Cocain and Estasy Cause Mutations

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2003-12-06 11:05am

Cocaine and Ecstasy Cause DNA Mutation -Italy Study

ROME (Reuters) - Cocaine and ecstasy not only cause addiction and raise the risk of cancer but also provoke genetic mutations, Italian scientists said Friday.

"Cocaine and ecstasy have proved to be more dangerous than we had imagined," said Giorgio Bronzetti, chief scientist at the National Center for Research's (CNR) biotechnology department.

"These drugs, on top of their toxicological effects, attack DNA provoking mutations and altering the hereditary material. This is very worrying for the effects it could have on future generations," he said.

The use of ecstasy, a drug popular at all-night dance parties, increased by 70 percent between 1995 and 2000 according to a United Nations report published in September.

Ecstasy and amphetamines have overtaken cocaine and heroin as the fastest growing global narcotics menace, the study said.

The CNR report, which took more than three years to complete, said animal tests had shown a direct relationship between ecstasy and cocaine intake and the effects on DNA.

"In other words, the longer the time frame of drug consumption, the greater the damage to DNA," Bronzetti said.

This actually explains some of the drug-freaks I know. It doesn't explain the numbers I know that do these drugs and are find however

Dress your links! ~ Crown

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-12-06 11:15am

For a claim like that, there had better be confirming evidence.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-12-06 11:28am

Isnt mutation something that occurs over several generations ?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-12-06 11:38am

evilcat4000 wrote:Isnt mutation something that occurs over several generations ?

No, that would be evolution. Mutation can occur in a single generation and it's beneficial mutations that drive evolution.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-12-06 12:12pm

My Children--My anti-drug. I couldn't resist. Sorry.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-12-06 12:39pm

Stormbringer wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:Isnt mutation something that occurs over several generations ?
No, that would be evolution. Mutation can occur in a single generation and it's beneficial mutations that drive evolution.

Beneficial mutations being as rare as gold dust.

I'm searching the Athens network for something related to this, all I can find so far is stuff linking cocaine, ecstasy & marijuana to effects on the immune system, pulomary system etc. and numerous other effects already looked into. Maybe this will be put up soon.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-12-06 01:34pm

Hrm. Anyone know what journal this thing is going to be published in? My university subscribes to a bunch of online fulltext services ...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-12-06 01:39pm

phongn wrote:Hrm. Anyone know what journal this thing is going to be published in? My university subscribes to a bunch of online fulltext services ...

I'll have a look around again and see. Likely it'll be in the BioMed database or NCBI or Nature.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-12-06 02:08pm

That and LSD causes Chromosome damage.

BULLSHIT!
I smell BULLSHIT!

For a chemical to be a mutagen, it must also be a carcigen.
So Cocaine and extasy cause cancer?

BULLSHIT!

The lies don't change. They just need to be forgotten before they can be reused.
Forunately, MTV has dumbed down the public, and combined with habbits aquired from a remote controle useage, long term memory seems to be declining.

This is word for word the same old lies.I heared them in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Why would the 00s be any different?

The downsides to chronic drug use are not suited to bumpersticker slogans, so blatant lies that fit on your fears are used.
Drug addiction is like America getting fatter. We don't want to hear about long term, ongoing, continuous efforts.
We don't want to hear about how quick fixes don't work. We don't want to hear about changing our bad habbits, we want to keep them, just fix the bad side effect please.
TV, by it's very nature can not give a thoughtful in depth report on ANYTHING!
TV ads to discourage drug use are inherantly useless, due to the ephemeral medium, and the mindset of the audience.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-12-06 02:13pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:That and LSD causes Chromosome damage.

BULLSHIT!
I smell BULLSHIT!

For a chemical to be a mutagen, it must also be a carcigen.
So Cocaine and extasy cause cancer?

BULLSHIT!

The lies don't change. They just need to be forgotten before they can be reused.
Forunately, MTV has dumbed down the public, and combined with habbits aquired from a remote controle useage, long term memory seems to be declining.

This is word for word the same old lies.I heared them in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Why would the 00s be any different?

The downsides to chronic drug use are not suited to bumpersticker slogans, so blatant lies that fit on your fears are used.
Drug addiction is like America getting fatter. We don't want to hear about long term, ongoing, continuous efforts.
We don't want to hear about how quick fixes don't work. We don't want to hear about changing our bad habbits, we want to keep them, just fix the bad side effect please.
TV, by it's very nature can not give a thoughtful in depth report on ANYTHING!
TV ads to discourage drug use are inherantly useless, due to the ephemeral medium, and the mindset of the audience.

You're an idiot if you think mutagens and carcinogens are the same thing.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-12-06 02:27pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
phongn wrote:Hrm. Anyone know what journal this thing is going to be published in? My university subscribes to a bunch of online fulltext services ...
I'll have a look around again and see. Likely it'll be in the BioMed database or NCBI or Nature.

Ahh. My uni should subscribe to it, but alas, USF's biology department is rather dominated by ecologists.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-12-06 03:35pm

I'll wait and see what the reviewers have to say before I pass judgement on this. Every now and then there's a study proving this drug or that drug has some kind of new horrible effect nobody thought about, and then it turns out the methodology was flawed or they can't reproduce the results (the famous experiment where rhesus monkeys exposed to enough marijuana smoke to cause oxygen deprivation suffered brain damage, which was later cited as proof that marijuana itself causes brain damage, comes to mind).

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-12-06 03:51pm

RedImperator wrote:I'll wait and see what the reviewers have to say before I pass judgement on this. Every now and then there's a study proving this drug or that drug has some kind of new horrible effect nobody thought about, and then it turns out the methodology was flawed or they can't reproduce the results (the famous experiment where rhesus monkeys exposed to enough marijuana smoke to cause oxygen deprivation suffered brain damage, which was later cited as proof that marijuana itself causes brain damage, comes to mind).

Exactly why when I hear about such studies in the news (often months after they'd been officially finished and submitted) I go and check them up by peer reviewed journals like Nature. If they say it's bullshit and a shitstorm has shown major contradictions backed up by other studies, I ignore it. One controversial study does not overturn dozens of normal studies.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-12-06 04:03pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
RedImperator wrote:I'll wait and see what the reviewers have to say before I pass judgement on this. Every now and then there's a study proving this drug or that drug has some kind of new horrible effect nobody thought about, and then it turns out the methodology was flawed or they can't reproduce the results (the famous experiment where rhesus monkeys exposed to enough marijuana smoke to cause oxygen deprivation suffered brain damage, which was later cited as proof that marijuana itself causes brain damage, comes to mind).
Exactly why when I hear about such studies in the news (often months after they'd been officially finished and submitted) I go and check them up by peer reviewed journals like Nature. If they say it's bullshit and a shitstorm has shown major contradictions backed up by other studies, I ignore it. One controversial study does not overturn dozens of normal studies.

Sadly, since I've graduated, I've lost access to Villanova's online journal subscriptions.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-12-06 04:20pm

I have till 2005 for my access rights, but I hope to stay and do an MSc. and thus enjoy more free access to stuff I won't read fully.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-12-06 04:24pm

Valedmere.

Carcinogens

"Carcinogens and mutagens often the same but there's a subtle difference between these poison classes. Mutagens cause mutations in bacteria, and may or may not cause mutations in human body cells and/or sex cells. Mutagens do not necessarily cause cancer. Carcinogens are substances which proved to cause cancer. All carcinogens probably mutagens but not all mutagens are carcinogens.

Unfortunately carcinogens must still be tested on animals to prove they actually carcinogens. Ames was trying to replace this kind of testing but discovered too many otherwise harmless everyday natural chemicals (even some essential biochemicals) were mutagens. Even if substance causes cancer in lab rats doesn't prove cancer in humans, but humans match animals better than bacteria."
http://www.chem.lsu.edu/lucid/courseinfo /chem1002/ch18.html
I stand partialy corrected.

If it causes mutations in people, it causes cancer.
My point being, The LSD scare lies of the 60s is the same verbatum.
At least "Reefer madness" is now considered a comedy.
If I am an idiot, so is this chemistry text.
Fuck you.
Be right when you correct someone and insult them for what could be an honest mistake.
If there is an exeption to this rule, it is a nitpick of zero practical value.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-12-06 04:29pm

Cool. Im gonna snort like 50 lbs of cocain so i can get lazer vision.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2003-12-06 04:41pm

ya know. . . .even if there isn't proof that mixing these two cause mutations, it shouldn't take a fucking genius to realize that mixing two or more drugs that aren't exactly safe to take can have some bad side effects.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-12-06 04:56pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:Valedmere.

Carcinogens

"Carcinogens and mutagens often the same but there's a subtle difference between these poison classes. Mutagens cause mutations in bacteria, and may or may not cause mutations in human body cells and/or sex cells. Mutagens do not necessarily cause cancer. Carcinogens are substances which proved to cause cancer. All carcinogens probably mutagens but not all mutagens are carcinogens.

Unfortunately carcinogens must still be tested on animals to prove they actually carcinogens. Ames was trying to replace this kind of testing but discovered too many otherwise harmless everyday natural chemicals (even some essential biochemicals) were mutagens. Even if substance causes cancer in lab rats doesn't prove cancer in humans, but humans match animals better than bacteria."
http://www.chem.lsu.edu/lucid/courseinfo /chem1002/ch18.html
I stand partialy corrected.

If it causes mutations in people, it causes cancer.
My point being, The LSD scare lies of the 60s is the same verbatum.
At least "Reefer madness" is now considered a comedy.
If I am an idiot, so is this chemistry text.
Fuck you.
Be right when you correct someone and insult them for what could be an honest mistake.
If there is an exeption to this rule, it is a nitpick of zero practical value.

ALL of my textbooks disagree with you.

Mutagen: An agent that causes a genetic change in a cell
other than that which occurs during normal growth.

Carcinogen: Any substance that produces or promotes
cancer.

A mutagen may ALSO become a carcinogen, but the terms are not similar in any other way.

Ethidium bromide is a good example.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-12-06 05:34pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel: I finally figured out what you were saying (your link not working properly, notwithstanding) and still come to the conclusion that you’re an idiot.

The study, as I can see, says these drugs may cause mutations to somatic DNA. They may be mutagens. You said before they’re saying it means the drugs are carcinogens because of this. I said this was wrong and concluded you’re an idiot and also a bad typist.

You then baffle me with more bullshit, a bad link and then go on to say:

If it causes mutations in people, it causes cancer.

Which is what you yourself were arguing against with that little righteous bullshit you spewed beforehand.

So if I translated that right, you still seem to think these guys are saying the drugs cause cancer if only because they’re carcinogens, yet, mutagens do NOT have to be carcinogens also.

Basically, you’re an idiot and I’ve shown that again. Unless you meant to say otherwise, next time, use a language format I can understand.