Crap analysis shows wee problem with tough ecstasy laws

Posted: June 26, 2012 in Drugs
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Yesterday the Australian Institute of Criminology released a report that independently verified what they had already been told by users themselves:  when ecstasy is not available, recreational drug users turn to crystal meth.

Your dunny might be telling tales on you

The verification came from an analysis of sewerage water from a municipality in Queensland.  “Estimates were made of the average daily dose and average daily street value per 1,000 people. On the basis of estimated dose and price, the methamphetamine market appeared considerably stronger than either MDMA or cocaine.”

The systems used by the AIC are usually reliant upon self-report data, which generally leads to selection biases.  But that self-report data gave the AIC the reasons for the shift from ecstasy to meth – quite simply, decent ecstasy became too difficult or expensive to acquire.

In an AIC press release earlier this year, Manager of the Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA) program, Jason Payne said:

The decline in ecstasy use coincides with a spike in methamphetamine use, and the findings are consistent with data recently released by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre and in the 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report.”

It is worthwhile noting that these substantial falls in ecstasy use among police detainees have occurred simultaneously with significant increases in methamphetamine use.

The relationship between the production and supply of ecstasy and methamphetamine, but more importantly how users respond to such market changes, remains a key topic for further research.

Yes, I know correlation doesn’t equal causation, but even the AIC hint pretty strongly that it means exactly that.  From the report that spawned that press release:

Self-reported data suggested that ecstasy had become harder to obtain, that there were fewer dealers selling the drug and that the quality was perceived to have declined.

So I’ll go out on a limb and say it:  if recreational ecstasy users can’t get ecstasy, a good number of them will turn to a readily available and affordable drug that provides a similar high.  And the most readily and available of those right now is methamphetamine.

The problem is, the similar high doesn’t come with similar consequences.  Meth is highly addictive and long term use has a high association with depression and suicide, psychosis, anxiety and violence, as well as the ever-attractive meth mouth.  There seems little evidence that ecstasy is addictive and although there may be some long term consequences of heavy use, such findings are inconclusive.

Any bouncer (other than the type who enjoys the fighting part of his job) will tell you he’d rather have a club full of ecstasy users than one full of meth-heads or drunks.  The most annoying thing about ecstasy users if they want to love everyone, touch everything and express all of their feelings while thinking they can dance better than they actually can.  They don’t tend to hit people.

I feel comfortable making the unqualified statement that meth is more harmful than ecstasy to both user and society.  So is alcohol, but that’s another blog topic.

So, presumably the drying up of the supply of ecstasy has much to do with the highly publicised massive raids done by police.  And these, in turn, no doubt occurred because ecstasy was seen as a ‘problem’ drug.  Only for law enforcement, it seems ‘problem’ is synonymous with ‘popular’.

Newsflash:  ecstasy was so very popular because it was relatively safe, left users with a clear head and was non-addictive.  By fixing the ‘problem’ of ecstasy, all law enforcement has done is created an actual problem – no quote marks required.

You may link to this post but you may not reproduce it without the permission of the author

  1. Mike Riddiford says:

    So your basic argument is that there is demand for illegal drugs is relatively inflexible, and that as a society we simply need to recognise that and ensure the least harmful drug is readily available – is that correct?

    • I am completely pro drug reform. Legalise it and spend the money on education and health, the way we do with cigarettes (which are far more harmful).

      • Mike Riddiford says:

        I’m unclear about what you mean – Legalise what? Everything? Should any drugs be illegal, in your view?

        PS I agree cigarettes are harmful (who does not?), but am unclear as to the relevance here. Is your argument simply that anything less harmful than cigarettes should be legal, because of the precedent that has been set?

        thanks, Mike

        • Yes, pretty much everything. Legalise it, regulate it, educate about it.

          I’m not sure it would work, but Prohibition has been an abject failure and I think we need to look at alternatives. Anything that stops people from dying and frustrates organised crime should be considered.

          • Mike Riddiford says:

            Thanks ATV

            I don’t agree with you about “everything” (I prefer a case by case approach), but I find your site informative and interesting. Good luck!

  2. […] Crap analysis shows wee problem with tough ecstasy laws – what happens when resources are directed into cracking down on MDMA? You create a crystal meth problem. […]

  3. Nomes says:

    Great post! I think the decline in availability / quality of MDMA is a direct result of joint ops between the Cambodian government and our AFP in destroying stocks of safrole oil starting material. And all that does is prompt the manufacturers to leaf through Shulgin’s P.I.H.K.A.L for alternate psychoactive compounds Halasanasuch as 2C-1, which have poorly defined therapeutic margins and risk-benefit ratios.

    • Thanks! I don’t understand half of what you wrote, but I do believe that a lot of the drought came about as a result of a crackdown on precursors.

    • Sinbad says:

      Hi there, yes the AFP and Cambodian government and cops destroyed huge amounts of safrole oil, and now police it alot harder, but why has that not impacted on the HUGE MDMA market of Europe, most people know there are Massive amounts of high grade MDMA pills there (like there was here in the early 90’s) but now we don’t see hardly any of them in Aus ( will verify this)…I guess some of the big players who organised the imports into Aus got taken down and customs picked up their game, but still huge amounts of meth come in so why dont imported pills? Thoughts?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s