UK - Livingstone in row over 'legalise ecstasy' call

[Lunar Loops]

This from The Daily Telegraph (UK):

Livingstone in row over 'legalise ecstasy' call

By Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor

Last Updated: 2:40am BST 14/04/2008

Ken Livingstone came under fresh pressure last night when it emerged that his allies in the Green Party are calling for the legalisation of ecstasy.

Boris Johnson, the Conservative candidate for London mayor, called on Mr Livingstone to disown the Greens over the inclusion in their manifesto of a proposal to decriminalise the class A drug, which claims 50 lives a year and is linked to liver, kidney and heart problems.

The Mayor has entered a pact with Sian Berry, the Green Party's candidate, to persuade her supporters to give their second preference votes to him in the May 1 election. His press release announcing the deal last month said: "The call unites Ken Livingstone and Sian Berry on the basis of common policies".

Miss Berry's manifesto, launched last week, advocates "decriminalising recreational drugs such as ecstasy and psychotropic mushrooms" as well as "providing heroin on prescription". She also proposes "a local democratic tax on cannabis sale where the purchaser chooses a local project to receive a percentage of the profits". The drug would be sold in Dutch-style "coffee shops".

Mr Johnson, who has admitted trying cannabis and cocaine when he was younger, said: "Ecstasy alone kills one person a week in this country and to call for its legalisation is both dangerous and reckless. Surely the Mayor does not agree with this?

I call upon him to condemn the Green Party's approach and call off this cynical vote pact. "If Ken Livingstone will not publicly rebuke Sian Berry, voters will rightly conclude that he supports the Green Party manifesto in full."

[Purest]

I wish people wouldn't throw around the idea of 50 a year dying when alcohol and tobacco kill far more. Also one could argue quite easily that the people that die from the drug are taking unsafe street forms of the drug and don't get enough information on how to take the drugs safely.

[chinpokomaster]

It's cited in 50 deaths a year. How many of those involve other drugs, something that was meant to be ecstasy that wasn't, or over or underdrinking?

About 100% I'm guessing.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Article

Boris Johnson, the Conservative candidate for London mayor, called on Mr Livingstone to disown the Greens over the inclusion in their manifesto of a proposal to decriminalise the class A drug, which claims 50 lives a year and is linked to liver, kidney and heart problems.

Originally Posted by Article

Mr Johnson, who has admitted trying cannabis and cocaine when he was younger, said: "Ecstasy alone kills one person a week in this country and to call for its legalisation is both dangerous and reckless. Surely the Mayor does not agree with this?

Ecstasy claims 50 lives a year / one person a week in the UK? Lets investigate that claim more closely.


The article, Distorted? A Quantitative Exploration of Drug Fatality Reports, notes that there were 28 deaths attributed to ecstasy / mdma in Scotland between 1990 and 1999.

Lets take a look at what substances were involved with these deaths ---> toxicology fatalities.jpg

Part of the problem is evident in the preceding chart. Many of the deaths list both ecstasy and MDMA as drugs involved in the death, while others simply list ecstasy as a generic qualifier. The researchers go on to state that "only one (undetermind whether suicidal or accidental) death involved MDMA (stated as such) alone."

Complicating things; the 26 newspaper reports of ecstasy fatalities don't seem to match up with the actual 28 reported deaths. Hmmmm.....

The researchers also note an American example where ecstasy attributed deaths "were found to have been artificially inflated by irregular reporting practices".



Now, lets look at the statistics for Numbers of deaths from drug-related poisoning in England and Wales 1993-2006.

Deaths per Year - Ecstasy Mentioned on Death Certificate
1993 - 12
1994 - 20
1995 - 17
1996 - 16
1997 - 15
1998 - 17
1999 - 21
2000 - 28
2001 - 55
2002 - 56
2003 - 50
2004 - 43
2005 - 58
2006 - 48

Deaths per Year - Ecstasy 'Only Drug' Mentioned on Death Certificate
1993 - 1
1994 - 4
1995 - 1
1996 - 4
1997 - 1
1998 - 3
1999 - 2
2000 - 5
2001 - 13
2002 - 7
2003 - 12
2004 - 13
2005 - 14

Note that the mortality rate drops dramatically if you only look at deaths where ecstasy was the sole substance taken, and this still likely isn't the most accurate number. As the previous study shows, 'E' deaths are generally attributed to the generic substance 'ecstasy' rather than MDMA itself, meaning that adulterants could have played a significant role in the remaining recorded deaths.

I don't have time to look up the estimated prevalence of ecstasy use in the UK, but I'd bet that the risk of mortality from ecstasy use is insanely low compared to most other substances. Also, without more specific data we can't tell what the exact cause of death was in each of these instances. Hyperthermia can be a cause of ecstasy deaths, among other things, and one can't assume that each of the deaths attributed to ecstasy alone were due to toxicity and not idiosyncratic physiological variables or high risk behaviors (paired with lack of knowledge about safe practices).


At the least, it appears that the 50 deaths a year statistic is greatly exaggerated. It doesn't account for polysubstance use, which brings the average number of lives "claimed by ecstasy" since 2000 down to 10.6, and the average number of deaths per year between 1993 and 2005 to 6.


Finally, the Green Party isn't trying to legalize ecstasy. They would legalize MDMA! Given that we don't know much about the relationship between prevalence of adulterants in ecstasy tablets and the number of documented deaths attributed to ecstasy (could perhaps be a causative factor in the rising # of ecstasy deaths recorded), legalization of MDMA may decrease the death toll even further, assuming deaths from polysubstance use don't rise to counter any decrease.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but damn. The fact that its so easy to dismiss any challenge to the ideology of prohibition using the potent combination of fear and the mass media, and that so many people take it at face value... its very depressing.

Originally Posted by Article

I call upon him to condemn the Green Party's approach and call off this cynical vote pact. "If Ken Livingstone will not publicly rebuke Sian Berry, voters will rightly conclude that he supports the Green Party manifesto in full."

That has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard all day. Let me get this straight, if he doesn't publicly rebuke the proposal it means he fully supports it? Oh of course, in the fantasy land where most politicians live today everything is either black or white and there is no inbetween. If you are grey, you'd better color yourself either black or white, otherwise the authorities will do it for you.

How about a more logical view? If Ken Livingstone won't publicly rebuke Sian Berry voters will rightly conclude that he has not voiced his opinion on this proposal and not make any hasty judgements because that would be fucking stupid.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	great post
	Excellent comeback! Baj for London Mayor!
	you've earned it

[Alfa]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

Ecstasy claims 50 lives a year / one person a week in the UK? Lets investigate that claim more closely.

The article, Distorted? A Quantitative Exploration of Drug Fatality Reports, notes that there were 28 deaths attributed to ecstasy / mdma in Scotland between 1990 and 1999.

Lets take a look at what substances were involved with these deaths ---> Attachment 4557

Part of the problem is evident in the preceding chart. Many of the deaths list both ecstasy and MDMA as drugs involved in the death, while others simply list ecstasy as a generic qualifier. The researchers go on to state that "only one (undetermind whether suicidal or accidental) death involved MDMA (stated as such) alone."

Complicating things; the 26 newspaper reports of ecstasy fatalities don't seem to match up with the actual 28 reported deaths. Hmmmm.....

The researchers also note an American example where ecstasy attributed deaths "were found to have been artificially inflated by irregular reporting practices".

Now, lets look at the statistics for Numbers of deaths from drug-related poisoning in England and Wales 1993-2006.

Deaths per Year - Ecstasy Mentioned on Death Certificate
1993 - 12
1994 - 20
1995 - 17
1996 - 16
1997 - 15
1998 - 17
1999 - 21
2000 - 28
2001 - 55
2002 - 56
2003 - 50
2004 - 43
2005 - 58
2006 - 48

Deaths per Year - Ecstasy 'Only Drug' Mentioned on Death Certificate
1993 - 1
1994 - 4
1995 - 1
1996 - 4
1997 - 1
1998 - 3
1999 - 2
2000 - 5
2001 - 13
2002 - 7
2003 - 12
2004 - 13
2005 - 14

Note that the mortality rate drops dramatically if you only look at deaths where ecstasy was the sole substance taken, and this still likely isn't the most accurate number. As the previous study shows, 'E' deaths are generally attributed to the generic substance 'ecstasy' rather than MDMA itself, meaning that adulterants could have played a significant role in the remaining recorded deaths.

I don't have time to look up the estimated prevalence of ecstasy use in the UK, but I'd bet that the risk of mortality from ecstasy use is insanely low compared to most other substances. Also, without more specific data we can't tell what the exact cause of death was in each of these instances. Hyperthermia can be a cause of ecstasy deaths, among other things, and one can't assume that each of the deaths attributed to ecstasy alone were due to toxicity and not idiosyncratic physiological variables or high risk behaviors (paired with lack of knowledge about safe practices).

At the least, it appears that the 50 deaths a year statistic is greatly exaggerated. It doesn't account for polysubstance use, which brings the average number of lives "claimed by ecstasy" since 2000 down to 10.6, and the average number of deaths per year between 1993 and 2005 to 6.

This text should be contributed to the health risks chapter of the MDMA wiki. There is no MDMA wiki yet, but there is no harm in starting this chapter.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

How about a more logical view? If Ken Livingstone won't publicly rebuke Sian Berry voters will rightly conclude that he has not voiced his opinion on this proposal and not make any hasty judgements because that would be fucking stupid.

If you're not with me you're against me; if you're not an apple you're a banana - Terry Pratchett, Night Watch

[Nature Boy]

Ever since the Nutt report it seems many people are giving serious thought to legalising ecstasy. I could see ecstasy being given a looser legal position than cannabis, which to me seems ridiculous, but to those that spout on about "patterns of use" and "addictive potential" seems logical. Not to bash ecstasy, but it is a powerful amphetamine capable of killing if taken in large doses. How they deduced it as being safer than benign cannabis is purely a result of Britain's Reefer Madness v2.0.

[Salvinorum]

Nature Boy, drugs are largely not illegal due to their safety, especially not Marijuana. Amphetamines, while far more likely to be abused, and far more likely to cause physical damage, short or long term, are far more compatible with the way the elite view and shape our society, and its ongoing evolution.

As long as it was just an unknown drug called extacy with scattered reports that it makes people behave like hippies, it was evil, but as soon as it was known to them that it was just another amphetamine, it became more accepted. The danger to society from drugs that focus on the positive emotions and actions, such as love and sharing, are clear to those who benefit from this society. Drugs that cause selfishness, violence, fear, and are addictive, are not only accepted, but pushed on the population. Marijuana vs. alcohol is the ultimate proof for those who are incapable or refuse to look into the issue of civil liberties and reasons of drug prohibition. Even the most eloquent of prohibitionists will stutter when faced with this paradox, but only when questioned by individualists or free thinkers. To his peers, he will quickly justify, with a loud "Cheers!", the benefit of alcohol and the danger of marijuana, and physical bodily effects will never be brought up.

[Panthers007]

The usual catch-all answer from these prohibitionists of pot, when faced with why alcohol (and the statistics proving how detrimental the stuff is) is legal and pot is banned, is that alcohol is bad enough. "We don't need more problems!" Of course they never admit that the anti-drug ads in the media from such entities as "The Partnership for a Drug-Free America" are actually paid for by the alcohol industry themselves.

Pure cynical double-speak ala Orwell.