The Healthy Blogger

Response to 4-MMC/Mephedrone

I’m using this post to respond to recent commenters.  Thank you for reading my blog and sharing your thoughts.  And special thanks to those who can express their views without having to resort to swearing.

The blogging world is both personal and impersonal.  You can express very personal views without revealing your identity.  Of course, those who are sufficiently determined would find a way to discover a blogger’s identity.  Some people have such strong views that we cannot help but get a reaction.  And reactions are important to stimulate debate.

Most of the reactions recently have been related to drugs, legal or not.

First of all, I would like to emphasize the point that I do not favour tobacco or alcohol any more than I do the illegal drugs.  Despite “scientific” evidence that moderate drinking is good for you, I would never encourage anyone to even have a drink a day.  That would be irresponsible.  There is nothing I can say that is positive about tobacco.  The damage from tobacco is more long-term, though some short-term effects, such as shortness of breath, cough, and wheeze does exist.  Alcohol gives a “buzz” to most people, and again, it has long-term consequences.

The effects of illegal, or unregulated, drugs are less well-known.  This is in part due to the fact that they are not as readily available, so fewer people use them and there is less “study” of them.  I will admit that I do not have “data” to show that these drugs, such as 4-MMC, are deadly.  But, having worked in the ER and seeing kids brought in dead on arrival after a night of mixing drugs, the best conclusion is that those drugs are linked to the death, even if current testing cannot conclusively show that any one specific drug is to blame.

Enough is known about the class of drugs which 4-MMC, or mephedrone, belongs to that scientists can say that it acts as a stimulant.  Similar drugs include amphetamines, ephedra, and ecstasy.  Based on that alone, I cannot see why 4-MMC should be treated any differently from those drugs.  It is interesting that drug users demand to be given scientific evidence that something is harmful, yet they are willing to risk their lives before scientific evidence proves that something is not harmful.

Anyone who has read my blog would know that I tend to be sceptical about any scientific study.  There always seem to be some flaw which leads to different groups studying the same thing and getting different results.  Though I’m not advocating willy-nilly beliefs, I do feel that we need to be careful of drawing conclusions based solely on science.  Sometimes, observational studies are just as important.

Drug users will then argue that if you go to a club and observe those getting high you will see that they are all tranquil.  That’s baloney.  Try holding down someone on a real “trip”.  You wonder how that little person could be so strong.

So, why does tobacco and alcohol have such special status?  I can’t answer that except to say that it is such a huge source of revenue for the government that they would be unable to reverse things.  They are available and at the same time, they are discouraged.  Or, in the case of alcohol, “drink responsibly”.   I agree that the various methods for smoking cessation should be made accessible and well-regulated.  I only warned against using products that are unregulated, as there may be hidden dangers.

Can they really do that with other drugs?  It would be extremely irresponsible for the government to just turn a blind eye to other drugs.  We have laws in place in to protect people from themselves and from others.  Some may argue that the government should not be our moral authority, but wouldn’t that just encourage anarchy?

Education is important to prevent the misuse and abuse of drugs.  It is not enough just to say that drugs are bad and leave it at that.  Some people are not willing to take that at face value.  They have to experience it themselves and make their own conclusions.  Sometimes, unfortunately, they are not given another chance.

Regulation is important.  If a drug is illegal, it should be banned.  If it is not deemed illegal, there should be regulation.  What would this mean?  First, it would mean the government gets a cut.  They would have to have people in place to test drugs to see that they are not adulterated.  Part of the danger in using drugs that are bought online and unregulated is that they may contain contaminants which make the drugs cheaper and more deadly.  Regulation would mean that there is less of a problem with inherent crime associated with the drug.  Perhaps it may decrease the attraction of the drug.  For young people and early experimenters, it is the thrill of doing something not quite legal that contributes to the “high”.

Does 4-MMC deserve to be regulated rather than banned?  It would be very difficult to defend this drug when so many other countries have already banned it based on its effects and associated risks.  Some would argue that its risk lay in overdosing, but what is an overdose?  Drug levels are never the same in everyone.

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.

The unknown dangers of ‘legal’ drugs

I read an article about the use of ‘legal drugs’ to get high by Dr. John Ramsey, a toxicologist. It was quite alarming. You only hear about these drug cases when some adverse consequence results, but there are so many others out there.

Attention has always been on cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine, heroine, amphetamines, etc. These have all been classified as ‘illegal’. There are set negative consequences for their use. Yet debate still rages on over them. The ones being ignored are the ones that are in easy access. And the reason for this is that these ‘legally available’ drugs are constantly being changed.

Just looking over the history of this kind of drug abuse, you can recall the problem of kids sniffing glue, then graduating to sniffing household cleaners and the like. Public awareness of these dangers led to warning labels and campaigns to teach children. Not too long ago, we had cough syrup being used in new ways to achieve a high. There became stricter regulations on buying cough syrup.

Dr. Ramsey outlined the case of BZP, first introduced in New Zealand. What it was originally marketed for, I don’t know, but word came about that it was a ‘safer legal alternative’ to crystal meth. BZP derived from piperazine, a safe anti-parasitic medication. When BZP became popular, the authorities began investigating. They tried to study its safety but had to stop due to severe side effects suffered by participants. New Zealand banned the drug, but it had made its way into Europe. The UK is still pending a decision on this. I don’t know what they are waiting for. The drug had been shown to have properties similar to amphetamine and ecstasy, both of which are banned. In addition, it had some severe side effects.

It seems that those intent on using or abusing drugs will find new ways of developing new compounds. There is a constant black market for these ‘head drugs’. Unfortunately, there is no regulation because the authorities cannot keep up. Buyers and sellers are not fully aware of the negative effects until they experience them. Sometimes, these negative effects are permanent, whether disability or death. Not only should the government pay attention to those already classified as ‘illegal’, they need to make people aware of using any kind of drugs to get ‘high’.  Just because they are not ‘illegal’ doesn’t mean they are safe.