Methoxetamine (and similar substances) to be made Class B substance in the UK without reason or logi - Polidicks

[quote]A number of so-called ‘legal highs’ will become illegal Class B drugs, the Home Office announced yesterday. Following advice from the government’s independent drug experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), new synthetic cannabinoids (such as those sold under the name ‘Black Mamba’) and methoxetamine (sold as Mexxy) and its related compounds will be classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.[/quote] [quote= David Nutt on Radio 5 Live]"Methoxetamine, a ketamine analogue, is to be made a Class B drug. But the government are also putting restrictive controls on any drug closely related to ketamine and methoxetamine, in an attempt to prevent the rapid replacement of methoxetamine with another similar legal high. Unfortunately, this preemptive ban of innumerable hypothetical and untested drugs based on their molecular structure (rather than evidence that they are harmful) will obstruct essential research to find safer and more effective drugs with ketamine-like therapeutic properties; to treat depression for example."- Professor David Nutt (Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs)[/quote] Such a shame that evidence based policy has been ruled out yet again. I don't think prohibiting things works at all and it makes things more dangerous than they are but surely they should at least try to gather evidence of harm instead of just banning things? Fucking "we're TOUGH ON DURGZ and we know better than scientists because we read tabloids like the Daily Mail and believe every sob story" bureaucracy. Source 1: [URL]http://stevebeasant.mycouncillor.org.uk/2012/11/02/mexxy-black-mamba-and-other-legal-highs-to-be-banned/[/URL] Source 2: Radio 5 Live/David Nutt

The war on drugs was lost the second it started.

Indeed, and one of it's disciples has boxed me. OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I suppose it depends what the real aim was in the first place. If the aim was to create multi-billion dollar industries specialising in rehab and drug testing and to provide a source of funding for cartels and other various criminal groups to convince people that "we live in a dangerous world" and accept increasing controls on their civil liberties then it has certainly contributed successfully in that way.

I remember finding out that MXE was being put on 'temporary restriction' about a year ago. It really pissed me off because in small doses it really helped me deal with a lot of problems I was having. Fuck buying it on the street, when it was legal you could buy it almost chemically pure from professional labs that weren't asking an arm and a leg for a gram. While I understand that at higher doses there are risks like respiratory depression and blacking out you have to be either seriously stupid or suicidal to even consider taking that amount. I have never had a bad experience with methoxetamine and this move by the government is only going to make it more dangerous for people who still want to take it. I just can't understand the mindset of these people. Instead of safety and regulation they choose to make huge, sweeping decisions that put other people in danger.

[QUOTE=Yahnich;38286520]are all the hypothetical variants banned completely, because i find it odd that they would hinder research to possibly safe medicine[/QUOTE] That is allegedly what is happening, yes it's such a shame this issue is never confronted in an evidence-based way by those in political seats due to fear of prejudiced voters withdrawing support for the next election [editline]2nd November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Fourm Shark;38286539]Anything that gets you high seems to be the target, regardless if its harmful or not. Whats wrong with people getting high? Just slap on the same laws as alcohol and be done with it.[/QUOTE] Exactly, it's more of a "moral" position than a researched evidence-based one. Getting high is "morally wrong" because it is and eats the profits of the alcohol industry and big pharma therefore lock people up and forcefully confiscate the product of their labour.

Fuck. MXE was the first non-cannabis drug I ever tried and it would be an understatement to say it was beneficial. It was a wonderful experience, invoking really old memories I thought I had lost, bringing me closer to the people I took it with and unlocking a creative streak I never thought I had both during and after its effects (I'm writing a novel this month (NaNoWriMo), I never would have thought I'd do something like it this time last year). I know that in a debate this is all anecdotal evidence but the ban has hit me rather personally and I'm really upset to see it happen. Oh well, I guess it's another source of income for my dealer, the only person who really benefits from all this...

Only good thing I can pick out of this is that maybe now MXE will stop being sold as ketamine and putting peoples lives in danger. But then this wouldnt be a problem if ketamine wasnt illegal in the first place.

So long as they leave my popper alone <3

Why does this thread want to make me try MXE? Also good job government, so much for being a democracy you stupid cunts.

MXE is shit lol.

[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;38286539]Anything that gets you high seems to be the target, regardless if its harmful or not. Whats wrong with people getting high? Just slap on the same laws as alcohol and be done with it.[/QUOTE] Typical that they don't purely because alcohol brings in a lot of money. I'm guessing that it would be a Class B too otherwise.

[QUOTE=El_Jameo;38288149]Typical that they don't purely because alcohol brings in a lot of money. I'm guessing that it would be a Class B too otherwise.[/QUOTE] Either that or they learned the lesson from the US's failed dry law.

people really dont need to be putting these harmful chemicals in their bodies

[QUOTE=PassTheBong;38289395]people really dont need to be putting these harmful chemicals in their bodies[/QUOTE] Or you could let them do what they want with their own bodies? I take it you're also of the opinion that alcohol consumption and smoking is a waste of time too right? Same goes for a lot of over the counter medications since they are surprisingly super harmful, taking even slightly too much aspirin can pretty much destroy most systems in your body. The whole "harmful" argument is pretty much null and void considering the amount of harmful materials we take in on a daily/weekly basis.

I just knew the floodgates were going to open when Salvia became illegal.

[QUOTE=PassTheBong;38289395]people really dont need to be putting these harmful chemicals in their bodies[/QUOTE]who are you to say what is and what isn't harmful? most of the drugs currently scheduled very highly are safe [b]in moderation[/b] anything can be abused

[QUOTE=Yahnich;38286520]are all the hypothetical variants banned completely, because i find it odd that they would hinder research to possibly safe medicine[/QUOTE] In theory for medical usage it would still be allowed, in the same way that a lot of medication is restricted.

Such a shame, shows once again how incompetent the current generation of politicians are. I'm glad I have a few grams of the good stuff left.

lol everyones mad [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - Megafan))[/highlight]

I've done mxe, I'd never do it again. You need to do it in minute amounts or you're in for a ride

[QUOTE=PassTheBong;38289912]lol everyones mad[/QUOTE] Yeah we are. People get high, it's a fact of life whether conservative policy likes it or not. Now we'll have to do it through a more illegal method or resort to dangerous, untested legal highs. Luckily MXE was proving to be relatively harmless but now we'll never know because it's illegal.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;38286335]without reason or logic[/QUOTE] No. -Taking issue with a judgement based on a drug's "molecular structure (rather than evidence that they are harmful)" is absolutely asinine. You can determine the harm of a thing based on its structure. Chemistry is a thing. You don't need to chug battery acid to know it's harmful. The Journal of Medical Toxicology has covered Methoxetamine (and some of the other substances here) before, it's not safe. -As of March, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs had a compilation of case studies demonstrating harm in line with their predictions regarding Methoxetamine and a plan for formal studies on it, so any claims this lacks evidence or impairs actual research are bullshit. -David Nutt is a good guy, but he has a grudge, and his opinion on things should be seen through the lens of that grudge. [QUOTE=theenemy;38291040]People get high, it's a fact of life whether conservative policy likes it or not. Now we'll have to do it through a more illegal method or resort to dangerous, untested legal highs. Luckily MXE was proving to be relatively harmless but now we'll never know because it's illegal.[/QUOTE] MXE was never "harmless", and the fact that people continue to do a thing regardless of obstacles to doing it is not an argument for the legality of that thing. People will murder, too, regardless of what politicians like or not.

Nothing is harmless. If these people really gave a shit about safety and how dangerous these drugs were, why are they pushing them into an unregulated black market and making them far more dangerous than they are on their own in the process? If it is established that people want to take this drug, for example, why not regulate it and make it as safe as possible for participants like other non-drug based activities where similar risk or danger are involved? Prohibition to me seems like just brushing it under the carpet and fails to address the fact there is a demand and that people will take substances regardless. In fact, the way it is implemented shows a reckless disregard for the safety of the general public. There are plenty of examples to show that prohibiting substances does not eliminate them and makes them more dangerous than they are themselves by introducing dangerous external factors. To enforce a prohibition efficiently seems it would require something like a police state.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38292294]No. -Taking issue with a judgement based on a drug's "molecular structure (rather than evidence that they are harmful)" is absolutely asinine. You can determine the harm of a thing based on its structure. Chemistry is a thing. You don't need to chug battery acid to know it's harmful. The Journal of Medical Toxicology has covered Methoxetamine (and some of the other substances here) before, it's not safe. -As of March, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs had a compilation of case studies demonstrating harm in line with their predictions regarding Methoxetamine and a plan for formal studies on it, so any claims this lacks evidence or impairs actual research are bullshit. -David Nutt is a good guy, but he has a grudge, and his opinion on things should be seen through the lens of that grudge. MXE was never "harmless", and the fact that people continue to do a thing regardless of obstacles to doing it is not an argument for the legality of that thing. People will murder, too, regardless of what politicians like or not.[/QUOTE] -Battery acid has very obvious effects on human health that have been demonstrated. Meanwhile MXE is white powder without any history, the slightest difference in chemistry can have a dramatic effect on interaction with the human body. Not something easy to work out. [url]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/agencies-public-bodies/acmd1/methoxetamine2012[/url] -Reading the report it shows no deaths attributed to the drug, from 1-2 years of pretty major use there is only one recorded case of toxicity causing hospitalisation. Most would say that's not too bad compared to the statistics for alcohol poisoning. -David Nutt is an objective scientist, I don't think he'd risk harm on a lot of lives just to show up the government. People using drugs is self harm at worst, if it doesn't have a direct effect on other people I don't see any reason to get the law involved.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;38293696]If these people really gave a shit about safety and how dangerous these drugs were, why are they pushing them into an unregulated black market and making them far more dangerous than they are on their own in the process? If it is established that people want to take this drug, for example, why not regulate it and make it as safe as possible for participants like other non-drug based activities where similar risk or danger are involved?[/QUOTE] [I]This is not an argument.[/I] Substitute any activity which appears to have a low lethality rate to you, it falls apart. [QUOTE=Bizarro_JustExtreme;38293696]If these people really gave a shit about safety and how dangerous sex slavery is, why are they pushing sex slavery into an unregulated black market and making it far more dangerous than it is on its own in the process? If it is established that people want to have sex slaves, for example, why not regulate it and make it as safe as possible for participants like other non-slavery activities where similar risk or danger are involved?[/QUOTE] Obviously the degree and fashion in which MXE is harmful to others is nowhere near sex slavery, but this is a reduction to the absurd- you said a thing that is so devoid of any actual rationality it can be applied to anything, consensual or not. [QUOTE=JustExtreme;38293696]Prohibition to me seems like just brushing it under the carpet and fails to address the fact there is a demand and that people will take substances regardless.[/QUOTE] No developed nation with substance bans doesn't address demand. Adjusting demand has been the purpose ever since it was proven in the 90s that you can't simply blow up every coca grower and amphetamine lab. Law enforcement approaches exist to [I]reduce demand.[/I] Similarly, education on the dangers of it serves to [I]reduce demand.[/I] [QUOTE=JustExtreme;38293696]In fact, the way it is implemented shows a reckless disregard for the safety of the general public. There are plenty of examples to show that prohibiting substances does not eliminate them and makes them more dangerous than they are themselves by introducing dangerous external factors.[/QUOTE] No, [URL="https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=104607"]there's evidence using [I]force[/I] to prohibit substance abuse does that.[/URL] Note the proposed alternative- you know, focusing on the responsibility of individuals not to be dumbfucks. Nothing suggest prohibition alone exacerbates a drug problem. [QUOTE=JustExtreme;38293696]To enforce a prohibition efficiently seems it would require something like a police state.[/QUOTE] Alternatively, it just requires a society with fewer poor people, since they're the most likely to abuse substances. See: "Sense and Nonsense About Crime and Drugs".

[img]http://i.imgur.com/BWSBE.png[/img]

[QUOTE=RAG Frag;38294068]-Battery acid has very obvious effects on human health that have been demonstrated. Meanwhile MXE is white powder without any history, the slightest difference in chemistry can have a dramatic effect on interaction with the human body. Not something easy to work out.[/QUOTE] So you didn't read anything I cited. It's been examined and it falls in line with predictions. If you're seriously suggesting it's "not something easy to work out" you have no understanding of chemistry. This is not an immensely complicated subject, changing one aspect of a thing does not magically make it less harmful. [QUOTE=RAG Frag;38294068][url]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/agencies-public-bodies/acmd1/methoxetamine2012[/url] -Reading the report it shows no deaths attributed to the drug, from 1-2 years of pretty major use there is only one recorded case of toxicity causing hospitalisation. Most would say that's not too bad compared to the statistics for alcohol poisoning.[/QUOTE] Do you know what the term "per capita" means? [QUOTE=RAG Frag;38294068]-David Nutt is an objective scientist, I don't think he'd risk harm on a lot of lives just to show up the government.[/QUOTE] David Nutt has been wrong before and has a strong opinion on this shit, independent of his capabilities as a scientist. One single man with a bias does not a scientific consensus make. [QUOTE=RAG Frag;38294068]People using drugs is self harm at worst, if it doesn't have a direct effect on other people I don't see any reason to get the law involved.[/QUOTE] Publicly funded health care. Think about it for all of five seconds.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38294284]So you didn't read anything I cited. It's been examined and it falls in line with predictions. If you're seriously suggesting it's "not something easy to work out" you have no understanding of chemistry. This is not an immensely complicated subject, changing one aspect of a thing does not magically make it less harmful. Do you know what the term "per capita" means? David Nutt has been wrong before and has a strong opinion on this shit, independent of his capabilities as a scientist. One single man with a bias does not a scientific consensus make. Publicly funded health care. Think about it for all of five seconds.[/QUOTE] -Couldn't find your reference material so provide it next time. I did however read the ACMD report which seemed very vague, listing effects that are neither good or bad with only preliminary findings as a basis for a ban. Healthwise it didn't say much was wrong. -I'm not sure why that applies, it was talking about death or toxicity cases total. -Strong opinions aren't bad if it comes as a result of the science, the man was the head of a government advisory group and that still carries weight. -You want to ban all harmful recreational activities like drinking, smoking, skydiving, horse riding then? And you want to bet that those activities would stop if they were banned?

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;38292294]No. [B]-Taking issue with a judgement based on a drug's "molecular structure (rather than evidence that they are harmful)" is absolutely asinine. You can determine the harm of a thing based on its structure. Chemistry is a thing. You don't need to chug battery acid to know it's harmful. The Journal of Medical Toxicology has covered Methoxetamine (and some of the other substances here) before, it's not safe.[/B] -As of March, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs had a compilation of case studies demonstrating harm in line with their predictions regarding Methoxetamine and a plan for formal studies on it, so any claims this lacks evidence or impairs actual research are bullshit. -David Nutt is a good guy, but he has a grudge, and his opinion on things should be seen through the lens of that grudge. MXE was never "harmless", and the fact that people continue to do a thing regardless of obstacles to doing it is not an argument for the legality of that thing. People will murder, too, regardless of what politicians like or not.[/QUOTE] Words fall from your mouth like shit from ass. Please tell me what in its chemical structure points towards it being especially harmful at moderate usage? It seems to me you are using big words that you know little about to belittle others and spare yourself a proper, objective debate ("molecular structure noob, now stfu"). All evidence points towards that MXE is a very mild drug if kept at moderate usage. It is more water-soluble, excretable and metabolically accessible in the liver and kidneys compared to its siblings Ketamine or PCP. It is also much more potent than Ket and has a higher duration of action, which results in that the liver doesn't have to deal with as much powder in one session. On the mind MXE acts very similarly as Ketamine, but you have more self-control and less confusion due to a drastically lowered dopamine re-uptake inhibition. Usually, the best way to see the dangers of a new drug is by looking at the heavy users. These experience the negative aspects much quicker do to a high constant intake in high doses, essentially making them work as lab-rats (which is how scientists gather almost all information about drugs anyway). There are thousands of reports of people taking the substance every day for a month or even longer, and then stopping. No major negative health aspects has been noted by anyone, and the addiction is very benign and seemingly only psychological in nature as no users reported having any physical abstinence effects comparable to those you would get with amphetamines or nicotine, for example. In order words, it is one of the, if not [B]the [/B]safest dissociative both on your body and mind and no more addictive than cannabis or computer games. It has huge potential as a safe anti-depressant, intoxicant and painkiller, unlike benzo's or SSRI's which makes your body and mind highly dependent on them and, particularly benzos, can fuck you up majorly in the long run. I am not saying it is harmless, but it is far from as harmful as you portray it to be. It's very mild in terms of danger when compared to other drugs and it definitely does not deserve to be made illegal. Do you honestly believe organizations who have again and again fed the propaganda machine against all drugs, safe or not, will judge a completely new substance fairly? They don't care if it's harmful or not, as long as people are getting high off it they will label it as unsafe. They will label effects like "losing perception of time", "hallucinations" and "numbness" as negative effects when in fact it's just a part of getting high and does not inherently mean it's dangerous at all.

Right fuck this, you can indeed see the general effects of a drug when you look at it's structure, it's not a particularly difficult task to theorise the effects of a drug, all you do are check compounds with similar structure, functional groups and chirality as well as checking the effects of isomers of those compounds. This and studies are done, I don't get why this is even being debated, both methods are used because it's simple good science, while you can sit and pour over a compound and similar compounds you could get some unexpected effects so you perform both human trials and chemical analysis. And can we keep the whole "GUBMINT PROPAHGANDAH!" bullshit out of this?