Ecstasy: The Confused Class A 'Drug'

Class A Drugs
Drugs
Ecstasy
Ecstasy-Parkinson's Connection?
Update (04.01.09)

The issue concerning 'downgrading' a class A drug to class B (Misuse of Drugs Act 1971) illustrates the total confusion. The crass stupidity of messing with any kind of substance that has a major physiological effect on the human system is almost a separate topic, but playing with fire always results in

serious burning

Drug Abuse - A Personal View

Can there be such a combination as drug and abuse when the "drug" ecstasy (MDMA) is misused? It's really a contradiction of terms. A drug should have a positive benefit to a body dysfunction, correcting a physiological deficit and logically the "drug" has no positive and beneficial use and so cannot be abused. It cannot be called a drug, unless the perverse definition is accepted: recreational drug use. Not only is the substance voluntarily (usually) taken into the body, but its integrity is completely unknown except that the integrity of the drug dealer is assumed to be above reproach. It's the same with tobacco products: it would be so easy to 'doctor' the weed (soak in a solution of some poison and then dry it out), package as a genuine product then sell it illegally (!) masquerading as the 'real deal'. The potential for population damage (!!) is enormous.

• It would be a perfect (and undetectable) method of controlling behaviour as would the introduction of any other substance into society using such clandestine protocols (Devil's Advocate).

Or 'alcoholic' drinks: the assumption is always that any outlet 'legally' selling alcohol responsibly to responsible adults, only sells the genuine product. It is so simple to theoretically 'doctor' such a product, but theory can move into actuality very insidiously and with great subtlety: the iron fist in the silk glove that delivers the 'product' to the consumer literally 'in your face'. A clarified solution of indistinct colour purporting to be of alcoholic content can contain anything that dissolves in the liquid. Even harmlessly adding water to dilute the product would go virtually undetectable and create a 'huge earner' (criminal governance): adding as little as a 10% volume of water to an alleged alcohol strength of 40% (v/v) takes that content to just under 38% alcohol by volume. Add a 20% volume of water and this reduces the strength to around 36% (v/v). The amount of alcohol saved can produce further volumes of diluted product and would be virtually undetectable without a proper quantitative analysis. Illicit booze and illicit cigarettes like the pirate DVD industry would be a menace. As long as the integrity of the 'seal' appears to be intact, the contents will be assumed to be genuine and it's really bizarre to imagine that criminals without any shred of integrity would be concerned that they might deal in a highly merchantable, and profitable, product that could contain simply excess water or something much more dangerous. And with the influx of faked goods (counterfeit)...

Ethanol Combustion

The 'drink' could even be strengthened by removing water to mask all kinds of added bitter substances. The scope for damage is extensive. Profitability and the desire to cause harm are just different facets of the same entity (Devil's Advocate).

Ecstasy could remain a class A substance if only because of other dangerous contaminants. This in itself if a confused view. A contaminated class A or class B substance both have the same potential, and additional, dangers. Considering downgrading or not based on the possible contaminants is a specious argument (seemingly well-reasoned but actually fallacious). Adulterated pills are by definition contaminated by adulterants. That should be enough to stop any further argument in its tracks. But is not. It appears that there must be other reasons for any considerations at all. There is a risk of brain injury and death by the (mis)use of ecstasy alone and the strength of various 'dealership' sources is certainly highly variable.

Rhetoric about downgrading should be simply moved to outlawing with severe consequences (Singapore), though this, of course, then highlights the paradox of the ineffectual legal system in the 'powerful' (the illusion) UQ (aka UK) that is powerless (the reality). Unless (of course?) you are a law abiding citizen. Then the state has real power. The considerations allegedly focus on whether ecstasy remains as harmful as other class A drugs (cocaine and heroin) and here all arguments descend into vacuity.

Both nicotine and alcohol are unclassified legal substances (as tax revenue attractors) and alcohol is in the top five most harmful drugs. The classified illegal class A substances ecstasy and LSD, come well below both alcohol and nicotine.