NationStates Jolt Archive

Alcohol worse than ecstasy on shock new drug list (http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,,2040887,00.html)

Some of Britain's leading drug experts demand today that the government's classification regime be scrapped and replaced by one that more honestly reflects the harm caused by alcohol and tobacco. They say the current ABC system is "arbitrary" and not based on evidence.

The scientists, including members of the government's top advisory committee on drug classification, have produced a rigorous assessment of the social and individual harm caused by 20 substances, and believe this should form the basis of any future ranking.

By their analysis, alcohol and tobacco are rated as more dangerous than cannabis, LSD and ecstasy.

So do we ban tobacco and alcohol now?

Doubtful. Prohibition wasn't exactly a resounding success. :p

Prohibition wasn't exactly a resounding success. :p

Perhaps "isn't" would be a more appropriate term.

in many countries it is pakistan for one,

*takes LSD trips out and hallucinates of poo throwing smileys :gundge: *

More dangerous than ecstasy?
I mean, I knew pot was relatively harmless and that only a very small minority of the populace would experience negative physical effects from LSD, but ecstasy?

Perhaps "isn't" would be a more appropriate term.

Yes, that's true.

*cough* War on Drugs *cough*

But the shadow home secretary, David Davis, rejected any changes that would confuse the public. "Drugs wreck lives, destroy communities and fuel other sorts of crime - especially gun and knife crime..." he said, adding that he was against downgrading of ecstasy.

damn violent e freaks

This is news?

More dangerous than ecstasy?
I mean, I knew pot was relatively harmless and that only a very small minority of the populace would experience negative physical effects from LSD, but ecstasy?

Ecstasy was eighteenth most dangerous of twenty. Behind both cannabis and LSD.

The position of ecstasy near the bottom of the list was defended by Prof Nutt, who said that apart from some tragic isolated cases ecstasy is relatively safe. Despite about a third of young people having tried the drug and around half a million users every weekend, it causes fewer than 10 deaths a year. One person a day is killed by acute alcohol poisoning and thousands more from chronic use.

Prof Nutt said young people already know ecstasy is relatively safe, so having it in class A makes a mockery of the entire classification system for them. "The whole harm-reduction message disappears because people say, 'They are lying.' Let's treat people as adults, tell them the truth and hopefully work with them to minimise use."

Alcohol worse than ecstasy on shock new drug list (http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,,2040887,00.html)



So do we ban tobacco and alcohol now?

Because banning alcohol worked so well LAST time. But maybe we can legalize pot, X, and LSD.

Fuck, lets just legalize everything. Save us some money in the DoJ.

More dangerous than ecstasy?
I mean, I knew pot was relatively harmless and that only a very small minority of the populace would experience negative physical effects from LSD, but ecstasy?

The study isn't just looking at safety and effects on the user, but also at the effects on society. Ecstasy is definitely more dangerous than pot and LSD, but it's certainly less dangerous than tobacco, and probably about the same as alcohol. It's (probably, studies are pretty conclusive but not totally solid yet) toxic to the brain over the long term with a lot of use, but the damage is mostly emotional; people won't go completely nuts. Since it has few negative consequences on the people who don't use it, it's less of a problem for society.

Because banning alcohol worked so well LAST time.

I wasn't making a serious proposal.

I think we should legalize all of them but the very worst.

Ecstasy was eighteenth most dangerous of twenty. Behind both cannabis and LSD.
What about the whole dehydration/drowning thing?

This is news?

No.

But it's nice to get some official recognition of it.

I think we should legalize all of them but the very worst.
I agree. As socially libertarian as I am, I'm just not comfortable with legalized crack, meth or heroine.

Though, I think the methods we're using to fight those particular drugs need some serious revision.

What about the whole dehydration/drowning thing?

It's more a consequence of the rave scene than of the drug itself...though ecstasy does dehydrate a bit and raise body temp, but it isn't too dangerous in a normal environment. People die from dehydration from it pretty rarely.

I agree. As socially libertarian as I am, I'm just not comfortable with legalized crack, meth or heroine.

Though, I think the methods we're using to fight those particular drugs need some serious revision.

Lets not forget PCP.

More dangerous than ecstasy?
I mean, I knew pot was relatively harmless and that only a very small minority of the populace would experience negative physical effects from LSD, but ecstasy?

MDMA is a very safe to use substance. The problems involved with it are because it's illegal. Sometimes pills sold as ecstasy are mixed with or solely comprised of cheaper drugs, methamphetimine and LSD or less safe analogues of MDMA(including PDA which has stronger effects on body temperature as well as a slower onset, sometimes leading people to take even more). Also, the dosages are unregulated. Dancing for 20 hours and not drinking enough water, or thinking that 'stay hydrated' means 'drink 3 litres of water in the first two hours' also leads to accidental deaths.

I'm rather skeptical on ecstasy; it's a very powerful drug that triggers massive releases of neurochemicals and can thereby reduce the brain's sensitivity to them as well as their actual production, with the result being possible severe depression and anxiety. It is simply not well understood enough to legalize; we would need comprehensive evidence of its effects before we could consider legalizing it.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to risk triggering a massive epidemic of mental disorders because people are literally exhausting their brains of happiness...that's not ethical by any stretch.

It should be legalized for controlled use in treatment for mental disorders, but not for recreational purposes.

I agree. As socially libertarian as I am, I'm just not comfortable with legalized crack, meth or heroine.

Though, I think the methods we're using to fight those particular drugs need some serious revision.

Agreed 100%.

So where's the list? The article mentions a few, but I'd like to see the entire list.

In any case, no one's going to legalize opiates, so I'm still apathetic.

I certainly hope the 'shock' element refers to the surprising tactic of attempting to base drug laws on empiracal evidence rather than arbitary prejudice.

I'm rather skeptical on ecstasy; it's a very powerful drug that triggers massive releases of neurochemicals and can thereby reduce the brain's sensitivity to them as well as their actual production, with the result being possible severe depression and anxiety. It is simply not well understood enough to legalize; we would need comprehensive evidence of its effects before we could consider legalizing it.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to risk triggering a massive epidemic of mental disorders because people are literally exhausting their brains of happiness...that's not ethical by any stretch.

It should be legalized for controlled use in treatment for mental disorders, but not for recreational purposes.

Considering its ubiquitousness, banning it clearly hasn't worked very well - and for users, illegal drugs are always much worse than legal ones.

Better to legalize it - and if for whatever reason utter disaster strikes (though would it ever compare to the multitudes of deaths caused by alcohol?) and there's actually a reasonable enforcement plan, ban it again.

as one of my favorite magazines had in an article on lsd, there's nothing quite like watch a 120kilo rugby player screamming down the field with the ball trying to escape from fire breathing dragons!

Considering its ubiquitousness, banning it clearly hasn't worked very well - and for users, illegal drugs are always much worse than legal ones.

Well, yes. However, like any product it needs to be tested to determine its health risks and benefits; if we're going to legalize it, we'd have to treat it like any other drug product and act accordingly. All drugs are tested extensively in repeated clinical trials before they're certified, and MDMA deserves as equal scrutiny as any other drug coming to market.

Better to legalize it - and if for whatever reason utter disaster strikes (though would it ever compare to the multitudes of deaths caused by alcohol?) and there's actually a reasonable enforcement plan, ban it again.

I'd prefer to phase it in gradually, to reduce the risk of major health damage in the event something goes wrong or it has unexpected side effects. It would help reduce the problems of illegal use while providing time to test it for any potential problems and to create proper regulations for its production and distribution.

Since, as has been noted, prohibition doesn't work. I propose we legalize drugs in general, regulate them, tax them and use the tax money generated to fund rehab clinics.

(Yay, 2000th post)

Considering its ubiquitousness, banning it clearly hasn't worked very well - and for users, illegal drugs are always much worse than legal ones.

Better to legalize it - and if for whatever reason utter disaster strikes (though would it ever compare to the multitudes of deaths caused by alcohol?) and there's actually a reasonable enforcement plan, ban it again.

you mean like using before work? or maybe, at work.:confused:

you mean like using before work? or maybe, at work.:confused:

That's the employer's business.

being leagally able to give the bigbrother house mates large doses of LSD would make the show a lot more intersting IMO

More dangerous than ecstasy?
I mean, I knew pot was relatively harmless and that only a very small minority of the populace would experience negative physical effects from LSD, but ecstasy?

harmless? you mean like when someone gets his dope muscles and decides to shoot someone,and because of his hightened awareness shoots everyone else around him instead:eek:

That's the employer's business.

so if the employer has the responsibility how do you expect him or her to incorporate a ban that uncle sam makes legal.

so if the employer has the responsibility how do you expect him or her to incorporate a ban that uncle sam makes legal.

Alcohol is legal. Are you allowed to show up for work drunk? If so can I have your job?

harmless? you mean like when someone gets his dope muscles and decides to shoot someone,and because of his hightened awareness shoots everyone else around him instead:eek:

Maybe it's just that it's past time for me to stop typing stupid shit on the boards and go to sleep, but does this make ANY sense to anyone?

Well, yes. However, like any product it needs to be tested to determine its health risks and benefits;
Except that isnt like every product at all.

if we're going to legalize it, we'd have to treat it like any other drug product and act accordingly.
Er, would that be like we do with caffeine, you know the stuff proven to cause miscarriage and chromosomal abnormalities and which is jampacked in softdrinks that we feed to young children? Or do you mean like your FDA approved nutmeg? What? Your nutmeg doesnt have FDA approved stamped on the side of it.....that's funny neither does mine.

All drugs are tested extensively in repeated clinical trials before they're certified, and MDMA deserves as equal scrutiny as any other drug coming to market.
Right, can you please direct me to where I might find the reports for nutmeg and caffeine? Funny how the truth about nicotine and cigarettes took so long to get out what with all the trials it had to go through before sale.....oooh that's right this rule doesnt actually apply to all drugs but rather applies to those sold for medicinal purposes.......

I'd prefer to phase it in gradually, to reduce the risk of major health damage in the event something goes wrong or it has unexpected side effects. It would help reduce the problems of illegal use while providing time to test it for any potential problems and to create proper regulations for its production and distribution.
I'd prefer to not have freedom circumvented by the arbitary prejudices of those who think they are their brother's keeper, mother, father and judge.

What gets me concerned is the way these laws effect thinking. People actually talk about the issue as though not being illegal is active and illegality is passive, as though the default and natural order of things is to be illegal until cleared by society. That's BS. It's the other way around. It's not that something ought to be illegal until it can be demonstrated safe or right or ok, it's that no thing should ever be illegal until its harm can be demonstrated beyond all reasonable dispute, and even then the law should be invoked as a solution only with the utmost reluctance.

Doubtful. Prohibition wasn't exactly a resounding success. :pWell, that does depend on how you look at it.

Prohibition certainly wasn't popular, and critics cite the rise of "alcohol-related" crime, but the fact of the matter is that "alcohol-related" crime will increase, naturally, when you criminalize alcohol.

On the other hand, the suicide rate dropped dramatically, along with the rates of mental illness broadly defined.

Personally, I'm anti-prohibition. But I do like to get the facts straight.

;)

Definitely Marijuana, but I doubt they're less dangerous then LSD and ectasy.

Fuck, lets just legalize everything. Save us some money in the DoJ.

I think every American who can grasp logic is in favor of this.


Legalize=People get their drugs at the store=Gangs lose revenue=Gangs break up

What about the whole dehydration/drowning thing?

and suicide Tuesdays.

More dangerous than ecstasy?
I mean, I knew pot was relatively harmless and that only a very small minority of the populace would experience negative physical effects from LSD, but ecstasy?If you read the whole article, it mentions that ecstasy has gotten a bad reputation from an incredibly small number of well-publicized deaths. Ecstasy kills ten people per year, alcohol kills thousands.

Of course, from what I understand the scary thing about ecstasy is that even if the chances are slim, it is possible to die from a single, normal dose. That is enough to keep me away from the stuff. I prefer drugs over which I have at least some direct control.

Of course, from what I understand the scary thing about ecstasy is that even if the chances are slim, it is possible to die from a single, normal dose. That is enough to keep me away from the stuff. I prefer drugs over which I have at least some direct control.

Yeah...It's kind of insane to say it's less dangerous then LSD and Marijuana.

Alcohol worse than ecstasy on shock new drug list (http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,,2040887,00.html)



So do we ban tobacco and alcohol now?

No no, we legalize LSD, marijuana and ecstacy.

Yeah...It's kind of insane to say it's less dangerous then LSD and Marijuana.Well, on the whole I think the article is right to list it as "less dangerous," for the simple reason that kids use the stuff anyway, and 99.9% of the time nothing bad happens. They know it's not the demon it's made out to be, and that calls the entire classification scheme, as well as other information provided by the government, into question.

If you tell kids the truth--it probably won't kill you, but there is NO WAY TO PREDICT when it will--you might actually be more likely to discourage them.

EDIT: The point is that if everyone is doing it and not dying, you might think, "Well, what's the harm? I'll only take one pill." I would like every kid who thinks that to follow the thought up with, "But it could be this pill. The problem isn't taking too much, the problem is being the unlucky 1/1000."

It's like Russian roulette. Somewhat better odds, but still.

If you tell kids the truth--it probably won't kill you, but there is NO WAY TO PREDICT when it will--you might actually be more likely to discourage them.

that's crazy talk. everyone knows that lying to children is not only the most effective way to do anything, but an end in itself.

Well, on the whole I think the article is right to list it as "less dangerous," for the simple reason that kids use the stuff anyway, and 99.9% of the time nothing bad happens. They know it's not the demon it's made out to be, and that calls the entire classification scheme, as well as other information provided by the government, into question.

If you tell kids the truth--it probably won't kill you, but there is NO WAY TO PREDICT when it will--you might actually be more likely to discourage them.

EDIT: The point is that if everyone is doing it and not dying, you might think, "Well, what's the harm? I'll only take one pill." I would like every kid who thinks that to follow the thought up with, "But it could be this pill. The problem isn't taking too much, the problem is being the unlucky 1/1000."

It's like Russian roulette. Somewhat better odds, but still.

Why not tell them there is a risk in EVERY HUMAN ACTIVITY of being the "unlucky" one and dying? Cars, they probably won't kill you, but there is no way to predict when they will. Asprin. Standing outside. Standing inside. I think children need to have more fears, don't you?

being leagally able to give the bigbrother house mates large doses of LSD would make the show a lot more intersting IMO

I love this idea.

Since, as has been noted, prohibition doesn't work. I propose we legalize drugs in general, regulate them, tax them and use the tax money generated to fund rehab clinics.

A "Use at your own risk" warning label should suffice. If someone wants to get effed up, that's their problem. No reason to use tax dollars to fund somebody else's lifestyle choice.

It should be legalized for controlled use in treatment for mental disorders, but not for recreational purposes.

What people want to put in their bodies shouldn't be your's or anyone else's business.

so if the employer has the responsibility how do you expect him or her to incorporate a ban that uncle sam makes legal.

It's done all the time. A place of business is private property. The owner makes the rules.

Alcohol worse than ecstasy on shock new drug list (http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,,2040887,00.html)



So do we ban tobacco and alcohol now?

It wouldn't work.

harmless? you mean like when someone gets his dope muscles and decides to shoot someone,and because of his hightened awareness shoots everyone else around him instead:eek:

You watch too much TV.

It wouldn't work.

Yeah, and prohibiting marijuana and ecstasy doesn't work, either.

Doesn't stop them.

What people want to put in their bodies shouldn't be your's or anyone else's business.

Why not?

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/1134/hellfx7.png

It wouldn't work.
It would only work insofar as prohibition in illegal drugs 'works'.

If you tell kids the truth--it probably won't kill you, but there is NO WAY TO PREDICT when it will--you might actually be more likely to discourage them.

That's not exactly true.

As with most drugs, responsible use is always much safer than irresponsible, and while there remains a risk even with a moderate dose, that's true of a variety of human activities in which teenagers engage. Driving, after all, kills thousands every year - and while you can control your own behavior, you can't control the behavior of the other drivers.

As it stands, when you have half a million illegal users every weekend, only ten of whom die every year (and the statistics in the US are comparable), it looks to me like you have a risk negligible enough (especially with a legal, regulated drug) not to be too concerned.

re extacy

I had heard a scientist on NPR talking about drug studies that haven't been published yet and one of them showed that extacy caused heart valve leakage. :(

Alcohol helps to bring more people into this world than it helps to take out of it

re extacy

I had heard a scientist on NPR talking about drug studies that haven't been published yet and one of them showed that extacy caused heart valve leakage. :(

So perhaps ecstacy is the cause for all the Californian bleeding-heart liberals?

ba-dum

Why not tell them there is a risk in EVERY HUMAN ACTIVITY of being the "unlucky" one and dying?We certainly should be honest with children about the actual risks involved in various activities, yes.

Cars, they probably won't kill you, but there is no way to predict when they will.That's true, but at least there are some precautions you can take against that eventuality. You can reduce your risk by a) driving carefully; b) driving sober; c) wearing seatbelts; d) getting routine service on your car; ... etc.

The difference between this and a drug like ecstacy is that taking the latter is a bit like putting a gun to your head not knowing if it is loaded. It will either a) give you a thrill; or b) kill you.

You have to decide if the possibility for a thrill is worth the risk. For many children, it will be. For others, it will not be. But they should make that decision based on the actual facts, not something the government and parents just make up?

No?

More dangerous than ecstasy?
I mean, I knew pot was relatively harmless and that only a very small minority of the populace would experience negative physical effects from LSD, but ecstasy?

Ecstasy - or MDMA - is not particuarly dangerous on it's own. However, it can kill you with one pill if you have a bad reaction. If you do so much as have a beer while on ecstasy, it can be lethal.

As it stands, when you have half a million illegal users every weekend, only ten of whom die every year (and the statistics in the US are comparable), it looks to me like you have a risk negligible enough (especially with a legal, regulated drug) not to be too concerned.I agree.

That's why I don't think it should be illegal.

But I also don't think we should just legalize everything and say, "Well, this is really safe. Why don't you all have a fun weekend with it?"

But I also don't think we should just legalize everything and say, "Well, this is really safe. Why don't you all have a fun weekend with it?"

That would be stupid and immoral, yes.

We certainly should be honest with children about the actual risks involved in various activities, yes.

Agreed, but risk assessment in particular doesn't seem to be something most people are good at. I mean, I heard Iraq was gonna be a walk in the park, for example.

That's true, but at least there are some precautions you can take against that eventuality. You can reduce your risk by a) driving carefully; b) driving sober; c) wearing seatbelts; d) getting routine service on your car; ... etc.

The difference between this and a drug like ecstacy is that taking the latter is a bit like putting a gun to your head not knowing if it is loaded. It will either a) give you a thrill; or b) kill you.

Of course you can take precautions. You can reduce your risk by a) Doing the drug in a secure environment, with friends, b) Making sure of the source, c) Drinking water in a knowledgable manner, d) Not taking too much, e) Not taking too often.

And let's face it, you can reduce anything to either kill/survive. That paradigm is true for cars as well, no matter if I'm wearing seatbelts. Today when I go driving I might live, or I might die. It's exactly like putting a gun to your head, what is overlooked is that people put guns to their head all day long.

You have to decide if the possibility for a thrill is worth the risk. For many children, it will be. For others, it will not be. But they should make that decision based on the actual facts, not something the government and parents just make up?

Of course... but, assessment is not a fact, it's an interpretation of facts (or nonfacts, like War On Drugs propaganda which aims at emotional response in a similar manner that advertising does). There is no easy way to just declare universalities with these things.

Agreed, but risk assessment in particular doesn't seem to be something most people are good at.People's relative ability to assess risks is irrelevant. The point is that government agencies should provide the most accurate objective assessment of risks, and then it should be up to individuals to decide whether the risks involved are worth the rewards.I mean, I heard Iraq was gonna be a walk in the park, for example.Yes, and absolutely nothing about that particular risk assessment was objective. The administration simply ignored any information that did not support its predetermined course of action.

Of course you can take precautions. You can reduce your risk by a) Doing the drug in a secure environment, with friends,This reduces my risk of doing something stupid, and it may increase the chance that an ambulance arrives in time to save my sorry life. It does nothing to reduce my risk of an essentially random bad reaction.b) Making sure of the source,This reduces my chance of getting something potentially more dangerous than ecstacy. It does nothing to reduce my risk of an essentially random bad reaction.c) Drinking water in a knowledgable manner,This reduces my chance of falling ill due to dehydration. It does nothing to reduce my risk of an essentially random bad reaction. d) Not taking too much,This reduces my chance of an overdose. It does nothing to reduce my risk of an essentially random bad reaction. e) Not taking too often.This reduces my chance of long-term side-effects, and it also reduces the likelihood that I will have a random negative reaction. But on any given dose, it does nothing to reduce my risk of an essentially random bad reaction.

That paradigm is true for cars as well, no matter if I'm wearing seatbelts. Today when I go driving I might live, or I might die.That's partially true. First of all, there is a distinct difference between wearing a seatbelt and any of the precautions for ecstacy you list above: while there may be a certain probability that on any given drive I will be hit by a truck, wearing a seatbelt dramatically reduces the probability that such an incident will be lethal. As I understand the drug ecstacy, there is very little I can do to reduce the lethality of a bad reaction. I just have to hope the ambulance arrives quickly.

More importantly, the choice is affected by the ends pursued. I know full well that every time I get into a car there is a chance I might be badly injured or die. However, the ends I pursue by driving and riding in automobiles are, in my opinion, worth it. I sometimes need a car to get to work, or to complete some work assignment. Given current circumstances, I need to sometimes use cars to live a full and healthy life.

(Of course, I generally ride a bike to work and I would prefer a world with far, far fewer automobiles.)

My point is only that I won't put a gun to my head for the chance to obtain a cheap thrill, a chemical high. It's not worth it--to me.

It may be well worth it to other people, and I think they should be legally allowed to use it. But I think they should also have accurate information about the risk, so they can decide (as I do) how to handle it according to their own priorities.

There is no easy way to just declare universalities with these things.The only "universality" I have "declared" is that governments should be honest about the risks associated with drugs. Nothing more.

People's relative ability to assess risks is irrelevant. The point is that government agencies should provide the most accurate objective assessment of risks, and then it should be up to individuals to decide whether the risks involved are worth the rewards.Yes, and absolutely nothing about that particular risk assessment was objective. The administration simply ignored any information that did not support its predetermined course of action.

Well, so why do you trust government agencies to be accurate and objective?

Especially on this topic?

This reduces my risk of doing something stupid, and it may increase the chance that an ambulance arrives in time to save my sorry life. It does nothing to reduce my risk of an essentially random bad reaction.

No, but then seat belts don't reduce risk of an essentially random bad accident either.

This reduces my chance of getting something potentially more dangerous than ecstacy. It does nothing to reduce my risk of an essentially random bad reaction.

Reducing the risk is the bottom line here.

This reduces my chance of falling ill due to dehydration. It does nothing to reduce my risk of an essentially random bad reaction.

If it reduces the risk of danger in use, that is again, all that matters. Nothing is going to be 100% safe.


This reduces my chance of an overdose. It does nothing to reduce my risk of an essentially random bad reaction.

This reduces my chance of long-term side-effects, and it also reduces the likelihood that I will have a random negative reaction. But on any given dose, it does nothing to reduce my risk of an essentially random bad reaction.

Also, nothing reduces my risk of an essentially random large object falling on my head.

That's partially true. First of all, there is a distinct difference between wearing a seatbelt and any of the precautions for ecstacy you list above: while there may be a certain probability that on any given drive I will be hit by a truck, wearing a seatbelt dramatically reduces the probability that such an incident will be lethal.

No difference. That which I've listed helps reduce the risk of death or injury. Seatbelts do as well. And why are you saying there "may" be a probability of getting hit by a truck? There is ALWAYS a probability of some sort. It seems like you're trying to marginalize driving's risks in order to make ecstacy look somehow more dangerous.

As I understand the drug ecstacy, there is very little I can do to reduce the lethality of a bad reaction. I just have to hope the ambulance arrives quickly.

There's little I could do to reduce the lethality of getting hit by a train. I just have to hope the ambulance arrives quickly. Or not go out driving.

More importantly, the choice is affected by the ends pursued. I know full well that every time I get into a car there is a chance I might be badly injured or die. However, the ends I pursue by driving and riding in automobiles are, in my opinion, worth it. I sometimes need a car to get to work, or to complete some work assignment. Given current circumstances, I need to sometimes use cars to live a full and healthy life.

(Of course, I generally ride a bike to work and I would prefer a world with far, far fewer automobiles.)

My point is only that I won't put a gun to my head for the chance to obtain a cheap thrill, a chemical high. It's not worth it--to me.

Whatever floats your boat, but I don't personally consider doing a "work assignment" somehow more valid than the pursuit of pleasure. I mean really, do you want to put a gun to your head just to get a hamburger? Or whatever? How many of those drives (and rides) that you take are honestly worth dying for?

Well, so why do you trust government agencies to be accurate and objective?Who said I did? I am demanding that they should be, not trusting that they are.

No, but then seat belts don't reduce risk of an essentially random bad accident either.No, but they do significantly reduce its lethality.

It seems like you're trying to marginalize driving's risks in order to make ecstacy look somehow more dangerous.Not at all. And it seems like you are trying to portray me as somehow demonizing ecstacy. Far from it! I think it should be legal, and I think individuals should be free to make their own rational decisions about whether or not to accept the risks of its use. Indeed, my central complaint here is that governments have demonized the drug in ways that it does not deserve... the problem then being that people who actually do it--and discover that it does not, generally speaking, immediately turn them into a vegetable--learn to actively distrust drug-related publications by what should be trustworthy agencies.

In other words, I am complaining that if government drug agencies want to be trusted, the best way to do that is to be honest.

On the other hand, I have also stated my personal decision not to engage in a drug that may kill me, for no particular reason, the first time I try it.

I am much happier with drugs like alcohol, marijuana, and others for which my risk of death correlates directly with my habits of use. I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that these drugs will not kill me unless I abuse them. The difference between these and ecstacy is that the latter may kill me despite every precaution I take.

But, it's your choice. I have nothing against people who do it knowing the risks.

There's little I could do to reduce the lethality of getting hit by a train. I just have to hope the ambulance arrives quickly. Or not go out driving.Or not stop in the middle of the railroad tracks? You're really reaching now.