Study Proves Ecstasy is Safe … ish

Finally! After years of dodgy reporting and hysterical reactions, ecstasy(MDMA) has been given the green light. Well, maybe not green but at least amber.

Residual Neurocognitive Features Of Long-Term Ecstasy Users With Minimal Exposure To Other Drugs

John H. Halpern1, Andrea R. Sherwood4, James I. Hudson2, Staci Gruber3, David Kozin1, Harrison G. Pope Jr2,*

Article first published online: 15 FEB 2011

© 2010 The Authors, Addiction © 2010 Society for the Study of Addiction

ABSTRACT

Aims:  In field studies assessing cognitive function in illicit ecstasy users, there are several frequent confounding factors that might plausibly bias the findings toward an overestimate of ecstasy-induced neurocognitive toxicity. We designed an investigation seeking to minimize these possible sources of bias.

Design:  We compared illicit ecstasy users and non-users while (1) excluding individuals with significant life-time exposure to other illicit drugs or alcohol; (2) requiring that all participants be members of the ‘rave’ subculture; and (3) testing all participants with breath, urine and hair samples at the time of evaluation to exclude possible surreptitious substance use. We compared groups with adjustment for age, gender, race/ethnicity, family-of-origin variables and childhood history of conduct disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. We provide significance levels without correction for multiple comparisons.

Setting:  Field study.

Participants:  Fifty-two illicit ecstasy users and 59 non-users, aged 18–45 years.

Measurements:   Battery of 15 neuropsychological tests tapping a range of cognitive functions.

Findings:  We found little evidence of decreased cognitive performance in ecstasy users, save for poorer strategic self-regulation, possibly reflecting increased impulsivity. However, this finding might have reflected a pre-morbid attribute of ecstasy users, rather than a residual neurotoxic effect of the drug.

Conclusions:  In a study designed to minimize limitations found in many prior investigations, we failed to demonstrate marked residual cognitive effects in ecstasy users. This finding contrasts with many previous findings—including our own—and emphasizes the need for continued caution in interpreting field studies of cognitive function in illicit ecstasy users.

The myths about ecstasy have plagued us for decades and continue today. Although MDMA is probably the safest recreational drug we know of, it is still classified by all countries as a schedule I drug along side heroin and LSD. It is even listed as more dangerous than cocaine and amphetamines. Even though several US health industry groups went to court in 1985 and the judge ruled that MDMA should be available for research, the DEA ignored the ruling and used their own special emergency powers to ban it immediately. Since then, it has remained as a schedule I drug. This was the start of a campaign against MDMA where the truth comes second to scary myths, ranting nutters and dubious research. Although it still rages on today, this latest research might finally shed some myths that are all too often, quoted as facts.

With Ecstasy out of control in the states, the government attempted to take action – with propaganda. In 1998 the DEA decided to sponsor Dr. George Ricardi of John Hopkins University to do a study pertaining to the effects that Ecstasy had on the brain. With Ricardi’s research complete he published his final results. His research showed that when a person takes one single recreational dose of Ecstasy it reduced the brain’s serotonin (chemical in the brain that regulates mood, appetite, sleep, and emotion) by 50-85% which was then irreversible. With this information out, NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) produced a pamphlet labeled, “Your Brain on Ecstasy,” the image shown was that of a brain with a line cutting down the middle of it. On the left side was the label, “Your Brain Before Ecstasy” with a full, healthy looking brain. On the right side were the words, “Your Brain After Ecstasy,” which was visually portrayed as a shriveled, hole infested lump. The image was supposed to show the serotonin depletion after a dose of MDMA but as Dr. Stephen Kish (who is the world’s leading researcher studying the brain) said, “The problem with these index cards given to young people by NIDA is that the brain scan pictures of the Ecstasy users looks like there are large holes in the brain, and that’s just not true. But for me the main problem with the index cards was that it was based on faulty data (Jennings, 2004).” That is where the myth was born that Ecstasy causes holes in the brain. In 2002, Ricardi performed another government funded study on the effects MDMA had on the brain. This test was to prove that one tablet of Ecstasy could cause Parkinson’s disease in the individual. His test was performed on monkeys, by injecting them with what was allegedly a single dose of “Ecstasy.” His verdict: Ecstasy can lead to Parkinsonism. 

Dr. Kish was right; there was faulty data in the 1998 Ricardi study. The first obvious fault in his study was the fact that from the subjects he used to test, it could not have been certain whether or not they had ever even used MDMA in their lives because there was no hair sample (hair samples are used to test for drug use over a long period of time). The second major issue that’s prevalent is that during his testing, Ricardi noted that some brains had almost 40x more serotonin than others, “scientists say such a variation is simply impossible (Jennings, 2004).” After being disproved by Kish he retracted his 2002 statement that said that Ecstasy can lead to Parkinson’s disease by saying “[he] mistakenly gave methamphetamines, a far more toxic substance than Ecstasy, to the monkeys he used in the study (Jennings, 2003)." 

--Bluelight

The “Hole in the brain” myth was popularised by Oprah and an MTV special on Ecstasy in 2000. This type of publicity still drives the hysteria surrounding ecstasy along with the usual suspect from the anti-drug brigade.

The problem to date is that the research into MDMA has been dubious at best. Although not as bad as the “Hole in the brain” scam or the claims that it causes Parkinson’s Disease after one use, most research has been rejected by experts as biased or flawed. Ironically, this latest robust research is by NIDA, the very group who blindly supported the flawed studies by Dr. George Ricardi and spent millions promoting his findings. Even after Dr. Ricardi’s research was exposed as flawed, NIDA refused to remove his findings from their website. You have to wonder if they commissioned this latest research in the hope that negative results would back their decade’s old campaign against MDMA. Whatever their motives, this latest study must be burning a hole in the brain of the officials who have tried so hard, for so long to demonise ecstasy.

Related articles

Top Drug Advisor - Ecstasy is Safe as Riding a Horse

Ecstasy - Not Just For Ravers

The Result of a Quiet News Day? - It’s Not Pretty

MDMA/Ecstasy Trial for PTSS (Sandra Kanck Was Right)

Drug Hysteria Ignores Trauma Suffering

Cracker Comments - Feb/Mar 2010

All Drugs Are Not The Same

People love drugs … this is a fact.  And many people will use drugs. Another fact.

Some will overdose, some will get sick and some will want to go home, But the vast majority will get what they paid for … a hellava’ good time. Yeah, yeah, I hear you - drugs are bad, drugs can hurt you - but so can anal sex but that act is performed at least a million times a year without a lot of complaints. 

Funny enough, the same people who complain about others having anal sex also complain about drugs.  You know the type I mean. Arrogant, conservative, self-righteous, self-important, self-appointed guardians of all things moral. They use jargon like “family values”, “personal responsibility”, “do the crime … do the time” or remind us that things were different in 1956. They were once called wowsers. 

Wowser

[noun] Austral./NZ informal - a person who is publicly critical of others and the pleasures they seek; a killjoy

One common mistake made by wowsers / the media / the government / anti-drug zealots / the police / moral crusaders etc. is lumping all drugs together under the one umbrella. You often hear the police blame someone’s actions on being “under the influence of drugs” or the media describe erratic behaviour due to drugs. On Channel 7’s, The Force - Behind the Line, I heard one police officer describe a suspect as showing typical signs of drug use - hyperactive, extremely restless, nervous and pinpoint pupils. What drug causes that? The victim was caught with speed which explains most of the symptoms except pinpoint pupils are typical of heroin use not speed. Amphetamines(speed) make your pupils bigger, not smaller. This is a classic example of how all drugs are lumped into one category. 

But, all drugs are not the same. Some people perceive them to be like different kinds of liquor. e.g. whisky, beer, wine, cognac. They all look and taste differently but the effect is the same … you get stoned. Drugs though, offer a rich variety of effects, some of which can be compared to activities in the physical world. Jumping out of an aeroplane might thrill the adrenaline junkies but it doesn’t even come close to what first hooked a heroin addict. Being as cool as James Bond involves years of practice, exercise and training but why bother when a line of coke can give you same confidence? What about sex? Option one - Seven years in India learning the Karma Sutra, four years of attending the gym followed by two years of studying Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts or even A Couple’s Guide to Automobile Repairs. Option two - an ecstasy pill.

Another common misrepresentation is that unhappy people turn to drugs to dampen their emotional pain. That’s like saying all drinkers “hit the booze” to “drown their sorrows”. Of course, most drinkers indulge in alcohol because it’s enjoyable and it’s no different with drugs. And which “drugs” do they turn to? I find it hard to imagine that someone with a great burden on their shoulders will turn to ecstasy to block out the world. Or someone with suicidal tendencies overdosing themselves on pot in a half hearted attempt to end it all. I turned to heroin after the death of my wife when booze wasn’t killing me quickly enough or dampening the unbearable sorrow I was feeling. Before then, I had only used drugs like speed to enhance my night out or to experience the trippy pleasures of mushrooms, LSD and dope. The point is, I turned to a particular drug like heroin, not ice, weed or cocaine. Who knows what might have happened if I took up LSD instead of heroin?

What attracts people to different types of drugs? My experience is that people want certain drugs for different reasons. Alcohol is for socialising, dope is for chilling out, speed/ice/cocaine for partying, LSD/mushrooms for experimenting and heroin for multiple reasons. But according to many sources like the media, it’s irrelevant because … drugs are bad, mmkay!

This blanket approach to drugs has been enforced around the globe for the last 100 years. Now when any new drug appears on the market, it gets slotted under the “drugs” umbrella without any scientific examination or analysis of it’s social effect. Ecstasy(MDMA) is a classic example of how an over zealous organisation like the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) ignored all input from medical / scientific groups and pushed for a schedule I drug classification. This was despite a court ruling that it should not be banned, advice from medical experts and the successful trials that showed it to be a possible treatment for PTSD, depression and other disorders. The DEA used it’s special authority granted by the government to override the court’s decision, ignore scientific advice and make it’s own judgement. MDMA was banned and classed as a schedule I drug.

US Schedule I Drug:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision

--Wikipedia: Controlled Substances Act

Many countries including Australia now just mimic any scheduling decisions made by the US and the UK. Not surprisingly, the only exception is when they lower the classification of a drug. It would have been interesting to see what happened if Proposition 19 in California was passed and cannabis became legal. If the example of how Australia managed the classification of UK legal highs or MDMA is any thing to go by, then we are doomed to retain only stricter scheduling of drugs but ignore any changes that reflect a loosening of restrictions.

But it’s not just government classifications that get the blanket treatment. The scheduling of drugs is also driven by how society views these substances. And this is where the sensationalist media and political rhetoric comes into action. These potent forces have been pumping disinformation into us for decades and now much of the public believes their spin. And why wouldn’t they? Just mention heroin or crack and watch instantly as normal, rational human beings turn into judgemental, irrational zealots. Try pointing out the facts and watch as disbelief overrides all evidence and reality. Listen up to the amazing array of myths that will used to attack your “extremist” views. Why is it is so damned hard to expose decades of propaganda from the government, anti-drug nutters and the media.

Just recently, Professor David Nutt was sacked from the the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), who are a group of scientists, academics and doctors commissioned by the UK government to advise on drug policy. His crime was telling the truth. Prof. Nutt was simply providing evidence that some drugs like cannabis, LSD, mushrroms and ecstasy(MDMA) are much safer, and that alcohol is far more dangerous, than the official government position or the public’s perception. The UK Home Secretary decided that maintaining flawed information about drug harms was more important than the facts so he sacked Prof. Nutt claiming he was out-of-line for criticising government policy. Can you imagine any other scientific issue that would prompt a government to dismiss the evidence and remain fooling the public with flawed information? 

Professor David Nutt has since created his own group called, the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. Last week, they published a scientific paper in the respected Lancet medical journal that measured the rates of harm from illicit drugs, alcohol and tobacco. The results showed that alcohol is the most dangerous drug in the UK, overshadowing heroin and cocaine. At the other end of the scale, mushrooms, ecstasy and LSD were well down the list. As expected, the report has caused a frenzy of newspaper articles. 

Background

Proper assessment of the harms caused by the misuse of drugs can inform policy makers in health, policing, and social care. We aimed to apply multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) modelling to a range of drug harms in the UK.

Methods

Members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, including two invited specialists, met in a 1-day interactive workshop to score 20 drugs on 16 criteria: nine related to the harms that a drug produces in the individual and seven to the harms to others. Drugs were scored out of 100 points, and the criteria were weighted to indicate their relative importance.

Findings

MCDA modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places.

Interpretation

These findings lend support to previous work assessing drug harms, and show how the improved scoring and weighting approach of MCDA increases the differentiation between the most and least harmful drugs. However, the findings correlate poorly with present UK drug classification, which is not based simply on considerations of harm.

Funding

Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (UK).

Source: The Lancet

What this report doesn’t cover though, is how these drugs would rate in a world without prohibition. By far, most problems from drug use is attributed to our drug laws. It’s the illegality of these substances that causes more damage than the drugs themselves. Heroin, for example is basically non toxic and can taken for decades without much physical damage. Cocaine, speed and GHB taken occasionally will not greatly impact on your health unless of course, it’s cut with drain cleaner. Smoking naturally grown cannabis in moderation will not usually hurt any adult who doesn’t have a history of mental health disorders. Popping an ecstasy pill (pure MDMA) every few months is not going send most people to rehab. Although moderation is the best defence against the potential, nasty side effects of illicit drug use, prohibition is the real culprit. Prohibition removes all the safe guards that could be included with regulated sales of these drugs. Prohibition puts the safety of drug users in the hands of criminals and dealers who offer no quality control or age restrictions. Even that junkie stereotype is purely a result of drugs being illegal. It’s not the drugs that make junkies look skinny, dirty and homeless - it’s the desperation from dodging police, being maligned by the public and that never ending search for money that leaves very little for rent, food etc.

For many, their deep-seated views on drugs are not going to change anytime soon. Most of the population has never experienced a world without drug prohibition and after a lifetime of misinformation and the constant drone of anti-drug sentiment, the demonising of drugs has been very effective. Separating substances into groups based on their harm might go a long way to educating the public and hopefully provide some sanity in the drug debate. We don’t want a repeat performance of Liberal hack, Chris Pyne dribbling on about pot and heroin being equally as dangerous. These theatrical performances might appease dorks like Pyne but they do nothing to keep people safe. Nor does the popular trend of outing one’s self as having tried pot at university but declaring it’s now unsafe to do so because of the latest research. Over the last few years, we have had Australia’s top politicians admitting to smoking the evil weed but warning others not to follow suit. Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, Wayne Swann and Malcolm Turnbull have all made this admission but it took the current US president to actually come clean. When asked if he “inhaled” - a reference to former US president who said he tried pot but didn’t inhale - Obama said, “that’s the point, isn’t it”.

We have to end the “drugs are bad … mmkay” mentality. All drugs have specific harms when abused but some, more than others. Inexperienced people shooting up hard drugs is not a good idea but overall, binge drinking causes more harm than intravenous drug use. Dozens of night-clubbers taking ecstasy in it’s pure form will not cause anywhere near the carnage inflicted by boozers in the same venue. Smoking pot each night for years on end will only produce a tiny group of dependant users compared to drinkers who consume similar amounts to achieve the same intoxication. And contrary to popular beliefs, methamphetamines like ice cause a fraction of the violence that alcohol bestows on the community each week. 

These facts need to be explained to the public along with the truth about legal drugs like alcohol, tobacco and prescription medication. Although it’s changing slowly, all illicit drugs are still seen as something that only desperate, low life druggies will consider while incredibly, booze is considered a safe alternative. The facts are out there but if our leaders and the media are not prepared to tell us the truth then the public will remain victims of deceit and agenda driven policy. We deserve better.

Drug Laws Do More Harm Than Good

The growing global debate over drug laws might be making news overseas but Australia seems to be stuck in a time warp led by the old "War on Drugs" mentality. With some countries actually decriminalising all drugs for personal use - including heroin, ice, LSD, cocaine, GHB etc. - Australia is yet to even have a public discussion about medical marijuana, yet any proposed reform to our antiquated drug laws.

It may seem odd to an outside observer that much of the Australian media and politicians remain quiet while several recent events have exposed how futile and dangerous our current drug policies are. Last week, ABC’s Four Corners program, delivered a harsh wake up call that we are fighting a losing battle against criminals in the illicit drug trade. And just last night, a Sydney police officer was shot and killed while raiding a suspected drug den although no drugs were found on the premises. The bleak reality from these and other events is that our attempts to tackle illicit drugs are not only failing but are dangerous as well.

So why do we have such strict drug laws? It’s always the same answer … to protect us from dangerous substances that ruin lives or kill people. But this is simply not true as most illicit drugs are actually less harmful than the legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Either of which, kill and harm more people than all illicit drugs combined. And the reasoning for our strict drug laws become even more questionable since we discovered that they don’t even deter drug use but instead increase the harm to users and reduce the public's safety.

It appears that criminalising drug users can change the way they use drugs, but it doesn't usually stop them using drugs

-- Margaret Pereira - Queensland University of Technology Legal Researcher

It’s a real problem that in 2010, we as a society can allow certain laws remain unchallenged when we know they are dangerous, especially to our youth. Any politician who is complicit in promoting or retaining our dangerous laws that kill and harm people, need to explain themselves. It is no longer acceptable to push dangerous strategies like the "Tough on Drugs" policy for the sake of political expediency. Especially when we are continually being shown how much damage our current practices are causing without meeting any of the set objectives.

Do Drug Laws 'Harm' Drug Users?

Health Canal 

August 2010

The "one size fits all" nature of Australia's drug laws may do more harm than good when it comes to recreational drug users, according to a Queensland University of Technology legal researcher.

Margaret Pereira from QUT's Law and Justice Research Centre has launched a PhD study into young people and illicit drugs and has appealed for Brisbane drug users to come forward and anonymously have their say on their lifestyle.

Ms Pereira said it was important to understand that people used drugs in a whole variety of different ways, some of which were more harmful than others.

She said charging young people for relatively minor offences, such as drug possession, could defeat the purpose of drug law enforcement as a strategy to reduce drug-related harm.

"There's a common belief that young people who use drugs regularly have got a 'drug problem', such as an addictive personality, or some other biological or psychological problem," Ms Pereira said.

"In reality, it is only a small number of illicit drug users who define their drug use as problematic to themselves or others.

"Most young people use drugs recreationally, for fun, pleasure or leisure, and often within nightclubs or rave cultures.

"This doesn't mean that their drug use is completely free of danger, but it does mean that it's important to understand how illicit drugs are being used, and design drug policies that directly target drug-related harm."

Ms Pereira has already started interviewing young people aged 18 to 25 who use illicit drugs either recreationally or habitually.

She hopes to interview a fairly equal number of "regular" and "recreational" drug users. She is also interviewing the police, health service providers and youth advocacy workers to obtain their views about drug policies.

"Preliminary findings from my interviews suggest that when young people want to use drugs, they will, even after they've been charged with a criminal drug offence," she said.

"It appears that criminalising drug users can change the way they use drugs, but it doesn't usually stop them using drugs.

"This finding supports other study findings that criminalisation can have profoundly harmful, unintended consequences on the community and on young people. Charging them for relatively minor offences, such as drug possession, can defeat the purpose of drug law enforcement as a strategy to reduce drug-related harm.

"Another interesting finding from my interviews is the huge range of different drugs young people use and their choice of drug is often based on drug availability."

Ms Pereira said she hoped her PhD research would help build a better understanding of illicit drug use and contribute to effective policy formation.

Gateway Theory Debunked … Again!

New research finds little support for the hypothesis that marijuana is a "gateway" drug leading to the use of harder drugs in adulthood.

--WebMD Medical Reference

You have to feel sorry for people who have learning difficulties. Especially those who bang on and on and on about cannabis being a “gateway” to harder drugs.

It seems that no amount of evidence will stop over zealous, dip-shit anti-drug pundits from spreading their lies and propaganda. Not even those pesky scientists who keep proving them wrong, will keep them quiet.

I wonder what their response will be to the latest study by researchers at the University of New Hampshire who once again disproved “The Gateway Theory”? Somehow I doubt if we will hear much about it. When was the last time you heard a politician or anti-drug group declare they were wrong or the “The Gateway Theory” is obsolete? When was the last time you read about it in the mainstream media?

So, why do they persist? Most people or groups who constantly reject medical research and scientific evidence are usually just written off as nutters but some of these zealots will go to great lengths in a desperate attempt to push their disingenuous cause. Even to the point of using junk science. For example:

In contrast, the US Office of National Drug Control Policy’s “2008 Marijuana Sourcebook” clearly states that recent research supports the gateway hypothesis, specifically that “its use creates greater risk of abuse or dependency on other drugs, such as heroin and cocaine”.

--Drug Free Australia (DFA): Cannabis – Suicide, Schizophrenia And Other Ill-Effects (March 2009)

Of course, the US Office of National Drug Control Policy aka The Drug Czar is notorious for dishing up government sponsored propaganda. Remember, this is the group that manages the "War on Drugs" for the US and the UN. Maybe if they spent more time reading up on the available scientific evidence instead of sifting through volumes of anti-drug propaganda they would come to a different conclusion. Nah, who am I kidding?

It is hard to keep the same attitudes to cannabis prohibition when Obama and the two previous US Presidents are known to have smoked cannabis. Perhaps cannabis is a gateway drug after all * the drug that young Americans have to try if they want to become President of the USA.

--Dr. Alex Wodak - Director of the Alcohol and Drug Service, St Vincent’s Hospital

Ironically, there is some truth about cannabis leading to harder drugs but not for the reasons quoted by the gateway theory supporters. It’s actually the policies pushed by these supporters that are to blame. Simply smoking cannabis doesn’t make someone automatically want something stronger or harder. It’s the association with drug dealers that smokers are forced to endure because of our strict drug laws. Some of these dealers will undoubtedly sell harder drugs, giving way to pressure to try another drug. Pot smokers are forced underground where all drug users are grouped together by a society that doesn’t separate soft drugs from hard drugs. Most pot smokers never go on to harder drugs nor do they want to but being forced underground with addicts, criminals and speed dealers exposes them to a world that they normally wouldn’t encounter.

Teen Pot Smoking Won't Lead to Other Drugs as Adults

Study Shows Marijuana Isn't a 'Gateway' to Other Drugs as Teens Turn Into Adults

WebMD Medical Reference 

By Salynn Boyles. Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD

September 2010

New research finds little support for the hypothesis that marijuana is a "gateway" drug leading to the use of harder drugs in adulthood.

Teens in the study who smoked marijuana were more likely to go on to use harder illicit drugs, but the gateway effect was lessened by the age of 21, investigators say.

Harder drugs in the study referred to illicit drugs that include analgesics, cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, sedatives, stimulants, and tranquilizers.

The study is published in the September issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.

Failure to graduate from high school or find a job were all bigger predictors of drug use in young adulthood than marijuana use during adolescence, says study researcher Karen Van Gundy, who is a sociologist at the University of New Hampshire.

She adds that the findings have implications for policymakers on the front lines in the war on drugs.

"If we overly criminalize behaviors like marijuana use among teens, this could interfere with opportunities for education and employment later on, which, in turn, could be creating more drug use," she tells WebMD.

Marijuana's Gateway Effect Goes Away

Van Gundy says she did not set out to disprove the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug when she and co-researcher Cesar J. Rebellon examined survey data from 1,300 mostly male Hispanic, white, and African-American young adults who attended south Florida public schools in the 1990s. The participants were followed from enrollment in the sixth or seventh grade until they reached their late teens or early 20s.

"Most of the previous research has examined early drug use among people with serious drug problems," she says. "These people do tend to progress from alcohol and marijuana use to other drugs."

When the teens in the study were followed forward into young adulthood, however, a different picture emerged.

"We were somewhat surprised to find the gateway effect wasn't that strong during the transition to adulthood," Van Gundy says. "It really didn't matter if someone used marijuana or not as a teen."

Specifically, the study found illicit drug abuse in young adulthood to be much more closely linked to stress during the teen years and whether or not the young adults were employed.

"Assuming and occupying conventional roles, such as 'worker,' may close the marijuana gateway by modifying and redirecting substance use trajectories," the researchers write.

The Fight Against Drugs

The findings suggest anti-drug efforts aimed at keeping kids in school and providing employment opportunities may have the biggest positive impact on drug use in adulthood, Van Gundy says.

Urban sociologist and drug-use researcher Lesley Reid agrees.

An associate professor of sociology at Georgia State University in Atlanta, Reid's research has focused on the gateway effect of so-called club drugs like ecstasy and cocaine among heavy drug users in their 20s.

She says most of these heavy users do start with alcohol and marijuana and progress to harder drugs.

"Obviously, we don't see this age effect among these heavy users," she tells WebMD. "But in the general population most people do outgrow behaviors like drug use and other delinquent behaviors."

'Gateway' Pioneer Critical of Study

But Columbia University sociologist Denise B. Kandel, PhD, whose research early in the decade found marijuana to be a gateway drug, calls the new research highly flawed and the conclusions "ill founded."

She tells WebMD that the design of the study did not allow the researchers to properly test the hypothesis that marijuana is a gateway drug.

Kandel does not disagree with the conclusion that social position in young adulthood plays a big role in drug use during this time. But she says the researchers fail to consider the potential impact of early marijuana use on social position.

"Using marijuana as a teen can certainly have an impact on whether or not someone fails to graduate from high school or gets a job," she says. "And this increases the risk of persistent illicit drug use."

Supporters of “The Gateway Theory”

With all the readily available evidence to debunk “The Gateway Theory”, you would think that only crackpots like Drug Free Australia (DFA) would keep pushing this farce. But this is the scary part - many officials funded by the public purse continue to cite “The Gateway Theory” as a fact. How can police ministers, police chiefs, politicians etc. continue this lie when our very own National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre (NCPIC) don’t support it? NCPIC aren’t exactly without bias themselves but at least they acknowledge that “The Gateway Theory” is dubious at best.

Most people who use illegal drugs, like heroin or amphetamine, first used drugs like alcohol, tobacco or cannabis. These substances, but most usually cannabis, are seen as a 'gateway' to the use of other, more dangerous drugs. However, the vast majority of people who do use cigarettes, alcohol or cannabis never use other illicit drugs. For example, while the majority of heroin users have used cannabis, only around 4% of cannabis users have used heroin.

--National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre (NCPIC)

Below is a collection of quotes from people or groups who support the “gateway” myth. You may notice that most of them are paid by you via your taxes.

This paper seeks to provide an introduction to the available literature on cannabis and the issues arising from cannabis use today, including: a description of the drug and its use; the increased potency of cannabis in the market; cannabis as a “gateway” to harder drug use; the issues of dependence and withdrawal; the significant cannabis harms on mental health, brain function and development, and physical conditions such as cancer; and, the problems encountered when trying to quit cannabis and the generally poor outcomes today.

--Drug Free Australia (DFA): Cannabis – Suicide, Schizophrenia And Other Ill-Effects (March 2009)

It does cause psychosis, it does destroy families and it is a gateway drug to heavier use.

--NSW Minister for Police Michael Daley (7 Feb 2010)

For many young people, cannabis can be used as a ‘gateway’ drug into more dangerous illicit drugs, with most heroin and cocaine users first experimenting with cannabis and research showing regular cannabis users are 140 times more likely to advance to stronger drugs than people who had not tried cannabis.

--Victorian Liberal Party (Jan 2010)

Amongst drug users, cannabis is very widely recognised as having been their gateway drug into heavier drugs.

--Peter Abetz - WA Liberal Party MP - Legislative Assembly (April 2010)

Research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia, and can be a gateway to harder drugs

--WA Premier Colin Barnett (Oct 2009)

Those of us who have worked in the field for many years know that marijuana is a 'gateway drug'

--Brian Watters. Salvation Army

I look forward to the next session of Parliament, because then I will not have to listen to the hypocrisy of the Hon. Richard Jones in continuing to berate tobacco use while condoning the use of the world's greatest gateway drug, marijuana.

--Malcolm Jones MP (Dec 2002)

Marijuana is a gateway drug

--Reverend Fred Nile MLC (June 1998)

Ample research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia and can be a gateway to harder drugs

--Donna Faragher - W.A. Opposition Youth Affairs Spokeswoman (Aug 2008)

That was not considered to be the case 30 years ago, but now it has been proven that cannabis is a gateway drug.

--Mike Board - WA Liberal Party MLA (April 2003)

Targeting cannabis use as the first drug in the chain towards drug abuse (based on the ‘gateway’ theory) was also identified as a key element.

--New Zealand National Drug Intelligence Bureau - Joint Operation Of Police, Customs & Health Departments (2007)

Moreover, marijuana is a “gateway” drug

--General Barry R. McCaffrey - US Drug Czar (1997)

Cannabis has been known and identified as a gateway drug, leading to the use of more and stronger drugs to get a greater kick

--Liz Cunninhgham MP - Independent (May 2009)

The report refers to cannabis as a gateway drug—

[…]

The long-term impact will be the use of other, stronger, quicker and equally destructive drugs such as heroin, amphetamines and ecstasy.

--Mark McArdle MP - Liberal (May 2009)

This has a lifelong impact on their families, it has an impact on crimes that are committed as illicit drugs are used, especially where it is a gateway drug, and it has an impact because of the sheer cost involved in caring for someone with schizophrenia through their life.

--Chris Foley MP - Independent (May 2009)

Cannabis is also known to be a gateway drug. Multiple studies have shown that the use of cannabis on an ongoing basis creates the risk of abuse of other drugs, such as heroin and cocaine.

--Michael Sutherland MLA - Liberal (May 2010)

About 40 per cent think cannabis is always addictive, and one in five said it is always a gateway to harder drugs. 

--HeraldSun - Dope Loses Its Cool (Feb 2007)

The other obvious argument is that in America, 80 per cent of marijuana users go on to using cocaine. So it is clearly a gateway drug.

--John Bradford MP - Liberal - Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Evaluation of the National Crime Authority (May 1997)

Related Articles

Study Says Marijuana No Gateway Drug

Marijuana Gateway Risk Overblown: Study

Study Contends Pot Isn't a Major 'Gateway Drug'

Fairfax Misleads Public About Cannabis Study

Ketamine Magic - Recreational Drugs to the Rescue

Once again, the idiotic practice of banning recreational drugs outright has been exposed for delaying important research that may help millions of people. This practice, often initiated by the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has seen the shutdown of research into drugs like cannabis, LSD, MDMA(ecstasy), ketamine etc. The sole reason is that people may abuse these drugs although no consideration is given for the real harms and instead, is determined by the perceived harms. The problem is that the perceived harms are dreamed up by bureaucrats, moral crusaders and anti-drug nutters. The many possible benefits are played down as an unacceptable risk compared to the danger of abusing these drugs, usually without any evidence to prove it. Just like stem cell research is hindered by religious groups, drugs that become popular for recreational use are quickly banned outright by anti-drug zealots for similar reasons. Stuff the science and potential to help hundreds of millions of sufferers - we can’t have people getting high and enjoying themselves. It’s just immoral!

The neurobiology of psychedelic drugs: Implications for the treatment of mood disorders

After a pause of nearly 40 years in research into the effects of psychedelic drugs, recent advances in our understanding of the neurobiology of psychedelics, such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin and ketamine have led to renewed interest in the clinical potential of psychedelics in the treatment of various psychiatric disorders. Recent behavioural and neuroimaging data show that psychedelics modulate neural circuits that have been implicated in mood and affective disorders, and can reduce the clinical symptoms of these disorders. These findings raise the possibility that research into psychedelics might identify novel therapeutic mechanisms and approaches that are based on glutamate-driven neuroplasticity.

-- Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11 (August 18, 2010)

Now, the really good news. Last week, researchers from Yale University reported that a horse anaesthetic and party drug called ketamine has shown an incredible ability to treat depression, bipolar and stress. They even went as far as to say, 'It's like a magic drug -- one dose can work rapidly and last for seven to 10 days'. When low key scientists use terminology like 'magic drug', you know they’re on to something big.

Interestingly, my doctor told me about some addiction centres in Melbourne who were having success with ketamine being used to reduce tolerance to opiates like heroin, morphine etc. Maybe they are related in some way? The scientists from Yale said that ketamine was not only a treatment for depression but it  physically repairs the brain by acting on a pathway that forms new synaptic connections between neurons. Who knows what this may also lead to in the struggle to treat opiate addiction?

'Party Drug' For Depression?

William Weir

LA Times

August 2010

Known to some as 'Special K', ketamine could be developed into a safe medication.

  

Yale researchers hope to develop a form of ketamine — an effective but very dangerous antidepressant — that's safe, easy to use and effective within hours of taking it.

A new study sheds light on how the drug affects operations in the brain, and why it works so fast compared to other antidepressants. The study was led by Ronald Duman, a professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at Yale, and George Aghajanian, professor of pharmacology. It will be published Friday in the journal Science.

The most popular antidepressants like Prozac and Zoloft, which are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), can take weeks before patients feel their effects. Saying that it's "like a magic drug," Duman notes that one dose of ketamine works fast and can last for up to 10 days.

"Clearly, there is a need for a ketamine-like drug with rapid results," he said. Adding to its benefits is that studies indicate that about 70 percent of patients who are resistant to other antidepressants respond to ketamine.

Ketamine was developed in the early 1960s and used as an anaesthetic, commonly for soldiers in Vietnam. In the 1990s, it gained a reputation as a "party drug" (known as "Special K") and has been known to cause short-term psychotic symptoms.

For about 10 years, its potential as an antidepressant has been known. Because of its potency, though, it is only administered intraveneously in clinical settings, which significantly limits its use. It's usually prescribed in low doses for patients suffering severe depression who have been resistant to other treatments.

With new information about how it works, though, Duman believes a form of ketamine could be developed that's much safer and more convenient to take.

"That would be the ultimate goal, to develop the drug as a pill," he said.

Unlike SSRI medications, ketamine does not involve the chemical serotonin as a primary function. By testing ketamine on rats, the researchers were able to examine how the drug worked its way through the brain. What they found was that ketamine helped restore synaptic connections between the neurons, which had been damaged by chronic stress. It does this partly by activating an enzyme called mTOR, setting of a chain reaction.

"Ketamine is able to jumpstart and get these systems revved up again," Duman said.

UK Push for Expanding Heroin Assisted Treatment

A recent article in the medical journal, The Lancet has once again highlighted the need for Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) to be expanded in the UK.

Although the article draws upon previously released research results, it was still important enough to catch the media’s attention.

A Google News search found 182 related articles including from The Press Association, The Associated Press, TopNews, Pharmacy News, Reuters, BusinessWeek, BBC News, CBC, The Northern Echo, Irish Independent etc. but not a single mention from any major media outlet in Australia.

The only Australian article I found was in the hard copy edition of the Townsville Bulletin.

Heroin Therapy Call for 'Chronic Addicts'

BBC News

By Emma Wilkinson - Health Reporter

May 2010

Injectable "medical" grade heroin should be offered under supervision to the most hardened addicts, say UK researchers.

A trial in 127 addicts who had persistently failed to quit the drug showed a significant drop in use of "street" heroin after six months.

Writing in The Lancet, the researchers said the "robust evidence" supports wider provision of heroin treatment.

A spokesman for the government said it would consider the findings.

Around 5-10% of heroin addicts fail to quit despite use of conventional treatments, such as methadone.

Those who took part in the trial had been using the drug for an average of 17 years and had been in treatment for 10 years.

When they took part in the programme they were on methadone treatment but were still taking street heroin on a regular basis.

The researchers - working at clinics in south London, Brighton and Darlington - found that those offered injectable heroin under the supervision of a nurse were significantly more likely to cut down their use of street heroin than those receiving oral or injectable methadone.

Improvements were seen within six weeks of starting the programme, they reported.

In further analysis yet to be published, it was noted that the benefits remained after two years and some patients were able to stop use of the drug altogether.

Treatable

Study leader, Professor John Strang, from the National Addiction Centre at King's College London, said the supervised heroin programme enables patients to start thinking about employment, re-engaging with their families and taking responsibility for their lives.

"This is a treatment for a severe group of heroin addicts that ordinary treatments have failed with and the question we're answering is 'are these patients untreatable?'."

"The very good news is that you can get these people on a constructive trajectory."

He said the latest study plus a series of other trials now provide clear evidence that this type of treatment should be offered more widely.

It was outlined in the UK government's 2008 Drug Strategy, subject to the results from this trial.

He added that although more expensive than conventional treatments, heroin therapy is considerably cheaper than imprisonment.

A Department of Health spokesman said any approach that gets people off drugs for good should be explored.

"We will look at evidence and both the clinical and cost effectiveness of these treatments.

"However, it is vital that we do all we can to prevent people using drugs in the first place."

Dr Roy Robertson a reader in the Department of Community Health Sciences at Edinburgh University, said whilst none of the outcomes are close to achieving abstinence, treatment with supervised injectable heroin "seems to be our best option".

"This is the intensive care for those heroin users who have failed after all sorts of other available treatments and continue to inject."

DrugScope chief executive Martin Barnes added that there is no "magic bullet" and several treatment interventions may be needed before someone becomes drug free or cuts down their drug use.

"On the basis of the outcomes described, there is a strong case for extending heroin prescribing as a carefully targeted and closely supervised form of treatment for chronic addiction."

Related Articles

Giving Free Drugs to Addicts

Who Supports a Heroin Trial?

What Does Prescription Heroin Really Mean for Junkies?

The Start of Prescription Heroin in Australia?

Would You Give Heroin to Addicts ... Why Not?

Heroin Assisted Treatment Winning Approval in Europe