Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday April 12 2019, @04:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the touchy-subject dept.

Cate Faehrmann: Why a lawmaker admitted to taking MDMA [*]

Australian Cate Faehrmann may be the world's first politician to admit to having used the illicit drug MDMA. The reaction in Australia, and globally, has surprised her, she tells Gary Nunn in Sydney.

Ms Faehrmann's admission, made in January, has come amid a fierce debate about introducing "pill testing" services in New South Wales (NSW). Five music festival-goers have died from suspected drug overdoses in NSW since September. It has prompted passionate calls for action - but state lawmakers are divided on what should be done.

Ms Faehrmann, 48, from the Greens party, argues that her opponents have a "limited understanding of the people they're needing to connect with". She says she has taken MDMA (known as ecstasy when in pill form) "occasionally" since her 20s. "I'm sitting here as a politician with more experience than anyone else in the building," she says, adding: "Maybe not - maybe I'm the only one being honest."

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian is opposed to pill testing. She has said that "no evidence [has been] provided to the government" that it saves lives, and that testing would give drug users "a false sense of security".

[*] MDMA: 3,4-Methyl​enedioxy​methamphetamine:

3,4-Methyl​enedioxy​methamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as ecstasy (E), is a psychoactive drug primarily used as a recreational drug. The desired effects include altered sensations and increased energy, empathy, and pleasure. When taken by mouth, effects begin after 30–45 minutes and last 3–6 hours.

Cate Faehrmann, Gladys Berejiklian. Also check out: DanceSafe.

Related: Research Into Psychedelics Continues
FDA Designates MDMA as a "Breakthrough Therapy" for PTSD; Approves Phase 3 Trials
Scientists Give MDMA to an Octopus


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 14 2019, @05:45AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 14 2019, @05:45AM (#829264) Journal

    The premise of both yours and Runaway's reply is one of legality and authoritativeness.

    I disagree. Ultimately, it's a matter of consistency of product. Take unknown drugs from someone who has no reason to provide a consistent product with predictable reaction - primarily because the dealer won't see the customer again, means that you get just that. As noted earlier in the recreational drug example given, there's no reason to expect even the same mix of ingredients from pill to pill, much less a consistent effect from taking those pills.

    Meanwhile, a prescription medicine comes from an identifiable source. Most of the time the customer is likely to use the medicine again. So there is considerable value to the manufacturer to provide a consistent experience which mostly does what the medicine is claimed to do, even in the hypothetical absence of regulation.

  • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday April 14 2019, @07:28AM (1 child)

    by RamiK (1813) on Sunday April 14 2019, @07:28AM (#829284)

    Meanwhile, a prescription medicine comes from an identifiable source. Most of the time the customer is likely to use the medicine again. So there is considerable value to the manufacturer to provide a consistent experience which mostly does what the medicine is claimed to do, even in the hypothetical absence of regulation.

    Only if the consumers -i.e. the doctors- collect and follow up on field data. The COX-2 inhibitors case proved not only they don't and it takes a fairly random third party researcher to conduct a whole new trial to discover it coincidentally, but that even if it's found dangerous, the regulators (in the US) won't step-in and remove the drug from the market so long as the patents are still in-effect. And of course, no court case could pass if the regultar doesn't acknowledge the danger despite the science being recognized globally.

    There been other examples as well. Fentanyl I believe is the most recent in-your-face example where even if we have all the information in the world, very little gets done in the face of powerful regulatory capture.

    And don't forget the counter example: ~50 years of false Marijuana claims and studies were promoted due "identifiable sources" and yet no one is being punished for the millions put to jail, billions of wasted tax dollars and all the harm the "safe alternatives" (a.k.a Fentanyl) caused.

    Overall, we're living in an extreme example of Milton Friedman classic case against the FDA [youtube.com] where when a person spreads misinformation and blatantly lies they get away with it and even get elected for President while regulators almost always act solely for the benefit of their future and past employers and rarely in favor of the public. As a result, if you read a dozen news pieces from reputable sources telling you something is safe or unsafe and one anonymous poster telling you the opposite, if the money leans towards the majority there's a good chance the majority are lying and the one anonymous guy is telling the truth.

    I believe it's what they call Fake News. Only when they use it they're typically lying.

    --
    compiling...
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 14 2019, @01:04PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 14 2019, @01:04PM (#829351) Journal

      And don't forget the counter example: ~50 years of false Marijuana claims and studies were promoted due "identifiable sources" and yet no one is being punished for the millions put to jail, billions of wasted tax dollars and all the harm the "safe alternatives" (a.k.a Fentanyl) caused.

      Or the people putting out bad product on the streets for the past 50 years.