Reefer Madness Undone?
July 31, 2006 10:00 AM Subscribe
"The system for classifying illegal drugs in Britain, which determines how users are punished, is unscientific and illogical and should be completely overhauled", according to a new report. See updated chart on the harm potential of various drugs.
They've got cannabis listed as more harmful than solvents?! I'd like to see the rationale for that.
posted by vorfeed at 10:04 AM on July 31, 2006
posted by vorfeed at 10:04 AM on July 31, 2006
My impression is that the various drugs are being reordered on the basis of current harms "per capita", so to speak. Hence, low & infrequent use of solvents relative to cannabis renders it "less harmful". A proper reclassification will have to explore the various variables related to drug use, such as route of administration, social conditions, dominant patterns of drug-taking..etc. There's no "inherent" harm potential to be assigned, although many prefer to have some sort of rigid metric.
posted by daksya at 10:10 AM on July 31, 2006
posted by daksya at 10:10 AM on July 31, 2006
They've got cannabis listed as more harmful than solvents?! I'd like to see the rationale for that.
That was my exact reaction.
posted by justkevin at 10:13 AM on July 31, 2006
That was my exact reaction.
posted by justkevin at 10:13 AM on July 31, 2006
My impression is that the various drugs are being reordered on the basis of current harms "per capita", so to speak. Hence, low & infrequent use of solvents relative to cannabis renders it "less harmful".
If that were the case, booze and fags would be at the top of the chart.
posted by jack_mo at 10:14 AM on July 31, 2006
If that were the case, booze and fags would be at the top of the chart.
posted by jack_mo at 10:14 AM on July 31, 2006
Interesting. Is the Science and Technology Committee made up of a particular subset of MPs? In other words, how representative is the Committee of the current Parliament?
And they should do a chart for drug combinations, too. I was surprised at first to see GHB so low, but then remembered it gets a lot more dangerous when combined with alcohol.
posted by mediareport at 10:15 AM on July 31, 2006
And they should do a chart for drug combinations, too. I was surprised at first to see GHB so low, but then remembered it gets a lot more dangerous when combined with alcohol.
posted by mediareport at 10:15 AM on July 31, 2006
Juding by this graph, methylphenidate, solvents, anabolic steroids and GHB are all less harmful than cannabis. My question is, in what universe? I'd take bets on that being absolute bullshit in both usage scenarios; spontaneous and unknowledgeable ingestion as well as habitual abuse.
"That's not to say there's any argument that alcohol should be banned but it does give one a feel for the relative harm".
Oh, of course not. The classifications of other drugs has presented "the argument" that they should be banned, thankfully that does not apply to alcohol.
If that were the case, booze and fags would be at the top of the chart.
Precisely.
posted by prostyle at 10:17 AM on July 31, 2006
"That's not to say there's any argument that alcohol should be banned but it does give one a feel for the relative harm".
Oh, of course not. The classifications of other drugs has presented "the argument" that they should be banned, thankfully that does not apply to alcohol.
If that were the case, booze and fags would be at the top of the chart.
Precisely.
posted by prostyle at 10:17 AM on July 31, 2006
Cigs maybe, but booze? Like I said, this chart is dervied from "per capita" harm and not total harm, so the number of 'booze and fags' deaths may be greatly in excess compared to other drugs, but on a per user basis, may come out lower. Booze is still 5th on the list out of 22; tobacco 9th.
posted by daksya at 10:18 AM on July 31, 2006
posted by daksya at 10:18 AM on July 31, 2006
Also, this chart seems to be based on current patterns, so if 50% of heroin users are injecting it (using shared needles), its harm potential is much higher than if 80% were taking it orally.
posted by daksya at 10:20 AM on July 31, 2006
posted by daksya at 10:20 AM on July 31, 2006
There is an explicit recommendation (para 50) that the chart should include fags and booze.
posted by patricio at 10:27 AM on July 31, 2006
posted by patricio at 10:27 AM on July 31, 2006
My only concern is how they classify ham. Would it go under "Tasty", or the more contentious "Delicious".
posted by blue_beetle at 10:34 AM on July 31, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 10:34 AM on July 31, 2006
Well at least they are stating that to identify true harm of the drugs the ratings must not be related to the law/legal/illegality of said drugs.
So yet again...freaking decriminalize MJ already and let's all move on with our now much safer lives.
posted by evilelvis at 10:38 AM on July 31, 2006
So yet again...freaking decriminalize MJ already and let's all move on with our now much safer lives.
posted by evilelvis at 10:38 AM on July 31, 2006
Hm...
What's the classification of You're Beautiful, by James Blunt, in that chart?
posted by qvantamon at 10:45 AM on July 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
What's the classification of You're Beautiful, by James Blunt, in that chart?
posted by qvantamon at 10:45 AM on July 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
The silliest thing is that magic mushrooms grow naturally, and are perfectly legal -- but they become Class A drugs the moment you prepare them (ie. slice them up or whatever). Clearly not logical. But kinda cool.
posted by reklaw at 10:56 AM on July 31, 2006
posted by reklaw at 10:56 AM on July 31, 2006
My only concern is how they classify ham. Would it go under "Tasty", or the more contentious "Delicious".
As any good junkie would know - it's all in the preparation. Between two bits of bread ham would seem harmless and would be classified decidedly "Tasty". Roast a big joint, add honey and roasted potatoes as your other ingredients and you are moving into "Delicious" territory. Class C to class A in three easy steps.
posted by twistedonion at 10:59 AM on July 31, 2006
As any good junkie would know - it's all in the preparation. Between two bits of bread ham would seem harmless and would be classified decidedly "Tasty". Roast a big joint, add honey and roasted potatoes as your other ingredients and you are moving into "Delicious" territory. Class C to class A in three easy steps.
posted by twistedonion at 10:59 AM on July 31, 2006
The silliest thing is that magic mushrooms grow naturally, and are perfectly legal -- but they become Class A drugs the moment you prepare them (ie. slice them up or whatever). Clearly not logical. But kinda cool.
Unfortunately, that's all changed now in the UK, has it not? Mushies are illegal for our consumption, honey roasted or not.
posted by twistedonion at 11:11 AM on July 31, 2006
Unfortunately, that's all changed now in the UK, has it not? Mushies are illegal for our consumption, honey roasted or not.
posted by twistedonion at 11:11 AM on July 31, 2006
qvantamon : "What's the classification of You're Beautiful, by James Blunt, in that chart?"
Pretty high: Blunt beats off Titmuss.
posted by Auz at 11:56 AM on July 31, 2006
Pretty high: Blunt beats off Titmuss.
posted by Auz at 11:56 AM on July 31, 2006
I'll apologize right away for my lack of articulation, but this article just plain pissed me off.
When the fuck are we going to stop taking cues on drug legislation, classification and law enforcement from ignorant prudes? Cannabis is more dangerous than X and GHB? On what fucking planet? (If you can provide coordinates and a means of transport, that'd be awesome. I'd love to live somewhere where I could pop pills at the rate I smoke joints and suffer less side-effects -- whatever less-than zero might be.)
I couldn't make it all the way through the article, I admit. But that chart made me laugh, then cry, and then I wanted to smash things. According to the fucking pack of cigarettes I am smoking from right now, it says, I quote, TOBBACCO IS MORE ADDICTIVE THAN HEROIN. Apparently not in Britain, so maybe I should import my smokes so I can live a little longer.
We have solid, reliable medical evidence that canabis (or "marijuanna as the kids call it") has NEVER killed anyone. It is not toxic enough to kill ANYONE. It doesn't cause cancer. It is not even addictive! (Spare me the arguments between addictions and hard-to-break habits; in the paraphrased words of Bob Saget, if you haven't sucked a dick for it, you're probably not addicted to it).
As far as I'm concerned, let people pollute themselves with whatever they want. The only time it should ever become a legal issue is when people's intoxicated behaviour becomes a detriment to society. If you want to spike your veins and live in a stye, fine, just stay the fuck off my property and don't ask me for money or social assistance because you can't support your habit.
The worst effect of drugs is they are yet another tool for authoritarian assholes to spread FUD and control our lives. Some of these twits should seriously smoke a joint, mellow the fuck out, and realize that everyone gets high somehow. For crying out loud, we live in a world where there are support groups for people who chew copious amounts of ice -- at what point are we finally going to realize that everyone seeks a "fix" of some sort.
My guess is when government and societal institutions no longer need to scare the shit out of us, to distract us from real issues. Like how much money they've stolen from taxpayers, and so forth.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to find my ZigZags...
/end rant
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:09 PM on July 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
When the fuck are we going to stop taking cues on drug legislation, classification and law enforcement from ignorant prudes? Cannabis is more dangerous than X and GHB? On what fucking planet? (If you can provide coordinates and a means of transport, that'd be awesome. I'd love to live somewhere where I could pop pills at the rate I smoke joints and suffer less side-effects -- whatever less-than zero might be.)
I couldn't make it all the way through the article, I admit. But that chart made me laugh, then cry, and then I wanted to smash things. According to the fucking pack of cigarettes I am smoking from right now, it says, I quote, TOBBACCO IS MORE ADDICTIVE THAN HEROIN. Apparently not in Britain, so maybe I should import my smokes so I can live a little longer.
We have solid, reliable medical evidence that canabis (or "marijuanna as the kids call it") has NEVER killed anyone. It is not toxic enough to kill ANYONE. It doesn't cause cancer. It is not even addictive! (Spare me the arguments between addictions and hard-to-break habits; in the paraphrased words of Bob Saget, if you haven't sucked a dick for it, you're probably not addicted to it).
As far as I'm concerned, let people pollute themselves with whatever they want. The only time it should ever become a legal issue is when people's intoxicated behaviour becomes a detriment to society. If you want to spike your veins and live in a stye, fine, just stay the fuck off my property and don't ask me for money or social assistance because you can't support your habit.
The worst effect of drugs is they are yet another tool for authoritarian assholes to spread FUD and control our lives. Some of these twits should seriously smoke a joint, mellow the fuck out, and realize that everyone gets high somehow. For crying out loud, we live in a world where there are support groups for people who chew copious amounts of ice -- at what point are we finally going to realize that everyone seeks a "fix" of some sort.
My guess is when government and societal institutions no longer need to scare the shit out of us, to distract us from real issues. Like how much money they've stolen from taxpayers, and so forth.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to find my ZigZags...
/end rant
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:09 PM on July 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
I have to say that the CURRENT system of harm classification is right on target, actually.
That is to say, the amount of HARM done to you by taking an A class drug BY the system should you get caught is much much much worse than for a C class drug.
(that is to say, it gives you a very good sense of how badly the government wants to pound you in the ### for taking particular substances)
posted by narcolepticdoc at 12:24 PM on July 31, 2006
That is to say, the amount of HARM done to you by taking an A class drug BY the system should you get caught is much much much worse than for a C class drug.
(that is to say, it gives you a very good sense of how badly the government wants to pound you in the ### for taking particular substances)
posted by narcolepticdoc at 12:24 PM on July 31, 2006
These reports have become as regular as the seasons in the UK. They appear to have negligible impact on anything, except forums and the Independent's editorial page, and will almost certainly continue in this manner while the electorate are basically disinterested in changing drug policy. In actuality the police have a lot of leeway, it is politically impossible to legalise illegal drugs, and the real problem on the streets is smack and maybe crack, so everything else is just chatter.
posted by MetaMonkey at 1:15 PM on July 31, 2006
posted by MetaMonkey at 1:15 PM on July 31, 2006
Unfortunately, that's all changed now in the UK, has it not?
Oh yeah... right you are. Funny, I never heard. Goes to show how clean-living etc. I am, I guess.
posted by reklaw at 1:44 PM on July 31, 2006
Oh yeah... right you are. Funny, I never heard. Goes to show how clean-living etc. I am, I guess.
posted by reklaw at 1:44 PM on July 31, 2006
... although the new loophole seems to be that the spores are perfectly legal. Until you grow them, at least.
posted by reklaw at 1:45 PM on July 31, 2006
posted by reklaw at 1:45 PM on July 31, 2006
What on earth is khat doing in that table?
This surprises me for a few reasons:
1. it is about as potent as an espresso;
2. pretty much nobody uses it, except people from the horn of Africa & Yemen, many of whom are sober, devout Muslims;
3. that demographic doesn't strike me as one heavily represented in England (only guessing, here);
4. it is very unlikely to be cost-effective to smuggle into the country, and near-impossible to grow; and
4. the general public knows SFA about the plant.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:25 PM on July 31, 2006
This surprises me for a few reasons:
1. it is about as potent as an espresso;
2. pretty much nobody uses it, except people from the horn of Africa & Yemen, many of whom are sober, devout Muslims;
3. that demographic doesn't strike me as one heavily represented in England (only guessing, here);
4. it is very unlikely to be cost-effective to smuggle into the country, and near-impossible to grow; and
4. the general public knows SFA about the plant.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:25 PM on July 31, 2006
(the two 4's there are a result of whole minutes of brain-destroying khat-chewing)
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:26 PM on July 31, 2006
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:26 PM on July 31, 2006
From news reports here, khat is very commonplace in certain immigrant populations here in the UK.
posted by re6smith at 3:22 PM on July 31, 2006
posted by re6smith at 3:22 PM on July 31, 2006
If you read into the article a bit, you find that the "harm" scale is based on physical harm, addiction, and social harm. These are obviously very different sorts of things. The first two are relevant to the individuals, and the last is relevant to a society. Yet they've been mixed onto one axis. Which is the reason for the logical anomalies.
There are certainly better ways to present this data, and draw conclusions from the presentation. The reports results are a somewhat useful, and probably harmful screwup.
posted by re6smith at 3:26 PM on July 31, 2006
There are certainly better ways to present this data, and draw conclusions from the presentation. The reports results are a somewhat useful, and probably harmful screwup.
posted by re6smith at 3:26 PM on July 31, 2006
Well, here in Seattle there was a big Khat bust this last week.
I didn't know anything about it before that. It seems stupid to outlaw it to me, but then again, we're a stupid country.
posted by lumpenprole at 4:10 PM on July 31, 2006
I didn't know anything about it before that. It seems stupid to outlaw it to me, but then again, we're a stupid country.
posted by lumpenprole at 4:10 PM on July 31, 2006
What about cake?
CAKE
Trade Name: Dimesmeric Antiphosphate (a bisturbile cranabolic amphetamoid)
Street Names: looney toad twat, russell dust, chronic basildon donut, jos ackland's spunky backpack, bromicide, ponce on the heath, cool thwacks and charlie, hattie jacques' portentious cheese wog
A hallucinogenic drug, currently legal in the UK, originating from Prague in Czechoslovakia. Cake is part of the "boom rave" culture. It is sold in round, 12" yellow slabs filled with nutrients and industrial dye. Groups of users (or "custard gannets") wolf down large quantities of this drug. It stimulates Shatner's Bassoon - the part of the brain that regulates time perception. During a Cake trip, the user percieves a single second to be as long as a month. The drug has many harmful side effects:
The dye causes water retention, causing the neck to swell and suffocate the user (known as "Czech neck")
Users may cry all the water out of their bodies.
One user vomited their own pelvis bone.
When tested on rats, it turned them into space hoppers.
Some addicts were trampled to death by cows in a field.
An organisation was formed to increase public and government awareness of this menace. Free the United Kingdom from Drugs incorporating British Opposition to Metabolically Bisturbile Drugs (F.U.K.D. and B.O.M.B.D.) enlisted the help of several celebrity spokespersons for a Channel Four documentary in 1997, presented by one Chris Morris.
Among them were Bernard Ingham, Bernard Manning ("It's a fucking disgrace"), Noel Edmonds, Paul Daniels, Bruno Brookes, Rolf Harris, David Amiss (then MP for Basildon), Jimmy Greaves and Sir Graham Bright. Mr. Amiss even went so far as to raise a question about the drug in parliament, and received assurance from the Home Office that steps would be taken to combat its influence on Britain's impressionable youth.
Cake can be easily acquired if your dealer is the boz-boz (in which case they may also sort you out with triple sod, yellow bentines, clarkeycap, or even a quackcandle).
Cake does not occur naturally, it has to be cooked up in a laboratory - you could say, in fact, that it's a made-up drug.
posted by w0mbat at 6:45 PM on July 31, 2006
CAKE
Trade Name: Dimesmeric Antiphosphate (a bisturbile cranabolic amphetamoid)
Street Names: looney toad twat, russell dust, chronic basildon donut, jos ackland's spunky backpack, bromicide, ponce on the heath, cool thwacks and charlie, hattie jacques' portentious cheese wog
A hallucinogenic drug, currently legal in the UK, originating from Prague in Czechoslovakia. Cake is part of the "boom rave" culture. It is sold in round, 12" yellow slabs filled with nutrients and industrial dye. Groups of users (or "custard gannets") wolf down large quantities of this drug. It stimulates Shatner's Bassoon - the part of the brain that regulates time perception. During a Cake trip, the user percieves a single second to be as long as a month. The drug has many harmful side effects:
The dye causes water retention, causing the neck to swell and suffocate the user (known as "Czech neck")
Users may cry all the water out of their bodies.
One user vomited their own pelvis bone.
When tested on rats, it turned them into space hoppers.
Some addicts were trampled to death by cows in a field.
An organisation was formed to increase public and government awareness of this menace. Free the United Kingdom from Drugs incorporating British Opposition to Metabolically Bisturbile Drugs (F.U.K.D. and B.O.M.B.D.) enlisted the help of several celebrity spokespersons for a Channel Four documentary in 1997, presented by one Chris Morris.
Among them were Bernard Ingham, Bernard Manning ("It's a fucking disgrace"), Noel Edmonds, Paul Daniels, Bruno Brookes, Rolf Harris, David Amiss (then MP for Basildon), Jimmy Greaves and Sir Graham Bright. Mr. Amiss even went so far as to raise a question about the drug in parliament, and received assurance from the Home Office that steps would be taken to combat its influence on Britain's impressionable youth.
Cake can be easily acquired if your dealer is the boz-boz (in which case they may also sort you out with triple sod, yellow bentines, clarkeycap, or even a quackcandle).
Cake does not occur naturally, it has to be cooked up in a laboratory - you could say, in fact, that it's a made-up drug.
posted by w0mbat at 6:45 PM on July 31, 2006
lumpenprole - from the post-intelligent Seattlean:
Asked whether agents believe the money is being used to fund terrorism, Benson was careful to say that the indictments make no such allegation. But he said:
"When you talk about that region of the world, when you look at Somalia and Yemen and that region of East Africa where terrorism is a concern for law enforcement, we just have to thoroughly investigate the matter.
"That money is going back to that region of the world. We're talking about millions of dollars."
Stupid country, indeed. What's with the totally unfounded speculation, from both the reporter & the copper? Is that common practice? Has it become de rigeur to look for a terrorism angle in anything, even in the complete absence of evidence?
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:31 PM on July 31, 2006
Asked whether agents believe the money is being used to fund terrorism, Benson was careful to say that the indictments make no such allegation. But he said:
"When you talk about that region of the world, when you look at Somalia and Yemen and that region of East Africa where terrorism is a concern for law enforcement, we just have to thoroughly investigate the matter.
"That money is going back to that region of the world. We're talking about millions of dollars."
Stupid country, indeed. What's with the totally unfounded speculation, from both the reporter & the copper? Is that common practice? Has it become de rigeur to look for a terrorism angle in anything, even in the complete absence of evidence?
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:31 PM on July 31, 2006
Cat. It's Clarkey Cat.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 7:34 PM on July 31, 2006
posted by Jon Mitchell at 7:34 PM on July 31, 2006
The 'expert' chart differs from how the public perceives the harmfulness of drugs.
(% saying 'great risk' or 'some risk')
Injected heroin - 97%
Smoked heroin - 96%
Crack cocaine - 96%
Powder cocaine - 94%
Solvents - 93%
Ecstasy - 92%
Tobacco - 90%
Crystal meth - 90%
LSD - 86%
Alcohol - 83%
Cannabis - 64%
(Prescribed) Tranquilisers - 55%
Coffee - 10%
On another note, atleast the UK public agrees that 'harm reduction' ought to be the end goal.
posted by daksya at 9:53 AM on August 14, 2006
(% saying 'great risk' or 'some risk')
Injected heroin - 97%
Smoked heroin - 96%
Crack cocaine - 96%
Powder cocaine - 94%
Solvents - 93%
Ecstasy - 92%
Tobacco - 90%
Crystal meth - 90%
LSD - 86%
Alcohol - 83%
Cannabis - 64%
(Prescribed) Tranquilisers - 55%
Coffee - 10%
On another note, atleast the UK public agrees that 'harm reduction' ought to be the end goal.
posted by daksya at 9:53 AM on August 14, 2006
« Older Cool Film Blog: Your Humble Viewer | Say hello, too, my little friend. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by daksya at 10:02 AM on July 31, 2006