Around 30 deaths per year are caused by taking ecstasy. That’s about one a fortnight. These figures may sound shocking but compared with the thousands of deaths annually from legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, the classification of ecstasy as a Class A drug, alongside heroin and crack cocaine, seems a little incongruous.

But behind the highly publicised deaths, academic studies are showing that ecstasy is also causing long-term psychological damage to users, particularly in terms of memory loss.
For the past 10 years, Dr Philip Murphy, Reader in Psychology at Edge Hill University, has been researching the effects of illegal drug use on cognitive function.

“The research to date has been looking at cognitive deficits – reduced cognitive function – in users of ecstasy,” explains Philip, “but we are now broadening our focus to include cannabis users.
“Our studies are mainly concerned with memory and how this is affected by drug use. We are concentrating on deficits in working memory. This is the memory that keeps us in the ‘here and now’ and enables us to function. For example, every time we walk up a flight of stairs we don’t have to continually keep watching our feet to see that we put them safely on each step. We use our working memory based on our visual representation of the stairs. At other times, if we make a cup of tea, we have to remember to perform the necessary acts in a specific sequence, such as getting the cup before we pour the water in it. This shows how working memory keeps us updated on what we are doing.”

“Working memory is about the ability to store and manipulate information in our short-term memory to enable us to carry out simple, everyday tasks and our research has shown that illegal drug use adversely affects this ability.”
Working alongside colleagues in other universities, Philip and his team have been carrying out laboratory-based tests on student volunteers aimed at realistically simulating every day tasks.

“While we were primarily looking at ecstasy use, the results of these tests showed that cannabis use was a major factor in reduced memory function,” says Philip. “This was the driver behind our current research which looks at the relationship between cannabis use and IQ scores.

“Cannabis is by far the most commonly used illegal drug in terms of usage at any time in life,” says Philip. “Official figures claim 9.6m people in the UK have used cannabis at some point in their lives and about 3m have used it in the last year. This makes cannabis a topic of interest in its own right.”
The results of the IQ tests were surprising. “What we found was that IQ scores diminish not with the amount of drug use, but over the time since drugs were last used,” says Philip. “In other words, the longer the abstinence, the lower the IQ scores seem to be.

“You would expect people to show signs of cognitive function recovery over time but this study appears to show the opposite; that cognitive function continues to deteriorate after usage has ended. We also found that the earlier a person started using cannabis, the lower their scores were.

“This could be a significant finding in terms of the scale of long-term damage caused by illicit drugs, particularly cannabis, which is seen by many as a “safe” drug.”

Although this is potentially a very exciting development, Dr Murphy is cautious about accepting the data as fact. The study is still in its infancy and the findings will need to be verified before the team can be sure that the results are not just a statistical blip.

“Studies like these are prone to measurement error,” says Philip. “We can’t get any toxicological background on the participants to verify when they started using, for example – we have to rely on self-reporting. We are currently seeking funding for hair sample analysis but even this is problematic as hair only grows about 1cm a month. You would have to have hair down to your ankles for it to show 10 years of drug use.

“Similarly, we don’t have any data to show what participants’ IQ scores were before they started using. There is a lot more work to be done before we can reach any definite conclusions. We know the relationship is there, we just don’t know the cause yet. We must be careful as the results could easily be misinterpreted.”

The results of the Edge Hill University study could have major implications for the future classification of drugs and the debate over the decriminalisation of illicit drugs.

“Drug classification is based on the “harm” a drug does, both to people and society,” explains Philip. “When cannabis was downgraded from Class B to Class C in 2004, the message went out that it was “safe”. It has now been reclassified as a Class B drug again as research is showing the long-term psychological harm caused by cannabis.

“Harm is not just about fatalities. Psychological effects of drugs are less tangible but equally important. If someone’s working memory is impaired would you want them in the control tower directing your flight?”
In the decriminalisation debate, Dr Murphy’s work brings him down firmly on the side of keeping illegal drugs illegal.

“I’m very much opposed to removing restrictions on drugs,” he says. “The implications – medical, social, economic – are too huge. There is an assumption that crime would be reduced, but what would take its place? We have no idea what the impact on society would be over time – unfortunately, we don’t have a control version of the UK to test it on.

“My concern is, once you let jack out of the box there’s no going back.”
Dr Philip Murphy is the organiser of this year’s national Annual Scientific Meeting of the Psychobiology Section of the British Psychological Society

Does criminalising drugs and drug users work, or does the whole system need a rethink? E42 asked four academics to consider the pros and cons in light of their own discipline.

Wrong health messages

Steve Jones
Senior Lecturer in Substance Misuse

I don’t think the system needs a “rethink” but I do think that the recent change (and change back) in classification of cannabis from Class B to C gave users and the public the wrong health message. The implication was that cannabis was safer because it had been “downgraded”.  
In fact, more recent evidence has increased concern that cannabis use triggers the onset of severe mental health problems, or at the very least exacerbates symptoms in many who use. Smoking cannabis is also viewed as safer than alcohol or cigarettes, but as many users smoke cannabis with nicotine, their health risks are doubled. The quality of cannabis has also been improved and is now a lot more potent than previously. All these factors have to be considered.
A study currently being undertaken by a research team at Edge Hill University is exploring if coerced treatment approaches are effective in a range of treatment environments, including prison. The question of whether this type of blanket treatment works remains somewhat elusive. A more tailored approach might be more realistic as what works for one may not work for another.
Although the criminalisation of drugs is a good subject for debate and study, we must not forget these are people’s lives; users, their families and perhaps victims of crimes perpetrated to fund habits. All of them have to be given serious consideration when tackling drug use. Perhaps the simple answer is there is no single approach but trying has to be better than not trying at all.

Young people rebel

Ursula Curwen,
Programme Leader MA in Youth and Community Work

Young people rebel. In a sense that’s their job and has been back to Socrates’ time. The fact that some young people today use drugs is no different than the fact that some of their parents and grandparents did. Alcohol, tea and coffee are all drugs. Parents often feed their children with cola and sweets, all of which have a noticeable effect on bodies and behaviours. Illegal drugs, though, tend to cause a major reaction.
In Portugal, where drug use has been decriminalised since 2001 (no prison time for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine), there has been a significant decline in drug use (around 4%) and in HIV infection among young people who use drugs. So maybe it’s a case of “if it’s not so rebellious to use drugs anymore why do it?”
 In 15 years as a youth and community worker, I have worked with young people some of whom use drugs, mainly alcohol and cannabis, and many of them see it as the normal thing to do. It becomes a problem when getting hold of their drug of choice leads them into criminal behaviour. This can be the act of buying the drug or getting hold of the money through theft and so on. Drug use is often not of itself the main issue, however. Chronic use is often a sign that there’s something else going seriously wrong in the life of that young person.

Prohibition highlights pitfalls

Professor Kevern Verney,
Associate Head of English and History

The experience of prohibition in the United States, 1920–1933, highlights the pitfalls in using legislation to prohibit the use of commodities perceived as harmful to the public good. Millions of Americans regularly defied the law, drinking in illicit speakeasies, making alcohol at home or buying from bootleg outlets.
Driving the manufacture and sale of alcohol underground had other unfortunate consequences. Federal and state governments were no longer able to raise tax revenue from liquor sales or regulate the industry. New bootleg brands were often considerably higher in alcohol content than the labels that they replaced. “Squirrel whiskey” was reputedly so potent that it sent consumers climbing the trees. Bootleg supplies could also be lethal in other respects, often being laced with industrial alcohol or other toxic substances. Some estimates suggest that more than 50,000 Americans died as a result of consuming such products with countless others suffering paralysis or blindness.
The principal beneficiaries of prohibition were racketeers like Al Capone, who amassed spectacular power and wealth through their activities. Although Capone himself was ultimately jailed for tax evasion, most bootleggers were able to avoid prosecution by bribing government officials and law enforcement officers. This was reflected in the fact that during the prohibition era officials only managed to seize around 5% of the alcohol illegally smuggled into the United States; a figure depressingly similar to the 10% seizure rate achieved by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency in its war against the narcotics trade today.

War on the poor

Dr Eleanor Peters,
Senior Lecturer in Criminology & Criminal Justice

Criminalising drugs causes more problems than it solves and does not mean that fewer people will take them.
Using drugs is normal. The latest British Crime Survey found that 37% of adults aged 16–59 had used an illicit drug. A similar US study reported that 45% of the population reported illicit drug use in their lifetime. These figures are likely to be underestimations of actual use of drugs in society.
A recent report by Transform suggested that a legalised, regulated drugs market could save the UK alone between £4billion and £14billion (the costs of policing, prosecuting and imprisonment).
UK prisons are hideously overcrowded; most often with those imprisoned for drug offences or crimes connected to drugs. Ex-prisoners are frequently unable to find work or housing because of their criminal record and often return to drug use and crime, resulting in a vicious circle.
The so-called “war on drugs” is essentially a war on the poor. UK prisons are home to thousands of the world’s poorest people imprisoned for drug transportation. The global nature of drugs markets has a hugely detrimental effect on their homelands too. The US-backed destruction of Colombia’s coca-growing areas has not stopped its production; drug cartels just moved to Mexico, where thousands die each year in drug-related violence. The system needs an urgent rethink. Criminalisation has not worked and, as The Economist recently suggested, surely legalisation is the least bad option.