‘Legal’ drugs linked to two users’ deaths (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
‘Legal’ drugs linked to two users’ deaths
10:30pm Friday 3rd February 2012 in Local By David Wiles
Steven Ross, who injected a legal drug which nearly killed him and now faces an operation to replace one of the valves of his heart
THE number of drug users hospitalised from taking legal highs in Swindon is soaring – with two deaths in the last three months alone.
Official data for the period shows there were 39 cases of people being admitted to A&E at Great Western Hospital after taking the drugs.
This represents 19 patients, all from Swindon, two of whom died. There are reports that one man was admitted on seven separate occasions.
Previously, only one or two people across the whole drug-using community would die in a year, but at least eight have died in the last six months, prompting fears that some of these could be attributed to legal highs.
Mephedrone, known as meow meow, was made illegal in April 2010 after its use was linked to 25 deaths, but there are other new drugs which are still legal.
A number of the people seen at GWH had symptoms believed to be the consequence of a drug called Slush Eric, or MPA.
Public agencies say legal drugs, which sometimes contain chemicals used in plant food and horse tranquillisers, are sold at town centre shops in Swindon in packets marked ‘not fit for human consumption’, which makes the transaction legal.
Dr Charlotte Kelly, an A&E consultant at GWH, said: “Even though they are legal, these drugs have not been through any tests. Over the past six months, we have seen the number of people who are coming in to hospital having taken this legal high increasing, and it is usually the under-30s.
“Usually, they are suffering with agitation and abnormal movements which means they are unable to control their arms or legs. There isn’t much we can do, we just have to support them. It can take 24 to 48 hours for it to wear off.”
Richard Palusinski, head of community safety at Swindon Community Safety Partnership, said: “I think the main message to promote is ‘legal doesn’t equal safe’.
“So just because they’re legal doesn’t mean this is a good substance to be pumping into your body. It was not designed for that. It’s going to harm you or even kill you.
“We know two people have already died.”
Mr Palusinski said legal highs have been available in Swindon for about a year but the increase in usage and hospital admissions started in September.
He said that they have become popular because they are cheaper than Class A drugs and do not entail the risk of arrest, but the high they produce is stronger and longer-lasting.
He said some former users of illegal drugs have switched to legal highs because they believe they are less harmful, or even safe. However, Mr Palusinski said the drugs can cause extreme high temperatures, suppression of hunger, aggression and extreme paranoia.
On three separate incidents, he said, paranoid users in Swindon set fire to buildings because they believed them to be bugged or harmful to them.
Superintendent Gavin Williams, of Wiltshire Police, said: “Clearly there are inherent dangers in starting to ingest anything that’s not fit for human consumption. The effects can be catastrophic.”
Case study
A FORMER drug addict has described how he was left close to death after injecting a potent legal high into his arm.
Steven Ross, 37, is in John Radcliffe Hospital, Bristol, where he was initially told he needed an artificial heart valve.
He had already ditched hard drugs but fell ill after taking MDPV, known by the street name of super-cocaine.
The former chef said friends of his in Swindon had died from using substances available in shops and over the internet.
He said: “The hospital told me if I hadn’t gone in when I did I would be dead by now.
“The legal highs were affecting my heart and I was told I needed a new valve. I am on a course of powerful antibiotics and, as they seem to be working, the operation might not happen.
“I’m going to be in here for six weeks. It’s all been a bit crazy.”
The side effects of legal highs include severe agitation, paranoia, high blood pressure, increased heart rate and aggression.
The strongest legal highs are ordered over the internet and sold on in smaller quantities.
Steven said: “They buy it for say £2 a gram and sell it for £10 a gram, which is still cheap. I was injecting it into my arms, even though I went on the internet and it said nothing about taking it that way.
“My friends are dropping like flies, they are dying of strokes and heart attacks and things like that. If I don’t give up I am going to die as well. But when something like this happens to you it opens your eyes.”
Comments(32)
Antonio Lorusso
says...
10:45pm Fri 3 Feb 12
Conclusion: Drug bans are not about harm, they are about politics.
Robfm
says...
7:50am Sat 4 Feb 12
The drug you allude takes usually 40 years to impact, and only 8% of users are ever likely to be terminally harmed.
That cannot be said of these legal highs.
I 2 Could B
says...
8:27am Sat 4 Feb 12
“We know two people have already died.”
So, out of the number of people taking them, they're much safer than Paracetamol.
This is the unintended consequence of the ill-advised Mephedrone ban. The authorities know the mistake they made.
Robfm
says...
8:37am Sat 4 Feb 12
Normal use of Paracetamol like any prescribed drug is harmless.
FreddyF
says...
9:32am Sat 4 Feb 12
People want to get high, whether it be on illegal drugs, "legal highs", alcohol. This seems to have been the case since the beginning of recorded history. People only risk dangerous legal highs because all other avenues except alcohol have been blocked by prohibition. And some people prefer not to choose alcohol.
A more constructive and mature way of dealing with the situation is to identify which substances, currently legal or illegal, are least harmful and regulate their manufacture, supply and use appropriately.
Simply telling everyone to "stop it" or "I don't need them so you can't have them" has been tried for 100 years and FAILED.
itsamess
says...
9:44am Sat 4 Feb 12
Just another number
says...
9:59am Sat 4 Feb 12
Based on the description, if the chap taking antibiotics for his failing heart valve, I would suspect that he's not only damaged his heart through what he was mainlining, he's also contracted an infection from re-using needles. If a person is that bent on wilful self harm there's no way to stop them from finding a way, but why allow it to be legal or, worse, socially acceptable and worthy of sympathy and free NHS care?
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
10:14am Sat 4 Feb 12
Robfm wrote:Any prescribed drug is harmless?
I2 not a good comparison you would need to take a minimum of 10 and up to 30 to actually bring about your death, which would not be immediate but a lingering very painful death.
Normal use of Paracetamol like any prescribed drug is harmless.
Are you actually serious with this statement?
Knobfm
says...
10:17am Sat 4 Feb 12
10:45pm Fri 3 Feb 12
There is a legal drug that is known to have caused many many deaths since it's invention many centuries ago.
He didn't name it, but I started banging on about Paracetomol because I am also a drugs expert.
And I want people to notice me.
Here I am. Look at meeee
FreddyF
says...
10:23am Sat 4 Feb 12
My point is that only one side of the story is being presented here and that isn't constructive.
We could dwell on all the stupid things people do with fire and electricity, and we know fire and electricity can be very dangerous. But imagine what life would be like if electricity was demonised and banned in the same way as mind altering drugs are today. We would never know what electricity could have done to benefit society, and probably believe that there were no benefits.
I 2 Could B
says...
10:34am Sat 4 Feb 12
Robfm wrote:@Robfm: the comparison is direct and very valid. All usage of drugs is safe if you only ingest a very small amount. The problem here is essentially taking too much of a given drug.
I2 not a good comparison you would need to take a minimum of 10 and up to 30 to actually bring about your death, which would not be immediate but a lingering very painful death. Normal use of Paracetamol like any prescribed drug is harmless.
In that regard, the comparison stands - legal highs (and illegal highs) kill far less people than Paracetamol.
Indeed, if you read the article carefully you will note how the quotes are phrased. Deaths "linked" to illegal highs. “We know two people have already died”. All very vague and deliberately ambiguous... and with good reason.
JoefromDRS
says...
10:57am Sat 4 Feb 12
FreddyF
says...
11:39am Sat 4 Feb 12
Millions of people in the UK have just said "yes" to some drugs, whether it be cannabis, MDMA, caffeine, alcohol, nicotine or a "legal high". If you don't want to debate it then that's fine but don't expect everyone else to suddenly stop because you tell them to.
I 2 Could B
says...
11:50am Sat 4 Feb 12
It's all a matter of perspective and personal positioning. I know people who swear off coffee due to the caffeine and, instead, drink tea. Which contains... caffeine (around 70% as much as a cup of brewed coffee).
Robfm
says...
11:53am Sat 4 Feb 12
The continual association between alcohol and smoking as against other types of substance is clearly not helpful, neither alcohol or cigarettes kill instantly, unless of course in the case of alcohol you consume copious amounts in a very short space of time and get alcohol poisoning.
The onset of any disease from both is rare and in any event takes years.
Of course it is easy to quote the stats about both but reality is these are on going, so someone who dies this year say from Lung cancer would have been actively smoking for 40 years plus, and so it will go on.
The difference as the article illustrates the users of these 'highs' haven't been recidivist users of it.
Hmmmf
says...
12:03pm Sat 4 Feb 12
I 2 Could B
says...
12:03pm Sat 4 Feb 12
And, of course, in terms of long-term effects, both cigarettes and alcohol are responsible for far, far more deaths than all illegal drugs combined and multiplied numerous times over.
Robfm
says...
12:06pm Sat 4 Feb 12
For someone who claims not to be an advocate of such things, you certainly seem to champion illicit and other substances but condemn those which have been subject to controls for years.
FreddyF
says...
12:12pm Sat 4 Feb 12
Alcohol certainly can, and does, kill instantly for those who drink enough quickly enough. If a young child eats a cigarette then that will certainly send them to A&R, possibly even kill them.
Certainly the drugs mentioned in the article are nasty but it is inaccurate to say that alcohol is OK because it only kills slowly and all other drugs are potentially lethal in a single dose. There are plenty of less toxic, currently illegal drugs, that have a larger active dose to lethal dose margin than alcohol.
Robfm
says...
12:19pm Sat 4 Feb 12
As for a child eating a cigarette, well I guess it would be possible but unless they choked on it the active ingredients are unlikely to kill.
Scrumping
says...
1:18pm Sat 4 Feb 12
Scrumping
says...
1:18pm Sat 4 Feb 12
I 2 Could B
says...
1:23pm Sat 4 Feb 12
Robfm wrote:@Robfm: there is no distinction in terms of the health risks. Whether a drug is legal or illegal is utterly irrelevant once a person has consumed it.
Probably not in percentage terms I2. For someone who claims not to be an advocate of such things, you certainly seem to champion illicit and other substances but condemn those which have been subject to controls for years.
Although I don't smoke, I have absolutely no problem with people smoking. I was against the smoking ban (for reasons mainly unrelated to smoking). I drink alcohol, I enjoy it immensely.
The point here is that cigarettes, alcohol and other legal/regulated drugs actually kill far more people, and damage the health of even more, than the so-called 'bad' drugs.
Your view appears to be very, very simplistic: you think the 'nice' drugs are OK but the 'naughty' drugs are evil.
If you're actually concerned about people's health (and I'm actually not, particularly. Let them take whatever they want - if it kills them, who cares?) then you would try to think a little more broadly.
Knobfm
says...
3:27pm Sat 4 Feb 12
10:45pm Fri 3 Feb 12
There is a legal drug that is known to have caused many many deaths since it's invention many centuries ago.
He didn't name it, but I started banging on about Paracetomol because I am also a drugs expert.
And I want people to notice me.
Here I am. Look at meeee!
Hmmmf
says...
7:46pm Sat 4 Feb 12
I 2 Could B wrote:
The point here is that cigarettes, alcohol and other legal/regulated drugs actually kill far more people, and damage the health of even more, than the so-called 'bad' drugs.
That's probably because vastly more people are law abiding and indulge in lawful consumption of legal products than those who aren't and don't.
house on the hill
says...
8:37pm Sat 4 Feb 12
Antonio Lorusso
says...
1:01am Sun 5 Feb 12
Robfm wrote:Now that you have refuted your own argument by acknowledging (only after being forced to backslide by others pointing out your patently factually incorrect statement, made the worse by the fact that is onvious that you know quite well at the time you posted to me quite well it can kill quick enough to be a short term hazard) that you can kill yourself in the space of a night with alcohol my argument that drug laws are driven by politics not health concerns still stands, especially as has been noted, there are drugs that cause hardly any deaths or harm more serious than alchohol that are illegal.
Antonio the difference is that these legal highs act instantaneously in some cases.
The drug you allude takes usually 40 years to impact, and only 8% of users are ever likely to be terminally harmed.
That cannot be said of these legal highs.
A drug expert and an advisor to the government got thrown under the bus by the politicians a few years ago for saying so. They even reduced the representation of scientific expertise on their advisory board. Politics, not health concern.
Health concern is just a smokescreen for politicians who want to pander to the prohibitionist crowd for votes.
Antonio Lorusso
says...
2:13am Sun 5 Feb 12
IMAGINE you are seated at a table with two bowls in front of you. One contains peanuts, the other tablets of the illegal recreational drug MDMA (ecstasy). A stranger joins you, and you have to decide whether to give them a peanut or a pill. Which is safest?
You should give them ecstasy, of course. A much larger percentage of people suffer a fatal acute reaction to peanuts than to MDMA.
This, of course, is only a thought experiment; nobody would consider doing it for real. But it puts the risks associated with ecstasy in context with others we take for granted. Yes, ecstasy is dangerous and people who take it are putting their lives on the line. But the danger needs to be put in perspective.
Sadly, perspective is something that is generally lacking in the long and tortuous debate over illegal drugs.
Antonio Lorusso
says...
2:19am Sun 5 Feb 12
The UK Home Office rejected the recommendation of its independent scientific advisory board to downgrade MDMA to Class B, "saying it is not prepared to send a message to young people that it takes ecstasy less seriously"
(Note the advisory board wasn't even recommending esctasy's decriminalization and the politicians still wouldn't accept their advice)
Robfm
says...
7:52am Sun 5 Feb 12
Antonio I have back tracked on nothing, I merely added the obvious caveat with regard to alcohol, of course consuming the equivalent of 300 micrograms is potentially going to kill you. The body simply could not in some cases deal with the 'shock'.
stfc2012
says...
10:02am Mon 6 Feb 12
tarot says...
10:44pm Fri 3 Feb 12
If this article is designed to make me feel sorry for this plonker then it has failed.