If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
2 Boys in Critical Condition after taking 'Ecstasy'
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
BBC NEWS: Wales
2 lads, 15 & 16 critically ill, one is on a ventillator.
No toxicological details yet, it is being reported that they had consumed 'large blue pills'...i may be (actually i am) jumping the gun but i cant think of a few blue pills that will do that when mixed with alcohol.
Mercifully this is rare, but such is the nature of an criminal economy.
2 lads, 15 & 16 critically ill, one is on a ventillator.
No toxicological details yet, it is being reported that they had consumed 'large blue pills'...i may be (actually i am) jumping the gun but i cant think of a few blue pills that will do that when mixed with alcohol.
Mercifully this is rare, but such is the nature of an criminal economy.
0
Comments
This section of the article caught my eye;
"Aneurin Owen, from the north Wales drug and alcohol agency Cais, told BBC Wales events like this were quite unusual.
"When you think that millions of young people use ecstasy every week, these incidents are fairly rare," he said.
"The main risk around ecstasy is the unpredictability of the quality and therefore the risks are very high even for those who are using ecstasy recreationally, maybe even for the first time, as we know.
"People should only take it from people that they know, that they have had drugs from in the past, obviously and take very great care."
So basically he's saying pills are dangerous almost totally because of the law?
Same bloody meaning though isnt it, pills are dangerous because A) they are unregulated and because people dont know (or want to know) how to use them responsibly.
The law is making both of those worse, not better.
You can take a horse to water...
You're totally right, but thats a different issue really. The reasons for that are far more complex than just the drug laws, the drug laws make choices like that worse, but they are not the reason for them.
from a governmental perspective, sadly, illegalization is the ultimate regulation. As evidence accumulates, maybe we'll see a change in governmental opinions as to what regulation actually means.
I mean is it fair to accuse the law of something like this? You basically are saying the law is responsible for the condition of these kids.. but if people actually followed the damned law, these kids wouldn't be in that situation anyways.
Yes, I think it is fair to blame (at least in part) the law for this and many other drug overdoses and problems.
If MDMA was sold under licence then it would be easier to stop kids getting it and it would be sold in measured doses and therefore safer.
And also the emphasis could be on good education rather than scare tactics.
Exactly, the current law does nothing to reduce harm to the user or society.
In fact, virtually everything about the law increases the potential for harm.
It does nothing to reduce supply
It does nothing to reduce demand
It does nothing to increase quality (quite the reverse)
By any indicator it is a total and abject failure.
In fact it probably increases it by introducing the illegality, which is an attractive reason way to rebel for many young people.
Indeed, the law creates a seller's market, where the end user needs to find a source and so relies upon whatever is available, regardless of the quality of the product.
I understand what you're getting at - It's sort of a half and half issue. If the government set up more relaxed rules, but tightly regulated the issue might go away, but upon doing this, the users would have to follow the rules strictly -- But the fact is, not everyone is a perfect citizain or politician.
the good thing about regulating MDMA use would be purity. There wouldn't be any of these psychoactive cocktails being marketed as MDMA
edit: BTW, I'm really just playing devils advocate here..
2.) Out of the answer to number 1, the two boys who are critically ill, how small a percentage is that?
I'm not suggesting MDMA on prescription, it had medical use (for therapy) but thats not how it should be sold to the public.
It should be sold as a recreational drug, much like alcohol is, but with tighter controls.
I'm not suggesting a free for all, low prices and adverts on the TV. I want tightly controlled, well regulated supply, something we clearly dont have now.
Legal supply wont be and doesnt have to be the perfect answer, it just has to be better than what we do now, and it clearly cant be worse.
The phrase i hear bandied about all the time is 'research inconclusive'.
I think it is time people started accepting that there are certain behaviours and conditions, such as some forms of poly drug use that we cannot even begin to assess within the traditional scientific remit (lab experimentation etc.)
We can gain insights into the workings of chemicals in isolation or perhaps combination, but the sheer plurality of chemicals, quality, conditions and amounts of use varies so unbelievably widely that we can only construct very vague 'Ideal Types' of drug use for discussion, often as much through annecdotal evidence as scientific.
Relative to the volume of discourse and the amount of time it has been going on for, there is actually precious little research into the long term affects of MDMA, let alone making major head roads into poly use.
I think what drug users (those that give two tosses about theri health in any event) should be increasingly aware of is that in alot of discussions we are decades away from being able to attain decent scientific research data into the plurality of usage forms which exist, and even then this will hardly give us the entire picture.
And of course proper scientific research is few and far between; and will be for some time to come, because MDMA isn't seen as medically useful and thus is not worth the government's time/money/endorsement.
On another note: if they ever do paid trials with MDMA, I'd be happy to lend a hand in the name of science :thumb:
Drug related autopsies don’t always determine the true cause of death which is ultimately respiratory/cardiac arrest. Polydrugging is usually identified; however, it would be a snapshot of what’s in the blood rather that what was ingested. And, let’s not forget that not all substances are/can be tested for so some drugs slip through the cracks in terms of being 100% identified. There are detailed analyses of MDMA/MDA “related” (accidents are sometimes involved) deaths that are available listing other drugs found in the mix.
Here are my questions:
With ecstasy, even with quality harm minimization education, you can never completely get around the problems of people who can’t metabolize it, hyperthermia, hyponatremia and polydrugging. If you take these two deaths (and all the ecstasy related deaths for that matter) and weigh it against legalization, wouldn’t more people take it thinking that it’s safe and possibly increase the death rate?
Surely the dealer had more than two “rogue” pills and the police would not be able to warn everyone in time as the media suggests. If polydrugging was not involved, what would likely be in the pills they took that would have affected them and not others?
Would it really reduce crime as street dealers would switch over to distributing diverted (albeit purer) versions to the same drug?
It's frustrating that the media is quick to jump on a lead drug story, but rarely follow through on the outcome so we can learn from the incident until the family/victims say something, if at all. Well, at least it gets people to talk openly even if all the facts are unknown.:banghead:
woah woooooooaah, lets not get carried away there
MDMA has been used to great effect in the treatment of post-traumatic stress and of other anxious disorders, and this information has been in the public domain since the 1970s.
Unfortunately the method of treatment in these cases involved only singular or limited use of the substance, they dont keep people 'on' it so to speak which doesnt make for a very high return product.
In any event, I would think the underground market would still exist with both diverted and non-approved versions; it's not going away anytime soon whether ecstasy is regulated or not.
when the number of people who have 'died from ecstasy' is talked about it is often confused with it appearing as a factor on the death certificate.
Pronouncing cause of death is not a purely positive process in the sense that there is some subjective analysis involved. One coroner might pronouce ecstasy as the primary factor in a death where another might not for example, e.g; one may conclude in a death by misadventure of some kind that E impaired judgement, where as another would not see it as having that great a degree of effect.
Certainly, people who just drink alcohol and take MDMA are taking an unknown risk because there really is no evidence to suggest how safe or otherwise that is. I read a paper a while back suggesting that just caffiene and MDMA can increase neuro-toxicity, so if you are whacking speed, alcohol and MDMA together you can guess at what its doing to you.
Except its not, we dont have anywhere near the problems in the UK as you do in the US, the market in medical drugs there is not well regulated, not highly controlled and not safe. I would definitely not want a system like that. And as I said, I wouldnt want doctors prescribing it for recreational use, only for very specific therapy uses.
Are there lots of people who dont use it now because of the law? Virtually no one when questioned sites the law as a deterant, so I dont see use going up. And even if it did thats not the issue, it is harm which is important and harm would be reduced by better education and better quality. But you are right, there would still be deaths, thats a fact of life, if people know the risks we should (within reason) let them take them. Much like we dont ban sky diving which is far more dangerous than using MDMA.
Its an odd case certainly, you'd need toxicology tests to know what they had taken to really know, but poly-drug use is the most common reason for people having problems.
Why would you buy from a black market dealer? Yes of course there would be (much like alcohol) a black market to kids and others, but this would be much smaller and potentially easier to track.
the one assumption that you are making there bong is that users will by and large function on rational choice.
When was the last time you bought moonshine?
broadly it would be fair to say most people do, and indeed its really the only consistent way to formulate policy, however as we have seen time and again on these boards it gets thrown out for reasons of expediency