In Praise Of Ecstasy
The UK’s Channel 4 last week televised a remarkable experiment, screened over two evenings. The channel had funded, for the first time, detailed scientific research on the effects on the brain of the drug MDMA, better known as Ecstasy. A selection of volunteers, including some well-known people, had been given an 83mg dose of the drug (or a placebo) before spending an hour and a half having their brain function analysed in an MRI scanner.
The study aimed to look at which areas of the brain were affected by the drug, and how. In particular, those behind the study, including the well known Professor David Nutt, wanted to look at possible clinical uses for MDMA, including as a treatment for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Ecstasy first became popular in the US during the 1980s, and rapidly spread around the world, primarily as a club drug. It induces a sense of happiness, well-being, and increases people’s ability to empathise with and care about other people. It’s an intensely social experience, and is far better than alcohol at creating a bond between people. It was banned in the US (for no good reason that’s ever been articulated), and then around the world – after all, global drug policy has been decided by the US for many decades.
In the UK, a well-orchestrated campaign was rolled out in the media to frighten the public into supporting a clampdown on the drug. The death of Leah Betts after taking her first pill on her 18th birthday, in 1995, created a perfect opportunity for the tabloid press to generate a moral panic. Betts’ autopsy later revealed that she’d died of water intoxication, a surprisingly common condition caused by drinking too much water and washing the sodium out of one’s system; but of course, the tabloids and politicians didn’t retract their earlier version of events. Ecstasy was falsely established in the mass imagination as a “killer drug”.
The reasons for the demonisation of relatively safe drugs such as Ecstasy are many and complex. No doubt, the alcohol industry fears the emergence of competitors and lobbies behind the scenes to ensure that alcohol remains the only government approved method of twisting reality. Our politicians too are generally ignorant on the drugs issue – or if they’re not, they’re all too aware of how they will be attacked in the press if they come out in favour of decriminalisation. But ultimately, as noted above, these decisions are made in Washington rather than London. American puritanism and control-freakery is global policy, until the day the UN finds the collective strength to say no to America.
The police also enjoy the extra powers that come from drug prohibition. I often see police with sniffer dogs pulling people out of London club queues; and you have to wonder who in the police or political hierarchy sees it as a priority to stop people dancing on Ecstasy in private venues. It gives some justification to the current police cuts, if there really are no higher priorities for policing a large city on a Friday night. Most clubbers know how to get past drug searches, so the small amounts retrieved by police and club security can only represent a tiny proportion of the total; the fact is, sniffer dogs provide easy arrests for the police, which can look good when aggregated into national crime statistics. The Home Secretary can brandish increased numbers of arrests and incarcerations, without having to make clear that no additional serious crimes have been dealt with.
Page 1 of 2 | Next page