David Bellamy (2014)

Thanks for your support. Presume you mean UK? Lib Dems and Greens are only parties that have taken any interest in addressing drug harms. Julian Huppert has done everything possible to stop the pointless khat ban going thru. The debate is worth watching http://www.parliamentlive.tv/main/Player.aspx?meetingId=15241

Biggest obstacle to reform - prejudice, ignorance and irrational fear fuelled by parts of media.

Thanks for your kind comments. I wholeheartedly agree about PTSD, and the tragic events in Fort Hood hint at more selfish reasons to treat PTSD effectively, though of course when people with PTSD kill, the victim is almost always themselves. (I don't want to give the idea that we should fear traumatised people).
There is no question that psychedelics can sometimes change people, or rather allow for them to undergo change, usually in ways they perceive as beneficial, this has been established in research;- the Johns Hopkins psilocybin work has shown this, http://jop.sagepub.com/content/25/11/1453.short.
LSD studies have shown that it can allow people to make the radical change of escaping alcoholism. It is important to understand that psychedelics do not change people in the way that stimulants change blood-pressure; the person's intentions, setting etc have an effect. e.g. in the Johns Hopkins study, the change in personality was not determined by the dose, but by whether they had a profound mystical experience.
Maybe I will drop by /r/Drugs!

Thanks for the offer, will depend on my diary. Best to speak to my team

We all often wonder this! I think it is difficult to generalise. But many politicians have changed their position dramatically when they gain and lose office, suggesting they are to some degree denying what they really believe. Cameron used to have a very rational view when he was a backbencher on the Home Affairs Committee. Public opinion is shifting, so it is gradually becoming more damaging for politicians to pursue policies clearly in contravention of the facts, and less risky to do what makes sense. For example, the next generation of voters are less likely to support the criminalisation of cannabis users. Thanks for the support!

Here's a David Cameron you may not recognise. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-contender-calls-for-more-liberal-drug-laws-6143525.html

These are difficult symptoms to treat, with no established therapies. I agree it would be worth pursuing more research in this field with drugs such as MDMA, but this is very difficult to do whilst they are illegal.
I'm glad that you are having success with MDMA, but would caution others that in general self-medication comes with significant risks.

Our MDMA info: http://www.drugscience.org.uk/drugs-info/mdma/

Also, advice re PMA: http://www.drugscience.org.uk/drugs-info/pma-warning-ecstasy-users/

Good Q - yes results undoubtedly would change. Re heroin related morbidity and mortality would decrease eg from AIDS however if use went up a lot, harms from accidental overdose and addiction would rise. A properly regulated market would inevitably see net harms decrease. You can try your own modeling using the Lancet paper.

I can see some circumstances where these drugs can be very useful, such as doctors performing surgery in the middle of the night. Their ability to boost learning in students is less clear, and there may be downsides, for instance, they may increase attention, but reduce creativity. I certainly cannot recommend them. However, the key issue is not whether the use of these drugs will be harmful (unless they get arrested!), but what the societal response to this should be. Drugscience has published in this area.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22732441

Almost all of my drug use is caffeine and alcohol! I've also been administered a broad range of psychoactive drugs in the context of medical research. Today's news about Nigella (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/apr/03/nigella-lawson-stopped-boarding-flight-us-cocaine-confession) is a reminder that there are real policy-related harms to taking drugs when they are illegal, and to admitting to it! I only use drugs in jurisdictions where it is allowed, and am flying out to Denver soon! haha.

I'm hopeful that UK will adopt a more rational drug policy with focus on in not too distant future. Harm reduction is not best served through free market availability - Uruguay may be a better model.

Our approach is just to keep banging on about the evidence. The more people counter misinformation thru comments on article etc, the better

Schools have a part to play, but everyone can champion the evidence and challenge unreasonable beliefs. But opinions are shifting in the right direction. A similar process was seen with sex education;- it used to be very common for moralising to get in the way of actually informing people, but over time people saw that inadequate education based on a 'just say no' attitude increased rather than reducing harm. In sex education, it is now mainstream to take a 'harm reduction' approach, e.g. that it is better that young people know about and can access contraception, even if underage sex is not endorsed by teachers. We're hopefully gradually moving towards a similar situation with drugs, where phobias about talking frankly will melt away.

The LSD study is exciting, although the conclusions we can make are limited by its small size. So we need more research! Actually there is loads of great drugs research going on in general, especially in the UK. the problem is more specifically in researching Schedule 1 drugs (like LSD and cannabis), it's easier ironically to research heroin because it has a medical use. Several Drugscience scientists, including myself are actively conducting research into drug use, drug related harm, how drugs work, and what untapped medical potential they have. For example look into the work of Val Curran, John Ramsey, Fiona Measham and the rest http://www.drugscience.org.uk/about/committee-members/

For the research to be freed up, the laws on Schedule 1 drugs need changing. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/04/drugs-legislation-david-nutt-john-maddox

Anything that increases evidence to reduce harms is a good thing so yes. Fiona Measham who is involved with that is a DrugScience Member

Important to note drug testing isn't a panacea - home testing is not reliable especially at showing mixtures/adulterations. More info also doesn't eliminate risky behaviour completely - people still horseride!

can you explain? Not familiar with the site

The 'dark net' sites such as Silk Road are an inevitable reaction to the current situation. It's impossible to say if they are 'good' or 'bad' in general; they have the advantage of delivering decent quality (allegedly, based on a couple of analyses of samples, and anecdotal research http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395913000066)
However, the user discussed in the academic paper linked above described being a "child in a sweetshop", and for some people, this easy access will lead to problems controlling level of use.
Drugscience is now accepting Bitcoin donations! Any Silk Road users who want to maximise the availability of info that will reduce the chance of Silk Road customers coming to harm might wish to donate!

As for advice to users;- Actually I'd caution against reliance on home testing kits. The theory is tempting, they sound empowering, but actually they can give a false sense of security, potentially increasing harm. See this video featuring Drugscience Committee Member John Ramsey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MbNJYoHDz8

Further guidance is on our website, and advice particularly aimed at more experimental 'psychonaut' users is coming soon.

http://www.drugscience.org.uk/donate/donate/
Here's the link for Bitcoin donations.

Yes, often, but that doesn't necessarily represent the views of the public.
For example, there isn't public support for actually enacting the harsh sentences that go with Class B status of cannabis.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/119174/acmd-cannabis-report-2008.pdf

Progress is currently in the right direction.

1. Problem mephedrone use certainly hasn't gone away - injection has increased massively. It's also remained a popular drug for recreational use unlike any other NPS/legal high. Deaths are at around 4 per year now. Undoubtedly mephedrone has harms (we have info http://drugscience.org.uk/drugs-info/mephedrone/) but there was evidence of a correlating reduction in cocaine deaths. I don't think it's had a particular effect re decrim. Wedinos who test drugs in Wales have found that samples of mephedrone are v adulterated eg with crystal meth so are have fallen prey to usual criminal market harms.

2. A break between using MDMA would make it more likely to feel the effects fully. In our clinical trial it was given two weeks apart for that reason. Remarkably MDMA and similar drugs do not generally cause the same moreish/compulsive behaviour as with stimulants prob cos serotonin system is anti-addictive. Our info http://drugscience.org.uk/drugs-info/mdma/

Ha, they should read my book!
and follow the Drugscience newsletter http://drugscience.org.uk/newsletter/

But really, a key part of the answer is for people like you to stimulate the public debate, challenge misinformation (e.g. by commenting on articles, and demanding sources, corrections and retractions when nonsense is published.)

Thanks for your support and for reading my book! All the profits are being donated to Drugscience, so it supports our mission both financially and directly by spreading info. http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/david+nutt/drugs+-+without+the+hot+air/8823593/

1) There's not too many countries who are well down the road to implementing rational drug policy! Uruguay has been extremely thoughtful with their new cannabis policy, and I'd say they have a better chance at getting close to minimum harm compared to Colorado and Washington, where we're concerned by the appealingly marketed cannabis candies for example.

2) The next Channel 4 programme will be about cannabis!

3)It is harm to a typical user, not total harm. This makes it possible to compare very prevalent drugs to less prevalent ones. The Social harm bit is a total though, so that is related to prevalence. So alcohol for example is the most socially damaging drug, partly due to its high prevalence, but it is the 4th most harmful to the user, irrespective of prevalence.

4) It's hard to pick one most common misconception! One would be that illegality is a reflection of harm, that illegal drugs are automatically 'worse'. Another massive one is that any generalisations can be made about 'drugs', that there could be a single successful approach to 'drugs' in general. The book hopefully shows just how different drugs are from each other in effects and risks.

5) As KnMn says below, no, heroin withdrawal can be horrible, but it is not fatal on its own. Relapse afterwards is often fatal though, as tolerance drops rapidly. The other drug not mentioned by KnMn which can kill from withdrawals alone is GBL/GHB. Benzo withdrawal deaths are extremely unusual.

Cheers!
Cannabis has several interesting associations with cancer, there is not a simple story, and you're right to be suspicious of those 'facts' you mention.
smoking tobacco is, as you know, hugely carcinogenic, and the habit of putting tobacco in cannabis joints is an indirect way that cannabis users get initiated into nicotine addiction. There are indications that smoking cannabis with tobacco gives a greater risk of cancer than tobacco alone.
However, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether there is any increased risk from cannabis alone. You'd think there would be, since smoke contains chemicals that are carcinogenic, but the best studies don't find a link, although to be clear, smoking cannabis heavily isn't good for the lungs. Read more here;- http://drugscience.org.uk/blog/2012/06/11/smoke-without-fire-scaremongering-by-the-british-lung-foundation-over-cannabis-vs-tobacco/

The reason that cannabis smoking doesn't seem to cause cancer may be that some cannabinoids might have some anti-cancer effects. The internet is full of hype about this, and unfortunately the excitement has run way ahead of the facts, to a degree that people are at risk of dying from rejecting evidence-based chemo in favour of eating high doses of cannabis oil. Cannabis is not a "cure for cancer", although it, or some extracts from it, might in the future have some chemotherapeutic role in some types of cancer. There is research into this. http://www.gwpharm.com/GW%20Pharmaceuticals%20Commences%20Phase%201b2a%20Clinical%20Trial%20%20for%20the%20Treatment%20of%20Glioblastoma%20Multiforme%20GBM.aspx

1st;- Politicians and the media so often do not tell the truth, through prejudice or ignorance. As the current khat ban demonstrates, the truth doesn't automatically 'win out' when knowledgeable politicians like Dr Julian Huppert speak out. Here's a little article where I explained some if the misguided logic behind the khat ban. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/03/ban-qat-theresa-may-ban-cats

1. Surprisingly lots of people seem to want to volunteer their time and brains to this research! We're not looking for volunteers for this at present.

2. We have thought about crowdfunding for projects that Drugscience have in the pipeline, e.g. school drugs education, but the alcohol substitute is not ideal for crowdfunding as the process of getting it done will not be as quick as most crowdfunded projects.

My alcohol substitute is designed to reduce the numbers of people who will develop problems of alcoholism, not to treat it! Treatment is a separate issues, and I continue to endorse rational approaches to treating alcoholism. I'm glad you've read that article, I wish more practitioners did and started taking up these models of treatment!
Here's a more recent article on a similar theme
http://jop.sagepub.com/content/28/1/3.full.pdf+html?ijkey=ovy5Z2c4m0d96&keytype=ref&siteid=spjop

Depends on definition of 'toxicity'! Stopping people breathing could be given as a toxic effect. Thanks for your helpful answer.

I agree with you, the current response to NPS is failing.
Options like the New Zealand model need to be considered, because people need to be able to look at the packet and know what they are taking, and roughly the risks they are accepting. It is yet to be seen if the New Zealand model will adequately deal with the problem though.
One important point though;- The current harm caused by NPS is pretty small in comparison with established legal and illegal drugs, and we should remember these are the areas where the biggest benefits from a new approach will be felt in the short term.