ever been any clinical studies into "losing the magic", for all we know it could only be something that happens to very regular users? Also, surely we should be researching ways of reversing this receptor downregulation (if it exists at all!).


And this brings us to another problem with the drugs debate. The fact that one drug might cause harm is not a reason to keep all drugs illegal (it seems people on the anti-drug side will use any argument they can as an excuse to close their minds). Under a system of legal regulation of the drugs industry we could replace MDMA (and other drugs such as alcohol and cannabis) with far, far safer alternatives. And these drugs aren't some sci-fi fantasy, we've already done most of the hard work already. It's just a matter of testing a bunch of known chemicals and probably making a few modifications (oxytocin agonist* combined with a low dose of a psychedelic, perhaps a 5ht-1a agonist?-I'm not the pharmacologist). Afaik If we got our act together we could have them on sale in 10/15 years (with drugs like cannabis/mdma and possibly already tested pharmaceuticals filling the gap untill then). Some drug classes won't even need this research: many drugs such as lsd, ketamine, methylphenidate, morphine..... are all relatively non-toxic already!

See, the drugs debate is clouded by ulterior motives (on the one hand you have the hypocritical moral compulsion i described above, on the other hand you people (such as myself) with an unwavering belief in personal liberty, and sometimes people who just want their chosen drug to be legal :P). This isn't a problem in itself, the problem is when people deny they have them and refuse to discuss them openly.

People on both sides let their emotions get the better of them, which in some cases leads to lies, half-truths and exaggerations which destroy rational argument.

/end rant.

tl:dr- Penguin 88, you make some valid points and while hammered hippie's arguments may not be the best, there is some validity to his "joe duffy" claims regarding attitudes towards drugs in this country.

*Yes, they exist!!!

Prof.Badass

Btw, there was simmilar study carried out in Holland some time after, the paper is in dutch so I won't post it, but here's their scale (oddly it fits an awful lot closer to my own personal sentiments on drug harms);

Purple: Physical damage
Orange: Individual Social damage
Green: Population social damage

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9478&stc=1&d=1246610536

(paddos=magic mushrooms, methylfenidaat= methylphenidate, the rest should be pretty easy to guess).

Kurtosis

Prof.Badass wrote: »

This sentence (while you may have meant it in earnest) is exactly the type of excuse an anti-drugs person would give to avoid engaging in any sort of rational argument

Believe it or not, I actually just pulled it out of the Lancet study you mention. I was indicating the point to another user who referred to the study. I don't know if you have access to it so I'll post the relevant part:

Tobacco and alcohol were included because their
extensive use has provided reliable data on their risks and
harms, providing familiar benchmarks against which the
absolute harms of other drugs can be judged. However,
direct comparison of the scores for tobacco and alcohol
with those of the other drugs is not possible since the fact
that they are legal could aff ect their harms in various
ways, especially through easier availability.

Prof.Badass wrote:

As for the ACMD study. The idea that "harm" can be given in a single ranking is highly flawed (although afaik, the study was meant to be compared directly to the uk's current classification scheme (which is also one-dimensional)).
The most misleading ranking in that paper imo is the ranking of MDMA. Afaik, it achieved it's low ranking because a) it is not very addictive and b) it causes very little social harm (it being the love drug and all). And while the jury may still be out on it's neurotoxicity, a huge amount of anecdotal evidence does seem to point towards it having a long-term effect on the brain i.e "losing the magic" (which may not be due to damage, but rather serotonin receptor downregulation as a result of the dramatic see-sawing of serotonin levels in the brain of a regular user). A slight increase in the risk of depression, short-term memory loss, who cares? How about a decrease in your ability to feel close to others (is that even clinically measureable?). I'm not suggesting MDMA does have those effects, just that i'm afraid with prolonged heavy use it might. So "safe" from a government point of view doesn't = lets all go out and do it every day!!!

Spot on, the study was called "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse", and as you say aimed to develop a method to determine a classification system to rival the UK's current one.

They used 9 parameters in three categories to assess harm (Physical - Acute, Chronic, IV harm; Dependence - Intensity of Pleasure, Psychological dependence, Physical dependence; Social harms - Intoxication, Other social harms, Healthcare costs). The problem is that each of these parameters are given equal weighting, so some drugs might get a score of 0 for IV harm because they're not injected. It's a bit silly to think intensity of pleasure has the same impact on a drug's ranking as any of the others. This problem was acknowledged by the author and indicate weighting of parameters could give a more accurate scale.

tl:dr- Penguin 88, you make some valid points and while hammered hippie's arguments may not be the best, there is some validity to his "joe duffy" claims regarding attitudes towards drugs in this country.

Thanks!

Myrddin

k_mac wrote: »

You mean textbook example of democracy dont you?

So there was a vote re the banning? Damn, missed that one.