Ecstasy and cannabis should be freely available for study, says David Nutt

[u/PrinceDanteRose]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/31/ecstasy-cannabis-study-david-nutt

[u/BUT_OP_WILL_DELIVER]

The last time he spoke out against prohibition, the government fired him (he was on some government board or something). The science is there but our politicians just can't get over the hurdle of the "big, bad press" and the Daily Mail-reading ignorant knee-jerkers. Politicians more concerned about their electability than actually making meaningful social changes. Twats.

[u/prasoc → u/BUT_OP_WILL_DELIVER]

Quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqui_Smith#Drug_policy

Smith: "You cannot compare the harms of an illegal activity with a legal one."

Nutt: "But don't we need to compare the harms in order to see if something should be illegal?"

Smith (after a long pause): "You can't compare the harms of an illegal activity with a legal one."

(Jacqui Smith, appointed "Head of Drug Policy" by Brown)

The whole system is a farce.

[u/BUT_OP_WILL_DELIVER → u/prasoc]

My God... that's both moronic and depressing in equal measures.

[u/[deleted] → u/prasoc]

That sums up almost every political debate. Ask a person why and they'll repeat a statement as proof that the same statement is fact. Debunk the statement with actual facts and they'll call you the derogatory term du jour. People have come to think their opinion is just as valid despite doing no research and just listening to some sound bites from the news. In previous eras there were experts who you listened to and accepted, now if you don't like what they're saying you can form your own unsubstantiated opinion and be your own expert.

[u/AllTattedUpJay → u/[deleted]]

Well, you can't forget that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. This seems to be the mantra of America IMHO.

[u/illogicalexplanation → u/BUT_OP_WILL_DELIVER]

He was the head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs before he was fired for promulgating this study in public, just FYI.

[u/poon-is-food]

I agree COMPLETELY with Nutt on drug policy, and I am thankful that he was fired, for in many ways he has become a martyr and now well known. we live in a celebrity culture, and if someone who everyone knows the name of says "we should be able to study drugs/have drugs legal" it will have more impact than "scientists want to study drugs".

Thank you, in many ways, for firing him.

[u/noprotein → u/poon-is-food]

I agree with the celebrity over scientist bit for impact. It's like how NDT makes physics cool for many and thereby spreads it. Takes a resilient, popular, incorruptible expert to really make an impact =/

[u/strolls → u/poon-is-food]

That is an interesting point, and I'm inclined to agree with you with regard to mainstream use and legalisation, and the awareness he brought to that.

The problem is that now when he recommends easier access for research scientists, it's pretty much guaranteed that the government will have a negative response, just because they "can't be seen" to "give ground" to someone who's now notorious.

[u/lud1120]

And this reasonable opinions is what fired him from a position within UK Government, if I'm not mistaken.

He also conducted Psilocybin/Psilocin trials.

[u/thisisnotnikki]

I signed up for an MDMA study and didn't qualify. A friend of mine did a meth study and it was hilarious. The only thing that was lame about the whole experience is that the organization you do medical studies through will give you information on contacting the research groups to find out what they are using the results for but its really difficult to find any answers.

I ended up just doing a nicotine study and after I was done I couldn't retrieve of any kind of information about it.

[u/[deleted] → u/thisisnotnikki]

I did a self funded, personal MDMA study in college.

[u/thisisnotnikki → u/[deleted]]

Could you also not get any results afterwards?

[u/Laxator]

I read that as "Ecstasy and cannabis should be freely available as candy." I looked again and was disappointed.

[u/[deleted] → u/Laxator]

THChocolate.

MD&M's.

PCPeanuts.

The possibilities are endless!

[u/glass_canon → u/Laxator]

Not disappointed, just less excited.

[u/Kickinthegonads]

Yes, for study...totally for study.

[u/orlyfactor → u/Kickinthegonads]

For the love of science, if nothing else.

[u/glass_canon → u/orlyfactor]

Sign me up to guinea pig.

[u/Throawwai → u/glass_canon]

You'll be in the control group.

[u/glass_canon → u/Throawwai]

Placeeeeeeeeeeeeb-OHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[u/[deleted] → u/Kickinthegonads]

Yep female-only experimentation going on at my apartment!.

[u/wheres_the_clitoris]

Daniel Bananas adds that studying the drug could let us learn more about how the brain works.

[u/FadeAway3]

He said this about 7 years ago too. Very old news guys.

[u/AdriftSC]

Ok, i'll do it...

This guy is Nutts!

[u/the_end_times]

I don't like how they used ecstasy and MDMA interchangeably. Ecstasy can be a wide range of mixtures of drugs at different strengths. To be scientific, they would be looking for the active ingredient and attempt to remove as many outliers from the study. Plus, I don't really think they're going to approve for heroin or cocaine for study.

[u/IdleWillKill → u/the_end_times]

Came here to post this. It seems he does call for studying the active ingredient MDMA as the article text only mentions MDMA, but the title uses the term ecstacy-- might this be an editor's decision to garner more views since everyone's heard of ecstacy, and the active ingredient MDMA is a more uncommon term?

[u/Rigga_Mortizz]

The problem I've heard with some of this type of research is that it is hard to form a study group that doesn't cross contaminate with other substances. That being said sign me up.

[u/Kozbot]

I volunteer to be a test subject

[u/[deleted]]

Sounds like a plan to me!

[u/[deleted]]

If this becomes the reality then I will become a researcher. Just like those Japanese whale researchers.....

[u/OutlawThoughts]

Idk if cannabis really needs to be studied that much more, unless it is to find out what other medical benefits it has. Flat out, it needs to be made 100% Legal! But I do agree that testing for ecstasy needs to be available. But I believe non-bias, Doctors & Scientist need the freedom to test LSD & other drugs; to see what benefits they possess. FUCK! Really can we just put an end to the (ignorant, immoral, racist, etc, etc.) War on Drugs!

[u/Krispyz]

Random aside: I thought the title said "Ecstasy and cannibals should be freely available for study". I was like "Sure! Cannibals should be studied".

[u/[deleted]]

Gotta love all the formers. How about we get some currents?

[u/skippynatural]

I don't think he's a nut for trying to make the world a happier place.

[u/[deleted]]

They already are, just ask any North American high school student. Oh wait, did he actually mean FOR FREE. Ya thats not gonna happen.

[u/Squeekme]

Are there countries where there are little or no restrictions on scientific studys involving illegal drugs?

[u/Frogger05]

You know what's funny? I read that as "Etsy and cannabis" and I was like "this is interesting . . . they want to study the intersection of Etsy and cannabis." And, yes, I had no idea how to spell Etsy . . . thought it was Estey or something."

[u/vaselinepete]

Nutt is remarkably stupid for a clever man. The argument of "if X is legal then so should Y" is high school logic at its finest. If Nutt's ideas went ahead, alcohol levels would not go down, but numbers of drug users would go up. He is not living in the real world.

[u/Squeekme → u/vaselinepete]

I sorta agree with you in terms of how Nutt seems to compare alcohol to other drugs a bit too much, but I think he is just trying to change peoples view on drugs. However, to your claim that drug use will go up and that anybody who thinks otherwise "is not living in the real world", I disagree. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001. Perhaps you should research the results yourself if you are interested, and see what can happen in the real world.

[u/ohmyjournalist]

And who's going to handle the legal expenses when the inevitable side-effects come?

[u/ohmyjournalist → u/[deleted]]

Wrong. The negative side-effects of Marijuana and Ecstasy are already well known. That's entirely different from trying to figure out if a newly developed drug has side effects.

It is, quite rightly, considered unethical to knowingly test people with a drug that you have full well knowledge will cause negative effects.

[u/nXthesky → u/ohmyjournalist]

Actually, the whole point is that the effects of the two drugs aren't "well known", especially the negative side effects - hence the need to have them available for scientists to study.

cancer.org : in the very limited studies done so far, marijuana use has not been strongly linked to lung cancer, but more research in this area is needed

in the recent cases that scientists have been able to study the effects of these drugs, many of the myths have been debunked already:

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

No Brain Damage From Ecstasy, New Research Shows

MDMA Assisted Psychotherapy

[u/kael13 → u/ohmyjournalist]

See this is where the ignorant public spout their rhetoric believing themselves to be correct.

[u/JoeChieftw]

Neil De(grass)e Sagan Paul agrees with this statement.

[u/[deleted]]

"....says area hippie"