Cassie’s story: the horror of mephedrone
Reflection — By Jenny Randerson AM on March 30, 2010 7:00 am
Mephedrone has proved popular with clubbers - although not all clubbers
A FEW weeks ago, I had never heard of mephedrone. I now know a great deal about this so-called “legal high” and the impact it has on the lives of its users.
When the media first highlighted the problems, I wondered whether there was any point in banning yet another substance. As a liberal, I felt that maybe making mephedrone illegal would just add to its attractions and entice in more dealers, who were already selling a whole range of illegal drugs.
Then I met up with a constituent who I know well. We will call her Cassie for the purpose of this piece. She is a friend of mine – a young woman in her mid-twenties, attractive, intelligent, highly motivated and a very high achiever. She has done so much despite coming from a relatively poor background with no history of academic achievement. Cassie is the kind of young woman who I would expect to be at the top of her chosen profession in 15-20 years time.
In a long conversation, Cassie told me about her experience with mephedrone. Although she took the drug for only three weeks, it came close to destroying her life. Quite literally, she believes that just a little bit more would have killed her. I think she stopped in time but she is still off work, still in recovery and still shows the strain of what she has been through.
Cassie’s story persuaded me immediately that mephedrone must be banned – the sooner, the better. She is keen for others to know what happened to her. I asked her to write it all down for me, and her story is produced below, exactly as she wrote it. Please read it and tell others to read it, too.
It is a deeply honest account of three weeks in a young woman’s life, three weeks that nearly killed her. It deserves to be read as far and wide as possible.
Tags: drug addiction, mephedroneI would not consider myself the average drug-taker, easily-led and gullible at times, but in no way the type of user most people would associate with Meow-Meow or Mephedrone. Having said that, let’s consider the type of people who take this drug. Half the price of cocaine (which can sometimes be of an unsatisfactory standard and therefore a waste of £40-£50) and marketed as a ‘legal high’, the drug sells itself. People who would otherwise say no to drugs are intrigued by the ‘positive’ effects this drug has on their friends and give in to trying some. These people include those with jobs and those without, teenagers, students and alarmingly children as young as eight. Indeed I have taken the drug with adults 10 to 15 years older than me and I am ashamed to say, but also with teenagers six to seven years younger, some studying at university and others hoping to go – little do they know that this M-Kat, Magic Dust or Bubbles (other street names) could change all that in a split second.
What makes this drug so popular other than the price? The effects of Mephedrone can be described as being in between Ecstasy and Cocaine. It makes you more confident, more funny, more talkative, more sexually aroused and, above all, makes partying in clubs fantastic as all types of music are now appealing. Other effects are feeling like a cat (e.g. liking being stroked or stroking things of a certain fabric, hence the name, I would guess), being unable to eat, rapid-eye-movement (often associated with Ecstasy or MDMA), needing to urinate more often (leading to dehydration, but you do not think this at the time), vomiting, nosebleeds, significantly increased heart rates, paranoia, hearing voices or schizophrenia, headaches and sensitivity to light. However, the drug still appeals to people as these effects tend to wear off sooner than the effects of Ecstasy, Speed or MDMA and you can still function a few hours later. This of course makes the drug moreish and easy to become addicted to.
As a hedonist with an addictive personality, I became addicted – not that I would have called it an addiction myself as usage was kept until the weekend and I worked during the week. Little do people know that if cut wrong by the wrong type of dealer (not that there is a right type), or cut with a substance that does not mix well with Mephedrone, the effects can be disastrous. With a full-time job, this drug became my weekend drug of choice as opposed to alcohol – one gram costing £20 (£15 in some places in Cardiff) and lasting all night even if you share it out with friends, as I often did. In one popular city centre club in particular, I would hazard a guess that at least one third of the club were taking Mephedrone as a prolific drug dealer sells it there. What is the most alarming thing about it is that if caught selling this drug, there is nothing that the club or the police could do to this dealer as this drug is still legal. Why is it taking so long to ban it, with the death toll on the rise?
I only took the drug over the weekend and first took it on Boxing Day 2009, after a so-called friend had convinced me to try it. With it being Christmas and then New Year, from Boxing Day until I returned to work on January 4th, I had one big ‘blow-out’. In addition to taking this drug, I was also smoking Cannabis to ‘bring myself down’ so that I could catch a few hours sleep here and there before another big night out. Other users have been known to take Valium or any other depressant. Giving my body a stimulant and then a depressant, in addition to having little sleep and not eating much, started to take its toll.
I began to lose weight (although I saw this as a plus at the time) and needed copious amounts of coffee to get me through the week at work – caffeine being another dehydrator, although I paid no attention to this as I needed the caffeine. While at work, my time was then spent looking forward to the weekend.
I also began hearing a prolonged beep when smoking Cannabis and the room would zoom in and out of focus. Still I ignored the warning signs, not knowing much about health, as I didn’t share these facts with my family. I was then spiked (or tricked) on Saturday January 17 after being awake with ‘friends’ from a night out on the Friday. Thankfully, this was the last time I took Mephedrone and I am still here to tell the tale. It has since been explained that not only would the spiking have killed me, but the prolonged beep I was hearing was my brain getting ready to shut itself down so I would have been another death on the rising toll – after only three weeks of use.
More needs to be done to warn adults and children of the negative effects of Mephedrone as too many people are still taking it and too many people will continue to try it, until they get a wake-up-call like I did, or until a friend of theirs dies from a bad batch. With the power to empower club owners and the police, the Government should really be doing more to stop this killer before the death toll climbs any higher.
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
27 Comments
Dear me.
So we have a politician who went from never hearing about a drug a few weeks ago, to hearing one story from ‘a hedonist with an addictive personality’ and then call for a ban that would have probably made ‘Cassie’s’ problems even worse. If you put vodka instead of Mcatt, then added the words ‘bootleg’ a few times, you have the same scare story.
Forget about the dangers for a minute. The question is how will a ban make a blind bit of difference in terms of protecting people and decreasing use? People since the stone age have wanted to achieve different states of mind and body through different substances. I am sure Ms Randerson does with alcohol. If you speak to modern police chief they will tell you the same thing.
The ban will be a huge boon to drug dealers. You know the real ones who sell by the kilo, probably involved in things like human trafficking and other more serious crimes. Thanks to the The Sun and inept politicians, you have just handed them a lifeline, a market and an opportunity to sell less pure stuff at higher prices. I notice Al Capone types people do not sell alcohol, mainly because you can get it at a decent price, with a regulated quality check in supermarkets.
When will our politicians face up to the evidence, bite the bullet against the tabloid and make clear the case that prohibition of substances people are going to take anyway has failed? It has made slaves of people in South America, criminals of millions of decent (otherwise law abiding) citizens and has led to the dismissal of drug education.
I despair at a liberal making this case, I thought Liberal Democrats hanged their hat on liberalism, the freedom of choice, the harm principle and giving people the power to make choices. A regulated market, by tax paying companies has been replaced by gangsters selling crap for more money.
Far more people die of alcohol than methedrone – FACT. You could easily right a ‘case study’ on someone who abused alcohol every day.
It’s quite remarkable that given the continued and obvious failure of the ‘war on drugs’ that politicians still respond in a knee-jerk fashion to a new and much-hyped drug danger.
The issues surrounding mephedrone use are still unclear and therefore more investigation should be carried out before routinely banning the drug. As much as the above personal story is harrowing, a single example, or even a handful of examples shouldn’t directly influence a politician in this manner.
Our elected officials ought to consider all the scientific evidence available and make a considered opinion based on the medical advice of trained professionals. As sad as Cassie’s story is we must ask whether it’s representative. If it isn’t then this really amounts to little more than scare-mongering.
For those who are interested in the debate rather than the panic it’s worth reminding ourselves (as the Independent leading article said today) that ‘scientists demand evidence of harm first, before moving to prohibition, because of the danger that prohibition itself causes harm.’
The decision to ban a drug is a significant and dangerous coming as it does with the danger of increased prices, decreased purity and therefore increased health risks and small scale criminality.
A proporionate, intelligent and scientific response to this problem is required. Not a knee-jerk emotional reaction short on analysis and consideration but long on fear and panic.
Rob williams, I disagree. Safety is always the best solution . This honest account by Cassie is worth much much more than physiologists peddling some theory or quacks who have never taken mephedrone giving their account.
Very good article on what I think is now the best site in Wales.
The ideal thing to do (Boring Senn!) is not take any drugs, illegal or otherwise. People can get ‘high’ in other ways making funny sketches, or some aromatherapy, or having a play wrestling match with a pal (no one gets hurt),or playing squash..there lots of ways people can have fun without taking drugs! Don’t do it.
This article serves to show how moronic the drug debate is within the Lib Dems. Randerson doesn’t have a clue.
@ Senn
LOL. actual LOL. Please don’t have kids. ever.
Senn.
Really? I have tried mephedrone. Had a good time, bit of a hangover, went to work on monday without any issues, dozens of my friends do. The fact we have had no confirmed deaths, despite its massive increase in use, is surely a reason to highlight its safety, not it’s danger.
Are you really suggesting that the best way forward is a life of never taking any drugs? Or just illegal drugs?
Both positions don’t add up. Firstly, legal and illegal drugs carry risk, that was the point of Prof Nutt taking a neutral look at harms, rather than legality. Secondly, in a world where people seek and get enjoyment out of both legal and illegal drugs (and have for thousands of years), the best way is to educate users in the risks and how to consume these drugs safely.
People keep saying ‘well you dont know what is in this do you?’, which is surely an argument for regulation? The dealer on the street wont be providing an ingredients list, but a regulated industry could be compelled to.
The ‘just say no’ argument sounds remarkably like the ‘celibacy works’ argument catholics have with aids in Africa. It ignores the reality of the real world.
Thanks for your comment, Sensible 2.09 – one kid is enough for me, Jenny Randerson does have a clue ms. anonymous, she is not the one putting on scatty comments on a respected website.
As for you Cyntaf, I’m not sure you know what adding up is because your arguments seem dimwitted
Ahem – a bit of civility, please. Name calling is most unwelcome.
tks
Just getting even Adam, these feisty comments
Surely the point is that if you have prohibition, then you accept if something is dangerous, then it should be on the banned list. With decriminalisation of drugs, it has to be all or nothing. As long as you have criminalised drugs, then you have to add new substances to the banned list, until you decide to decriminalise them all.
While not being a Tory in the slightest, I would say that their idea of a temporary ban to give time for proper government debate is a good idea.
Cyntaf’s comments above are over the top and personal, its difficult to take lessons from someone about rational debate when they go into personal rants and attacks on someone who is trying to publicise an issue and spark debate.
The difference between Cyntaf and Rob Williams is marked. Rob doesn’t agree with the article but actually enters a different point of view.
I’m with Rob Williams on this one. Jenny Randerson’s position is clearly not a well-informed one.
@Senn: Cassie’s story, although harrowing and affecting, is categorically not more important than the reasoned analysis of professionals who deal day-in and day-out with drugs and drug abuse.
There are compelling arguments for and against banning this substance. These arguments are complex and require analysis and understanding. According to the article above, Jenny Randerson has based her position on the experiences of a single individual. This is not a sensible way for an elected official to decide their position on public policy.
It appears that the government has now decided to make mephedrone a class B drug based on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). Whether or not you think this decision is correct depends on whether you think the current drugs policy works, and whether or not you think banning substances like mephedrone does more harm than good .
It is worth noting that as of today not a single post-mortem has yet confirmed that mephedrone was the cause of any loss of life. This is despite a number of newspapers claiming it was responsible for 25 deaths.
Given safety is the objective, time alone will tell us how effective the ban is at stopping people using the drug. Whether or not this move will push potential drug users towards wrestling, aromatherapy and squash, I couldn’t really say. As thriling as those activities evidently are, I’m afraid I somehow doubt it.
The point I was making in my comment seemed to me to be uncontroversial. Politicians should not rely simply on the testimony of a single individual to make their decision about complex and important issues. They should be better informed than that.
“Cyntaf’s comments above are over the top and personal, its difficult to take lessons from someone about rational debate when they go into personal rants and attacks on someone who is trying to publicise an issue and spark debate.
The difference between Cyntaf and Rob Williams is marked. Rob doesn’t agree with the article but actually enters a different point of view.”
I will take it on the chin about being dim witted, but I fail to see how me and Rob are taken different positions. Albeit Rob is being slightly more measured.
Both of us agreed that a single extreme case is not a good basis for politicians to make laws on. Does anyone disagree on that?
Both of us question the dangers of the drug, particularly given the lack of actual evidence thus far.
Both of us question whether banning substances will actually achieve any desired outcomes.
Just saying my tone is somehow improper (which I disagree with) does not make an argument inaccurate. I do not want my elected politicians using single examples to make sweeping statements on law making, much like I would not want my doctor prescribing medicines based on single case evidence.
My view on Mephedrone is to firstly find out what we want to happen to users and numbers of users, then act on those agreed purposes. If we are all agreed we don’t want people falling into problems taking it, and even if we want a reduction in use, then I fail to see how criminalising it will achieve that.
Good reply Rob W.
Jenny Randerson is not making any public policy here. She is giving us a position based on quite a lucid and balanced account of a drug users experiences.
I think this account is much more valuable than a whole bunch of statistics and biochemical analysis. We live in a world where statistics are like the Macdonald’s fast food burger of intellectual debate. A quasi-real method of confuting or refuting an argument.
Wrestling, Squash and aromatherapy are just a few examples off the cuff! I still think their are many many way of having fun without the need for any drugs in ones life.
Senn.
But by your logic, my view (as someone who has used it a few times) is surely the view of someone who has taken it without any problems. You called me dimwitted, despite my first hand experience. Is it because my experience did not conform to your views that I am dimwitted?
“Wrestling, Squash and aromatherapy” has to be the single funniest argument I have heard on this website.
I’ll take that as a compliment Cyntaf!
Better to be naturally funny than taking substances to make one funny.
Really interesting, strong response to this piece. Seems that all of you that objected to it are not alone: http://stwnsh.com/j5
Typically brilliant article by the peerless Johann Hari on this subject here: http://tinyurl.com/ycc392w
Amongst other points he exposes the way in which the press has hyped the danger of the drug based on anecdotal evidence of harm. Unfortunately it’s not just the press that fall for this guff.
It appears politicians do as well.
Well I am glad Hari has brought forward the same ‘dimwitted’ arguments I did a few days earlier.
@Cyntaf – Indeed! And, as Duncan points out, there are many professionals and government advisors who agree with you too. Quite surprised the offensive comment that was directed at you remained on the site to be honest. It does seem in breach of the comment policy. Quite obviously.
Rob
I asked for civility in this discussion following that remark, and that request has been respected.
Now, let’s get back on-topic.
Thanks.
Thanks Rob.
Agreed Adam, it’s a good debate.
This debate is most interesting. As has been said, banning substances will not stop usage. However, I would have to disagree with previous comments, given that fewer people are likely to take a banned substance than those who hide behind the term ‘legal high’ and justify their usage that way. There is a greater taboo when things are considered wrong or bad…just as with most crimes. A person who has just committed theft would never brag about it to a law-abiding citizen for fear of a moral, verbal reprimand and would only brag to like-minded people. A person who has committed rape or murder is highly unlikely to want to spread the news.
The same goes for drug-takers. Those taking what are considered the worst type of drugs, such as heroin, crack cocaine, do not do so in broad daylight for fear of people seeing or being caught by the police – unless of course they are so addicted that they do not care of the moral and legal consequences. The more a drug is considered bad news, the more of a moral decision a person has to take when deciding whether to take it or not, resulting in less usage from those who care about the wider consequences on their family, their profession, their well-being, their friends and their life in general.
Alcohol is a drug, caffeine is a drug, nicotine is a drug. Yet just because these things are legal, taxed and mostly regulated, millions of people ignore the warning signs and abuse them. How many smokers die from cancer? How many people die from alcoholism or fighting or doing irrational things when drunk? How many people need coffee just to be able to function in the morning, whether they have work or not? This is all to do with mentality.
How things are considered by others (friends, family, colleagues, the police, the Government) does affect behaviour. A verbal sanction from friends and family alters behaviour, risking being arrested alters behaviour, the possibility of prison and therefore losing a fundamental right that is freedom alters behaviour. Banning a substance forces a person to think of these things before they decide to use it and sell it. I find it absurd that some of the comments refer to the legality of a substance not making a difference, given that we live in a society where being arrested or sent to prison is considered a negative thing.
Yes there has been a lot of hype about this drug and the Government has responded rather quickly. However, to wait for research and more horror stories is against the interest of the greater good, if we are to get all Utilitarian about this. I would not be surprised if once research has been completed, the substance is moved to a class A. This of course does depend on the accuracy of the research and how many different types of Mephedrone are sampled as at least ten should be taken from each city, and more from the larger ones in order to get the best results possible. This takes time and many heavy users or unlucky users do not have much time, therefore a ban is the best thing whilst more research is being carried out.
@Philo – Your argument ignores the fact that prohibition has spectacularly failed to prevent people taking drugs. The drugs industry is huge and drug use is as high as it has ever been. This has been heavily supported by the banning of these substances which has led to an enormous unregulated black-market. If, as you say, social disappoval and criminalisation helped prevent drug use we would be seeing year on year falls in drug use. Which we are not.
Your argument that drugs should be banned before we know whether they are dangerous or not also ignores the fact that banning some drugs is considered by many, including me, to be more dangerous than allowing them to be freely available. As Johann Hari points out in the article I linked to above – virtually everything we think we know about mephedrone is untrue. The press have hyped the story for the good of their circulation figures, and the tabloids, with typical disregard for the truth, have been hugely selective in what they’ve chosen to present as the facts.
The decision to ban this drug has been driven by a feral media on the rampage and politicians desperate to be seen to be doing something.
Your analysis is severely flawed in its conclusion that we should ban the drug first and then see how dangerous it is. We live in what should be a permissive democracy where we have rights and freedoms which should be protected. The government, therefore, should have a very very good reason for curtailing those rights. In this case it doesn’t have.
This ban will increase drug use and make the drug more dangerous, it should not have been banned before it was properly understood. The government has made a small problem bigger and limited liberty in the process. It is a spectacular mistake.
Rob, you are quick to find flaws so let’s find some of yours. As I mentioned, banning substances does not stop usage. There is a difference between preventing and deterring and my account was from a deterrent perspective. Laws can never prevent, they can only guide and deter and all laws are for the good of society (as it is perceived by the Government). People have taken various drugs since the beginning of time. If you have ever heard of Bacchus, you will know what he did to himself while high on drugs…if not look it up, it is an interesting story.
I do not call for a ban on all substances, personally I believe that the Government should legalise cannabis for starters…there is a stark difference in regulating something that grows naturally and does little harm if used in the right proportions. However, when things are tampered with in home-made science laboratories by dealers who haven’t a care in the world about the potential harm they are doing to people is where I have a problem. I choose not to read newspapers these days as there is little in them that I believe whether it is The Times, The Daily Mail, The Independent and let’s not even talk about The Sun.
I did try to read the link you posted but became terribly bored as it was far too political and a mere cry for attention. I do not believe in attacking others in the same way your fabulous Hari has tried to do so. It is indeed because we live in such a permissive democracy that drug use is on the rise, in my opinion. There are far too many ways to get around the laws and people are becoming wise to this. The police have less power than before in some senses and this coupled with a complete disregard for what is considered good or proper is leading to an uncontrollable society – not to mention lesser sentences or fines for those who commit crimes and some convicts even escaping prison as prisons are now overcrowded.
One thing I will agree with Hari about, is the fact that it is taking this drug combined with others that is the problem…as was the problem with Cassie. Drug users who are searching for that high will not stop until they feel they need to or until their body says so and will of course take speed, alcohol, cocaine, ecstacy, ketamine, LSD, cannabis as well as taking mephedrone. People have been mixing the aforementioned drugs for decades and it is only by adding mephedrone to the list that hundreds of people have ended up in psychiatric wards or in a morgue. I was recently told about a successful lawyer who ended up being sectioned for months due to taking mephedrone and has still not recovered. The facts are there for all to see.
You talk so much of liberties and rights: the more you give to people, the more they abuse them. Fact. A fresh look at the classes of all drugs is needed in my opinion. Or, perhaps give people access to all drugs by legalising and ‘regulating’ them – as many of your arguments imply with you talking about democracy, rights etc. all the time. Then we would truly see the benefit of legalising highly addictive substances, more money spent treating people with problems using the substances in moderation no doubt.
Also, notice the absence of links in my response. I do not feel as though I have to refer to other people’s arguments to beef up my own. Reading Hari is as bad as reading some political rant on Labour in The Times.
This article is proving to be one of the best on this site, some in-depth debate, some good arguments both sides of the table. Jenny Randerson has provided a very good discussion board despite some early contempt. She will probably lead the Welsh Liberal Democrats after the general election if the party wants to move forward.
The crux of the argument is whether legalisation is pertinent of this drug. is it damaging to society by making the drug illegal? Is it an infringement of civil liberities?
Alternatively Is safety more valuable than freedom? Is the government perceived as being against our liberties? Will people use the drug less because it is illegal or will the criminalisation of the drug inspire people to want it more?
I personally think that the banning of the drug will do more public good and people will be at less risk. Especially the stupid and easily led who think they want drugs because others are taking drugs.
Be an individual, don’t do drugs!
If you are going to ban a substance as a result of the dangers, then alchohol should never have been made legal. If you forbid or prevent a bad thing then you must make absolutely sure that a greater evil should not arise. Remember prohibition created gangsters in the States? This is a clear case of preventing an evil, and it then getting worse, to a point now that alchohol kills thousands of people across the world daily. Mephedrone at present is clean and pure and can be controlled, and taxed. After Friday we hand it all over (trust me ALL the companies will sell it on before Friday to anyone who will buy it) and then it goes the same route as MDMA – cut up and more dangerous.
I agree that you should not need drugs to be happy, and we should all work to change the way drugs are socially accepted.
“I personally think that the banning of the drug will do more public good and people will be at less risk. Especially the stupid and easily led who think they want drugs because others are taking drugs.”
But that is minsinformed, not backed up by any evidence and merely your one size fits all view on drug users.
The word ‘drugs’ is wrongly used to talk about illegal drugs. But drugs exist far wider than that. Are the people who drink a pint easily led and doing it because everyone else does? The people who have lots of caffeine stupid idiots who should take up wrestling? How come someone who smokes a joint after dinner is easily led and a crook, but someone who drinks a bottle of wine is automatically not?
It is pretty simple, which is why you cannot help but give disdain to your argument Senn.
Currently all legal high sellers pay tax, like any other business. In a relatively (in comparison to other illegal drugs) they are competing on quality and price, rather than scarcity. This means that selling cut up crap is severly reduced, because there are a number of reputable providers who offer it legally. It is why you don’t really see a real black market for unlabelled booze, because labelled booze is subject to quality control, regulation and is sold in a regulated market.
Come next week, the demand for the drug is still there, probably bolstered by the huge media coverage it has been getting. That demand will be met by drug dealers; they dont pay tax, they range from students to hardened gangsters, but ultimately they can exploit the market forces that underpin the black market. They immediately have to maximise profits because of the cost of operating outside of the law. The costs of production and distribution immediately increase, this is passed onto the consumer.
Added to this, given the rise of cost and danger of operating in this black market, the drug itself needs to be cut. So what you do is this;
Buy a say 10ounces of your drug
By 5 ounces of cutting agents – could be teething powder, rat poison, anything really
You then have 15ounces of cut up, less pure and far more dangerous stuff to sell.
Users will still buy it as per demand, but without a choice of regulated competitors (especially when you consider the suburbs and rural areas), they have to like it or lump it. They are now paying more for a drug, which is far more dangerous from a person that cannot be challenged on quality.
Your argument around ‘just say no’ is genuinely the most unrealistic argument I have seen in this debate. The comparison I made is with aids and the Pope telling people abstinence, not contraception. It ignores reality that I can only put down to total ignorance of why, how and when people take drugs of any sort.
The adult approach to this debate is to accept, like they do with alcohol, nicotine, anti depressants and caffeine, that adults are willing to use drugs both legal and illegal. They will include idiots, much like those who drink too much, but the majority are moderate users. You then move to a place whereby safe usage, regulated products and supportive treatment for problems are the replacement to The Tabloids lying, the politicians bringing in laws they know are in contrary to the evidence they pay millions for and people like Senn who belong to some world where we all live a life of solitude of wrestling and sober high jinks.
Making this drug illegal will create more, not less danger to the users who want this drug regardless of legality.