This is the story of Mr A, a patient formerly under the addiction centre at St George's Medical School in London. His name was kept private either for professional reasons or because he cannot remember it. Between the ages of 21 and 30, Mr A is believed to have taken 40,000 Ecstasy pills. This figure is so insane it is actually comical. His intake rose from five pills over each weekend, to a little over 100 each month and, finally, 25 every day, a habit he maintained for four years, no doubt to the awe of his social circle.
Unsurprisingly, he was left with severe short-term memory problems, hallucinations, paranoia and muscle rigidity; which, in the circumstances, is like taking a header from the top of Canary Wharf and getting away with a chipped tooth and a mildly sprained ankle.
Christos Kouimtsidis, who was his consultant psychiatrist, described Mr A as having trouble functioning in everyday life. “He could not remember the time, the day, what was in his supermarket trolley,” he said, which seems a tad churlish considering most of us couldn't be trusted in the canned goods aisle on much more than Piriton and two slugs of Night Nurse.
So what does this tell us about the killer drug Ecstasy? Well, as killer drugs go, it is a bit of a lightweight. Try taking 25 Sudafed a day for four years and see what happens. Try taking 25 of anything sold for a headache at Boots, for that matter. When the unpopular North Wales police chief Richard Brunstrom claimed Ecstasy to be a “remarkably safe substance” this week, he was predictably shouted down.
Yet with recent estimates running at 730,000 users in the United Kingdom (2003 figures) taking between 500,000 and two million tablets each weekend, how else would its performance be graded? Since 1994 there have been approximately 400 deaths in which Ecstasy has been a contributory factor. In 2005 alone 8,836 deaths were alcohol-related and roughly 100 deaths each year are attributed to overdoses or adverse reactions to aspirin or paracetamol.
So say there are a ball-park 1.25 million Ecstasy tablets taken each week in Britain. That is 65 million annually and 910 million since 1994, working out as one death every 2,275,000 tablets. “Some users suffer heatstroke, nausea, blurred vision and sweating,” one newspaper told its readers, neglecting to add that by and large the rest have a blinding night out and get up for work on Monday morning with a clearer head than heavy drinkers whose drug of choice, though also given to side-effects such as nausea, blurred vision and sweating, not to mention acts of violence and severe mood swings, is legally approved. Ask any copper the cause of the violence in our city centres on Saturday nights and he won't say Ecstasy.
“Brunstrom should be made to stand by Siobhan's grave every week and see how he feels,” said Des Delaney, whose daughter died from toxic reaction to Ecstasy in 2005. The newspaper report on Mr Brunstrom's comments said that Siobhan took an Ecstasy tablet, but that is not quite true (just as it is so often claimed that a victim was trying the drug for the first time, unlikely in the case of a person taking four or five tablets). In fact, the coroner's report said Siobhan bought four and consumed one and a half Ecstasy tablets, drinking ten bottles of water and dancing until 5am. It described her reaction as an “extremely rare condition”, and said the time delay in receiving treatment was also a factor, although hospital staff were not blamed.
Getting your take on recreational drug use from grieving parents is like forming a view on the value of insects based on the thoughts of a person whose partner has died from anaphylactic shock caused by a bee or wasp sting (between two and nine people are killed this way each year in Britain, with four in every 1,000 believed susceptible).
And on a ratio basis hardly anyone gets stung by bees. Indeed, a bee sting is a topic of conversation for the rest of your life. “Yeah, I got stung once. Little bastard crawled up my trouser leg and when I reached down to scratch...” So think about it. Statistically, being in a nightclub full of Ecstasy-users may be safer than being stung in your garden in August.
Now I don't see my views on drugs reflected too often in the mainstream media, so here goes. This is the comedian Bill Hicks quoted in performance at the Laff Stop, Austin, Texas, December 1991. “I don't do drugs anymore,” he said, “but I'll tell you something honestly: I had a great time doing drugs. Sorry. Never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife, or kids — laughed my ass off, and went about my day. Sorry.”
And there, in a nutshell, is the experience of most casual drug users in Britain today. We hear a lot about how harmful drugs are, never how harmless. Not a word about how, for most people, they are something you grow out of, as surely as you grow out of small cars with souped-up engines. The Ecstasy users of 1991 are now talking house prices and schools over dinner, just like their parents. So don't worry, folks. This generation will end up voting Conservative same as the last lot.
It's a phase. It will pass. Even Mr A knocked it on the head when he turned 30; even a bloke on 25 Es a day worked out he was too old to keep bursting into tears each time one of the little critters didn't pull through on Animal Hospital.
Mr Brunstrom wants drugs legalised, though, and this is where we must draw the line. Not for reasons of morality but because, back in the days when such things were important, we would never have left our weekend in the hands of the same people who brought us the rotten rail service, failing NHS, useless schools, limp-wristed police force and tinpot incompetent councils. In our experience, the suppliers were, by and large, reliable, organised and provided a very professional service. Let Mr Brunstrom concentrate on getting his name in the newspapers, and leave drugs to the experts.
Most people that are against MDMA, IN MY EXPERIENCE, have been given very misleading information on the chemical. Web sites like www.erowid.org are part of the solution to this problem. Maybe if we inform people of the pros, cons, and effects of drugs it would help our society at least understand the dangers and benefits associated with the chemicals that have been so widely criticized. Legalizing drugs would not eliminate the illegal drug trade, but it would reduce it. If MDMA, for instance, were legalized, there would probably be specified ammounts able to be obtained in a single purchase. As a society, we tend to over-indulge ourselves in nearly everything, thus, if somebody wanted more than they could legaly obtain, they would probably turn to less than legal means to procure it. The real benefit of legalizing any drug is that the content and purity of the substance could then be controlled and monitored. Make it safer for people to use. They will use it whether it is legal or not.
Jake Wennstrom, Tempe, Arizona
That's all well and good, but there are other dangers than death. Drug induced psychosis is a serious issue, and where death may affect a relatively small number of people for a short time, psychosis takes far more resources from the community, both from friends and family and from the professional community.
Jamie Kitson, London, UK
I think it is clear that the majority of people discussing this article agree with most of what has been said. I do too. The people who are saying that Es are bad, really don't know what's happening in the real world. Yeah, they can be dangerous, but so can drinking 20 pints. It is time for change in these ridiculous laws where you can get banged up for having a couple of pills but will get a community service sentence for beating someone up.
Stuart, Glasgow,
Richard Brunstrom is a clever man. Many people in all levels of society have taken drugs in a safe, recreational manner and go to work like everybody else during the week.
I am part of the current rave generation, I take pills almost every weekend and during the week I am completing the final year of a degree, in which I gained a 2:1 last year, I do work experience, I go to work and I help take care of the house and my little sister. Most of my friends also uphold the same levels of responsibilities without problems.
My dad knows I do pills, in fact he's tried them himself, and as long as I am sensible he is fine with it. In fact I tend to act worse and have much worse after effects from drink!!
In fact I've seen much worse effects from drink in most people having been mugged by drunk people on the street.
I could easily go to a rave full of thousands of people on my own and feel completely safe, and probably leave, as I do almost every week, with a few more friends.
Stephanie, Watford,
The ecstasy club scene is very much like the Northern Soul scene of the late 1960's through to the mid 1980's (its still going on but we are now all so old!). Here we had a group of kids in the North of England who enjoyed dancing all night and taking a few pills and powder (speed). Like mentioned in the article, there was no fights, everyone was universally excepted and many life long friends and partners were found.
We are now the parents of the clubbers, and if we are sensible we guide our children to do it safely knowing like us they will grow out of it. Now as professionals, councillors, school governers and the like we look back with fondness at those exciting times of growth, fun and development and feel glad to have been part of it. Great article.
Liz Yorkshire
Liz, Yorkshire,
Like every single commenter on this page who has *actually experienced* ecstasy I have to agree that it is far less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. Ecstasy promotes a feeling of wellbeing and harmony with your fellow man and with moderate use (1-5 pills once of twice a month) has no worse side-effects than tiredness the following day and maybe sore gums. I've never witnessed violence or illness in ecstasy users, and it is less habit-forming than alcohol and tobacco.
I've taken ~500 ecstasy tablets in the last 10 years, yet I maintain a good job, am completely free from debt, am in good health and have healthy relationship with my friends and (non-drug-taking) partner of 2 years.
Taxed revenue from legalised & licensed drugs would more than pay for any medical and psychological support ; plus it would free up police to deal with crimes that actually have a victim.
Alex McGregor, Plymouth, UK
Adam (Glasgow), these "wise people" you speak of wouldn't happen to be anyone involved with large tobacco, alcohol, or pharmaceutical companies, would they?
Andrew, Fuzhou, China
Finally an article that speaks sense. I use to go clubbing every weekend taking all sorts at raves which were full of people doing the same as me and I never saw any fights or any people taken away by ambulance's, it's all over sensationalized rubbish! I have always held down a good job, I own a house, have good friends and family and I don't see why people who take recreational drugs should be considered criminals, I really don't see how a country full of binge drinkers is better? Of yeah I forgot alcohol is taxable.
Amber, London, UK
On the other hand, why don't we give every convicted drug-dealer a standard 10 years in a work-camp on an uninhabited Scottish island?
You know, crime and punishment, those old things.
P. MacCodagh, Coventry,
It is virtually certain that most if not all of the illegal drugs are less harmful than alcohol if only in terms of the behaviour of the intoxicated.
Given that and also that the "war on drugs" was lost years ago the only remaining solution appears to be legalisation with proper controls over quality and supply.
Treating cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine etc in the same way as we currently treat alcohol or tobacco with licenced suppliers, properly regulated seems infinitely preferable to the current situation.
Benefits would be many, not least the removal of the vast bankroll that we are told drug dealers use to fund terrorism and the diversion of much of these funds into the public purse through duties and taxes.
nick, reading,
There seems to be broadly two camps; those that have an understanding of what recreational drug use involves and those that have no first hand experience.
There are millions of people that have tried soft recreational drugs. And by soft I am distinguishing a couple of ecstacy pills to say shooting up heroin or taking crystal meth. (whilst not having any experience of the latter two I accept the medical evidence that they create a high physical dependancy)
For hundreds of thousands of people taking ecstacy every now and again is on a par with a heavy drinking session. Feeling a bit below par the next day, recovered by the next and fit, healthy and normal thereafter.
Ecstacy is no more a killer than hundreds of potential pitfalls that face us all on a daily basis. To criminalise some and not others is illogical. To suggest that the risks associated with ecstacy use are equivalent to heroin or crack cocaine is utterly wrong. And young people who have tried them know this.
John, London,
Follow the example of Holland. They legalised light drugs as cannabis and feel happy. Cause have done reasonably they take in these drugs in belong places (cafes, bars, pubs, ets) and if you are a sensible man, you no way will take in drugs.
Victor, Odessa, Ukraine
Drugs, Drugs, Drugs. Better living through chemistry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bruce Nortrhwood, Washington, D.C., USA
Experiments with primates show that alpha males don't actually touch drugs. Lower ranking males do however take to them quite readily.
The evidence suggests the alpha males get their serotonin highs from copulation. Inferior males, with no chance of copulation, get their highs from from the drugs.
The alpha males also don't want anything that throws them off guard whilst monitoring their females either.
Amongst humans serotonin highs come from either being in love or copulation. Perhaps the high levels of drug use reflect what a loveless society we now live in.
Keith Bentham, Wigan, UK
So presumably you would have no problem if someone sold ecstasy tabs to your children then Martin?
Neil, Birmingham, U.K
listen folks.. the ban on drugs IS NOT A COINCIDENCE... some people much wiser than most of us decided that some substances should not be available on the market. They did so in order to protect our health even life. None of the substances sold in our shops makes harm to you the way the heroine does. Comparing prescription drugs to any of illegal ones is a seriuos mistake. Even if the specific medication has some side effects the use of it is justified as it serves us to cure. There is no justification for risking your life just to feel the "buzz"...
Adam, glasgow,
Such is the efficiency of illegal drug supply that it is cheaper to get high than to get drunk.
If drug supply was legalised, the government would tax it. In doing so, they could artificially make dangerous drugs (crack cocaine, tobacco and alcohol) more expensive than safe ones (ecstasy and cannabis). They could also make it harder for people under the age of 18 to buy it. Currently a drug dealer does not care if his customers are school children, but a licensed shop would.
Result: we would all be healthier and children would be safer, and the tax money could be spent on healthcare and paying the police to chase real criminals.
Matthew, New York, USA
The real question is not whether drugs are harmful or not -- that varies based on dosage, purity, personal metabolism, etc. The issue is whether drug prohibition causes greater social harm than legalization. When one looks at the costs of incarceration, the damage done by organized crime and terrorists funding their activities with ridiculously huge profits from drug smuggling, it's clear that legalization is the lesser of two evils.
Jeff Myhre, New York City, USA
The pro-legalization fools would lie, deceie, sentence generations of children to the enslavement of addiction, to parents who will legally abuse such substances, especially given the despotic nature of the economy the government is shoving down the peoples throats.
If they get their way, you will see a vast expansion in human suffering and misery.
Jenny, Grand Rapids, MI, US
You miss the point Trish. You would avoid an alcoholic but would you avoid the local vicar after he had consumed a glass of wine over lunch. A majority of drug takers infrequently consume a limited amount in a controlled manner. Personally i would feel some sympathy for an alcoholic and also a heroin addict, but i wouldn't deprive the vicar of his well deserved tipple.
Simon, Leicester,
Having for many years managed to take a variaty of drugs including E, And still been successful at work, with family, friends\realationships etc, I really have to say that i have seen more damage to peoples lives through drinking than drugs, of the people ive meet in my life maybe one or two where trouble makers through drugs, yet i have seen the most sensible and sedate of people become vandals and thugs through drinking. I have still yet to meet anyone high on E who wanted to mug an old lady or set a building on fire. i have also yet to see anyone go to hospital through Drugs, yet i know many who have been taken to hospital after drinking to much.
steve, hemel,
It's really simple.
Legalisation does the following:
Increase supply, thus reducing cost, thus reducing crime to feed habits - good.
Not necessarily increase use - actual decrease in cannabis use on downgrading! - indifferent, rather than bad
Make addict more confident about seeking help - good.
Make police time available for crimes like murder - good.
Increase the freedom of the individual and roll back the nanny state - good.
QED.
Stuart, Carlisle, UK
I took e's in the 90's. We would go to a tent in the middle of nowhere and dance to 6am. No trouble and everyone got along just fine. During this time i ran a business employing 20 people. When i had children this lifestyle stopped of course. There is nothing wrong with ectasy as long as with most things it is enjoyed sensibly. A lot of the football trouble disappeared when "raving" started. Trish taking some ectasy at the weekend doesnt make you a junkie and believe me talking to someone on a "pill" is far more interesting than talking to someone who is drunk.
Glen, Beds,
Trish, I would imagine that many, many of the people you deal with on a daily basis do in fact at least occasionally take drugs. And they do so without endangering themselves, yourself, or others. This is another case of ignorance causing paranoia - not your fault, as your attitude is something actively perpetuated by rags such as the Mail. The vast, vast majority of people who choose to take drugs in their spare time are completely normal and live happy, productive lives. I would suggest that almost all of the falling around, puking and fighting that goes on on a standard Saturday night is from irresponsible drinking, not drugs.
It's time prohibition era attitudes were challenged with the kind of well-reasoned argument displayed in this article. Thanks Martin.
Lucie, London,
Martin Samuel has hit the nail on the head. I'm now 42 and (apparently) very fit and healthy. Run run and part own a mid sized profitable business employing 150 people, this despite being dyslexic and spending most of my late teens and twenty somethings being out most nights on Ecstasy. I am happily married to a lovely woman who's never taken any drugs and propably never will. I like a beer or glass of wine and haven't smoked for years. I have never committed any other crimes other than drugs. All in all, I think that 'E' enriched my life beyond measure.
I only wish Richard Brunstrom had such a common sense, live and let live attitude to everything ( I ride a motorcycle, quickly, although never in North Wales).
lee, London, UK
You are missing the point. Legalise one form of drug, and and another more potent one will appear. When does the need for a 'buzz' become an addiction? We already have legalised drugs readily available on the open market, cigarettes, alcohol and caffine products. How many of the regular 'users' say 'yeah, I can give it up anytime, I just don't want to!". Artificial stimulants become addictive! The very chemicals that give you that 'buzz' inhibit your ability to make rational and logical decisions, how else do you explain the fact that despite the ever increasing taxation and overwhelming weight of evidence regarding the damage caused by nicotine and alcohol, we still have people who use it to excess, sometimes forgoing basic needs just to get thier daily 'fix'. Perhaps the truth is, that underneath we are all 'junkies' because we don't feel empowered enough to cope with reality!
Ron, Milton Keynes, Bucks
I would not trust anyone I knew to be taking drugs.It would make no difference if Ecstacy or Coke or Heroin were perfectly legally.If I knew someone was taking any of these drugs I would avoid them like the plague.As I would an alcoholic.
Trish Kirby, Leicester, UK
Why draw the line at legalising drugs? There is an excellent moral case for it - the government should not be allowed to ban competent adults from doing what they choose when that does not harm other people. Just for those few who somehow missed every PSE lesson at school, health warnings could go on the packs. The practical case is even better - would you rather have Boots selling drugs and executives giving po-faced presentations on profits from Ecstacy or gangsters selling drugs and shooting their rivals, their employees and innocent bystanders? There's really no contest. Legalising heroin and legitimately buying up the Afghan opium crop might just be a great way to bring peace there too. And, as Stephen Jones says, we could tax it too. Not to mention the amount of police time that would be freed up to investigate thefts, muggings and other crimes that currently go unsolved.
Rowan, Oxford,
Legal would ensure a regular dose, and no poisonous chemicals.
Look at deaths from bootleg alcohol for example.
And let's look at what happens if somone ODs on heroin: they suffer a respiratory arrest and quietly die.
Ethanolics, even with moderate amounts are a significant danger to themselves and all those around them.
Richard, London, England
Richard Brunstrom is not unpopular here in North Wales.
He is the best chief constable we've ever had. Leading from the front, he is active, intelligent, fair, and a true character.
He's even learned our language. He speaks Welsh fluently and can correspond in it too.
Leave our Chief alone.
Long may he rule!
John, Bethesda, North Wales
Yep it's safe compared with many prescription drugs. So are most drugs taken in moderation.
Delays in getting treatment seem to be a contributory cause of the deaths that do occur. The simple reason for this is the fear of prosecution and attitudes of emergeny departments.
Getting treatment is delayed as long as possible because the 'supplier' (often referred to as the DEALER in the tabloids) is usually a friend who passed on part of their purchase of the 'evil substance'.
Being prosecuted for supplying is no laughing matter. Perhaps it should be made Law that anyone, including the most 'evil' dealer would be made immune from prosecution by taking a 'victim' of an adverse drug reaction to hospital.
This would help many and save lives.
Just simple common sense that takes into account the warped psychology and fears of young people.
J D S, Cardiff, Wales
i agree in parts to what is being said but what people need to be more considerate of is although its more liekley to get an alergic reaction to bee sting than an e , you dont get the same erge to go into the garden on a summers day and excpose yourself to the danger of bees as you do in getting completly smashed every weekend once you know how good they are! i mean sure one or two e's are fine every so often but what tends to happen is people increase there dosage as the years go by and damage is without doudbt done. its a slightly flippent article therefore. still its worth raisng the point and i agree in parts. i do think it is imoportant to establish the exact danger s rather than scare mungaring as personaly, once i realised i was not going to die on the little fellers
(miss bets style) i thought great the goverment are wrong they must be safe after all, i wont listen to them again. give acurate advise and people may take more notice.
jonas london, london,
Bit of a jump to go from stressing how how safe ecstasy is (it probably is) to legalising all drugs: ecstasy is a sideshow, something this article fails to point out, totally unlike the real destroyers: pot, coke, smack. I have seen many around me destroyed by these. The only thing these people have missed out on, Dennis in Perth, is a happy life. Your ludicrous anti-establishment explanation for your drug habit suggests that either some brain damage has been done by same drugs or that you were pretty stupid in the first place.
chris, rome,
Well said Sam, prepare for the incoming barrage... Something a certain Mr Harvey was getting at a fews ago (hasnt recovered since)and something all clubbers in the world have known for 25 years...Lot of people say no chance of doing 25 a day back in the early ninetys, woulda sent you into orbit. Alot more softer now...All the points about booze and tobacco keep on getting repeated when is something going to be done??
mattf, miltonkeynes,
Legalising drugs would be the wrong thing to do, half its attraction is the buzz of doing something your not aloud to do. It’s like sticking two fingers up to the establishment a “you can't control everything mentalityâ€â€¦ especially something this good.
...and yes I'm one of those 30 somethings who can't do it anymore and sits around at dinner parties trying explain to people how good it was and how they missed out.
Dennis, Perth, Australia
Imagine, we could tax it too, a great money earner.
Stephen Jones, Kualar Lumpur, Malaysia
we now have the technology to singularly chemically tag each unique dose of drug.
By improving production quality to that of legally available drugs and then selling from police stations, to punters providing ID, we can significantly reduce deaths, control supply, eradicate street dealers/pushers and monitor and support addicts. Clearly, at 50 quid for a gramme of very impure coke, money is available to make this totally self-financing.
Bit of a no-brainer, really.
john, KL,
lol, well said Sammy
PD McDougall, edinburgh,