This week has been a massive middle finger not only to every single scientist, but also to legal highs users all across the UK. Today, I’m going to be moaning about both.

Malcolm Tucker: The angriest man on telly

Firstly, as everyone will know Prof. David Nutt was sacked as head of the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). Ever since this news broke, I’ve not been able to shake the image of Prof. Nutt getting a bollocking from Malcolm out of The Thick Of It. On its own, this isn’t big news; people get sacked all the time. But the reason why he got sacked is gobsmacking.

The Situation

It all started in 2008 when the government decided cannabis was far more deadly than ever before, what with all these new “skunk” strains appearing, and reclassified it back up to Class B. Of course, because the cannabis was “much stronger” than in previous years (for more on why that’s total horse shit, read Bad Science), everyone who smokes it will get schizophrenia, or so Gordon “Golden” Brown would have us beleive. Actually, he just pulled that straight out of his arse. Prof. Nutt, et al., wise to this bullshittery, recommended against the reclassification and was ignored. More recently, Dave (I’m sure I can call him Dave) published a paper comparing the dangers of ecstasy with the dangers of horse riding, finding that horse riding was actually more dangerous – “Equasy – An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms” [pdf; 65 kb]. This wasn’t a piece of propaganda published by some idgit with an agenda; it was a paper in a peer-reveiwed journal, alongside other factually accurate and interesting publications – all Dave did was let the evidence speak for itself. Dave’s final piss-take of current policy came when he delivered a lecture on entitled “Estimating drug harms: a risky business?” [pdf; 366 kb], basically saying the same thing that this episode of Horizon says – heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and methadone are the only drugs more harmful than alcohol, while LSD, ecstasy and cannabis are all less harmful that both alcohol and tobacco. As a result, Alan Johnson, our beloved home secretary and ex-postman, has lost confidence in the advice given by Dave, with over 40 years of relevant scientific background in the subject. Here are my top quotes (and interpretations) from Alan “I’m a fucking moron” Johnson:

This was not about Prof Nutt’s views, which I respect though I don’t agree with them.

This means “I don’t understand the importance of evidence” or “I disagree with the evidence because it doesn’t support my conclusion”

You cannot have a chief adviser… campaigning against government

This means “We’re not willing to accept advice that goes against the political message we’re trying to send”

There are not many kids in my constituency in danger of falling off a horse – there are thousands at risk of being sucked into a world of hopeless despair through drug addiction.

This means “What goes on in my constituency is applicable to the entire country.”

More Dangerous Than Ecstasy

This last (and most recent quote) is my favourite. Not only does it show an unbelievable arrogance, it also shows a deep misunderstanding of either the research or his constituency. Horse riding kills more people than ecstasy – that’s a fact. Is he arguing that thousands of people are at risk from a hitherto-unheard-of ecstasy addiction? Bollocks!  Or is he perhaps saying that all drugs are a problem? In that case, the comparison to horse riding isn’t fair, since that only applies to ecstasy, not all drugs. Who’d have thought that one single sentence could make someone look so stupid? Oh, and one final point – what about cheap, legal alcohol? I wonder how many people in his constituency have been sucked into hopeless despair though alcohol addiction?

Why Dave Is In The Right

Firstly, the Code o’ Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees states:

Rules of conduct need not affect a member’s freedom to represent his or her field of expertise in a personal capacity. The committee’s rules however should generally oblige members to make clear when they are not speaking in their capacity as committee members.

Guess what – the lecture was given as the Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College, London, not as chairman of the ACMD. This was made perfectly clear. BAM! Next, the Misuse of Drugs act includes the following within the ACMD’s remit:

educating the public (and in particular the young) in the dangers of misusing such drugs and for giving publicity to those dangers

BOOM! If that includes setting the current drugs policy straight in order to better communicate the relative harms of illegal drugs, then well done Dave for doing the job you were hired to do!

The Resignations

So far, other than Dave, Dr Les King and Marrion Walker have resigned. Les is part-time advisor to the Department of Health, and was a senior chemist on the ACMD, who’s responsible for drafting the legislation I’ll talk about shortly. Marrion is the clinical director of Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust’s substance misuse service and was the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s representative on the ACMD. As you can imagine, the resignation of these key figures has been a massive blow to the ACMD’s future credibility.

With any luck, the rest of them will resign next Monday, and no other respectable scientist will take their place.

What YOU Can Do About It

Facebook has been the primary theatre of action in this conflict between reason and the idiot brigade in power. If you use Facebook, you might like to join the “Support and Reinstate Professor David Nutt: We want an evidence based drugs policy.” group, which has been set up by the Students for Sensible Drug Policy UK. There are tonnes of comments, discussion, links ‘n’ all that, and it’s currently just over 8600 members strong. Alan Johnson’s Facebook page was public until very recently. Last time I went on there, it was covered in comments informing him of his own stupidity.

There are also a couple of worthwhile petitions UK residents can sign:

• Reinstate Prof. David Nutt
• Evidence-based Drugs Policy

And finally, I’d suggest writing to your local MP. Obviously, an actual letter would carry more weight than an email, but if you’ve got 10 mins to spare, you can use the website WriteToThem to find your local MP and fire off an email. I sent one off yesterday and got an encouraging reply this morning. I copied one someone else wrote from that Facebook group above and edited a few bits here ‘n’ there, and if you do the same, please edit my letter before you send it – that website won’t send identical messages. Here’s what I wrote:

Dear Lynne Jones,

I am writing to express my disappointment at the recent sacking of Professor David Nutt, Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs by the current Home Secretary, Alan Johnson.

It is the role and duty of a scientist to objectively determine truth and fact about the way in which the world works, and to present the evidence demonstrating those facts. Whether such facts are convenient, inconvenient, comfortable or uncomfortable or happen to contradict government policy is irrelevant. A scientist influenced by political expediency is not a scientist.

I fully understand that advisers advise and that ministers are responsible for decisions on policy, but the terms of reference of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, as laid down in the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971 include the following:

“educating the public (and in particular the young) in the dangers of misusing such drugs and for giving publicity to those dangers; ”

Professor Nutt has made public remarks about the relative risks of the use of substances currently illegal in the UK, comparing them to other legal substances and other common leisure pursuits. This fulfils the remit, quoted above, of ‘educating the public’, especially since the current drugs classification system does nothing to highlight the relative harms of illegal drugs.

In this case, the facts, as determined by the scientific method, may well cause many members of the public to question current Government policy. This is only right and proper in a democracy.

By asking Professor Nutt to stand down, the Home Secretary has sent a message that he finds it acceptable to disrupt the education of the public and that he is willing to suppress those who have a clear remit to present the public with facts in order to do this.

It is also worth noting that the document: “Putting Science and Engineering at the Heart of Government Policy: Government Response to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2008-09 – Science and Technology Committee ” states the following in Appendix One:

“SAC members should not be criticised for publishing scientific papers or making statements as professionals, independent of their role as Government advisers. (Paragraph 64)

“The Government agrees that the independence of science advisers is critical. It was precisely for this reason that the GCSA wrote to then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to express concern over her criticism, in Parliament, of Professor Nutt (Chairman of ACMD) with regard to an article he published in a peer-reviewed journal. ”

To my mind, the actions of the Home Secretary are undemocratic, dishonest, an attempted suppression of freedom of speech and a middle finger to anyone who understands and appreciates the scientific method.

Should not the Home Secretary now be considering his position?

I would be grateful for your thoughts.

Yours sincerely,
John Clarke

Here’s her reply:

I agree with you. When the issue if reclassifying cannabis back to class B in 2007, I tabled the following parliamentary motion:

EDM 209

RESPONDING TO THE DANGERS OF CANNABIS USE

That this House supports the mental health charity Rethink in its call for a public education campaign to convey the dangers of cannabis use; offers this support in light of the recent review of research published in the Lancet, which concludes that frequency of cannabis use increases the risk of psychotic illness such as schizophrenia by up to 40 per cent.; calls for clarity on the cannabis debate, particularly regarding the strength of skunk varieties of the drug; believes that reclassifying cannabis will not in itself lead to a decrease in the number of people who use it; notes that the proportion of young people using cannabis has actually fallen since it was reclassified in January 2004 from 25.3 per cent. of 16 to 24 year olds in 2003-04 to 20.9 per cent. in 2006-07; and urges the Government to commit to the development of a long-term awareness and information campaign with health promotion rather than a change in the law as the main lever to reduce use, in addition to funding research into the link between cannabis use and mental ill health.

If search under cannabis on my website, link below, you will find further information on my views and a report of a meeting of the All-Party Group on Mental Health on cannabis and schizophrenia.

I will pass on your comments to the Home Secretary to get his response.

Personally, as a former scientist myself, I despair at the selective use of science by colleagues from all parties and this latest example will no doubt give me further opportunities to raise my concerns. [My emphasis]

Regards

LYNNE JONES MP

House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

http://www.lynnejones.org.uk

That’s certainly much better than I’d have hoped!

Legal Highs ban

Next up is the BZP/GBL/Spice ban – here’s the proposal [pdf; 46 kb]. It looks like it goes into effect on December 23rd. I can’t give much more detail yet, since I’m not really a chemist, but it looks like all the decent smoking mixes will be gone by then. Better stock up before Christmas.

This week, clubs in Edinburgh have banned legal highs, just in case someone dies! If they catch you getting high legally inside, you could get barred for up to 3 months. That’s the gist of the story, as reported by The Sun and a few smaller news sites. Allow me to read between the lines…

Nothing makes you want to drink more than already being pissed. “Yeah, sure *burp*, I’ll have one more. Actually *hic*, better make it four…” (Of course, by “you”, I actually mean the majority of the drinking population who don’t drink responsibly. If you eat beforehand, alternate between alcohol & soft drinks and stick to a predefined limit each night, then well done you, but read on anyway.) Unfortunately, legal highs don’t have that effect. Users tend to have a much better time without drinking. Either that, or the drink does nothing but give you a hangover, in the case of many legal stimulants.  This would seem to be the real reason behind this latest move against legal highs. Which, I suppose, is fine in principal (you wouldn’t expect to bring your £6 bottle of Tesco Value vodka into a club, would you?), but at least have the balls to admit it. Not coming clean makes them look far worse, because as we all know, alcohol is far more likely to kill you than most other drugs. Actually, I bet more people have died from seizures in clubs because of the loud music and lights than have died from legal highs.

Another reason in the same vein is that some clubs want to protect their illegal drugs trade too. It sounds a bit conspiracy theorist, I know, but some clubs definitely do have their own supply of illegal drugs. You’d think a bunch of geezers covered with bling that hang out by the fucking bar would get kicked out at the first sign of dealing, but every time I’ve been to this particular club, the same guys have been there, looking as shifty as they are reflective. In another club we go to quite a bit, I’ve actually seen first hand a drug dealer go up and ask a bouncer if he’s got any more pills, who then went to ask the guy behind the bar.

And now for a final twist in the story… These days, “pills” rarely contain any illegal drugs at all! That’s right. Thanks to the increasing popularity and availability of piperazines (such as the infamous BZP), acquiring a pill that contains any actual MDMA is nearly impossible. A popular favourite among dealers at the moment is a compound called mCPP (m-ChloroPhenylPiperazine), whose side effects include massive headaches and nausea. It’s about 5 times cheaper for a chemist to make mCPP than MDMA, as none of the precursors are restricted, so now about 50% of all the pills across Europe contain it. It seems this chemical alone is responsible for the tidal wave of sick that now flows from the toilets of decent clubs across the country.

Like I said, this move is acceptable in principle, but I wish they wouldn’t act like they’re doing everyone a favour. Next, they’ll take away our legal right to tap water in order to prevent that dreaded hyper-hydration.

Fortunately though, there’s always evangelical Christianity to turn to, as seen in this week’s episode of Christian Drum ‘n’ Bass:

Since George Lamb couldn’t investigate his way out of a paper bag, I got in touch with Matt Bowden, the guy behind BZP, for a bit more of an in-depth commentary. If you never watched Can I Get High Legally?, now would be a good time to check it out. Matt is interviewed towards the end, but is barely given the chance to speak. Actually, he only agreed to speak to them on the condition that they mention his Aroma product and Club Stargate website, where you can earn money by getting your mates to buy stuff. I know since it’s the BBC that they couldn’t actually mention these things, but then why did they agree to it? That’s just not nice.

So, anyway, here’s what Matt has to say:

My points all simply come back to quoting proven research. Sure, BZP has risks. We analysed the risk after 10 million exposures in a country small enough that you can contact every hospital and A & D clinic to look for adverse events related to the ten million exposures (26 million pills consumed over 8.5 years) and learned that it was not causative in any reported deaths or significant lasting injuries and had not contributed to the burden on the alcohol and drug treatment industries. Nobody in the country had complained anywhere of addiction to the drug.

Nobody had ever been admitted to hospital or even presented at an emergency department who had followed the instructions on the packet and in every case where there was a hospital admission, the subject had well over the legal alcohol limit (for driving) as well. In some cases where seizures were reported they were up to 15 times over the alcohol limit! In other words they were in very poor shape even without the BZP.

There was one fatality which involved BZP but on a New Years Eve and it was combined with heroic doses of ecstasy, LSD and again mammoth quantities of alcohol. BZP was not considered by the medical examiners on the night to be causative.

It is not completely safe, but then neither is getting out of bed in the morning. It is considered risky to take with ecstasy and/or large amounts of alcohol, but if taken as directed by sensible manufacturers, the risks are lower than many other normal everyday human activities such as a trip to the beach, driving in heavy traffic or a passenger flight in a 747.

The risks are lower than activities such as surgery in a public hospital, a trip to the doctor, or, as our then-Prime Minister suggested young people do instead of taking party pills, a walk in one of our national parks, where poorly experienced trampers freeze to their deaths every year!

Some excellent facts and figures there. It’s just a shame I had to be the one to report them.

Fuck you, George Lamb.

The Egyptian Blue Lotus, Nymphaea caerulea, (also known as any combination of Egyptian, sacred, blue, lily or lotus), has been called the ancient Egyptian equivalent of ecstasy, but it’s psychoactive properties have only recently been (re)descovered. In an inspiring piece of shocking journalism, combined with insane photoshop skillz, I, Synchronium, and my trusty girlfriend find out what all this fuss is about.

Look at that image again. That same white/blue flower in each painting is what I’m talking about. It appears all over the place in Egyptian artwork, and now it seems it was the plant’s psychoactive properties that made it so popular to the Egyptians. It seems we still know very little about this interesting plant, however. Both the Wikipedia and Erowid entries say next to nothing, particularly on the pharmacological aspects. I’m currently waiting for someone on SpiritGarden forums to get back to me about a rather more comprehensive paper he found which focuses on the chemistry – the only problem is, it’s not in English. :-/ More updates on that later, I hope. All I’ve gathered so far is it contains nuciferine and apomorphine, a dopamine agonist.

So, the only piece of interesting information about the plant is from the 50 minute long documentary Sacred Weeds – Blue Lily. This came out in 1998, so the only copy I found isn’t great quality. It’s totally worth a watch, though, so I’ve included it at the end of this post. Wikipedia has the following to say:

The series ended with the investigation of the psychoactive effects of the Blue Lily (Nymphaea caerulea), a sacred plant in ancient Egypt. Michael Carmichael [hah!] suggested that the psychoactive effects of the blue lily and other psychoactive plants established a new foundation for understanding the origins of philosophy and religion in ancient Egypt. Alan Lloyd, the ranking took a more cautious approach. After witnessing the effects of the plant in two volunteers, all parties agreed that it was a psychoactive plant. Sherratt accepted the new paradigm for the origins of ancient philosophy and religion in his summation of the series.

Only one avenue remained unturned – trying it ourselves. Someone’s got to do these things, right?

Method – Two People

Take one bottle of generic £7 rosé wine and 25g dried blue lotus. Uncork the wine and pour yourself a little bit – if you don’t, the plant material won’t fit into the bottle. If you haven’t worked it out by now, the next step is put the plant material in the bottle. Then re-cork, shake a bit, and put back in the fridge. In about three days (yes, three days; serious journalism and scientific research need to be planned in advance!), your wine should have taken on a much darker hue.

When the time comes, you first need to filter the wine. Generic coffee filters are great for this, but you can use a clean tea towel too. Just pour your wine into a filter slowly until only soggy lotus flowers remain in the bottle. I found the best way to get these out was a long pointy thing and lots of patience. As they come out one by one, put them in a sieve over a jug of some description. Once you’ve got them all out, press them into the sieve to get as much wine out as possible. Once it’s all filtered, rinse out your wine bottle and put the wine, sans flowers, back in the bottle for storage. Drink the bottle between two people in the space of about one to two hours. On Sacred Weeds, they also ate the flowers when they realised they had no more wine left. Bear in mind that they had to import these fresh from Egypt at the time, so I think I’d have done the same! You can totally eat the once-dried flowers that you can buy today, but they won’t be a nice as the fresh flowers. Just like Guarana, this is one of those plants that actually tastes pretty nice.

Results

The wine taste alright. It’s more bitter than usual, as you’d expect, but nothing like dream herb or kratom tea. It’s easy enough to knock back, but if you’re a big girl, you can mix it half and half with lemonade. The effects of the lotus itself come about at the same time as the alcohol – about 10-15 minutes after drinking. The effects are subtle and enjoyable, getting more pronounced the more you drink. Relaxation is the first thing you’ll notice, as well as a more talkative demeanour. Things seem more amusing and perhaps a little more enjoyable. You will definitely adopt a more cheerful disposition!

I don’t know if it was the lotus, or if I was just knackered after a long day, but by about midnight, I was falling asleep with my clothes on. More investigation is necessary before conclusions can be drawn!

Conclusion
Pros:

• Easy to prepare
• Feels great
• Tastes pretty nice

Cons:

• It’s quite pricey @ £8 per person.
• It takes a while to soak

There’s not a lot more to say, really. I wouldn’t say the lotus made me ecstatic, but for an ancient herbal equivalent, it’s not half bad. This is definitely a plant I’d try again, and recommend to others.

Sacred Weeds

As promised, here is the Sacred Weeds – Blue Lily episode. Sit back, relax and enjoy!

In other news, I’ll be launching some competitions soon, so keep an eye out for chances to win loads of cool stuff.