Hard News by Russell Brown

In the Matters of Substance feature you quote Quigley as having "little time for the argument that nothing can be approved without animal testing."

For drugs where there's already a lot of acute-toxicity information from human use, such as MDMA or cannabis or LSD I'd agree. Reasonable people can argue over whether LSD is safe enough for general sale to adults or not, but animal data isn't going to help settle the issue, and animal data won't help with anything beyond acute toxicity.

For new molecules, though, I'd be worried about not having animal testing, for two reasons. The first is the overdose profile: moderate overdoses are going to be fairly common, and it's important how their risks compare to 'recommended' doses. That seems to be the main problem with both the synthetic cannabi{noid,mimetic}s and the NBOMe hallucinogens.

The second issue is teratogenic effects. I assume this was part of the NZ shutdown (given the confusion about the taxonomic status of rabbits), since that's the main reason for testing on rabbits in addition to rats/mice. Early effects are especially relevant, since some users of these new substances will be pregnant but not know it yet.

PS: I think enactogenic should be entactogenic in the quote from Paul Quigley.

I wouldn't touch a pill these days without testing it (I always tested them from new source back in the day).

Tests are cheap: http://ez-test.com.au/

A "Marquis" test can be easily made up if you can get hold of sulphuric acid and formaldehyde. It can test for many things beyond MD(M)A.

And testing in clubs, as they did in Holland, would be nice.

There are various solutions, including permitted onsite testing. But that's a politically alarming step.

The Dutch, in their normal pragmatic way, have been providing on-site testing for 20+ years. I remember reading this particular article from 1995 back when it was actually relevant to my then-current-lifestyle.

Bonus amusement to be had with a dadsplain-y reference to 'Gabbers', and a general out-of-touch-with-the-youth tone.

Excellent article Russell. Back in the 70s and 80s the label almost always reflected what was in the product -- we aging hippies probably didn't realise just how good we had it. The sheer range of chemicals available today creates a minefield for those who choose to indulge and some sort of anonymous testing regime would be highly desirable.

One small typo -- search for the second occurrance of...

Days later, four young men died after taking the pills in Britain. Quigley says a “risk register” is generally an easier sell to governments.

The Drug Foundation is back into its winter Speaker and Soup series and the one on July 3 is about drug information and early warning systems.

Hard for people to take responsibility when what they think they're taking isn't what they've got.

We recognise the difference between safe use of alcohol and unsafe use of alcohol.
People aren't going to stop taking drugs, so how about we make it easier on the medical system by giving people the tools to take responsibility?

one afternoon I drove over to ESR

And you didn't come and visit? We are right next door!

It's the problem with prohibition. When you prohibit something people want you eliminate any form of regulation. People still want it and they will try to get it but because of the lack of regulation there is every chance they will get something much more harmful instead of what they want.

It's about doing the least harm and prohibition has never been successful at doing that.

When you prohibit something people want you eliminate any form of regulation. People still want it and they will try to get it but because of the lack of regulation there is every chance they will get something much more harmful instead of what they want.

Yup, a good parallel is prostitution. The harm reduction path is to allow prostitutes, and make Johns wear condoms, and make everyone pay taxes. Prostitution becomes a lot safer for everyone, probably a bit more widespread, probably a lot less fun. Then you only have to crack down on streetwalkers and underage prostitutes, which you probably actually should.

And you didn’t come and visit? We are right next door!

Being a drug mule means no time for social niceties.

Paul Quigley calls for MDMA to be legalised.

The purest form of ecstasy is safer than alcohol and should be legalised, Wellington Hospital's emergency department head says.

Emergency medical specialist and clinical toxicologist Paul Quigley said there was mounting evidence that MDMA, the unadulterated base for ecstasy, was one of the safest recreational drugs, especially when compared with alcohol, which made up about two-thirds of late-night and weekend admissions at the hospital's accident and emergency department.

His controversial call has been backed by the New Zealand Drug Foundation, and Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne said that, although the idea was a "longshot", he would discuss its merits with Quigley.

As usual, Key has an opinion on everything, even when it's not based in fact. This time it's MDMA.

Although Key said he had not seen any official advice on the safety of ecstasy, and was unfamiliar with Quigley's reasoning, he thought it unlikely his Government would legalise it. "Anything I've seen in relation to this drug has been deeply negative, so I can't see why it would be."

He believed the societal harm from such a move would be "very, very significant".

Maybe our PM needs to take a chill pill?

Maybe our PM needs to take a chill pill?

Maybe our PM should have a chat with his 'Club DJ' muso son and his artist daughter....

As usual, Key has an opinion on everything, even when it’s not based in fact. This time it’s MDMA.

Sigh. "I don't know the first thing about this, but I'm going to tell you anyway."

and we the media will faithfully relay it without the slightest thought ..

ecstasy is safer than alcohol

pretty much what I told my ex-stepson as he was faced with a variety of offers by his 15yo peers. *

Meanwhile, the Science Media Centre has polled some actual experts – and even the most conservative of them say regulating MDMA is not necessarily a crazy idea.

I for one have never seen anyone have a problem other than turning down offers of water.

* the real thing, not the crap that seems to be circulating nowadays.

I for one have never seen anyone have a problem other than turning down offers of water.

There are both short and long-term risks associated with taking MDMA. It’s contraindicated in combination with various other drugs, including MAO inhibitors. Following harm reduction principles lowers the risk of things like hyperthermia or liver failure, but it’s nonetheless the case that there are idiosyncratic reactions and “single dose deaths” where nothing else is amiss – they’re just very rare. Epidemiologically, alcohol causes far more harm, but people don’t tend to die after they’ve had their first glass of wine.

A number of studies have indicated that sustained, regular use of MDMA increases the risk of problems with depression, sleeplessness, etc, and that these aren’t necessarily reversible. It’s interesting that the US safety site Rollsafe recommends three months (or at least six weeks) between experiences – which is not how a lot of people we know lived their lives for a while.

(Also interesting: Rollsafe recommends sourcing via the dark web – where there are ratings systems anyone can see – vs dealers.)

So it’s not harmless, just safer than a bunch of other things.

I think legal, regulated MDMA is a long way off, if it ever arrives, so it’s a tiny bit frustrating that all the media that’s followed my MoS story has ignored the real angle, which is that it saves lives if and when people know what they’re taking, and if the people who may have to provide medical treatment know too. There are steps we can take to make that better right now.

it’s a tiny bit frustrating that all the media that’s followed my MoS story has ignored the real angle, which is that it saves lives if and when people know what they’re taking

That was what I thought the story was about until I looked at the bought media. I share your frustration.

It's the same as with "herbal supplements" - if you have no idea what's in the pills you can have quite shocking results, and can seriously mislead anyone trying to work out what's gone wrong.

Enactogenic: tending to provoke rapid-fire lawmaking

Hi Russell, do you have a source/link for the mdma 'single dose' deaths?

I googled and found separate cases of 2 young women(15y/o Fernback & 20y/o Woodard), both petite, who each likely took 500mg+ while 100mg is 'standard' dose.

If 3 glasses of wine is a moderate dose of alcohol for an 80kg male, are 15 glasses of wine a dangerous amount of alcohol for a 50kg female?

I assume the cases I mention would be not be counted as idiosyncratic reactions and “single dose deaths” but would like to see for myself. Exactly how rare are these deadly idiosyncratic reactions?