Ecstasy - Not Just For Ravers

Not many people know this, but ecstasy(MDMA) was originally a successful treatment for several psychological disorders including post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

MDMA was first produced about 100 years ago but it wasn’t examined for it’s potential until the 1960s. It took another 10 years before it’s promising future was realised when a Californian psychotherapist postponed retirement to study it and started introducing it to therapists in Europe and America. In 1985, the DEA stepped in and banned MDMA after it started making the rounds of the dance club scene. Without any investigation into whether MDMA was being used for research, an emergency classification was made to have it classed as a Schedule 1 drug - the most restrictive category for drugs with “a high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use”. This was despite a court ruling that recommended MDMA should not be banned but left to medical experts for continued research.

Because of US drug policy and the DEA, thousands of people have missed out on a potential cure for PTSD. But this is just a fraction of the real damage caused by an ignorant and fanatical DEA. The worldwide crack down on ecstasy has seen the rise of dangerous fillers replacing the relatively safe, MDMA, resulting in a massive increase in deaths and related harms. But, with the current shift towards more evidence based policies and the realisation that current drug laws have failed, we may start to see drugs like MDMA once again put back in the hands of medical experts and scientists.

Researchers Use Ecstasy to Treat PTSD

US Health News

By Madonna Behen - HealthDay Reporter

July 2010

A small study suggests that the illicit "club drug" Ecstasy may have one positive use: making psychotherapy more effective for people with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The drug, also known by its chemical acronym MDMA, appears to benefit patients for whom standard treatments have failed. But experts stressed that the study is preliminary and safety issues must be resolved before any recommendations can be made.

"PTSD treatment involves revisiting the trauma in a therapeutic setting, but many patients become overwhelmed by anxiety or numb themselves emotionally, and so they can't really successfully engage," said study lead researcher Dr. Michael Mithoefer, a psychiatrist in private practice in Charleston, S.C. "But what we found is that the MDMA seemed to temporarily decrease fear without blunting emotions, and so it helped patients better process their grief."

In PTSD, the sufferer typically "relives" the trauma via flashbacks or in other ways, such as becoming hyper-vigilant to everyday sounds. Other mental health issues include depression, anxiety disorder, adjustment disorder and alcohol and substance abuse.

Mithoefer and his colleagues studied 20 patients who'd had PTSD for an average of 19 years but had failed to get relief from psychotherapy and medications. The study participants underwent two eight-hour psychotherapy sessions scheduled about a month apart, with 12 patients taking MDMA, and eight taking a placebo. Subjects were also given psychotherapy on a weekly basis before and after each experimental session. An independent psychologist evaluated each patient's symptoms of PTSD prior to and after the sessions.

At the end of the trial, more than 80 percent of the patients who received a combination of MDMA and psychotherapy no longer met the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, compared with only 25 percent of the placebo group. In addition, the three patients who reported being unable to work due to post-traumatic stress disorder were able to return to work following treatment with MDMA.

During the trial, none of the patients had any drug-related side effects or neurocognitive problems related to the drug, the researchers reported.

The study is the first completed randomized, double-blinded clinical trial to evaluate MDMA as an adjunct to psychotherapy in any patient population, the researchers said. It was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, a Belmont, Mass.-based nonprofit group that focuses on the medicinal uses of psychedelic drugs.

The phase 2 study, the second of three phases of research required by the federal government before approving a drug for a specific use, was published online July 19 in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.

Before MDMA began to be used recreationally under the street name Ecstasy, many psychiatrists and other therapists in the United States and Europe used the compound as a catalyst to psychotherapy, the study authors noted. However, the drug has been illegal in the United Kingdom since 1977 and was criminalized in the United States in 1985.

People with post-traumatic stress disorder who may want to experiment with the drug should know it can be dangerous when not used properly, Mithoefer said. "It needs to be taken in a therapeutic setting with careful monitoring and a lot of follow-up to help patients integrate the experience successfully," he said. "I've had patients with PTSD outside the study tell me that they've used MDMA at a party and had bad experiences, because when feelings about the trauma came up, they weren't prepared to deal with them."

One important limitation of the study, Mithoefer said, was that most participants guessed accurately whether they were in the treatment or the placebo group, and trial investigators could detect raised blood pressure and other symptoms in the MDMA group. He added that an upcoming phase 2 trial -- looking at the effects of MDMA-assisted therapy on veterans with PTSD -- will hopefully avoid this problem, since all patients will receive the drug, but in different dosages.

Related Articles

MDMA/Ecstasy Trial for PTSS (Sandra Kanck Was Right)

Top Drug Advisor - Ecstasy is Safe as Riding a Horse

Drug Hysteria Ignores Trauma Suffering

The Result of a Quiet News Day? - It’s Not Pretty

Ecstasy Tablets Kills More Australians
CourierMail
By Lisa Mayoh
January 2010

MORE than 100 young Australians have died after taking ecstasy in the eight years to 2008, The Sunday Mail can reveal.

A ground-breaking report into the use of the drug, whose scientific name is MDMA, shows it claimed 82 Australian lives over five years from 2000 – and fatalities are increasing.

Conducted by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the study into MDMA-related deaths in Australia is the biggest and most comprehensive analysis to date, and has prompted calls for further research into its prevalence.

Additional figures obtained by The Sunday Mail show another 23 people died from 2006 to 2008, which is considered to be an "under-representation" due to many cases still under investigation.

Of those, 10 deaths were reported in 2006, seven in 2007 and six in 2008, with 65 per cent of victims aged between 20-29 and more than 70 per cent male.

More than 80 per cent of the deaths were unintentional and 15 of the 23 victims took other drugs along with the MDMA, including cannabis or alcohol.

In the earlier cases examined by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 91 per cent of the deaths were directly caused by drug toxicity and MDMA was the sole drug involved in a quarter of cases. It also contributed to a number of drownings, cardiovascular conditions and car accidents.

Funded by the federal Department of Health and Ageing, the report found the median age of fatalities was 26, with the youngest victim aged 17 and the oldest being 58.

"While reports of MDMA-related death are far less common than those of opioid, amphetamine and cocaine, the number of MDMA-related deaths appears to be increasing," the study said.

Always keen to publish a good scary drug story, the CourierMail pounced on a report from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) into the increased use of ecstasy(MDMA). With the report disclosing drug related deaths, the frenzied journalist knew she had a scorcher on her hands. So out it came, chock full of statistics about how dangerous MDMA is. The headline screamed - Ecstasy Tablets Kills More Australians.

A closer look though revealed some interesting abnormalities.

... and MDMA was the sole drug involved in a quarter of cases...
... and 15 of the 23 victims took other drugs along with the MDMA, ...

So, MDMA alone wasn’t responsible for 100 deaths over the last 8 years to 2008 but about 25 or so. That’s 3 deaths per year which pales into insignificance when compared to alcohol that kills about 3,300 per year. The mortality rate for MDMA exclusively is less than Asprin, Panadol, falling out of bed, falling off a ladder, disease of the middle ear, drowning in the bath tub, riding a bike or horse etc. With millions of pills taken each month, there is bound to be some who are allergic to or have a bad reaction to MDMA so the annual rate of about 3 deaths is very low for a drug this popular. Added to this is the unknown dose that was taken. They could all be overdoses from taking several pills at once.

And something else was amiss. Why does the NDARC report only represent the years 2000 - 2005? Where did the “Additional figures obtained by The Sunday Mail” come from? Where is the original NDARC report and what is the title?

Trying to find the ground-breaking report was no easy feat without a title. It must be somewhere because the article hinted that there was imminent danger with a warning that MDMA had taken 82 Australian lives over five years from 2000 – and fatalities are increasing. Where was this important report that prompted an article in the CourierMail? Where do I look? Searching NDARC and the Federal Department of Health and Ageing websites for something that had no name was not getting me anywhere fast and Google was bringing back millions of results. Then I finally found a link to the report at the NDARC website. At last!

I received this error:

General Error
HTTP Web Server: Lotus Notes Exception - Entry not found in index

POOP!

After a while, I eventually found the report at a science journal but it required a paid membership or subscription to read the full text. No wonder the CourierMail didn’t name the report: Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-related fatalities in Australia: Demographics, circumstances, toxicology and major organ pathology. [link]

Luckily, an abstract was available which gave me some insight into the report. My conclusion ... why did the CourierMail publish an article in January 2010 when the report came out in July 2009? This wasn’t a recent report at all and was submitted for peer review 12 months ago. To top it off, it only covered 2000-2005. WTF?

I’m really interested to know why the author, Lisa Mayoh and the CourierMail went to so much trouble to produce only 5 sentences about this obscure report? The fact is that the CourierMail article relied on additional information to provide the bulk of the statistics. So the question still remains ... why was this article printed in January 2010 when the ground-breaking report is a year old relating to data from 2000 - 2005? Was it a quiet news day or just another attempt by the CourierMail drudge up a scary drug story?

Funnily enough, I happened to find the link via a search on the same page as other NDARC articles from Jan Copeland and Paul Dillion, both from the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre (NCPIC). In case you don’t know, NCPIC is part of NDARC and also a prohibitionist mouthpiece for the government trying to maintain the public scare campaign on cannabis. If you read the abstract, you will see the similarities.

On a side issue, whilst searching for the elusive report, I did come across other studies that were much more important and news worthy than a report giving statistics 5-10 years ago. I suppose, scary drug stories are the forte of Murdoch’s trashy media enterprise so there’s not much chance of a rational, positive article being published about the report below?

Is Ecstasy A Drug Of Dependence?
October 2009
This paper examines the evidence for an MDMA or “ecstasy” dependence syndrome. Animal evidence suggests that MDMA may be a less potent reinforcer than other drugs, but that it does have dependence potential. This suggests that (a) ecstasy dependence might be less likely than dependence upon other drugs; and (b) factors related to the behavioural and psychological aspects of reward and dependence may make a relatively greater contribution for ecstasy than for other drugs, where physically centred (and better understood) features of dependence may be more salient. Human evidence supports this proposition. Some people report problems with their use, but the literature suggests that physical features play a more limited role than psychological ones. Tolerance is apparent, and withdrawal is self-reported, but it is unclear whether these reports distinguish sub-acute effects of ecstasy intoxication from symptoms reflective of neuroadaptive processes underlying a “true” withdrawal syndrome. Studies examining the structure of dependence upon ecstasy suggest it may be different from drugs such as alcohol, methamphetamine and opioids. Consistent with studies of hallucinogens, a two-factor structure has been identified with factors suggestive of “compulsive use” and “escalating use”. Regardless of the nature of any dependence syndrome, however, there is evidence to suggest that a minority of ecstasy users become concerned about their use and seek treatment. Further controlled studies are required to investigate this phenomenon.

SOURCE:
Is Ecstasy A Drug Of Dependence?
Louisa Degenhardt - National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales
Raimondo Bruno - School of Psychology, University of Tasmania
Libby Topp - Centre for Health Research in Criminal Justice
Available online 15 October 2009.

Related Articles:
Did They Really Say That? Part 1 - The Media
CourierMail - Cocaine Hysteria Thrives in Trash Media
Will The Daily Telegraph Writer Who Wrote This Crap Please Own Up
Drug Reporting in the MSM - They Just Get Sillier and Sillier
CourierMail - The Media Scourge

MDMA/Ecstasy Trial for PTSS (Sandra Kanck Was Right)

South Australia had the chance but blew it and now Canada are going to take the honour. You might remember back in June 2008 when SA Democrat, Sandra Kanck recommended using MDMA (aka ecstasy) to treat Iraq war veterans with post-traumatic stress syndrome(PTSS). She was heavily criticised and knocked as some sort of loopy, pro-drug activist. Sandra had previously suggested using MDMA for the victims of the Eyre Peninsula bushfires in 2006 and the response from parliament and the media was no different back then. Now it seems, those who criticised her are looking pretty damn stupid. Her very suggestions are being taken up by Canada by way of a trial of treating PTSS patients with MDMA.

Preliminary studies have shown that MDMA in conjunction with psychotherapy can help people overcome PTSD. MDMA has empathogenic effects, and it is also known as the popular drug Ecstasy (although "Ecstasy" does not always contain pure MDMA). In laboratory studies, MDMA has been proven sufficiently safe for human consumption when taken a limited number of times in moderate doses.
-Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies

There were many who criticised Sandra Kanck simply for looking to our medical know-how to solve a medical problem. It was like being back at school where mob mentality took over the playground and some poor kid copped hell for being different. Sandra was mocked and made fun by many so called adults in a disgusting display of ignorance and political point scoring. From the media to Veterans' Affairs Minister, Michael Atkinson. From Veteran groups to her own party. They all joined in without researching a thing. And now they must feel like absolute morons as another country initiates her suggestions. How long will Australia suffer from ignorance and fear? How long will our policies be decided by narrow minded, ideological, self righteous fools? I fear that it will be long after the rest of the world changes.

Landmark B.C. study lets trauma sufferers find relief with ecstasy
The Globe and Mail
By Frances Bula
September 2009

Vancouver therapists get green light to use drug in trial to treat post-traumatic stress

Two Vancouver therapists have become the first Canadians to be permitted to give ecstasy to patients in a scientific trial aimed at finding new ways to help people with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Psychologist Andrew Feldmar and psychiatrist Ingrid Pacey, with the help of the Boston-based organization Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, also known as MAPS, are recruiting 12 people to take part in the trial, which they hope might include Canadian soldiers and police officers.

Mr. Feldmar said that like Vancouver's supervised-injection site, the trial has obtained an exemption from Canada's narcotics laws, and is waiting for an import permit for the Swiss-manufactured drug.

The Vancouver experiment is part of small but growing international movement to use drugs such as LSD, MDMA or ecstasy, and psylocibin as part of therapeutic treatment, which has received significant backing from MAPS. The organization, founded in 1986, is a non-profit focused on lobbying to have psychedelic drugs and marijuana used for treatment.

“There is a new interest,” said Mr. Feldmar, who worked at Vancouver's Hollywood Hospital in the 1960s when it used LSD as a treatment for alcoholism. “These substances are extremely effective. It was just when they were used irresponsibly that it created a senseless panic.”

MDMA was first synthesized by Merck Pharmaceuticals in 1912, but was rediscovered in the 1960s. It was considered an aid to psychotherapy before it was popularized as a party drug.

Mr. Feldmar said MDMA, often defined as an entheogen or psychoactive drug used to induce a mystical experience, helps people with post-traumatic stress disorder by breaking down barriers that are blocking their recovery.

He said it allows them to experience a sense of being in the present, of feeling connected to their therapist, and of feeling supported and loved.

“You feel connected, therefore you feel able to go back and deal with the trauma.”

MAPS executive director Rick Doblin said a U.S. trial in Charleston, S.C., recently ended, and “it got tremendous results,” although they haven't been published in a science journal yet.

Small studies have already been done in Israel and Switzerland along the same lines, he said. A study in Spain had to be cancelled after running into opposition there.

An article published this year in the Journal of Psychopharmacology noted the two trials showed initial signs of promise in treating trauma.

Authors Pal-Orjan Johansen and Teri Krebs of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology looked at the three effects MDMA has on brain chemistry:

- It boosts levels of oxytocin, which is what produces the feelings of connectedness and warmth that people on ecstacy experience.

- It balances two regions of the brain, helping a person to control emotional responses better.

- It boosts levels of cortisol and norepinephrine, which control emotional learning.

Mr. Doblin said MAPS designed the Vancouver study, got it through the regulatory process, and will now start raising the $200,000 needed to run it. Eight of the 12 patients will get full-strength doses of ecstacy up to three times during their treatment, while four will get a placebo.

“We want to see if we can replicate the U.S. results in a similar cultural context,” he said. “Also, it's important to start research in Canada, because you have a tradition of being pioneering in psychedelic research.”

Mr. Doblin said Mr. Feldmar and Dr. Pacey are exceptionally qualified therapists, which made them ideal for the trial.

The two have sent out messages to other Vancouver therapists to recruit patients for the trial. Mr. Feldmar said that could include Afghan war veterans, police, firefighters, people who have been victims of crime, or immigrants who have been tortured in their home countries.

Mr. Feldmar achieved minor fame in 2007, after it was made public that he had been barred from entering the United States when a border guard searched online for his name and found that he had written an article saying he had taken LSD in the 1960s before it became illegal. His story was later featured on The Colbert Report show.

Related Articles:
Ecstasy Is The Key To Treating PTSD - The Times(UK)
Drug Hysteria Ignores Trauma Suffering
Agony or Ecstasy – Drug Trials Show Patient Benefits

Top Drug Advisor - Ecstasy is Safe as Riding a Horse

With the current hysteria over ecstasy in the MSM, it is refreshing to see some balanced opinion filter through. Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) in the UK has put some perspective on the much touted dangers of ecstasy(MDMA). It may seem hard to believe that the head of the UK’s peak body on illicit drugs has actually told the truth about ecstasy blowing apart the usual doomsday rhetoric.

Taking the drug ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse

-Professor David Nutt, chairman of the UK’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD)

MDMA was first produced about 100 years ago but it wasn’t examined for it’s potential until the 1960s. It took another 10 years before it’s promising future was realised when a Californian psychotherapist postponed retirement to study it and started introducing it to therapists in Europe and America. In 1985, the DEA stepped in and banned it after it started making the rounds the dance club scene. Without any investigation into whether MDMA was being used for research, an emergency classification was made to have it classed as a Schedule 1 drug - the most restrictive category for drugs with “a high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use”.

The benefits of MDMA for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) have been known since the 1970s but with the worldwide restrictions and patent issues, many projects don’t get past phase II trials. MDMA has also been shown to alleviate some side effects of Parkinson’s disease treatment but again restrictions have buried any future trials. Research does continue though albeit slowly.

With many positive results for treating PTSD, SA Democrat Sandra Kanck suggested that MDMA could be beneficial for survivors of the Eyre Peninsula bush fires in 2006. She was ridiculed by the SA government, anti-drug groups and the media, then called into explain her actions to party leaders. Again in 2008, Sandra suggested a trial of MDMA for war veterans with PTSD after trials in the U.S. and Israel had shown "excellent results". What followed was a disgraceful and abominable response from several politicians. The execrable, SA Veterans Affairs minister, Michael Atkinson said the Government would "not be supporting Sandra Kanck's latest rave" and "Vietnam Veterans are not laboratory mice for a left-wing social experiment". Has drug hysteria reached the point where legitimate drugs are only accepted for treating the ill according to how politicians perceive them? So much for our so called advanced society.

What about recreational use? Why is MDMA in the same class as heroin? Are the risks of MDMA so bad that users should be hunted down as criminals? Why is so much effort put into catching occasional MDMA users? The argument about the dangers is no longer valid so maybe we should be questioning the motives of those who oppose MDMA so aggressively.

The long term effects of MDMA are still not fully known but there has been plenty of research suggesting there is nothing especially dangerous about it. The short term effects are a different matter. Although MDMA receives much bad publicity in the media and from anti-drug campaigns, the actual harms are generally small. Like any drug, heavy abuse of MDMA is not going to be good for you but in moderation there is very little evidence of any harm at all to the general population. A few years ago, The British Home Office, concluded that consuming MDMA is safer than travelling on commercial airliners. This probably explains why millions of people take MDMA every week without a problem.

According to a study published in a medical journal, The Lancet, MDMA is not even in the top 10 most dangerous drugs. The study had addiction experts, psychiatrists, police and legal professionals with scientific or medical expertise assigned a rating to a list of 20 drugs. The three factors were:

⁃ Physical harm to the user

⁃ Addictive potential of the drug

⁃ The drug's overall impact on society

Ecstasy or MDMA was rated at number 18 out of 20.

Statistically, more people die from bee stings than MDMA use. The main cause of death associated with ecstasy use is from external factors like overheating and dehydration, contaminates/substituted chemicals and combining other drugs especially alcohol. MDMA in it’s pure form has very little danger if taken in moderation. Under prohibition, ecstasy is often cut or the MDMA is replaced with another drug in an effort to increase profits for illegal drug manufacturers and dealers. Without knowing what’s in the ecstasy pills, the potential harms increase significantly. This is the real danger of ecstasy use today - not MDMA but the lack of it.

SA Democrat, Sandra Kanck, again put her head on the chopping block and recommended pill testing at raves but she was heavily criticised by SA independent, Anne Bressington and other self righteous pollies. Some groups were already providing pill testing services at raves but were then threatened with legal action by police. The pragmatic approach of pill testing by medical professionals was rejected for “sending the wrong message” and these groups reluctantly resorted to providing cheap testing kits. Surprisingly, this was also condemned by the government but it was out of their hands legally. Unfortunately the government’s rejection stopped another important aim of pill testing programs by allowing drug and alcohol professionals having face time with active users. Again it seemed that “sending the right message” was more important than people’s lives.

We saw more bungling with the death of Gemma Thoms last week at the Big Day Out in Perth. In a panic about being caught by police sniffer dogs, Gemma swallowed her day’s supply of ecstasy. A NSW report in 2006 warned of this very situation but had been ignored by police in all states. To top it off, WA police tried to squirm around the blame by down playing the actual positioning of the sniffer dogs. Even the WA premier, Colin Barnett tried to dodge any blame and incredibly gave a "drugs are bad" lecture. A horrible case of public scare tactics and drug hysteria going horribly wrong.

Ecstasy 'Not Worse Than Riding'
BBC

Taking the drug ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse, a senior advisor has suggested.

Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), outlined his view in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
The council, which advises the government, is expected next week to recommend that ecstasy is downgraded from a class A drug to a class B one.

Ministers have outlined their opposition to any such move.

Professor Nutt wrote: "Drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts of life. There is not much difference between horse-riding and ecstasy."

Organ failure
The professor said horse-riding accounted for more than 100 deaths a year, and went on: "This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates - indeed encourages - certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others such as drug use."

Ecstasy use is linked to around 30 deaths a year, up from 10 a year in the early 1990s. Fatalities are caused by massive organ failure from overheating or the effects of drinking too much water.

The ACMD last night distanced itself from Prof Nutt's comments.

A spokesman for the body said: "The recent article by Professor David Nutt published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology was done in respect of his academic work and not as chair of the ACMD.

"Professor Nutt's academic work does not prejudice that which he conducts as chair of the ACMD."

'No safe dose'
David Raynes, of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, told the Daily Telegraph: "He is entitled to his personal opinion, but if his personal view conflicts so very strongly with his public duties, it would be honourable to consider his position.

"If he does not, the home secretary should do it for him."

Last September a Home Office spokesman said the government believed ecstasy should remain a Class A drug.

"Ecstasy can and does kill unpredictably. There is no such thing as a 'safe dose'," he said.

GBH, Ecstasy, Overdoses and Raves - Australian Style

Reactions to GBH overdoses at the X-Qlusive dance party in Melbourne.

How many hospitalised people or deaths do we have to have before some politician is brave enough to do something? And I mean something constructive and not just the political gabber of being tough on drugs or increasing penalties. Instead, the reactions so far have been childish and self-serving with knee jerk responses calling for changes that have no chance of success. Declaring war on rave operators is exactly the sort of response that does nothing except give the perception that tough measures are being taken. We must start to ask ourselves if the government strategies are simply the same old thing over and over again and what do they expect will happen differently this time around? Are they so blind to the constant failures that have got us to where we are today or is taking a different more pragmatic approach just political suicide and will never be considered? The only constant is that people will always take drugs. When will the government concede to this fact and we realise the decisions of our so called leaders will determine how many will overdose, suffer or die?

Crackdown on rave parties after dozens overdose on GBH 

HeraldSun 

-John Ferguson and Alice Coster 

December 2008 

THE Brumby Government has declared war on rogue rave operators after more than 30 people suffered life-threatening drug overdoses at a Festival Hall dance party. 

Rave-party organisers with bad records who allow drugs to flourish at their events will be denied permits under tough new sanctions planned for the industry. Permits will be harder to get for other operators after dozens of party-goers fell seriously ill at the X-clusive rave, which finished early yesterday. 

A bad batch of the killer drug GHB, also known as GBH or Grievous Bodily Harm, was blamed for the emergency. Twelve party-goers were taken to city hospitals in a serious condition, while others were taken to emergency departments by friends. They suffered fits, breathing problems, dehydration and hyperthermia - a heat-related illness that also can kill. 

Consumer Affairs Minister Tony Robinson issued a warning to the dance party industry through the Herald Sun. "If promoters are out there running events that are unsafe, then they are going to find it a lot harder to get a permit in the future," he said. 

"I'm putting them on notice." 

Ambulance officers were overwhelmed as they ferried party-goers to the Royal Melbourne and Alfred hospitals during Saturday night. It took eight paramedics and ambulance staff to restrain one man. Ambulance officers are alarmed the toxic batch of GHB has arrived as the music festival season gets into full swing. 

Next week's Sensation party at Telstra Dome is expected to attract tens of thousands of party-goers. 

Mr Robinson said the number of casualties on Saturday was unacceptable. "I expect, and I think the community expects, that if these events are going to be held, they are done so in an environment that is safe for the people who are attending," he said. 

"I'll be having private discussions with the Director of Liquor Licensing this week about tougher sanctions and stricter permit conditions but this is a warning that they are on notice." 

GHB claimed its first fatality in Victoria in 2005 when nurse Belinda Davey died in a drug dealer's car outside a city dance club. 

Ambulance Victoria operations manager Paul Holman warned it was only a matter of time before another party-goer died. "This is a very dangerous drug," he said. 

"It can absolutely kill you and there are recorded deaths from it. It's called grievous bodily harm and that's what it does to you. 

"The seriousness of some of these people that presented themselves on Saturday night really concerned us and it's only a matter of time before we get a death." 

Director of Drug and Alcohol Research and Education Australia, Paul Dillon, said GHB was a lethal drug. 

"It can kill, and has killed. People are really playing Russian roulette with their lives." 

Dozens of party-goers were taken to hospital after two rave parties at Kryal Castle last year. 

Police Inspector David Blencowe denied suggestions police should have shut down Saturday night's event. Up to 2000 party-goers filled Festival Hall for the drug-fuelled dance party. 

Police face a huge task on New Year's Eve for the Sensation event. "Certainly with an event like that I would imagine there would be significant police resources deployed and there would be a number of proactive steps taken, as well as trying to actually police the event," he said. 

Organisers of Sensation distanced themselves from Saturday night's emergency. "Sensation has asked people not to take drugs and are doing anything police and safety officers have asked," spokeswoman Erin Jameson said. 

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle slammed irresponsible rave-party operators. "You don't give permits to people for these rave parties unless they can show us a great track record in managing large numbers of kids at a rave party," he said.

You may have noticed that some official responses and some of the MSM made disingenuous attempts to beef up the event. For example, Lord Mayor Robert Doyle linked in “kids” to the adult only event. News.com reported one person who had to be held down by 8 ambulance officers without mentioning he was fitting, referred to the event as “the drug-fuelled dance party”, insinuated GBH was still commonly used as an acronym for the scary titled, “Grievous Bodily Harm” instead of being the technical abbreviation for gamma hydroxybutyrate and highlighted a 21-year-old rave partygoer as some sort of expert with his quote, "Nine out of ten people were on something”. Some officials made ridiculous comments like declaring war on “rogue” rave operators and "I'm putting them on notice" referring to the dance party industry. Many of the overdoses from the X-Qlusive dance party could have been avoided with simple pragmatic strategies but in this climate of drug hysteria, these ideas fall on deaf ears. It’s that old problem of “sending the wrong message” being more important than the safety of users. One result is that GBH, which doesn’t have a good reputation in the dance scene compared to the relatively harmless ecstasy, has grown in popularity due to the increasing use of police sniffer dogs who can’t detect GBH. There’s no doubt that street GBH can be a nasty drug. Most GBH sold on the streets is actually GBL which takes longer to act so often users will take a second dose when the effect doesn’t kick in as expected. There is a fine line between safe doses which is made even more dangerous by back yard operations. Like most illicit drugs, GBH when taken in moderation and at the right dose, is relatively harmless. When abused or used in conjunction with other drugs, it can become lethal. 

...in order to metabolise GHB the body utilises the same enzyme responsible for breaking down alcohol – thus when consumed along with alcohol the effects are vastly magnified – and can, in some cases, be fatal. GHB in combination with other sedative drugs is also liable to produce severe and possibly life threatening side-effects. 

-Steve Robinson. Community Development Coordinator - WA Substance Users Association (WASUA)

The increase in the use of GBH is another side effect from prohibition and zero tolerance policies. The incredible lack of understanding by policy makers has repeatedly caused more damage than good over the last 100 years. The influence of hardcore anti-drugs groups has created an environment of fear in their attempt to moralise a social and health issue by insisting that governments take on their ideology of a drug free world. 

Although history repeats itself constantly with one failure after another, the fear of losing public support or being classed as “soft on drugs” undermine all attempts at actually solving the problem. In the process of demonising another relatively harmless drug, ecstasy, more lethal, cheaper and undetectable replacements become popular. As we have seen with party drugs, the focus on ecstasy was replaced by methamphetamine hysteria and now that has given way to GBH so now there are three problems. GBL might become the next problem to replace GBH and the cycle continues. 

If ecstasy use was first dealt with a rational, scientific approach then maybe we might not have had the GBH/GBL overdoses at the X-Qlusive event. Most problems with ecstasy use stem not from the drug itself but from dehydration and alcohol. When there were ingredient problems, it was almost always because of contaminants or the lack of the key ingredient, MDMA. MDMA has very little harms associated with it’s usage but unregulated backyard operations are free to use any ingredients that suit their profit margins or because of the availability of precursor chemicals. In a vain attempt to disrupt the ecstasy market, the police managed to encourage a glut of low quality ecstasy pills and an increase in user problems arose. This led to some groups offering to test ecstasy pills at raves with the intention to inform users exactly what they were taking. This simple but effective idea prompted some potential users to dump their pills in bins provided and allowed problem users to get medical help. This approach did not judge users but allowed them to make informed decisions with the option of treatment. It’s no surprise that the government threatened criminal action against these medical groups and users were again left to guess what was in their pills. Once again, “sending the wrong message” was deemed more important than people’s safety. SA Democrat, Sandra Kanck once suggested pill testing at raves but was heavily criticised by resident SA nutter, Anne Bressington and other self righteous pollies. This attitude towards ecstasy has led to even more condemnation of the drug than previously although it is still medically regarded as much safer than alcohol. 

A recent scientific classification of various drugs ranked ecstasy at 18 out of 20 for harmfulness which lagged significantly behind alcohol at number 5. The list, published in the medical journal, The Lancet rated ecstasy less harmful than drugs like barbiturates, street methadone, alcohol, ketamine, Valium, Xanax, amphetamines, tobacco, cannabis, solvents, LSD and anabolic steroids. 

On a positive note, many readers of the above and related articles had alternative views to the usual array of inhumane and sick comments found on News.com websites (including the HeraldSun, the Daily Telegraph, Adelaide Advertiser, the CourierMail etc.). Nearly half of the comments were cynical of official/government responses and critical of cruel and nasty comments from other readers. Many readers pointed out the inconsistencies with the public perception of alcohol abuse and the acceptance of drunken behaviour. Others questioned the logic of current laws which drive the black market. It is somewhat of a surprise to see so many sensible comments coming from News.com readers who typically feed on sensational, moralising like hungry pigs at a trough. 

I hope more overdose and die because of it. My house and neighbors were robbed by a couple of the druggies, our hearts have since frozen. If those young people want to throw their lives away, so be it and they are the ones facing the consequence.  

Posted by: Joe of Camberwell

There were 4 main points raised by readers that had something useful to say. I have taken some of the best comments and classed them accordingly. As usual though, some readers gave insight into how uneducated they are to the subject they have such strong opinions about. It seems that propaganda about drugs is still as powerful as ever and much of the public eat it up so willingly. In fact, most negative comments were based on myths and misconceptions so I have included some of these comments under the topic below called Myths. 

1 - Limiting choices 

Unfortunately this is yet another example of the "success" of Police technology - while Police can detect ecstacy, cannibis and methamphetamines with their random drug-driver tests, sniffer dogs etc, they cannot detect GHB. If one of those ravers was determined to take something, and knew there would be a possible big Police presence around town with booze/drug buses, what do you think that raver would choose to take? It's an unfortunate outcome, but until the Police can find a way to detect this GHB scourge of a drug, there cannot be an surprises when people choose to take and consequently overdose on a cheap nasty alternative. 

Posted by: Mike of Melbourne 

Anyone taking GHB in a recreational setting is deep enough into the 'scene' to know that it's extremely dangerous in high doses (you can go from having a ball to being dead in a few drops). I would put money on people taking what they thought was a standard amount only to find out it is from a particularly strong/uncut batch, but that's what you get when you buy stuff of black markets. 

Posted by: Steve of Sydney

2 - Street Quality vs. Pharmaceutical Quality 

Maybe if we legalised drugged so that they could be made in a quality assured fashion, given in safe doses and managed in an appropriate fashion like alcohol this wouldn't happen. The taboo and stigma surrounding recreational drugs in modern society, when we claim to have progressed so much, is ridiculous. Most religions and cultural changes came fromt he shamanic and trance like states induced by natural drugs that were used by the clerics, tribal rituals and priests. Drugs that alter your mind set have played a much bigger rold in the way we as humans have developed than they are given credit for. I'd much rather my kid go out for a night knowing it is ok if they get in trouble to call the ambulance or their parents for help than dying in a drug induced haze in a dodegy lane or venue. Stop blaming the people and the drugs, and start working on the problem from a holistic point, in that it is now a big party of the party cultures in Australia and we need to work with people to prevent these things happening rather than casting blame and causing dangerous illicit home made batches to be sold and to kill. What if a bad batch of beer went out and made 40 people sick? would that be a waste of tax $$$ money to get them to hospital? should they go tor prison for selling or drinking it? should beer then be benned? It's just as much a recreational drug as dope, LSD, GHB or xtc! Posted by: Tom Jerry It is rediculous to think that there is a "cure" for the drug problem. Look at the statistics people, there are more people using party drugs than ever before. Problem is, there seem to be more "bad batches" now than ever before. Why? because drug supply is completely unregulated. We will continue to hear of these horror stories, and I hate to say, deaths due to "bad batches". Get your head out of the sand!!! legalise ecstacy and stop risking our kids lives with who knows what! 

Posted by: John 

Society has always wanted to get wasted. the effects of alcohol, cannabis, opium, etc. have been known for thousands of years and people have got high from them ever since. The USA proved that prohibition is a spectacular failure and detrimental to society at large, not just the drinkers, and the same applies to every other drug. if they were all made by pharmacutical companies and obtainable only with a perscription from your GP to treat "addiction" or what ever than overdoses would be a thing of the past. getting chemically pure drugs that have been issued based on your age, weight, size, etc. will give people the high they desire under much safer conditions. doctors, pharacutical companies and the government would all get paid then instead of drug dealers and the end user will be much safer because of it... 

Posted by: lee of maitland

3 - Demand 

Interesting analysis Joey. However, you should also be aware that the type of drugs you are referring to have and inelastic supply which basically means that as the price goes up, demand will not drop off too dramatically ie, there will always be a high demand regardless of the price. Same goes with alcohol, tobacco, petrol etc, etc. If it was as simply as you suggest (ie have much harsher penalties), then why do you suppose that people are sitting in prison on death row in some countries, even though the penalty for drug offences could not be any harsher. At the extreme, excessive drug taking should be seen as a health issue, rather than a criminal one. But anyway, the whole 'war on drugs' is much more complicated and sinister than you'd imagine but good luck discusssing that here even if there is a mountain of documented evidence which supports the shocking claims. 

Posted by: War of knowledge 

Notice how most of the damage done here is from the drug comeing from the black market? The exact same thing happened in America when they banned alcohol. Bootleggers would pass off metho as regular alcohol, and many people got sick from it. 

Posted by: Jak of Caboolture 

I agree with Jeremy. If you want to limit the chances of death and the pressure on hospitals then legalise drugs so they are regulated and you can charge tax on them - we will have a LOT more tax funds then. You will NEVER stop the world from taking drugs. 

Posted by: Elly of Another Party 

9/10 people were not on drugs this is a massive exageration. Out of the group of people who do partake in recreational drug use the vast majority take one or two "ecstacy" pills and cause no harm to anyone, all those people on their high horses should realise that it is them contributing to the problem by making these people feel like criminals which causes them to take greater risks when consuming them. It is only a small few who use substances such as GHB and I bet alot of them dont understand the risks. Education is required and for this to happen people need to feel its something they can openely discuss with medical proffesionals and even police. Proabition didn't work in the past and it wont work now. I would much rather be around a group of "criminals" who take a couple of pills and go for a good night than a group of violent, drunken idiots that seem to be accepted as part of our society. 

Posted by: Dean Cook

4 - Hypocrisy 

Alcohol is responsible for more assaults, violence, and crime in general than any other drug..... and hence costs the taxpayer more as well.... legalise drugs and let the gov' regulate it.... u cannot win this war, so how about we make sure they are all good batches and tax the hell out of it too....... and btw i was a drug user and held a steady job for 15 years - like a lot of people i know i grew out of it, and because i wasnt ever caught and treated like a low life criminal scum, i'm still working, and ive paid a lot of tax, so nah!!! oh and i love my rum now, so i dont really care, just dont make booze illegal.... 

Posted by: waz 

Heh. Listen to all you people up on your high horse. Whinging about valuable tax $ being wasted on these youths. How many of you are overweight?,how many of you drink to excess? then get behind the wheel? (even just a "little" bit over) How many of you smoke? These are also self-inflicted. What kind of strain will you put on the hospitable system. Perhaps we should have just denied them emergency attention and let them die. It's not like tax $ are being spent on some sailor who was on a self-inflicted trip. Hmm? Sure, drugs are illegal, and so they should be. But that's not going to stop people from taking them. The problem remains. AS does your bad behaviour. Hypocrites. 

Posted by: bill 

Either using drugs to alter you mind is alright, or it is not. The choice of which drugs, alcahol, cannibis, MDMA, GHB is a secondary issue. In the end of the day anyone who has ever got drunk is a drug user. They are drinking ethanol (yep, the same stuff that goes into cars as fuel) to change their perception of reality. GHB (oftern GBL in Aus) is a cleaning solvent. Explain to me how drinking car fuel is somehow morally superiour to drinking cleaning sovent? 

Posted by: Doug of Sydney 

Drugs aren't the problem, the people using them are. Same goes for alcohol and smoking. Educate the people and let them decide for themselves instead of making the decisions for them. Maybe everyone should look at the statistics of alcohol related, ciggarette related and fatty food related deaths as compared to illicit drug related deaths. Insanely 1 sided. 

Posted by: Drugs for you !!! of You backyard 

What a surprise. On one article we have many commenters praising a television star for getting "very hammered" in public, yet in another article we have a bunch of sparse anti-drug comments, despite the fact GHB was the only drug mentioned. Morever, GHB has a similar function to alcohol, that is, it is a depressant and intoxicant. Why should we shun one group of people for practically taking a similar action (to get intoxicated, "drunk") whilst praise another for doing the VERY same thing? Illegality aside, this is just moronic. 

Posted by: Charles Buddington

5 - Myths 

I read an interesting report on the cost of policing drugs in NSW which made me very angry - this money could have been spent policing real crime i.e. assaults, thefts and murder. What makes me even angrier is seeing the strong link between the incidence of assaults and the use of drugs - why do we tolerate these drugs in our society when there is such a strong and undeniable link to violence!!! This cost doesn't even begin to take into account the real cost these fools impose on our paramedics and hospitals. I agree about rapid and large scale enorcement - immediate incarceration for those appearing in public under the influence of drugs - like that fool from television. Take it off the streets, it is not acceptable. 

Posted by: Disgusted of Brisbane 

In stead of blaming the Police why don't you people cast the blame directly where it belongs, on the drug trafficers, pushers and users, and the permissiveness of society and parents nowadays, and the declining values and morals. The youth that engage in the practice of dealing in or takings drugs are a scourge to communities, forever looking for new ways to gratify themselves to get their kicks out of life. Drug taking goes hand in hand with the elevation of crime, to feed their habit. To Ross Morris of Torwood, and the other condoners of narcotics usage Hello!!! drug users ARE criminals, unless you are completely naive, drugs are ILLEGAL. 

Posted by: Aussie Kate of Oregon USA 

i agree with 'joey of melbourne' (comment 17) - we need to start cutting the demand because the current system aint working. If Rudd needs some capital works projects to sink some money into, then i have the perfect solution - BUILD MORE JAILS - and throw these loser drug takers in the slammer for possession or being under the influence Posted by: Glen of Gold Coast Interesting to here Police Inspector Blencowe put this issue in the too hard basket. Drugs are illegal, a venue with thousands of drug affected people in it is in breach of its conditions and his response is it is not in the best interest of drug addicts to close the party. Amazing Inspector! So if I get a couple of thousand people together for a vandalism spree or a shoplifting session will that be ok too..???? Enforce the law, thats your job. Shut down the venues and stop providing a market place for drug dealers. For all you idiots that think drugs are safe if you can't see the correlation between massive increases in crime and drug use perhaps you should clean yourself up for a change and have a look around you. 

Posted by: brendan of melbourne 

[...] From my experience, many of those that do take drugs were the ones that always had problems with discipline in high school. If they use drugs now, then their parents did a crap job, simple. 

Posted by: Interesting of Melbourne 

I'd like to say to those people spending huge amounts of money each year on drugs, why don't you have a think about those people suffering in the world who can't afford food, medication or a place to sleep. Compare that to the chemicals, physical and mental harm and burden on society drugs create and see which on is more deserving.... 

Posted by: Maree from Brisbane 

The problem with the drug epedemic is in the basics of markets. The authorities attack supply, with a lack of effort given to the demand side of the equation. Basic economies tell us markets are driven by demand v supply. But, governments through police attempt to target supply, which simply put means demand (and price, a further detrimental effect on society) to go up. Basic free markets tell us the way to cut supply is to cut demand - that is, the drug user. All the emphasis on the suppliers (dealers) is a waste of time without ever more effort placed on demand. If you put a mandatory jail sentance of 1 year or more on any person found under the influence of an illicit drug, demand will drop like a lead balloon. Then what happens? Supply decreases as the margins on the product deminish, to a point whereby it is no longer economical to produce/supply the stuff. You attack supply through demand, not demand through supply. Look up a basic supply v demand graph. In short, the authorities have it back to front, and wonder why they are going nowhere with it. Mandatory jail sentances for this idiots who OD - that will deter a potential user 100x more than a slap on the wrist. 

Posted by: joey of Melbourne 

What a waste of time and good use of a public service that is struggling to keep afloat .The ambulance service - should have been available for accidents - that are not related to drug choices being made by mindless kids. They are risking their own lives - and it is their own choice. By having ambulances attend they also risk the lives of responsible people who need the services of the ambulance - when and where required. Make the rave party organisers accountable for such medical attention without having to rely on the public service. You play with death - and you deserve to be killed.. Mindless - selfish - twits 

Posted by: kon of Melbourne

Drug Hysteria Ignores Trauma Suffering

S.A. Veterans' Affairs Minister, Michael Atkinson is a twat. A nasty, selfish, slimy political twat. Atkinson has used the suffering of hundreds of soldiers with post-traumatic stress syndrome as a vote gaining exercise, strengthening the ignorance of the current drug freaked, S.A. government. Why do I get the feeling that, Zero Tolerance bogan, Ann Bressington is behind this as well.

Kanck Blasts Atkinson Ecstasy 'No'

AdelaideNow

June 20, 2008

DEMOCRAT Sandra Kanck has accused Veterans' Affairs Minister Michael Atkinson of being "hysterical" and "cynical" in attacking her call for an investigation into the use of ecstasy for war veterans.

Ms Kanck yesterday questioned in parliament whether the government would consider a trial of MDMA - also known as ecstasy - for soldiers.

She said trials of MDMA on soldiers with post-traumatic stress syndrome in the U.S. and Israel had shown "excellent results."

But Mr Atkinson said the Government would "not be supporting Sandra Kanck's latest rave" and "Vietnam Veterans are not laboratory mice for a left-wing social experiment."

Ms Kanck said if Mr Atkinson "really cared about veterans," he would look into any proposal that might help them and their families.

"He is either too superstitious to consider the science and the evidence or he is playing cynical politics," she said.

"'Veterans, like other Australians, are already being prescribed powerful drugs like highly addictive morphine for pain relief and benzodiazepines for post traumatic stress disorder. Both are potentially addictive and dangerous drugs."

Atkinson’s link to the street drug ecstasy from the medical pharmaceutical, MDMA is staggering. Somehow, he has classed a proven treatment as a “left-wing social experiment" purely because some people call it ecstasy. It’s still MDMA but people like Atkinson and Bressington ignore the benefits, and play on the public’s misconceptions which shows them up as having another agenda at hand. Ann Bressington is one of main critics of anything to do with illegal drugs, regardless of context.

Reading the comments from a related article at AdelaideNow is revealing. Over half give their support to scientific research of MDMA if it helps relieve PTSS in returning soldiers. The comment against MDMA are nearly all personal attacks on Sandra Kanck and have no basis at all which sounds surprisingly a lot like the official line of Atkinson and Bressington. Any new comer to the subject could be forgiven for thinking that it is an historical article from 1954. Sadly, we have come this far as a society yet we continue to ignore the lessons from history.

Sandra Kanck - A Example of What Politicians Should Be

I have been quite disturbed by an emerging trend of conservatism in politics.

-Hon. Sandra Kanck. S.A. MP

In 2006, Sandra Kanck gave a speech in parliament about drug hysteria and the influence of religion in politics. She revealed some disturbing facts about some MPs, including the rejection of Darwin's theory of evolution(thus believing in Noah’s Ark), making statements about drugs without any research and claims that religion influence their decisions.

“I am a servant of Christ, and subject to His reign in history.”

-Hon. Bernard Finnigan. S.A. MP

There were several interjections, mostly from Ann Bressington who kept it up constantly, but without the ability to go into her usual, unqualified rant, Bressington came across as an annoying, loud mouth bogan. Kanck even used some of the interjections as part of her speech which made Bressington look even sillier, if that is possible.

Sandra Kanck put the truth out there for the parliament to hear. SK used pill testing at raves/dance parties as an example of how ineffective current policies are and how far some will go to stop new initiatives with no valid evidence. Her reasoning was spot on, especially on the catch 22 situation of prohibiting certain research into illicit drugs which meant there was no evidence supporting many government strategies. A previous parliament submission for pill testing by SK was backed by overseas experience which showed that many potential pill users simply threw their drugs away, when after testing, were informed what was actually in them. Her proposal wasn’t accepted in S.A. because the government couldn’t agree to giving the pills back to the users once tested. SK noted, that without pill testing, ALL of the potential pill users took the pills. BTW, Bressington interjected several times.

SK is one of the few politicians who are not fearful of being tagged as ‘soft on drugs’. This method has been used by Ann Bressington before which puts her in the ‘typical, vote hungry’ politician category. Anyone who dares criticise the failing ‘tough on drugs’ policy is deemed to be pro-drugs which is the epitome of conservative, black and white thinking on the drug problem. Even the Democrats leader in 2006, Lyn Allison gave opposing views to the media about MDMA, showing that saving your political skin is far more entrenched than we may think.

I admire SK for doing what all politicians were elected to do ... to tell the truth and put the welfare of Australia before their own personal political careers.

One of the tasks I have taken on in my remaining four years in this parliament is to turn the spotlight on fundamentalism and extremism and to let the public know what the people they elected really stand for. I am not scared of a public backlash, because I will not stand for re-election. I am quite happy to take a position against the mainstream, but it will always be a well-researched position, as I showed regarding the history of MDMA. Simply because something is mainstream is not a good reason to take a position in support of it.

-Hon. Sandra Kanck. S.A. MP

I encourage everyone to read Sandra’s speech, it’s a breath of fresh air.