8 ms·

The metabolites of MDMA are thought to be neurotoxic. Though it's known the chemical itself is not. In a sane world, we would use drug discovery to find drugs w

The metabolites of MDMA are thought to be neurotoxic. Though it's known the chemical itself is not. In a sane world, we would use drug discovery to find drugs with similar effects but without the toxic metabolites. But we love to punish people for their vices, so there is no research on creating safer alternatives to existent drugs.

atom-morgan 12y ago
> But we love to punish people for their vices, so there is no research on creating safer alternatives to existent drugs. And even in the areas where people are creating safer alternatives (e-cigarettes), there are politicians nearby ready to use their banhammers.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  > And even in the areas where people are creating safer alternatives (e-cigarettes), there are politicians nearby ready to use their banhammers. I don't think this ("banhammers") is a fair comparison. To my knowledge, most if not all of the major regulation regarding e-cigarettes is around restricting the sale to minors or restricting the areas in which they can be used, as opposed to a blanket ban on the sale or possession of e-cigarettes. All of that is analogous to existing regulation regarding cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana[0]. The only difference from marijuana is that we're starting from the other end of the spectrum (zero regulation) instead of starting from a blanket ban, but the theoretical convergence point is the same: use of marijuana and e-cigarettes are permitted, but regulated in some way around the age of purchaser and location (setting) of use. You can make the argument that restricting the use of e-cigarettes indoors (or by minors) is incorrect, but people have been arguing that 18-year-olds should be able to drink (like in the rest of the world)[1] or use marijuana, so the details of the regulation regarding those aren't necessarily perfect or justified either. A better example of "banhammers" would be Salvia divinorum, which was legal in every (or almost every) state ten years ago, and is now prohibited in 8 states (and there were attempts to prohibit it outright, like marijuana, in several more)[2]. [0] in (e.g.) Colorado, where recreational sale and use is permitted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum#US_legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum#US_legality
  - elohesra 12y ago
    > All of that is analogous to existing regulation regarding cigarettes But this is why e-cigarette campaigners say that politicians are just meddling out of personal distaste, rather than any scientific backing. The two core reasons why cigarettes cannot be smoked indoors are: 1) Doing so (potentially) causes deleterious effects to people who inhale the second-hand smoke. At the very least, it can be agreed that it's not preferable to breathe smoke. 2) It makes it likelier that the smoker will give up their dangerous addiction. Neither case can be particularly easily applied to e-cigarettes, which emit harmless water vapour, and are to many smokers a means of giving up their dangerous smoking addiction. I must say I agree with the e-cigarette campaigners that attempts to apply the same laws to e-cigarettes as cigarettes is just yet another example of politicians wanting to control something absent of any scientific proof that they need to do so.
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      While many may emit water vapour, I believe there's studies which show that there are non-negligible amounts of other substances in some e-cigarette vapours. I do not think there's enough scientific data to make a long-term decision; perhaps just regulating the manufacturers so that we know what's putting what into the air is enough? My personal opinion is that no matter the safety, I cannot cope with the smell of e-cigarettes, having been around people who use them indoors, and would like to have at least some recourse for being forced to smell it all day in my workplace. If vapers manage to convince companies that it is their "right" to vape in the workplace, I will not be able to work. I would thus like some regulation around using e-cigarettes in places where I have little choice to be.
      - Crito 12y ago
        I don't think that either smell nor "non-water compounds" are reasons to regulate e-cigarettes tighter than we regulate perfumes, colognes, or spray deodorants. Similar regulation for all four seems reasonable to me.
        12y ago
- collyw 12y ago
  Google for David Nutt in the UK. An scientific expert in the area of drugs. British government asked him to conduct a study of the relative dangers. Didn't like the result. They sacked him.
  - tunap 12y ago
    Cannot locate the item right now, but didn't the entire brain-trust leave with him, too? Sucks working for an org that ignores the results that don't suit their ends.
    - akiselev 12y ago
      Heh, not only that but the person who fired him got sacked for doing so [1] and Nutt ended up helping start what is, essentially, a political competitor to the organization he was thrown out of [2]. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8349300.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8349300.stm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Scientific_Committee_on_Drugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Scientific_Committe...
DanBC 12y ago
And worse people cycle through novel compounds to avoid drugs laws to create "legal highs" which have bery little data to show how safe or not they are. It's weird just how sub optimal current laws are.
pantalaimon 12y ago
> so there is no research on creating safer alternatives to existent drugs That's not entirely true, MDAI was created as a safer alternative to MDMA, however reports say it's somewhat lacking in the experience.
Alex3917 12y ago
We already have a non-neurotoxic version, it's called MDAI.

atom-morgan 12y ago

> But we love to punish people for their vices, so there is no research on creating safer alternatives to existent drugs. And even in the areas where people are creating safer alternatives (e-cigarettes), there are politicians nearby ready to use their banhammers.

chimeracoder 12y ago
> And even in the areas where people are creating safer alternatives (e-cigarettes), there are politicians nearby ready to use their banhammers. I don't think this ("banhammers") is a fair comparison. To my knowledge, most if not all of the major regulation regarding e-cigarettes is around restricting the sale to minors or restricting the areas in which they can be used, as opposed to a blanket ban on the sale or possession of e-cigarettes. All of that is analogous to existing regulation regarding cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana[0]. The only difference from marijuana is that we're starting from the other end of the spectrum (zero regulation) instead of starting from a blanket ban, but the theoretical convergence point is the same: use of marijuana and e-cigarettes are permitted, but regulated in some way around the age of purchaser and location (setting) of use. You can make the argument that restricting the use of e-cigarettes indoors (or by minors) is incorrect, but people have been arguing that 18-year-olds should be able to drink (like in the rest of the world)[1] or use marijuana, so the details of the regulation regarding those aren't necessarily perfect or justified either. A better example of "banhammers" would be Salvia divinorum, which was legal in every (or almost every) state ten years ago, and is now prohibited in 8 states (and there were attempts to prohibit it outright, like marijuana, in several more)[2]. [0] in (e.g.) Colorado, where recreational sale and use is permitted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum#US_legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum#US_legality
- elohesra 12y ago
  > All of that is analogous to existing regulation regarding cigarettes But this is why e-cigarette campaigners say that politicians are just meddling out of personal distaste, rather than any scientific backing. The two core reasons why cigarettes cannot be smoked indoors are: 1) Doing so (potentially) causes deleterious effects to people who inhale the second-hand smoke. At the very least, it can be agreed that it's not preferable to breathe smoke. 2) It makes it likelier that the smoker will give up their dangerous addiction. Neither case can be particularly easily applied to e-cigarettes, which emit harmless water vapour, and are to many smokers a means of giving up their dangerous smoking addiction. I must say I agree with the e-cigarette campaigners that attempts to apply the same laws to e-cigarettes as cigarettes is just yet another example of politicians wanting to control something absent of any scientific proof that they need to do so.
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    While many may emit water vapour, I believe there's studies which show that there are non-negligible amounts of other substances in some e-cigarette vapours. I do not think there's enough scientific data to make a long-term decision; perhaps just regulating the manufacturers so that we know what's putting what into the air is enough? My personal opinion is that no matter the safety, I cannot cope with the smell of e-cigarettes, having been around people who use them indoors, and would like to have at least some recourse for being forced to smell it all day in my workplace. If vapers manage to convince companies that it is their "right" to vape in the workplace, I will not be able to work. I would thus like some regulation around using e-cigarettes in places where I have little choice to be.
    - Crito 12y ago
      I don't think that either smell nor "non-water compounds" are reasons to regulate e-cigarettes tighter than we regulate perfumes, colognes, or spray deodorants. Similar regulation for all four seems reasonable to me.
      - 12y ago
collyw 12y ago
Google for David Nutt in the UK. An scientific expert in the area of drugs. British government asked him to conduct a study of the relative dangers. Didn't like the result. They sacked him.
- tunap 12y ago
  Cannot locate the item right now, but didn't the entire brain-trust leave with him, too? Sucks working for an org that ignores the results that don't suit their ends.
  - akiselev 12y ago
    Heh, not only that but the person who fired him got sacked for doing so [1] and Nutt ended up helping start what is, essentially, a political competitor to the organization he was thrown out of [2]. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8349300.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8349300.stm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Scientific_Committee_on_Drugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Scientific_Committe...

DanBC 12y ago

And worse people cycle through novel compounds to avoid drugs laws to create "legal highs" which have bery little data to show how safe or not they are. It's weird just how sub optimal current laws are.

pantalaimon 12y ago

> so there is no research on creating safer alternatives to existent drugs That's not entirely true, MDAI was created as a safer alternative to MDMA, however reports say it's somewhat lacking in the experience.

Alex3917 12y ago

We already have a non-neurotoxic version, it's called MDAI.