Professional people and drug use

[Beebee6]

I work in banking and moved to London a year ago for a career opportunity. I’m in my early 30s and have never thought of myself as particularly naive but I’m genuinely shocked by how many of my colleagues regularly use drugs. By drugs, I'm mostly referring to cocaine. They all talk about this very openly as if it’s a perfectly normal and acceptable thing to do at the weekend, after work or when they have spare time without the kids. On the rare occasions when I have been along to social events after work, it’s always offered around and I appear to be the only one not partaking. None of these people are particularly ‘young’ either (most 30s-40s) and are all very successful professional people, who in my (perhaps judgemental) opinion, aren’t the typical drug using types. Some are single but many have families. I mentioned this to a friend of mine who seemed to think that this is now commonplace amongst many working professionals, particularly in the city. I’m curious as to whether this sort of thing really has become more normal and accepted now?

these are powerful substances with enormous potential to help, to heal, to explore consciousness and the workings of the mind

For all the "academics" on here spouting this and that study as Oscar Wilde said "Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught"

Oscar Wilde was a user of opium and hash

My outrage is not moral, Jiggles. It’s based on picking up the pieces in the aftermath of this so called high jinks art making.
I just expect better from a professional than something so flippant, that’s all.

Yep and there has been studies done that link people with a high IQ and a lack of common sense. Poor old Oscar obviously fell into that category.

There are far more drug users who never suffer any ill effects whatsoever (other than the odd rough Monday morning) than there are those whose lives are ruined by them.

Just as there are far more drinkers who don't end up in the gutter/needing liver transplants/beating their kids than do.

Just because something can affect a minority of users in an extreme way, doesn't mean it's the norm.

But it doesn't make it right either. Your argument is so totally disrespectful to all who have lost someone to drugs. It's not just users who are affected it's the kids running drugs for the dealers, it's the babies born to the addicts, it's the families torn apart by their addict son/ daughter.

I've worked in broadcasting and film for 20+ years and never used it nor seen it used but then I never have stayed out late or partied unless it's absolutely unavoidable. Plenty of professionals don't use owt like that and just go home for a Horlicks.

Hi Nothin

Rather than focusing on what you may think those who have lost people to drugs might want, I'd suggest that it's more important to minimise the harms caused by drugs, and therefore to reduce the number of people lost to drugs in future than to work ourselves into an irrational moral outrage and perpetuate the current cycle. People trying to outdo each other by their levels of university-of-life common sense and how many echoing screams of devastated parents they've heard doesn't really help. Evidence and proper research probably does.

Harm reduction does require some grown-up engagement beyond demonisation. It does require us to accept that many recreational drugs are good fun and that many kids are likely to take them, as much as it requires us to acknowledge that they carry risks, many of them extremely grave ones. I don't think anyone on this thread has denied that second fact. You do seem determined to deny the first.

Many of the harms which young people face through using drugs are directly attributable to drug policy, not to the drugs themselves. For example, on the scale of weekend activities that might kill you, pure MDMA (what ecstasy tablets are supposed to be made of) is largely harmless. Our kids are much much more likely to get into trouble with alcohol. The danger comes mainly from policies provoked by irrational Daily-Mail moral panics and "common sense". Among many other stupid ideas, common sense led to a huge clampdown on supplies of saffrole oil, one of the precursors of MDMA, to cut off the supply. The theory was that kids would just revert to vodka and coke instead. In fact it lead to suppliers trying to mimic the euphoric effects of MDMA with much more harmful drugs and selling those as ecstasy pills. Because the market is illegal and unregulated there was no way to control this. So rather than kids taking a fairly safe drug (compared to vodka) they were taking all sorts of awful things without realising. The law of unintended consequences.

Ludicrously for its harmfulness level, MDMA is a class A drug, with a maximum sentence of seven years for possession. The fact that tens of thousands of kids up and down the country take it (or something they believe to be it) every weekend shows that criminalisation doesn't stop usage. The demand is amazingly inelastic. The focus needs to be harm reduction. We currently seem to have stumbled onto a strategy that actually maximises both harm and the profits of dealers.

Excellent post @fiddlesticksakimbo. We need grown-up, informed conversation here

I’d like to see some back-up for “MDMA is largely harmless”.

I wish there was decent discourse between “Alcohol terrible! Drugs fun and safe!” vs “All drugs will kill you instantly!”

I’m interested in the possibility of legalising some drugs but to claim they are harmless is a very rosy view of things.

Hi Pinegreen,

I wouldn't say they're harmless. I'd say the important thing is to adopt a strategy to minimise the harm they do, and our current approach is a long way from that.

If you look back I posted a link to some research by David Nutt of Imperial College, which analyses the harm to both the individual and to society of a large range of recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. In fact here is is
www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News%20stories/dnutt-lancet-011110.pdf

You'll see that ecstasy is pretty much at the bottom of the table, a very long way behind alcohol. At the time he expressed the view that you've more chance of death or serious injury from horseriding (and a lot more through drinking). And incidentally, my understanding is that his research is based on "street" ecstasy which is badly adulterated. Pure MDMA is a less harmful even than this.

And incidentally, my understanding is that his research is based on "street" ecstasy which is badly adulterated. Pure MDMA is a less harmful even than this

Source?

Admittedly my knowledge is 10 years out of date, but when i worked in the field it was widely recognised that it was the MDMA itself that caused the physical symptoms. Press always seemed quick to blame “contaminated ecstacy” but the deaths i worked on were always due to MDMA, not contaminants.

Hi Fiddle

Your level of crassness knows no bounds.

Yes, very common, think it always has been really.

Hi Really, I'd defer to your greater knowledge on this. My only source is the recollection of going to lectures by Nutt. Incidentally as you probably know his research was published in 2010. The levels of MDMA in pills have gone up and down over the years.