Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think that the war on drugs did not kill this girl

36 replies

AgaPanthers · 23/06/2014 12:00

Link: www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/22/mother-fights-against-war-on-drugs-anne-marie-cockburn-martha-fernback

From the article:

"On 17 July 1971 the US president, Richard Nixon, announced what has become known as the war on drugs, instigating an unrelenting campaign that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

On the same date, 42 years later, in north Oxford, Martha Fernback, 15, and a friend bought a plastic sachet holding a crystallised gram of MDMA for £40 from a dealer. It was no impulse buy. Martha's online history revealed she had meticulously researched the risks of the drug and opted to buy its most expensive variant, assuming the better quality it was, the safer it would be.

One of the myriad ramifications of Nixon's hardline stance has meant buying drugs is a fraught and risk-laden business: users do not know what they are taking. In Martha's case better quality meant greater purity. She had no idea that her batch was 91% pure compared with an average street level of 58%. Around lunchtime on 20 July last year Martha swallowed her 0.5 gram and within two hours was dead, the MDMA inducing cardiac failure."

It doesn't seem to me that her research was meticulous, nor that the purity of the drug was a problem.

A google search for 'mdma dosage' gives this page as the first result:

www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_dose.shtml and it says that for small or sensitive people the dosage is 60-90mg, and for larger people 110-150mg.

So obviously if you bought 1g of pure MDMA and split it with a friend (presumably without the aid of a proper milligram scales, so the actual dose could have been higher still perhaps 0.6g or more) and then consumed the whole lot, then there was no question that you had taken far too much, whether purity was 58% or 91% especially given that MDMA is crystalline as compared to ecstasy which comes in a tablet form (and hence cut with caking agents, etc. to turn it into a pill), and tends to be much purer anyway.

People die from overdosing on alcohol, which is perfectly legal, so I'm not sure where the war on drugs comes into this.

She bought crystal MDMA, presumably on the basis that it tends to be purer, and less likely to be cut with other things, and then consumed far too much of it.

Educating people about dosages would be helpful, not saying that the problem is the variable quality of the product, which in this case it clearly wasn't.

OP posts:
SaucyJack · 23/06/2014 14:14

I agree. The amount of otherwise healthy people dying from taking sensible amount of MDMA/Ecstasy is a very, very, very small percentage of users.

There will always be some who go overboard and OD though. Yet it's the same with alcohol- and I noone wants to see that banned.

CorusKate · 23/06/2014 14:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CorusKate · 23/06/2014 14:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BackOnlyBriefly · 23/06/2014 14:45

Blaming one person's death on the war on drugs is illogical, but yes people do want someone or something to blame so it's understandable. We just mustn't take it seriously.

Whether drugs should be illegal is tricky. Personally I don't think there should be any laws except those to protect other people from your actions. If you want to risk your own health that's your choice.

And yes if the government sold safely produced drugs then a modest profit could go to taxpayers and the drug dealers would be out of work.

On the other hand if we legalise them all I want anyone who takes them while driving a car, performing surgery or anything else critical, to be punished severely as that does affect others. You'd probably have to make them illegal while working at any job or nothing would get done.

Keeping them illegal and educating young people on the risks is never going to work unless we do make alcohol illegal too.

Saying to DCs "You must never take drugs! it is very bad. Fetch me a big bottle of wine before you go out" is not much of a message is it.

BackOnlyBriefly · 23/06/2014 14:48

btw surely the 'cut with rat poison' must be an urban myth (or a one off by someone crazy) since there's no advantage to the dealer to kill customers.

LemonSquares · 23/06/2014 15:06

I don't think that argument stands, tbh. Guaranteeing the quality and standards of alcohol, and giving guidelines on safe quantities to take hasn't done much to curb binge drinking and all the health & social implications of that.

Didn't a lot of blues musicians go blind during 1920 American Probation?

uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110207070119AAosTW1

The blindness is not specific to the 1920s, but prohibition is equated with the worst and most unsafe moonshine, because almost all illicit alcohol was mass produced by crime syndicates that put profit above the well-being of consumers.
...

Most people got blind, sick, paralyzed, or dead from deliberate actions by unscrupulous manufacturers who knew their product was not fit for consumption but realized the bad liquor would not be traced back to them.

That doesn't happen now unless it's smuggled in stuff as it's regulated.

Though it doesn't affect how much people consume still - most people being aware of the guidelines and igoring them.

The only thing that regulating and allowing drugs to be legal IMO is that it might take them out of the hands of criminal empires but drugs would still be dangerous in as of themselves.

AgaPanthers · 23/06/2014 15:28

Lots of people in countries like Indonesia die from moonshine and methanol poisoning. Same in India. But it's not really cultural to drink over there, so I don't know if prohibition makes it more dangerous or not.

They kill themselves with cigarettes instead though.

OP posts:
AgaPanthers · 23/06/2014 15:29

"btw surely the 'cut with rat poison' must be an urban myth (or a one off by someone crazy) since there's no advantage to the dealer to kill customers."

Don't think that's true, but what can happen is that different chemicals are sold in lieu of the one being purchased. This usually happens when the precursors (to make the drug) are less controlled than those for the one being purchased.

Some drugs are substantially more dangerous than others.

OP posts:
sashh · 23/06/2014 15:32

If it was legal, many many more teenagers would die of it.

Probably fewer.

Alcohol is a drug. Alcohol Kills and hospitalises teenagers.

But when a teen gets to hospital the staff know what they have taken and what to do about it.

Very few people make their own alcohol because it is cheap to buy. When we buy it we know the strength, we know the possible effects, we know if we are unfortunate enough to need medical treatment we will not be arrested. I'm sure we have all had experiences or heard tales of home brew being incredibly strong.

Regulation and some form of legalisation/licencing would:

a) take the manufacture out of the hands of criminal gangs
b) allow people to make informed choices about what they are taking/whether to take it
c) allow medical professionals to develop treatments for overdose
d) allow taxation
e) allow some form of quality control so you know when you spend £10 or £50 what you are getting

7Days · 23/06/2014 15:43

I wonder is it too late for legalisation in one sense

The criminal gangs will not give up their advantage easily and will probably continue to supply harder and cheaper versions, especially if regulation is tight which it will have to be to make it worth while.

It reminds me a bit of the debate around the legalisation/decriminalisation of prostitution. It sounds very pragmatic and sensible but there are unintended consequences. Demand increases because of the normalisation effect and the overflow tends to flow towards the nastier unregulated side.

but it's not like I have the magic bullet solution either

Deftones · 23/06/2014 17:58

I take MDMA, mainly when I'm going to festivals, so around 3-4 times a year. Obviously I would like to see legalisation, controls etc.

I would like to see more controls on alcohol, now that is a destructive drug, very destructive.

I was very saddened to hear of the young girls death, but inspired by her mother's response

New posts on this thread. Refresh page