4-MMC should be banned


It seems that once one drug is banned, another comes along to take its place.  The latest “legal high” comes from 4-MMC and psychiatrists are urging the government to ban its use.  Apparently, it is already banned in several countries, but the UK is lagging.  The government advisers are aware of the drug and will be discussing it next month.

Psychiatrists warn that the drug is addictive and can cause hallucinations, agitation, and psychosis.  The drug is snorted and has similar effects to ecstasy, imbuing the user with a sense of confidence and euphoria.  Because it is currently “legal”, it is attractive to young people, who are buying the drugs on the internet.

Internet sales will be difficult to regulate, but at least, if they do make it illegal, it may scare people from buying it.  After all, there should be caution with buying any drug from the internet, legal or not, as these drugs may be tampered with.

Unfortunately, once this drug is taken off the market, something new will come along, if not already out there and we are just not aware of it.


  1. Its Lame to Ban Substances like mephedrone. Let people get high if they want.

    If there is any chemical that should be banned its Alcohol. It makes people go crazy, Its bad for you, and it kill people all the time.

    In any culture there are only a few intoxicants which are accepted, and pretty much all the rest are completely rejected. In our culture alcohol is the accepted Intoxicant and Marijuana is rejected. In Islamic Culture there is a huge rejection of alcohol and a acceptance of hashish, or marijuana.

    So you see there really isn’t any sense in rejecting something because its a powder. Not everyone becomes a hopeless drunk when they try alcohol. And not every one becomes a 4-mmc junkie. It has to do with the individual.

    Really who ever wrote this should seriously take a while to ponder thoughts before just publishing garbage like this on the net.

    A question like this should take several years of contemplation before uttering any sort of ignorant opinion with virtually no scientific, philosophical, or cultural backing to it.


    Bob the Nob

  2. I agree with some of your points, but I still do not see it as justification for allowing unsafe drugs into society.

    Yes, 4-MMC users may not all be junkies, but that does not discount the fact that it can kill with one use. It’s like sniffing household cleaners. Would you suggest that we allow that?

  3. Herschel Krustofski · Edit

    It can kill with one use?

    From where are you sourcing this information? There have been no reported cases of 4-mmc killing with one use. It may be unsafe in the long run – and most likely will be with, regular, extended consumption – but you can’t assume it’s lethal with one dosage.

    Most drugs and drink are safe in moderation. Of course, I acknowledge the sheer nature of these drugs is what makes moderation so difficult. If you are of a constitution susceptible to addiction/dependency, then exercise caution with 4-mmc just as you would with any other drug. To me, it’s ridiculous that UK society has such stigmas surrounding drug use, yet is so accepting of alcohol. It’s only because of this that morons will overlook the dangers of alcohol, dismiss drugs as ‘dangerous’, and then go binging on 40 units at the weekend. I barely do drugs (only dabbled in 4-mmc, skunk and ecstasy), and prefer to drink, but the reality of the situation still irks me.

  4. i have a very close friend who is currently on this designer drug right in front of me. when i asked him to describe 4mmc for me he stood there hopping from foot to foot clenching his jaw whilst dancing to music in his head and said its like valkyr from the max payne film. it gives him immense strength and confidence and makes him SO happy, but at the same time he loses judgement and simple basic human logic. he isnt a particularly fit lad but on a big hit of 4mmc he says he’s run for literally miles, sprinting, unable to stop. he’s jumped huge drops up to maybe 15 feet and simply rolled on the floor and got up and carried on running.
    this drug is dangerous.
    very dangerous.
    but as soon as its made illegal the prices for it will triple and the demand will be even more. it will flood the streets.
    just look at ketamine… ketamine has its own facebook fan page now for gods sake!

    i liken 4mmc to grand theft auto, its something thats not designed to do harm but the more bad publicity it gets the more people want it, and then the wrong people get it.
    for grand theft auto psychotic kids played it and murdered someone, they would’ve done it anyway without the game but it just pushed them into doing it quicker.
    4mmc users are generally nutters. idiots on a self destruction mission. this drug will give them the strength and courage to self destruct in style.

    nothing will stop this drug but if you have children or friends in the age category most likely to get involved with it just PLEASE warn them against it. my friend has days of pain after a night on it after his mind has forced his body to do things its not supposed to. its only a matter of time before we have situations from 4mmc like there were from LSD. people claiming to be gods and jumping off buildings etc.

  5. Ever been in a proper night club after 3am?? If you haven’t I recommend you do. At this time all the drunks have either passed out or gone home, in preparation for their stinking hangovers. What is left is a friendly, warm and enthusiastic crowd. How come so all the bad press with these drugs? We have highly regarded scientists telling us the relative dangers of say mdma vs alsohol and we’re still burying our head in the sand over this one. Come on people, sort it out!! If you bring back relatively harmless mdma then there will be less scope for these new designer drugs with their unknown health risks to be pushed on to the market.

    As for the night out , get yourself to a club and stay til the wee hours, and once you’ve done this you’ll understand what i’m talking about, and you might stop with the trite anti drugs comments.

    thelord, that last statement in your last paragraph is just pathetic.

  6. Mephedrone (4-MMC) is a great new alternative to ecstasy, it’s cheap, nobody dies when they take it (I couldn’t find one einstance of a death due to mephedrone anywhere). Granted it stings a bit but it’s still a great alternative to ecstasy or coke. Mephedrone isn’t addictive, but when you’re really high on it it can become a bit moreish, but you certainly don’t wake up with uncontrollable cravings for it. You can quite happily take a gram on one night and have fun, you then go through the rest of the week not craving it, unlike coke which (from personal experience) for me produced quite strong cravings after I did a couple of grams, which was very expensive. It’s cheaper than alcohol and makes you feel better i.e. you don’t puke your guts up and hate your life. The only downside is that a couple of people I know who’ve taken a lot of it end up with unexplained bruises on their chests, wierd I know, but I think that is the only side effect, or at least the only one I’ve come across.


  7. Reliable drug education should be the only thing regulating drug use. In other words, let people decide to use any drug as long as they know the risks– ie if it can kill you on the first try.

    What right do you have to tell me I can’t sniff household cleaners?

    Let’s educate the public and let them make their own decision. We don’t live in a dictatorship– why are we controlling what people can put in their own bodies?

    If you’re concerned about public safety– people going wild on drugs, well, it’s called public intoxication laws and they’re already in place.

    Wake up. We should be free to use drugs just like we’re free to use alcohol (one of the worst drugs– all over the board– physical harm, judgment, addiction, etc.)

  8. I agree alcohol is one of the worst drugs. It is regulated. Similarly, household cleaners are regulated. Illegal drugs are banned, but does that stop people from using them? No, it just means there are laws in place regarding their use and distribution. Are people arrested for using them? Apparently, no. Did I tell people they can’t do what they want? No. I’m just pointing out the dangers and showing that 4-MMC is neither regulated nor banned. Because it is fairly new, it falls into the gray zone. Drugs obviously do affect people’s judgment, etc.

  9. Hi Rae, thanks for the response. I’m not sure what you mean when you say people aren’t arrested for using illegal drugs. That happens all day and it’s crowding our prisons. At least a 1/4 of the roughly 2 million people in US prisons are there for drug offenses.

    My point is, I should be free (not under threat of prison, fines, or any other punishment) to alter my body any way I please… because it’s mine. If I want to pierce my ears or my nose, tattoo myself, drink a martini, smoke weed, kill myself, shoot heroin, etc., I should be free to. I should have ownership of my own body and be the ultimate arbiter of my own temple.

    “Did I tell people they can’t do what they want?” No but you told them you want them to be punished if they do use 4-MMC. (refer to your post title)

    Safety is the number one concern– and that’s why we need reliable, unbiased drug education so that people can make informed decisions. As you said, criminalization doesn’t stop people from using.

  10. I don’t see people in the UK being imprisoned for using, only for producing or distributing drugs.

    I didn’t suggest people are imprisoned in the title. I suggested that the drug should be made illegal, as is the case for ecstasy, cocaine, heroine, etc. There is still debate going on – the decision will eventually be made to have it legalised or not. If legalised, it will be regulated. If not, it will be “banned” or “illegal”, which will make it a criminal offense to produce or distribute. Given the dangers, it should not be treated any differently from drugs in the same class.

  11. You suggested that I should be punished if I put a certain substance in my body… and for that, I think you are a jerk, for lack of a better word. It’s my body, so stay out of it.

    I understand you think you’re protecting people by making things illegal, which you apparently think might discourage people from using, but what you don’t realize is that criminalization and stigmatization only create more problems– it becomes a taboo that encourages young people to try, it creates a black market (which creates violence and unsafe drugs), it creates an unsafe environment where users have no safe place to use and no place to get unbiased reliable information…

    ..and worst of all, it creates the possibility of someone being punished for putting something into their OWN body!

    This is bigger than 4-MMC. Let’s not fall back on the legal precedent. The drug war doesn’t work.

  12. Again, I didn’t say you should be punished by the law. Of course, I don’t know if the US has banned 4-MMC and what would legally happen to those who use it. Obviously, you would be punishing yourself if you wish to use drugs that harm you physically.

    Perhaps the best deterrent would be for anyone wishing to use harmful substances (whether it be with legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, or illegal ones) to sign a declaration waiving all rights to medical treatment resulting from their stupidity. If you want to destroy your life, why should I pay to save it?

    Laws are in place to protect the vulnerable. You may feel you don’t need laws to tell you what to do, but what happens to those who get into drugs because of pressure? You sound as if you’d support an anarchist state.

  13. The “my taxes help pay for your stupid lifestyle choices” argument is feeble. Drug users are taxpayers and so would have legitimate redress to the healthcare system should they need it. Nightly, hospitals are full of assorted dullards who have asserted their God given right to drink themselves in to a stupor. Do we continue to treat them? Of course we do.

  14. Then, perhaps we shouldn’t.

    We all pay taxes in, but it’s not enough to distribute around everywhere. The money may be better spent in areas other than the fruitless detoxification of drug users.

    The fact that people can’t take drugs responsibly shows that laws are needed. If people can take drugs responsibly, they wouldn’t need medical treatment.

  15. “Again, I didn’t say you should be punished by the law.”

    What does banned mean to you??

    In regard to your idea about taxes, I think that’s a great idea (although as someone said, the drug users are paying taxes too so they should have at least some basic healthcare). The same goes for any dangerous activity (like bad diet, tobacco, etc.). Poor diet/lack of exercise account for around 20x more deaths than illicit drug use (like around 350,000 people vs 17,000)… so of course you would have to extend your idea to all the stupid things people choose to do.

    What happens to those who get into drugs because of pressure? First of all, reality check– criminalizing drugs won’t prevent that from happening. Second, learning not to be pressured into doing ANYTHING is the responsibility of the parent. If you don’t want your child looking at porn, doing drugs, or getting tattoos, don’t BAN them so you think they won’t be exposed to them or have access, TEACH them and STRENGTHEN their resolve.

    I don’t support an anarchist state.. I’m not sure how you could come to that conclusion as I’ve clearly been saying I want the freedom to treat my OWN body the way I want to—- when it comes to other bodies, I have no right to do anything to them. “Your choice is who you choose to be, and if you’re causin’ no harm, then you’re alright with me…” Ben Harper

    It is the STATE’S responsibility to inform children/people, and give them all the info needed to make an informed decision. It is the PARENT’S responsibility to protect their children, to inform their children, and to guide their children.

    It is NOT the state’s responsibility to protect me from myself, no matter how stupid I am.

    “The fact that people can’t take drugs responsibly shows that laws are needed.”

    People are going to use drugs (legal or illegal, from LSD to alcohol) irresponsibly, (as is evident)… so that’s not an excuse to ban them.

    Not only that, but it would be a stupid decision to ban something if there were a different way to approach drugs in order to encourage responsible use. You don’t seem to care to consider the possibilities.

    Consider Portugal, who decriminalized ALL drugs in 2001– opiate-related deaths dropped massively and acute drug-related deaths dropped steadily, as well. Decriminalization has been a huge success there.

  16. Just to clarify, I mean to say that whether a drug is legal or illegal, it will be used irresponsibly (as is evident with tobacco and alcohol, two legal drugs, which kill more people per year [by a huge margin] than all illegal drugs combined), so that isn’t a justification for criminalization.

  17. Tobacco and alcohol users already pay a massive premium in to state run healthcare; if anything, their bad habits help pay for our healthcare.

    Figures released by the Cabinet Office and the IAS in 2008 estimate the cost to NHS of treating alcohol related illness at about £3 billion.

    An Oxford University team of researchers, funded by the British Heart Foundation, found that smoking related disease costs the NHS about £5 billion in 2008.

    HMRC statistics for 2008-09 show £10 billion was raised through excise and VAT on tobacco.

    Treasury figures for 2007 show £7.9 billion was raised through excise and VAT on wines, beer and spirits.

    And you suggest turning them away from treatment? Shame on you!

  18. You’re right, Easy. You should have the right to treat your body the way you want. But you initially presented it as an angry statement against authority, hence, the reference to anarchy.

    You can present the data for Portugal, but can you analyse it to see the reasons for the drop in deaths? What did they do right? Was it really just the decriminalisation?

    I agree that something different from regulations and laws is needed, but I’m not convinced that decriminalisation is it. Information is always important, but it needs to be presented in a way for people to make an informed decision.

    Peer pressure is enormous and even with the best parenting, I’ve seen people go down the wrong path because they are more likely to listen to friends than their parents. Some people’s personalities are more easily influenced than others. Information coming through their peers will be believed despite evidence to the contrary. Of course, rules and regulations will not guarantee their safety, but it can act as a deterrent.

    Thank you, Yawn, for the statistics. It’s obvious taxation has never worked as a deterrent for alcohol and tobacco. But how much of that money was actually put into the NHS? It sounds like the NHS is overworked and underfunded. If that money can be put aside specifically for treating alcohol and tobacco related illness, it would be great. Illegal drugs are obviously not taxed, so you can’t say they’ve paid their taxes for their healthcare. Again, taxation does not work.

    I think that instead of getting NHS payment for treatment of illnesses directly related to bad lifestyle choices, people should pay for it out of pocket. Why should we pay for gastric bypass for an obese person whose obesity is caused by intentional overeating and not some medical disorder, such as hypothyroidism?

    As for turning someone away from treatment, I believe it already happens. Someone who’s destroyed their liver by excessive drinking can be denied a liver transplant. There’s a lot of ethical decision-making in that. It’s getting to the point where those ethical decision-making will come into play for all these other things.

  19. “It’s obvious taxation has never worked as a deterrent for alcohol and tobacco.”

    Irrelevant. No one here suggested it was used as a deterrent. On the contrary, it’s a major revenue stream for the government, and thus the NHS.

    “Illegal drugs are obviously not taxed, so you can’t say they’ve paid their taxes for their healthcare.”

    Nonsense! Drug users pay all the same taxes as you and I.

    “But how much of that money was actually put into the NHS?”

    Irrelevant point. They contribute a significant portion of aggregate tax receipts to the Exchequer. If these taxes were diverted elsewhere, then either i) the shortfall would be claimed through raising or imposing other taxes; or, ii) there would be cuts in a range of services, including the NHS!

    “I believe it already happens. Someone who’s destroyed their liver by excessive drinking can be denied a liver transplant…” yada… yada…

    No matter how much hyperbole you introduce it will not account for your suggestion of refusing to treat under a state-run health system a group of people who contribute to it more than most.

    Regarding the statistics, you’re welcome. They offer a refreshing contrast here 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *