The Rise and Rise of MKat

MKat, Mephedrone, Meow-Meow – we all know what it is, and we all know everyone’s doing it. It’s the drug craze which is sweeping the nation and has seeped into the very core of university culture.

Why has Mephedrone – chemical name 4-MMC – become so popular? In a nutshell, it’s legal, cheap and accessible, which means pretty much anyone can get their hands on it (including the 15-year old boy who sold it to a girl in his class, who then died after taking it). A quick scan on Google brings up countless websites selling the drug for as little as £7 a gram, which can be ordered online and delivered the next day.

Mephedrone is a ‘first-time’ drug for many students – the legality and ease of online ordering eliminates the need for seedy contacts and the requirement of being part of the drug taking underworld. As a result, a huge amount of people take it and award themselves the ‘cool drug-taker’ tag, and this new culture has produced a domino effect of users spreading the drug throughout their social circles. On the other end of the spectrum are the more hardened drug-takers, who may treat MKat as a ‘baby drug’ due its lack of strength compared to MDMA for example. This group, in addition to the “it’s-legal-so-it’s-ok” thinkers, who naively but logically think that if something is dangerous then the government would illegalise it, are in serious danger of complacent thinking – any drug, regardless of whether or not it is legal, or how ‘strong’ it is, needs to be treated with the respect it deserves.

For those who have not experienced Mephedrone, it’s a stimulant which lasts a relatively short time, causing people to take excessive amounts of it. This compulsion to constantly top up is what users report to be the real danger- like coke, it has a very ‘moreish’ element to it, and as Mkat users could potentially have several times more cheap and cheerful Mephedrone than cocaine on them in any one sitting, it stands to logic that they would be ingesting a hell of a lot more drugs than before.
Although Mephedrone hasn’t been termed officially ‘addictive’, user reports from across the country could indicate otherwise. I’ve heard instances of MKat binges lasting days, while a friend of mine told of his mate who had been taking Mephedrone solidly for a week, and was experiencing intense depression. His doctor advised him to go cold turkey and not take the drug again. If you are going to take MKat, be prepared for the serious amount of gurns and the comedown, which ranges from feeling very shitty to bizarre rashes to depression and psychosis.

The purpose of this article is not to be a lights-flashing, sirens-blaring, ‘DON’T TAKE DRUGS’ warning being rammed down your throat, but MKat really is a national craze, the likes of which we haven’t seen in years. One could even suggest that Mephedrone is to the Noughties what ecstasy was to the Nineties – you’ll be down the pub in twenty years’ time looking back with your mate, ‘remember ‘09/’10 when everyone was on that Mephedrone…’

The Mephedrone phenomenon is very ‘open’ in the sense that it is not confined to the drug-taking community – the media has gone crazy about it and the majority of the general, non-drug-taking public have an idea of what’s going on, one example being my friend’s perfectly straight-edged dad who runs a respectable business in an office he rents in an office block in West London. One day he arrived at work to find the police outside the building because there was a Mephedrone company operating on the floor below him!

The problem with MKat is that its use will continue to rise, with detrimental results. It will draw people in, who before never even had drugs on their radars, and to those ‘first-timers’ it will serve as a gateway drug to stronger and harder substances. The government will definitely illegalise it, but the labs which produce drugs such as Mephedrone only have to change one molecule for it to suddenly become a new drug, thereby jumping the legislation and constantly being one step ahead of the law.
Whether you’re a first-timer, a naive-thinker or a long-time user, be wary of MKat and its hidden dangers. After all, curiosity killed the kat.

Sian Boyle

FeaturesThis Issue
65 Comments on this post.
  • Graham
    12 March 2010 at 15:18
    Leave a Reply

    I’d ditch the Mmcat if i could get a decent regular supply of MDMA, unfortunately, Mmcat has a better high because it is purer than all street Ecstasy. And gives you similar feelings.

  • Graham2
    14 March 2010 at 14:42
    Leave a Reply

    Nice one graham….pretty cool there. Where du normally go out..any chance you could hook me up with some drone bruv?


  • cooldude
    18 March 2010 at 23:29
    Leave a Reply

    graham you must have a crap life if you need drugs to give you a good time loser

  • jen
    20 March 2010 at 09:47
    Leave a Reply

    definatly losers! get a grip of yourselves! you look stupid taking drugs, its disgusting.

  • joker
    20 March 2010 at 17:31
    Leave a Reply

    chemically inbalanced youth of today probably would have a go on persil if they heard it was good…

  • Rob
    20 March 2010 at 18:17
    Leave a Reply

    Hmm, the calls of ‘loser and moron’ seem displaced. Surely you guys are losers if you spend your time moralising (and making a crap job of it too) with someone on an article thread about his choice to take illicit drugs. Whos cares if people take drugs, I dont, its entirely up to them.

  • Jason
    20 March 2010 at 20:43
    Leave a Reply

    i’m sure alot of people making comments about looking silly when taking drugs have infact looked just as silly on a heavy night out on alcohol.

  • Ashleigh
    22 March 2010 at 18:14
    Leave a Reply

    Good article, shame about peoples comments.
    Alcohol is far FAR worse than mkat, and the recent deaths are purely from people mis-using the drug, or have never taken drugs before.

    If drugs were regulated and controled, there would be no need for the ‘Mephedrone’ craze, and the country would be alot better off.

    Up here at nottingham trent uni, we tend to have better illegals, and someone who knows more about drugs, becomes a more sensible drug user.

    In my opinion your a ‘loser and a moron’ to falling to the more socialy acceptable Alcohol and going to places like ocean and oceana haha

  • siraj weedpot
    24 March 2010 at 19:31
    Leave a Reply

    A nephew of mine tokes tobacco along with marijuana…

  • corey spaven
    25 March 2010 at 14:31
    Leave a Reply

    m Kat is pro ill take it all day 🙂

    • claire
      30 April 2011 at 03:09
      Leave a Reply

      I think this drug is abserloutely disgraceful,the damage it has done to peoples life’s dont bare thinking about,it has changed my son from a fitness fanatic whos dream was to join the forces,until this shit come along,the sleepless nights as a mum ive endured the tears ive shed as my family is being wripped apart,what really makes me sick is how the police arrest people with weed,get the real criminals who are destroying our lives,i just want my son back,from what ive heard & experienced and this is just the beginning im dreading the outcome,it leads to one of two things death or prison,kids these days just aint gotta clue…… 🙁

  • corey spaven
    25 March 2010 at 14:32
    Leave a Reply
  • corey spaven
    25 March 2010 at 14:36
    Leave a Reply

    im joknig bad habbit :(, i know people who do it :\

  • jubilee acolyte
    26 March 2010 at 11:53
    Leave a Reply

    If a Government wishes to stop people using drugs, then IMO it’s beholden to them to look upon it more as an issue of health than one of crime. That isn’t to say that prohibition/criminalisation of certain drugs does not have some role to play. It’s simply that, in my opinion, if you devoted less resource to criminalising and more resource to treating people who fundamentally are ill more than morally bankrupt, then you might go some way to addressing some of these problems.

    Unfortunately in this country, as some of the comments in this thread illustrate, our culture is all too quick to react with moral repugnance when we see people abusing drugs and all too slow to recognise people with often undiagnosed and untreated health problems. Which brings me to the media… not in this case Impact, because this is a good article. But the general media reaction to this issue is just absolutely hysterical. Charlie Brooker wrote an excellent article on this subject in Monday’s Guardian, from which the following is taken:

    “It’s perhaps the biggest threat to the nation’s mental wellbeing, yet it’s freely available on every street – for pennies. The dealers claim it expands the mind and bolsters the intellect: users experience an initial rush of emotion (often euphoria or rage), followed by what they believe is a state of enhanced awareness. Tragically this “awareness” is a delusion. As they grow increasingly detached from reality, heavy users often exhibit impaired decision-making abilities, becoming paranoid, agitated and quick to anger. In extreme cases they’ve even been known to form mobs and attack people. Technically it’s called “a newspaper”, although it’s better known by one of its many “street names”, such as “The Currant Bun” or “The Mail” or “The Grauniad” (see me – Ed).

    In its purest form, a newspaper consists of a collection of facts which, in controlled circumstances, can actively improve knowledge. Unfortunately, facts are expensive, so to save costs and drive up sales, unscrupulous dealers often “cut” the basic contents with cheaper material, such as wild opinion, bullshit, empty hysteria, reheated press releases, advertorial padding and photographs of Lady Gaga with her bum hanging out. The hapless user has little or no concept of the toxicity of the end product: they digest the contents in good faith, only to pay the price later when they find themselves raging incoherently in pubs, or – increasingly – on internet messageboards.”


  • Chloe
    27 March 2010 at 23:18
    Leave a Reply

    “One could even suggest that Mephedrone is to the Noughties what ecstasy was to the Nineties”.

    60’s & 70’s – LSD
    80’s – cocaine
    90’s – ecstasy
    00’s – legal plant fertiliser…..fan-bloody-tastic, whats next? Baking powder?

  • lauren tobenas
    28 March 2010 at 23:26
    Leave a Reply

    i think its discusting, people need to see the light, its come out of no where and already people are dying from it, and to think its not illegal is even worse, theres more to life than going out and taking drugs specially when you dont no what the risks are, some people just take it without a care and dont think of the concequences, only when something really bad happens is when people see the light which i have, id trust cocaine more than m kat seeing the affects its had on one person, hope you pull through <3 xxxxxxxx

  • Jamess
    2 April 2010 at 17:09
    Leave a Reply

    I think that if you’re going to take drugs, then at least take real ones. Stuff that is designed to get you high, and not designed to kill bloody weeds.

  • tomtom11
    3 April 2010 at 17:09
    Leave a Reply

    Mkat is sold as a plant fertilizer, its how companies would find a way around the illegalities. Where I’m from its all over the city and very popular, I’ve seen friends go from a gram for the weekend to 2/3 in a night in the space of 3 weeks. I’ve tried and tested it and would recommend it for a night out, but too much totally messes you up. You can’t sleep for days, loss of appetite, depression and the stuff stinks, which means everything you touch for the next few days will as well.
    At the end of the day, I dont trust something with so little information about it out there, at least if someone OD’s on cocaine the hospital has 30 odd years of expirience to know what to do with you.

  • lol69
    5 April 2010 at 13:11
    Leave a Reply

    anyone who calls drug users ‘losers’ and ‘wasters’ need to get a grip. I was like that untill i tried MDMA, now i dont consider myself a drug addict or anything of the sort. I dont even use it that often (never around anyway).
    The problem with this country is that we’re illegalisng something we dont fully understand. No one has died from taking mcat (although they have died from a combination of factors that mcat may have accounted for). Its just silly. Tabacco and Alacahol are far worse than most drugs you find on the street which proves the government isnt doing this for the health of the nation.

  • Drono
    6 April 2010 at 22:13
    Leave a Reply

    Theres a band called Naymedici in Manchester who’ve even got a song about it called Portrait of a Piss Artist (www.myspace.com/naymedici) – sweet band, and everyone is doing it in the city (but it definitely does mess you up!)

  • Claire
    8 April 2010 at 15:52
    Leave a Reply

    you can not possibly compare it with alcohol and smoking, this stuff is bad and i know because my 16 year old son has been taking it.He sleeps all day and stays out all night because he lost his apprenticeship through poor time keeping and absence, his eyes bulge out of is head,he is always angry,he has stolen from me to buy it and he does not care about anyone or anything except when he is taking it next.So anyone defending this drug is most definitely a mooron,waster and loser.This crap is ruining my sons life

  • rob
    8 April 2010 at 19:37
    Leave a Reply

    No Claire, your son ruined his own life, not the drug. Deal with it and leave the rest of us alone.

  • jubilee acolyte
    9 April 2010 at 12:26
    Leave a Reply

    @ Claire

    So is it seriously your position that the abuse of alcohol and/or tobacco DOESN’T ruin peoples lives? Because that would appear to be the corrollary of ‘you can not possibly compare it with alcohol and smoking’, and ‘This crap is ruining my sons life’.

    Alcoholism is a progressive, often fatal disease and tobacco!? These legal drugs do more damage to more lives than all the illegal ones combined.

    In the case of your son he is clearly abusing this drug and is sick. So why do people blame (and treat) the drug without considering (and treating) the illness? Do you look at smokers and alcoholics in this way? Criminalising him for using MKat will not cure this sickness. It might stop some people using it in the first place, but something else will come along to replace MKat soon enough.

    In this case media hysteria has developed and pressure has grown for the Government to be seen to be ‘doing something about it’. So instead of a sound, well informed, long term strategic decision we’ve got a sticking plaster solution that addresses only part of the problems. It might get it out of the headlines and appease the masses in the short term but at best it’s a starting point to address the broader issues that lie beneath.

    In many ways the reaction of moral repugnace which you see as the stock response from so many people in this country whenever recreational drug use (alcohol and tobacco normally excepted) is discussed reminds me in many ways of the debate over obscene publications which happened 40 years ago. It is my hope that sooner or later the debate will come to be more enlightened, but I have my doubts.

  • Dave Jackson
    9 April 2010 at 12:51
    Leave a Reply

    Is that not an argument more in favour of banning alcohol and tobacco, instead of legalising recreational drugs?

    After all, if the ‘legal’ drugs (one of which you erroneously describe as an ‘often fatal disease’) are causing more damage than the illegal ones, is this not a testament to how rendering some drugs illegal has limited the impact they have on peoples’ lives?

    Right? I’m using your logic here. If you’re going to try and make a case for the continued legalisation of recreational drugs, you’re going to have to find a better reason than “Alcohol and Smoking are worse”.

  • jubilee acolyte
    9 April 2010 at 14:21
    Leave a Reply

    @ Dave Jackson

    It’s not erroneous to say alcoholism is an often fatal disease. This is the definition of alcoholism published by the Journal of the American Medical Association:

    ” Alcoholism is a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. The disease is often progressive and fatal. It is characterized by continuous or periodic: impaired control over drinking, preoccupation with the drug alcohol, use of alcohol despite adverse consequences, and distortions in thinking, most notably denial .”

    I’m not arguing in favour of legalising drugs per se. My point is merely that there is far more to the debate than the issue of legalisation vs criminalisation. There are issues of health, culture, taxation etc etc. It’s only one part of the equation. Decisions should be considered strategic and made in the long term interest. They should be made in possession of the best medical evidence and within the framework of a choerent strategy. I don’t see too much evidence of this at the present time.

    I actually think criminalisation has a role to play in the management of some drugs. However I also think anyone who is of the opinion that all that is required is to make the substance (alcohol, MKat or anything else) illegal and then lock up all the criminals is completely misunderstanding the problems and ignoring the facts. Cannabis has been criminalised for a long time in this country yet its use is currently more widespread and culturally accepted than ever.

    Frank Zappa once said ‘Communism doesn’t work because people like to own stuff’. By the same token, prohibition doesn’t work because people like getting high. It’s simply a question of how you best manage this.

    People who abuse drugs nearly always do so for reasons other than love of the drug in question. Unless and until you address the underlying issues/problems (in this country, better and more widely available mental health care especially) then the debate over criminalisation amounts to little more than how we should best arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

  • Dave Jackson
    9 April 2010 at 14:53
    Leave a Reply

    Apologies for my error – I read it as you saying that ‘alcohol’ was a progressive and often fatal disease. I’ll try not to dwell on it.

    I’m not saying you’re in favour of legalising drugs, just that you’re not providing any compelling reason to challenge the status quo besides arguing that legal vices can be worse, which if anything is an argument in favour of prohibition.

    Cannabis is an interesting topic – some might argue that its cultural acceptance is a sign that criminalising it doesn’t work, while others might point out that this is merely a failure of legislation to make it clear that the use of the substance is unacceptable, what with the controversy over Class B/C status. Besides, internet piracy and copyright theft are more widespread and culturally acceptable than ever – this does not mean that such things stop being crime. What would you do, besides ‘managing’ the problem, if indeed you think that it’s a problem?

    If I’m to follow Frank Zappa’s logic as you’ve so deployed it, then we may as well argue against the illegality of murder because sometimes people just like to kill. Or the illegality of burglary because people like to steal property. I think Frank Zappa is right – I think your usage of the quote doesn’t actually address the issue we’re talking about.

    I’m not looking at it in the simplistic ‘Legalisation vs Criminalisation’ argument. I can totally see that there is a healthcare facet to this argument. I’m just interested to hear some concrete ideas – how exactly are you suggesting the government deal with ‘the drug problem’?

  • jubilee acolyte
    10 April 2010 at 09:34
    Leave a Reply

    Difference with burglary and murder of course is that they are not seen as acceptable things to do by the population at large. Intoxication is viewed as acceptable (and is or has been indulged in) by the vast majority of people in this country. Those things are not remotely analagous.

    OK suggestions to improve the status quo. Just to clarify what’s happened with MKat. Last October the Government sacked David Nutt because he refused to support the re-classification of cannabis to band B, stating there was no scientific justification for it. Since then, 7 members of the now 23 strong council have resigned in protest at the Government’s drug policy. 3 had to be appointed on 29th March so the Government could rush through the legislation as prior to this resignations had left the council non-quorate. The recommendation to ban MKat has not been properly thought through. The following is from the latest resignation letter, that of Eric Carlin:

    “Re-Mephedrone; we had little or no discussion about how our recommendation to classify this drug would be likely to impact on young people’s behaviour. Our decision was unduly based on media and political pressure. The report was tabled to the whole Council for the first time on Monday; the Chair came to brief you before the whole Council had even discussed all of the report. In fact, I still haven’t seen the final version. … We need to review our entire approach to drugs, dumping the idea that legally sanctioned punishments for drug users should constitute a main part of the armoury in helping to solve our country’s drug problems. We need to stop harming people who need help and support. I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people.”

    1. As the Government did with the Bank of England in 1997 with exchange rates, I’d devolve many of the powers regarding decision making on the classification of illegal drugs to the ACMD. Make the law on the illegality of drugs based on safety/health risks, not politics. Unless this happens it’s always going to be too tempting for the Government to bow to media pressure as it has with MKat this year and cannabis last year.

    2. At the present time, if you go to the doctor with a common mental health problem like depression and an associated moderate, non-life threatening drug problem then you can wait 6, 9 months or more to get counselling if you have to rely on the NHS. Students here have access to the University Counselling service which is a great resource. Even when counselling is provided, there is no after care, just a basic course of treatment and on to the next person. This should be the main thrust of dealing with ‘the drug problem’, not the complete afterthought it is at present. People in these circumstances need to be seen quickly, the treatment needs to be more comprehensive and thorough. This, in my opinion, will go a lot further to addressing ‘the drug problem’ than continuing to pour resources into policing. And I’m confident that the benefits of such a programme would pay for themselves in the long term.

    3. I would completely rethink and replace the Misuse Of Drugs Act. It doesn’t work. I’d remove the criminalisation of people caught with small amounts (i.e. personal use) of most drugs as a first and second offence. Record their details, if they are caught repeatedly then criminalisation should be considered, but I think giving people a record for life based on possession of a small amount of drugs for personal use is not justified (and no, I don’t have a record myself).

    4. Generally, the Government needs to challenge the media hysteria that developed around cannabis and has again around mephedrone. You’ve seen reports to the effect that mephedrone ‘has been involved with 25 deaths in the UK’. Alcohol was also ‘involved’ in those deaths, but that never gets a mention. This would have to be a long term thing to attempt to move the debate forward. A government would have to be very thick skinned and determined to do this as it would probably be unpopular initially at least.

    5. I would create a public service allowing people to bring their illegal drugs in free of charge and free of risk of conviction to be tested for purity/safeness.

    6. I would consider making cannabis legal. One reason would be the tax revenue, also I think it would at a stroke get rid of the health concerns of the drug getting stronger. Hardly anyone in Holland smokes the ridiculously strong Afghani hash or the super skunk, they choose the more expensive and milder blonde hash or good quality weed as it gives a more pleasant high. I think regulation of the drug would be beneficial and the current legislation has clearly failed.

    Not a comprehensive list… would all need to be researched and I’m sure there are some holes in some of those ideas. But I think it’d be better that the status quo for sure.

  • Dave Jackson
    10 April 2010 at 12:13
    Leave a Reply

    I’d firstly point out there that you are using the word ‘intoxication’ very liberally. Be specific here – smoking and drinking alcohol are generally considered as acceptable, although recent legislation has shown that, for example, smoking in interior public places is ‘not’ considered generally acceptable, nor is drinking and driving.

    This doesn’t mean that people consider taking drugs to be acceptable. If we’re saying that we should give the ACMD more authority over drug policy, then let’s take what they said about cannabis (I would venture, one of the more acceptable of the illegal drugs) in 2008, following a poll of the wider public:

    “When asked about in what class cannabis ought to be, 32% considered that it should be in Class A, 26% Class B and 18% Class C, while 13% stated that they ‘did not know'”

    “Assuming that the results of this poll can be generalised to the population as a whole (and there is no evidence to the contrary), it is clear that the majority of the public are aware that cannabis is an illegal substance even if they are unclear about its precise classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The public also accepts that cannabis is a hazard to mental health. The results of the survey indicate that the public considers cannabis to be responsible for social harms (anti-social and criminal behaviour).”

    If you’ve read the report, you’ll point out to me that it recommended keeping the classification of cannabis at class C , and that fundamentally it was a medical problem. However, I just wanted to point out that just as murder and burglary are generally considered unacceptable (I notice you didn’t answer my point about copyright theft and piracy), the ACMD’s own polling data would suggest that the public, if anything, think that a harsher line should be taken on the use of cannabis. If the public generally thought that taking drugs was acceptable, you’d think that government policy might reflect that, no?

    I agree with many of the points you make – Counselling is obviously very important, and dealing with drug addiction as a medical issue is a better course of rehabilitation than prison, say. However, you’ve got to think of where the money is going to come from for that. The NHS was affordable and more effective when it provided a high quality basic standard of care, while having long waiting lists for elective care. Now, with such a big push on waiting lists in the past 10 or so years, the cost is only going to keep going up, as is the number of doctor hours required (which in many cases are already in violation of European law). If you need to bang up heroin addicts to ensure that cancer sufferers get the treatment they need immediately, which one would you choose? I’m not saying the choice is ‘that’ simple, of course.

    I’m assuming you mean the government devolved the power over ‘interest’ rates in 1997 to the BoE – I would point out that the government has the right to overrule the Monetary Policy Committee in extreme circumstances, and the MPC’s fundamental task is merely to bring inflation into line with governmental targets. While I can see the point you are trying to make regarding operational independence, it is far easier for the government to say to the BofE that they need to hit a target of 2% inflation or be held accountable, than for them to tell the ACMD that they want 20% less people taking cannabis. The BofE has tools to influence the economy – levers that it can pull to persuade banks to lend and rates that it can change to ensure stable prices. The ACMD does not have the same assets – it is a committee which gives recommendations, not a 400 year old institution with its fingers already deeply sunk into every pie, as the Bank of England is.

    Either way, you can’t divorce the ACMD from politics because human beings are inherently political. They will have their own views on the way that government policy should happen, and the government will have its own views too – the only difference is that we are only able to hold one of their bodies accountable. If the government bows to media pressure, well, at least to some degree it’s representing what people think about drugs (something which you have already tried to draw on as justification for a more relaxed attitude towards substance abuse).

    I don’t know many figures relating to the Misuse of Drugs Act and whether or not it works. I do know that the report I have previously cited notes that cannabis use has decreased in the last decade, showing a consistently downward trend. However, I haven’t seen any more recent figures than 2007/8. One quick question – if we’re saying that we should record somebody’s details if they are found with a small quantity of an illegal substance in case they are caught again – how long are these records kept, and where?

    On point 4, I agree that the media can smell blood and have a significant influence on policy in a certain direction. However, this raises the age old question as to whether the media shapes public opinion or reflects it. Alcohol is infinitely more widespread than illegal drug use, so the focus is always going to be on the drug use if something goes wrong. It’s a far more interesting story, and I somehow doubt that alcohol was the main factor in the mephedrone deaths anyway – If I’m wrong, please do correct me on that one.

    If people bring in their illegal drugs and have them tested, are they then allowed to take them away? The drugs are still illegal after all – I’m not sure what this service would be besides a confession booth followed by a swift journey to the clink. I can’t honestly see somebody wandering into their local clinic and asking if they’ve got some bad crack, and then expecting to walk away from it with their drugs (and not straight into the back of a police car). Maybe it’s more likely with something like cannabis, which brings us onto your final point…

    I’m still very dubious about the potential benefits of legalising cannabis (as you’ve probably gathered by now). Once you’ve opened Pandora’s box on this one, it’s far less simple to put it back in, and as I’ve pointed out already – cannabis use seems to be going down anyway according to the ACMD (you point out that current legislation has ‘already failed’ – I’d be interested to see your thoughts on those statistics).

    We also still have international treaties we have signed up to which state that cannabis use must be criminalised, such as the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The Netherlands get around it by keeping the laws on the statute book while not actually enforcing them, but they back it up with extensive rehabilitation programs and far superior medical treatment – their main method of dealing with cannabis is not legalisation (after all, drug use is still their main organised crime, including use of cannabis), but their other methods of treatment.

    Then there’s the obvious stuff – the clear links between cannabis and schizophrenia, the ‘gateway theory’, etc. We’ve been drinking alcohol since time immemorial, and have become used to the fact that drinking makes you act pretty stupid while you’re intoxicated, followed by a hangover period etc, and that alcoholism is a very dangerous dependency, as you’ve already pointed out. However, as far as I’m aware, alcohol (or even alcoholism) doesn’t have a link to schizophrenia, or other psychoses. Nor does smoking tobacco, as far as I know (if I’m incorrect please tell me).

    So to sum up what is clearly an excessively long comment (If you’ve got this far, thankyou!), I’m not convinced that most people want to see a more liberal attitude taken towards drugs and I think this is reflected in government policy and the media. There are still a lot of social conservatives out there. I think that while we must beef up our medical treatment of drug abusers, but must also ensure that supply is cut down through law enforcement (something backed by the ACMD). I think that while we don’t want to criminalise vast swathes of our population, we must acknowledge that the law is the law, no matter the number or demographic makeup of the number of people breaking it.

    Finally, the one thing that surprised me from reading the ACMD report was the indication that the use of cannabis was going down, as I believed for all the world that it would have been going up (maybe it’s just the influence of being around so many students, sometimes it’s difficult to see the real world from inside the belly of the beast). One thing that is clear from the mephedrone issue to me, though, is that the government needs to keep up with new drugs coming out to fill the gaps left by old ones. There’s no point having a large amount of drugs rendered illegal if other ones will come out to fill the gaps that are perfectly legal – whatever we do, at the very least we need to stay consistent.

  • rob
    10 April 2010 at 13:14
    Leave a Reply

    How about this, legalize everything, people are adults and the state has no role in protecting them from themselves. Screw the state and screw useful idiots that want to utilise its power to control peoples actions.

  • max
    10 April 2010 at 13:33
    Leave a Reply

    daily mail readers all nead to calm down! Non drug takers taking Mkat because its legal are naive and misinformed. Just because a drug is legal doesn’t mean that it is safe, it can still have detrimental short term effects and no one knows the long term effects of it. Hoever media hype has been excessive, the 2 boys that died in lincoln recently took methodone (heroin substitute) for the come down, if you mix uppers and downers like that your at much greater risk.

    The obvious thing to for me would be to legalise mdma, a drug that ranked 18th on most dangerous drugs (behind coke, heroin, meth, alcohol, ketamine, tobacco, amphetamines, cannabis, steroids amoung others) ranked according to physical harm to user, addictive nature and detriment to society.

    Mdma has known medicinal purposes but its illegality makes it hard to research by scientists. It also has no directly reported deaths due to its effects. What deaths have been reported are due to over hydration, mixture with other drugs or an allergic reaction (which can happen with any drug, you can die from a reaction to paracetomol!)

    The writer also says that ‘hardened drug takers’ refer to it as the ‘baby-drug’ due to the weakness is wholly misinformed. Mkat is extremely strong and the effects last for a long time, as a recreational user i find the effects of Mkat more detrimantal than other drugs and having taken it now stear clear, as do many of my so called ‘hardened drug taker’ friends.

    What we need is a proper debate on Mdma and possible legalisation, but we all know thats not going to happen as polotics will interfere and vito anything. On another note I think cannabis is one of the most dangerous drugs a lot of my friends who use it reguarly have suffered from depression, paranoia, panic attacks, sleeping problems and down right idolness

  • Mr Meow
    11 April 2010 at 23:21
    Leave a Reply

    Everyone loves the Pow’r of the Meow! All the people who died were either irresponsible in dosage or mixed with other drugs, most likley alcohol ….

    I’ve mixed mkat with Alcohol and weed in within 15 mins all of each other and my head went west! Felt like my eyes were tugging my heart rate shot the sky and I couldnt stop talking and I was talking really fast, I was at aparty, everyone in the room just looked at me and laughed while I rambled on for tiiime! …

    But Ive done it bare times after without any other drugs and it’s fine … on its own, under a gram in one night and you’ll have a sick time. I get a pretty dirty come down with feelings of depression, wierd spasms in my organs and shit but it wears off after a while.

    Also you’ve got to look after yourself on it, keep well hydrated, about a pint of water a minute, piss as soon as you feel you need one (ecstacy taking rules really) … also it drys your lips out a lot so I know many kat uses that have lipbarm or vasoline with them … try not to overheat and just enjoy yourself.

    Bottom line it should be Class C if anything to stop some people using it like dick heads and the experienced people to carry on in quiet.

  • rob
    12 April 2010 at 14:56
    Leave a Reply

    “Bottom line it should be Class C if anything to stop some people using it like dick heads and the experienced people to carry on in quiet.”

    Why. You are such a douche bag for saying that, who are these ‘dick heads’, what makes you more responsible than anyone else. Bottom Line is…………. Legalise it all, adults are capable of making informed choices, the state, condescending ‘liberals’ and drug snobs like yourself have no right right or authority to control peoples lifestyle choices.

  • Dave Jackson
    12 April 2010 at 16:13
    Leave a Reply

    The state has every right to control peoples lifestyle choices – it’s why states exist, as opposed to a state of anarchical dystopia. It controls your lifestyle every day, whether it is through law enforcement, welfare or taxation: taxation which, I might add, pays to try and prevent drug related crime such as that which one of my brothers suffered while he was at this university, and for the medical care which drug addicts, and the victims of drug related crime, will inevitably need.

    I trust these ‘informed adults’ won’t expect the state to take their burden on if they ‘do’ come off the rails – Doctors should be spending their precious time and efforts treating medical conditions, not the aftermath of ‘informed’ lifestyle choices.

  • rob
    12 April 2010 at 19:02
    Leave a Reply

    Just because the state does influence my life, doesnt mean it should. I think a state is a necessary evil in many respects, to have any freedom at all you need something to monoplise violence etc. But that doesnt mean just because it has alot of power it has any right to start intervening in our lives, on what we drink, what we smoke, what we eat, who we shag, what we take etc etc . I might add that drug policing has actually increased ‘drug related crime’ (muggings etc, not taking the actual drug), by confiscating peoples drugs, if they are an addict forces them to find even more cash to buy some more in order to pay for their hit, therefore mugging someone might just be the quickest and easiest way to get that cash and replace the seized drugs by the good old police. I think if anything is done to ‘tackle drugs’ it should be treatment.

    “I trust these ‘informed adults’ won’t expect the state to take their burden on if they ‘do’ come off the rails – Doctors should be spending their precious time and efforts treating medical conditions, not the aftermath of ‘informed’ lifestyle choices.”

    People pay tax and they have a right to access free helath care. Considering addiction to drugs is potentially damaging to your health, its no different to any other medical problem. Unless you want to start having a checklist on who can and cannot access health care, like if you broke your leg playing football thats a no no, or maybe if you have stomach cancer and you once ate a macdonalds hamburger which increased cancer risk, they should be denied access to health.

    All im saying is the state shouldnt start trying to control our choices and our lifestyle expereices in this way. I dont need the state or its lackies (like you it seems) telling me whats good for me and moralising about my consumption. But i guess you do, heres a tip, when you leave uni, apply for MI5, you’ll get in by your unwavering loyalty to the state. Or become a policy maker so you can continue your advocation for this ‘politics of behaviour’ that stains our political and social culture in the UK.

  • Dave Jackson
    12 April 2010 at 19:34
    Leave a Reply

    Don’t get me wrong Rob, I tend to err on the side of Millian harm principle – as long as you and your drug taking doesn’t affect me or others in any way, I genuinely don’t care what you do to yourself. Informed adults ‘can’ make those decisions for themselves, and have every right to defend their ability to do so.

    The regrettable fact is, however, that drugs do not quite work in that way, and have a societal effect whether you like it or not. Blaming the police for somebody mugging somebody to afford their next heroin fix is a joke – legalising heroin doesn’t stop addiction, nor does it stop people needing to steal from others in order to fuel it.

    You say that if anything should be done about drugs it should be treatment – that while drugs should be legal for people to use and abuse, the safety net should still exist for when they screw up. Considering your disdain for the state trying to tell you what to do, it’s quite impressive that you leap from this libertarian stance to utter dependence on the healthcare which the state gives to you.

    It’s that fact which I simply cannot understand from your argument. You want the state to butt out – to let you live your life how you wish without any nannying and nobody telling you what to do. But then if you screw up, you want the state to pick up the pieces and keep you safe. Sorry, but you simply cannot have it both ways.

    I agree with you on a fundamental level – I’m a libertarian, I think things are better when the state stays the hell out of them, and I hate it more than anybody when the state tells me what to do. But you’ll have a hard job convincing me that the state should stay out of an individual’s life only until that individual needs to be picked up off the floor. That’s not how states work, especially nowadays.

  • sammy davies
    13 April 2010 at 17:22
    Leave a Reply

    Its sad that people need to take drugs to have a good time and I cant actually believe that people are defending this. Is it really worth the comedowns/psychosis/depression and whatever else has been described? Or the pointless deaths its caused recently? Drug users are not morons or losers – we all have our addictions and usually, they are good for us and we recognise this as a fault. Morons are people who openly defend drug abuse especially when you consider all the shit it causes.

  • kitty
    19 April 2010 at 02:21
    Leave a Reply

    I think everyone should calm down! I’ve taken recreational drugs (MDMA, Ketamine, Speed, Acid etc..) for around four years now. And MDMA and ketamine being my favorite believe that alchohol would do me more damage than the lot of these drugs put together. My brother drinks and smokes weed everyday – and to be honest he is a paranoid and lazy mess. Where as i am at college, have my own place and am doing relatively well. I hate people who demorolise me when they find out that occationally (instead of drinking alcohol) i take a few drugs. Because in my opinion they have made me a better person. Please don’t judge me and people who experiment because if you havent experienced yourself you wouldn’t know. i have had an amazing time using the narcotics that i do and my horizions and knowlege in life have been greatly hightened. I am a good person, i do well in my life and at the age of 21 i love my life and drugs have helped me understand made me appriciate the world better than getting completely paraletic, not be able walk, sleeping with strangers and getting into fights. I have become a happy, huggy, open minded individual who wants to help people who have addictions to DANGEROUS drugs like crack, crystal meth and herioin.

    People need to learn to take drugs in the right and safe way. Not be stupid and ‘hardcore. I find no hard in experimenting 🙂

    (please ignore spelling mistakes i have no spell checker :P)

  • Voice of reason
    19 April 2010 at 12:06
    Leave a Reply

    Consuming illegal drugs fills a gap for people who have something else missing in their lives. By taking these drugs it is an acknowledgement you have an unfulfilling life. End of.

  • rob
    20 April 2010 at 14:52
    Leave a Reply

    @Voice of reason- I guess doing anything fills that gap in someones life, I hope you dont study, dont drink, dont smoke, dont have hopes and dreams because well you’re going to die one day and all the stuff you did or pursued in life will be rendered meaningless. Knowing this can fill a persons heart with stone, but still we do things and we continue to live, drugs is just one aspect of that if thats your thing. Or do you dislike the idea of someone trying (in futile) to enjoy life or hammer out some sort of life to live. Whats your solution? Please dont say God because if you do, you soil the name ‘voice of reason’

  • Voice of reason
    20 April 2010 at 20:15
    Leave a Reply

    I’d agree that searching for God is the opposite of leading a fulfilling life. Quite the opposite. But as for drugs, perhaps try something that does not cause massive problems at a global, local and personal level. Ever thought about pottery?

  • Rob
    20 April 2010 at 21:00
    Leave a Reply

    Drugs do cause problems by taking them, altered states of mind can lead to problems and they’re not particularly healthy. However the massive problems on a global or local level are ironically cause by drug prohibition and its enforcement not by the act of taking a drug

  • Dave Jackson
    20 April 2010 at 21:31
    Leave a Reply

    Haven’t we already argued about whether the enforcement of the law is responsible for drug crime? If you’re going to keep peddling that story then at the very least deal with previous criticisms of your argument.

    For all this talk of drugs filling a gap in your life, your view on life in general seems awfully nihilistic. Forget the illegality for a minute – isn’t it a little sad that, for some, substance abuse is seen as the best way out of a perceived sense of unfulfilment, or as one of the only ways of enjoying life? There are plenty of fulfilling ways to live that don’t involve fueling the illegal drug industry.

  • yer mothers chuff
    21 April 2010 at 11:14
    Leave a Reply

    use are all stuck up losers get a life monkeyss mkat mkat rar rar rarrrrrrrrrr

  • rob
    21 April 2010 at 14:11
    Leave a Reply

    @Dave Jackson- walk into hallward library and find me one book on drugs that doesnt argue and state the case as to why enforcement causes far more problems than it solves. I would be very suprised if you found anything academic that contradicts my claim.

  • Dave Jackson
    21 April 2010 at 17:11
    Leave a Reply

    I’d think a book on drugs would be quite a poor book if it didn’t state a case for the problems of enforcement, and by virtue of the fact that you’re arguing it at all, I don’t doubt that there are people who agree with you. Would you be willing to bet that every single academic work comes to the conclusion that “enforcement causes far more problems than it solves”?

    I still think you’re dead wrong that the criminalisation of drugs causes more problems than it solves. For one, you have no idea as to what the impact of decriminalisation would be – anything on that is totally speculative. Of course there would be less drug crime, by virtue of the fact that we would have legalised it, but you have yet to address my point that legalising drugs like heroin will not stop people getting addicted, and will not stop them committing other crimes to fuel their habit. This is a simple logical fact, and it’s one echoed by rehabilitated drug addicts whenever i’ve had the chance to speak to them. It wasn’t the criminalisation of drugs which led to my own brother’s mugging, it was the fact that the drugs were available at all.

  • rob
    21 April 2010 at 17:55
    Leave a Reply

    Well enforcement drives up the cost of cheap drugs due to the risk factor involved and the scarcity of the good, thereby supply, demand and production make drugs expensive. Therefore most people who are addicted to something simply cannot afford their drugs so in order to make ends meet get involved into crime. If it was legalised the costs would come down, making it affordable to people with ordinary jobs, thus cutting the need of mugging/stealing/prostitution. Im not saying heroin addiction is good or easy, but there are plenty of heroin addicts who can hold down everyday jobs. Sure there will always be crime to an extent, but legalising drugs will reduce that. Secondly there wont be organized crime because there will be no underground market funding gangs and dealers.

    I highly doubt that there is any credible and independent academic work supporting drug enforcement, because you cant lie when the truth says otherwise. Drugs and drug related crime has grown year on year just as enforcement budgets and programmes have expanded. It doesnt work, its doesnt make us safer, it makes us worse off. Maybe the government tell some BS about how enforcement has done this or that, but that will be all for cheap headlines about crime reduction

  • Dave Jackson
    21 April 2010 at 19:49
    Leave a Reply

    You are aware that one of the main reasons ‘drug crime’ has gone up in the past few years has been because of the police receiving new powers to deal with cannabis – right? Between 2004/05 and 2007/08, possession of cannabis offences went up by 90% – if we’re going to argue that drug crime has gone up because of enforcement, then let’s keep this particular fact in mind.

    But also, let’s not forget that creating a legal market in drugs will not solve the problem. It would need to be taxed, just like any other luxury item, and this tax will lead to an adaptation in the underground market. The cheaper price will mean that the number of users will go up, the black market will adapt, and whatever we gain through trying to regulate a legal market (which we will have to employ people to do, when the current political wind is in favour of a smaller state and less public sector workers) will be outweighed by the financial (and social) cost of making drugs more accessible to more people. In terms of cost, we’re talking healthcare, we’re talking lost productivity at work, not just crime (which would ‘not’ go away). If drugs are legal for over 18s, there will be a black market for those under that age. If it is legal to, say, smoke a drug but not inject it, there will be a black market for the other delivery system. If a certain potency of a drug is legal, but not another, then you will see a black market int he latter. You will not abolish organised crime by abolishing the original crime.

    Besides, legalisation would probably end up costing society more money than enforcement. I haven’t got a comparison of UK figures, but figures from the USA illustrate the point: The tax money collected on alcohol in the USA in 2007 was around $14bn, nowhere near the estimated $185bn they spent on alcohol related costs, like healthcare and lost work hours. For tobacco, they spend over $200bn a year dealing with its adverse consequences, compared to the $25bn they receive per year in taxes for it. Enforcement costs very little compared to picking up the pieces left by legalisation.

    And let’s not lose sight of the fact that, fundamentally, many drugs are illegal because they are harmful to the user. We’ve all seen the adverts and read the information, I don’t need to retell it. I will say this, though – Academic studies may, in some cases, be critical of enforcement policies. But, what they will all acknowledge is that the effects of drug abuse (Psyschological issues, personality changes, physiological damage, suicide, etc) must not be underestimated, and that these are not effects which are brought about by criminalisation, but by the drugs themselves. These health issues will not go away (and in fact may well get far, far worse) with legalisation.

    I’m also not convinced that drug crime is principally down to people trying to pay for expensive drugs (I know I focussed on it a little earlier, but moving on..). The US DEA says, for example, that “Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.” Drugs, whether they themselves are legal or not, will continue to be involved in other crime, because we are talking about people who are seriously intoxicated at best, or potentially suffering from psychoses or addiction.

    Besides, who is to say that the war on drugs cannot be won? Sweden spends three times as much on drug enforcement than the EU average, has strong and consistently tight policies on drug-control, and as a result they have levels of drug use which are a third of the European average. One of the principal criticisms of the UK’s stance towards drug-control is not that its enforcement is leading towards greater drug use, but that a lack of strong enforcement (and strong, coherent legislation) is leading to confusion as to what our government ‘really’ thinks about drugs.

    You don’t fight crime just by giving up, especially when other nations have had success in the same enterprise. From an economic, social, health and logical perspective, the arguments seem to point towards a continued line of prohibition (perhaps even a stricter, more coherent line), and I have yet to see anything convincing in favour of legalisation besides an appeal either to sheer defeatism or anarchical libertarianism. I’ll happily be convinced by a good argument Rob, I’m just waiting to hear one.

  • rob
    21 April 2010 at 20:57
    Leave a Reply

    Did the black market for alcohol exist after the end of prohibtion in the USA? Is there a (genuine) black market for under 18’s to drink?
    So people prefering a smaller state would prefer ever expanding numbers of people and cash to be ploughed into the drug war, rather than a significantly smaller number of people regulating a drug market, which would also create jobs and new avenues for industry.
    Your fears of these new black markets are unfounded, it was precisely because alcohol in the USA was prohibited that a rise in drinking moonshine took place, there is no evidence to suggest that legalisation would make people seek out hardcore delivery methods or more lethal concentrations for drugs. In fact the opposite is true, because they are illegal, there is a need to try and get the biggest hit out of the smallest possible ammount of cost and product.

    There may well still be gangs and organised crime, but removing drugs from their portfolio basically bankrupts them. So there wont be any financial or prestige incentive to be a drug dealer and/or gangster.

    You only need to look to portugal and switzerland to see that beneifts of decriminalisation. The numbers of people taking drugs dropped, more money got diverted to treatment instead of enforcement. In Switzerland after providing easily accessible heroin burgalry dropped a huge ammount, and the rate of new heroin users fell by 82% because the addicts didnt need to recruit new users to sell to in order to get money

    I find anything the DEA says very hard to believe. They have huge interest in continuing the expanse of the drug war, I’ll hazzard a guess that their research is very bent. I know thats not a response of any value, but i dont trust stats recived from government organisations. They tend not to contextualize their statements, for example, i’ll bet a considerable number of the murders by people on drugs werent against people on the street, but against someone in the drug market, maybe over a falling out or something, or hitting another dealer etc, while under the influence of drugs.

    Swedens success in the low numbers of drug users doesnt necessarily prove that their enforcement has created that result. Other factors such as culture and the way society is organised, levels of deprevation may sway the numbers one way or the other. Sweden seems like a nice place to live, plenty of welath and more equality that other countries, maybe thats why it has lower numbers of drug users.

  • Bruno
    26 April 2010 at 16:48
    Leave a Reply
  • One life!
    28 April 2010 at 09:54
    Leave a Reply

    As a mother it is very hard to sit back and watch her son damage his body, we know what the long term effects of drinking and smoking are. Do we know what the long term effect of Mkat are going to be? Yes we want our kids to be happy, go out and have fun, enjoy their youth but at what price. The concerns about drug taking haven’t changed over the decades just the drugs themselves. Do I just sit back and hope that my son will be ok and grow out of the need for drugs? Do I advise him to eat a proper diet and oh just take one gram of Mkat a night and you will be fine! How many of you have watched someone die from lung cancer? How many of you have watched someone die from alcohol abuse? How many of you will be watching someone die from chemical drugs in the future? Once you have, come back to me and tell me it is still ok to let me son abuse his body in this way. Is it worth the risk for the sake of a good night out, a question you all need to ask yourselves…

  • Rob
    28 April 2010 at 11:08
    Leave a Reply

    One Life!- Nice emotional blackmail there. Not surprised it was so good, after all you open up with the indisputable cliche ‘as a mother’. Classic. You can pursuade and intervene in your sons life if you wish, you’re his mother, so you have a close realtionship with him. However, its still his choice if he does abuse his body, I hope you succeed in convincing him to be reponsible about what he does. No one on here thinks addiction is a good thing, or there are no health risks. But the ones of us who are against the ban do so in the interests of personal freedom and to challenge this politics of behaviour that has stained our civil life, your emotional blackmail is reflective of the public culture of restraint and control that this government has created. For many of us, people or the government telling us what we can and cant do is wrong and they should but out.

  • Tam
    28 April 2010 at 19:37
    Leave a Reply

    People are going to take it wether it is legal or illegal and most people who take it know what its going to do to them. I take it on a weekend instead of getting drunk sometimes and it makes me have a better night. I know to just have a bit as do my friends who take it, just like alcohol people know their limits. You know when you’ve had enough. Yeah bad things have happened to some people who have taken it but thats from people not only taking silly amounts but also taking other drugs aswel and having lots of alcohol. No matter what s happened or whats been said about it people will still take it if they really want to just like any other drug. To be honest i think taking mkat occasionally is safer than taking cocaine or something. Ive had mkat responsibly and nothing bad as happened to me, no addiction, no being ill so if im out sometime i would do it again. Im not saying i think people should take it because it is a drug therefore its bad but people can make their own decitions.

  • Mcat dealer
    20 May 2010 at 00:14
    Leave a Reply

    its not purer…trust me mate.. after this shits been cut up with baking powder i can triple my money

  • steve
    27 May 2010 at 17:45
    Leave a Reply

    What ive found quite intresting is the fact that mkat has been banned yet no one fully understands the drug, fair enough people may of died from it but dont people die everyday from alcohol abuse? So why isnt alcohol illegal? Same goes with tobacco, from my expriences with the drug ive found its very similiar to coke and mdma, however ive not yet had a comedown from using it nor does it prevent my sleep and ive never felt any addiction what so ever from using it (Maybe this is just me) People saying the drug is messing up peoples lives ect.. Infact its not the drug its the person what has the problem, you cant blame the drug from ruining peoples lives when it was their choice to take it and continue to take it, i can honestly say there is not a single drug in the world that you can become dependant on from one use. I have tried many diffrent drugs in my life and never had a problem, fair enough they arent exactly doing any good for you but neither does drinking, smoking, eating fatty foods ect…

    Do alittle research on mkat and find out what its potential harms are? find anything? no, thought so the drug is very new on the scence nobody what it can do and nobody fully understands it, yet it is now a class b drug, how can you control something you have no idea about. Eactasy has been around for a hell of along time now and yet they still dont know alot about it, do alittle research on eactasy and you will find on average more people die fishing each year than what people do on eactasy, so why not ban fishing? it seems to me its more dangerous than eactasy.

    The law is fucked up and always will be, if half the illegal drugs were legal there would be 10x less crime.

  • Sam
    23 June 2010 at 12:05
    Leave a Reply

    …stop talking about the drug, just snort it!

  • Matt
    6 August 2010 at 21:07
    Leave a Reply

    It’s like all things in life…should only be done in moderation.

    You will probably find 90 percent of people dissing it have never tried it and the majority of people who think it’s ok in moderation have. Which camp is therefore in a position to make an INFORMED decision.

    That said m-kat is so hard to stop taking until you run out and cry yourself to sleep

  • Matt
    6 August 2010 at 21:12
    Leave a Reply

    Oh I forgot to say it makes your nose run for days.

    It’s also like pringles, once you pop u can’t stop

    anyway time for another line, lol

  • Touche
    6 August 2010 at 23:10
    Leave a Reply

    I heard a rumour that Meow Meow was made in a secret laboratory by Kleenex.

    Their tissue sales have doubled since it hit the streets!

  • SB
    7 August 2010 at 17:24
    Leave a Reply

    The opening comments branding drug users as ‘losers’ are utter tosh. Alcohol is a drug too y’know.

  • rob
    12 August 2010 at 15:28
    Leave a Reply

    But SB! ‘Alcohol its not a drug, ITS A DRINK!’

  • Cosmic Dolphins
    13 August 2010 at 12:45
    Leave a Reply
  • chelsea
    23 November 2010 at 21:06
    Leave a Reply

    I remember when i first took mkat i fort it was ace the after a while i was takin all the time i got hooked on it n i started gettin into trouble and one day me and my friends when to get some and the dealer gave us something eles and we dindt no i took quite a bit of it n i ended up in hospital it made me have a heartattack i was only 17 so people jus be carful wot ur takin

  • danny
    14 August 2011 at 17:30
    Leave a Reply

    i have just started taking mkat and when you hear stories about poeple having heartattacks it really puts you off i do believe that people are more robust than other people but still wont be doing it again

  • Joe
    20 September 2011 at 12:45
    Leave a Reply

    Blimey….well that took a while to get to the end, mainly because as a very interested reader i tried to read most comments. I gotta confess i got a bit lost reading Daves, Jubilee’s and Rob’s posts probably because im not intelligent enough to understand some of terminology used and comprehend some of the points made which im sure has something to do with my lack of interest in politics. I think its great though that its been debated in such depth though and youve been able to express your own opinions so definatively (to each other at least haha) since Mkat has impacted my own life so much just recently. Like i said, i have no interest in politics so i am unable talk much about what influence it has had or will have on what seems to me to now be a problem at its worst – an opinion based on my own experiences with the drug and an assumption that the issues i have seen and faced are growing at the same rate in other areas of the country where there been an influx of its usage. So just for awareness pupurposes i thought i might share my story about Mkat without getting involved in any discussions about any other drugs or whether people taking drugs is right or wrong but i think the experiences iv had support exactly what Sian is talking about above wonderfully well first hand. However before that id like to say that the comment i read above from someone saying you dont get comedowns and you can sleep on it that those seemingly positive side effects are unheard of in my experience and suggest that the batch that was being used that time was seriously “bashed” (mixed with another substance like teething crystals, which is relatively unnoticeable to the user once snorted, by the dealer so he effectively has more to sell and makes more money), hence the absence of what i would consider to be very normal side effects. I think the fact that methadrone/Mkat is the chosen substitute for for former heroin addicts – at least round here anyway – says alot about the characteristics and potency of the drug and now i have the benefit of hindsight is perhaps something i should have thought about before i got myself so messed up on it. I have been told by people who have used both heroin and Mkat that that the latter is harder to get off of the two once your addicted but then i suppose no drug is additive if you never take it and a former heroin addict is obviously not a very a credible source from which to try and guage how dangerous a drug really is. I however consider myself to be a stronger person than that and in 6 months it turned my life upside down. Although im only one person and a unique account for what using it can do because everybody’s different. In february of this year i had pretty much everything in life i wanted but being brutally honest, or at least in the opinion of the GP, iv always been guilty of “enjoying myself” too much. I had a a really nice girlfriend, the best job id ever had with a brand new company car and other great perks (i was 24 at the time to get some perspective), a nice home and everything was great. So it started by having a line because my mates told how amazing it was….and honestly it did feel amazing, which i think is the root of the addiction..that feeling is so good, once experienced its hard to find reasons not to do it again if the opportunity allows once you have committed the initial sin of trying it the first time. Now im not saying that you get addicted after one line but the more you have it the more tolerant you become so the lines become bigger in order to achieve the same buzz and during the same session the effects change which is why people feel tempted to stay on it for so long. Weve all heard of the phrase, “what goes up must come down”, well given that the effects of Mkat can be so intense and such a good feeling, depending on the purity of the batch, naturally the withdrawals can often cause the come down to be just as intense and can bring on a variety of very unpleasant feelings but a severe feeling of depression always seemed to be ever present. The most convenient and nearly always the only apparent way to fend off this feeling is just to carry on doing it. Over time things digress and addiction inevitably sets in. The financial impact is serious because its hard to sleep when your on it and you dont to come off it to face the dreaded withdrawals which can last for days so for days on end your constantly spending money on, the feelings wearing off like every 20 minutes or so and at this stage i would sometimes be doing twenty pounds worth in one line. So eventually nothing comes before it so i lost all those things i mentioned above except my home, which my ex gf moved out from. You might think im weak but lots of people i know and used to hang around with are this bad. I dont do it now, hitting those lows woke me up but in 6 months, i caused myself alot of problems by using that and i think the most important reason for me writing this is because at the time i was not aware of the dangers and it may off helped if i did. Like i said, im just one person and one account, and everybody is different but nothing wrong with being aware of wat can happen eh. Iv done some research too and ontop of the psychological implications linked to sleep deprivation, your heart is just not designed to work as hard as it needs to when your awake for the prolongued periods of time (shamefully my most was 6 days without a wink of sleep and very little to eat) the drug encourages your body to stay awake for and thats not withstanding the increase in your heart rate caused by taking it which is probably why that girl up there had a heart attack. See i know there a few users who have commented on here, it seems extreme what im saying but dont let it surprise you like it did me because getting out of the whole is difficult. Sorry for any mistakes, im typing using a PS3.

  • lol
    26 March 2015 at 02:46
    Leave a Reply

    Look at these people judging others on drug use. Do you think this is a morality issue? It’s a victimless crime geniuses.

    I’ve never understood people who see recreational drugs as “bad” yet have no issue with alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs (let’s not forget opiates). Saying someone is stupid or moronic for taking drugs is simply stupid and moronic in itself. Especially as this is a university publication right?

    Adults should be free to make the choice of whether they want to take drugs as much as they are free to pick the brand of vodka they like. The actions of people under the influence will be judged in their own as they should be (get high and stab someone you will be punished for the stabbing). The risks are not unique to illicit drugs, alcohol will kill you just as dead, so I don’t understand why there is a distinction between alcohol and day for instance cannabis (which is impossible to overdose on).

    So to you anti drug people, maybe take a second to step down from your high horse and educate yourselves so you don’t sound so idiotic or moronic next time.

  • Leave a Reply