Ecstasy less dangerous than horse riding? [Archive] - Page 2

Ivor the Engineer

13th November 2009, 02:17 AM

Why? Because he added some anecdotal evidence to the scientific evidence and the common sense argument that the number of "XTC casualties" is minuscule compared to the number of users?

The numbers depend on what you class as a casualty.

http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm?volumeID=21&editionID=166&ArticleID=1426

Indeed, one of the general problems with all psychosocial drugs is that their regular use tends to impair psychological well-being. This pattern is clearly illustrated with MDMA. Novice users who have taken it just a few times report few problems, whereas regular users can report a range of deficits. These may include poor memory, frontal-executive information processing deficits – such as impaired problem solving and reduced social intelligence, sleep disturbances, sexual dysfunctions, reduced appetite, reduced immunocompetence, and other functional difficulties (Fisk et al., 2005; Halpern et al., 2004; Morgan, 2000; Parrott, 2006a; Reay et al., 2006). Around 70 per cent of experienced users report memory problems which they attribute to MDMA, while other Ecstasy-attributed problems included mood fluctuation (80 per cent), poor concentration (70 per cent), depression (65 per cent), poor sleep (52 per cent)and weight loss (48 per cent: Parrott et al., 2002). These psychobiological complaints can be intensified by prolonged periods of on-drug dancing, possibly because the effects of MDMA are heightened by co-factors which increase energetic distress (Parrott, 2004, 2006a; Parrott et al., 2006). Prospective studies have shown that indices of immunocompetence, and performance measures of neurocognitive ability, significantly worsen over 1–2 years of continued Ecstasy/MDMA use (Pacifici et al., 2002; Zakzanis & Campbell, 2006).

<snip>

If you think drug use is stupid and pathetic, just come out and say so. Make your moral and emotional point. No need for the fig leaf.

Recreational drug use is a less than zero-sum game. The heavier the usage, higher the highs and lower the lows are, the more negative the sum. In general, changing your perception of the world with drugs does not make your lot better - only effort and luck can do that.

CriticalSock

13th November 2009, 03:23 AM

Amazing how people fall back on their 'common sense' and 'knowledge of a few people' when the evidence points in a direction they don't like.

Now I don't just think you're spouting crap, I know you are.

Please, continue digging...

That was a cheap shot. At least IA has *some* personal experience. You're arguing from a position of complete ignorance. Complete ignorance of the actual effects and the actual experience that is, not of the subject generally. You're like the retired gent in a New York salon in 1968 talking about how the war should be fought in Vietnam.

"You weren't there man! You haven't seen what I've seen!" < That's IA being a vietnam vet.

Recreational drug use is a less than zero-sum game. The heavier the usage, higher the highs and lower the lows are, the more negative the sum. In general, changing your perception of the world with drugs does not make your lot better - only effort and luck can do that.

Ivor, you're running in circles. Why are you generalising about recreational drug use again? This discussion is about MDMA. If you continue to lump known harmful substances like alcohol and tobacco into the equation to make your argument work then you are not advancing your argument.

Information Analyst

13th November 2009, 03:29 AM

The numbers depend on what you class as a casualty.

http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm?volumeID=21&editionID=166&ArticleID=1426
The problem there is that "regular use" isn't defined, and the principle study the claim is based on doesn't seem to have the full text available online. It should be noted that in another study Parrott claimed that 90-95% of MDMA users smoke cannabis, which in itself seems ridiculously high to me, but he acknowledges any putative adverse effects may be as a result of interaction between the two. An inherent problem, of course, if that just because people attribute their own reactions to MDMA, doesn't neecessarily make it true. Obviously you hate annecdotes, but I know people who exhibit symptoms within the quoted "range of deficits," yet do not use MDMA or any other illegal drugs. In short, people often look for reasons as to why they feel the way they do, which is why there is so much woo around power lines, mobile 'phone masts, food additives, etc.
Recreational drug use is a less than zero-sum game. The heavier the usage, higher the highs and lower the lows are, the more negative the sum. In general, changing your perception of the world with drugs does not make your lot better - only effort and luck can do that.
"Heavier," of course, being the operative world. I wouldn't recommend anyone go out every weekend and pop a dozen pills any more than I would they go out drinking heavily as frequently. At the end of the day, though, life as a whole is one big mass of risks and threats, and it is up to individuals to decide what they do with their own bodies.

3point14

13th November 2009, 03:46 AM

The problem there is that "regular use" isn't defined, and the principle study the claim is based on doesn't seem to have the full text available online. It should be noted that in another study Parrott claimed that 90-95% of MDMA users smoke cannabis, which in itself seems ridiculously high to me, but he acknowledges any putative adverse effects may be as a result of interaction between the two. An inherent problem, of course, if that just because people attribute their own reactions to MDMA, doesn't neecessarily make it true. Obviously you hate annecdotes, but I know people who exhibit symptoms within the quoted "range of deficits," yet do not use MDMA or any other illegal drugs. In short, people often look for reasons as to why they feel the way they do, which is why there is so much woo around power lines, mobile 'phone masts, food additives, etc.

"Heavier," of course, being the operative world. I wouldn't recommend anyone go out every weekend and pop a dozen pills any more than I would they go out drinking heavily as frequently. At the end of the day, though, life as a whole is one big mass of risks and threats, and it is up to individuals to decide what they do with their own bodies.

Ah. no, according to ItE, the bolded part is not the case. He hasn't managed to tell me why though.

Ocelot

13th November 2009, 04:10 AM

Is it? When Nutt started making arguments along the lines of MDMA being less dangerous than horse riding he might have been considered to be expressing how he thinks MDMA should eventually be treated by the government.

That's your projection, what he advised was clearly reclassification. Even so, you comment was still a non-sequitur.

Do you think Nutt might have his own agenda to promote?

Anything's possible. All I know is that he's examined the evidence more extensively than either of us. If indeed he has an agenda to promote then it would seem to be an agenda drawn from the science rather than some pre-existing reason for bias. Unless you're suggesting he's secretly active on the rave scene in some capacity?

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00490/SNN20092GB-280_490464a.jpg
Nah I'm not seeing it myself.

I didn't imply he didn't endorse MDMA's use in therapy, I asked where he said it. This was because I didn't remember reading any comments by Nutt in links posted before you made the claim in which he had stated such an opinion.

Really, and I'm not an IT manager, I just earn my living from managing a team of people who look after computers and telephones.

You certainly did imply it and you just acknowledged how you did so. If your sole reason for asking about this was to look for confirmation of this fact, then why did it have to be me who Googled for confirmation.

So yeah if you want to insist that this implication wasn't an intentional piece of rhetoric conceived to muddy the water I'll just have to accept that your stupid lazy and incompetent action coincidentally fell into a pattern of intelligent if dishonest action.

So you're not concerned that patients with supposed "treatment-resistant" PTSD got better with placebo pills?

Concerned? I'm fascinated by the placebo effect and the Hawthorne effect. That fascination is irrelevant to the fully evidenced fact that David Nutt's stance reflects the commonly acknowledged science that MDMA can be useful in therapy, but if you want to count interest as concern then fine.

If on the other hand you want to move the goals posts from the fact that David Nutt supports this view, to JAQing off about the details of this one particular stand of evidence that lead him to that view, then start another thread. I may join in over there.

Just what is a suitable placebo for MDMA anyway? From what you've all been telling me it fairly obvious when you've ingested MDMA (or similar) compared to a sugar pill. This is the same type of problem studies of acupuncture often have.

I stopped being amazed by the power of the placebo effect a long time ago. Now I'm a little more educated I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised to see a sugar pill elicit a comparable response to a therapeutic dose of MDMA under certain circumstances. However I haven't dug any deeper to the specifics of this study. It's just common knowledge that MDMA was developed and initially used as a therapeutic drug. I knew that science said that MDMA had therapeutic potential, I knew David Nutt's Job was to report on science. That it was the view of his peers that he had done so accurately, so I made the statement that this was his stance. When challenged I researched the specifics and was vindicated. Took 30 seconds.

You wanna get bogged down in the minutia of this particular study start another thread?

Actually who Nutt (from his comments in the article you linked to) reminds me of is Edgar Schoen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Schoen), who managed to get himself on the AAP Task force on circumcision and skew the policy statement toward his point of view.

Did Schoen have the resounding support of all the others on the panel. Did the ACMD publish a view at odds with their chairs's publicised views.

No and no, so what point of similarity can you see?

And shoot me down in flames if I'm wrong but is Schoen perchance a Jewsih name? If so are you suggesting that Nutt's views are biased by his religious commitment to the use of recreational drugs? David "Jah rule" Nutt.

I mean if you're telling me that Nutt was a biassed, Rasta, Yardie, pill pusher or some from long before he was employed to examine the evidence on the misuse of drugs, I'm gonna want to see evidence.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00490/SNN20092GB-280_490464a.jpg
Nah I'm not seeing it myself.

Ivor the Engineer

13th November 2009, 04:37 AM

Ocelot, your statements of fact in your previous post indicate you are both deluded and wrong, so I see little point discussing Prof. Nutt's idiosyncratic* views on drugs with you.

This thread has been useful though. I have changed my mind on the sacking of Prof. Nutt. At first I was annoyed that a politician had sacked a scientist for giving what I thought were objective recommendations. However, it is now clear that Nutt is anything but objective and I think Alan Johnson was right to sack him.

Nutt's views are clearly not representative of the scientific consensus on the harms or uses of Benzodiazepines, MDMA or Cannabis.

*That's a polite term for bat-**** crazy.

Ivor the Engineer

13th November 2009, 04:46 AM

Ah. no, according to ItE, the bolded part is not the case. He hasn't managed to tell me why though.

Because choosing some courses of action result in more harm than good to individuals and/or the society they live in.

Eddie Dane

13th November 2009, 04:52 AM

Nutt's views are clearly not representative of the scientific consensus on the harms or uses of Benzodiazepines, MDMA or Cannabis.

And all this time I thought that we were discussing just MDMA.

It is now clear to me that when we have a national discussion about MDMA we should not involve its users, therapists or scientists. They have agendas, after all.

Ivor, it took many post for us to discover that your definition of harm includes mild discomfort.

Let me save us all some time by asking you directly what the definition of scientific consensus is on your planet.

3point14

13th November 2009, 05:01 AM

Because choosing some courses of action result in more harm than good to individuals and/or the society they live in.

For the love of small pink fluffy things, man, that's still not an answer.

For that to be an answer you would have to show the harm to society, bearing in mind I advocate taxation to mitigate in healthcare costs.

I won't hold my breath.

Ivor the Engineer

13th November 2009, 05:15 AM

For the love of small pink fluffy things, man, that's still not an answer.

For that to be an answer you would have to show the harm to society, bearing in mind I advocate taxation to mitigate in healthcare costs.

I won't hold my breath.

I already have shown you the harms to individuals and society. You don't want to accept that they are real, though.

http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm?volumeID=21&editionID=166&ArticleID=1426

Indeed, one of the general problems with all psychosocial drugs is that their regular use tends to impair psychological well-being. This pattern is clearly illustrated with MDMA. Novice users who have taken it just a few times report few problems, whereas regular users can report a range of deficits. These may include poor memory, frontal-executive information processing deficits – such as impaired problem solving and reduced social intelligence, sleep disturbances, sexual dysfunctions, reduced appetite, reduced immunocompetence, and other functional difficulties (Fisk et al., 2005; Halpern et al., 2004; Morgan, 2000; Parrott, 2006a; Reay et al., 2006). Around 70 per cent of experienced users report memory problems which they attribute to MDMA, while other Ecstasy-attributed problems included mood fluctuation (80 per cent), poor concentration (70 per cent), depression (65 per cent), poor sleep (52 per cent)and weight loss (48 per cent: Parrott et al., 2002). These psychobiological complaints can be intensified by prolonged periods of on-drug dancing, possibly because the effects of MDMA are heightened by co-factors which increase energetic distress (Parrott, 2004, 2006a; Parrott et al., 2006). Prospective studies have shown that indices of immunocompetence, and performance measures of neurocognitive ability, significantly worsen over 1–2 years of continued Ecstasy/MDMA use (Pacifici et al., 2002; Zakzanis & Campbell, 2006).

As for MDMA's potential for use in therapy, Parrott has looked at that as well:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297639?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=10

The psychotherapeutic potential of MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine): an evidence-based review.

AIMS AND RATIONALE: The purpose of this study was to review whether methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) has the appropriate pharmacodynamic profile to be a therapeutic agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Empirical descriptions of MDMA's subjective effects in humans will be reviewed to evaluate the proposal that MDMA has psychotherapeutic properties. The focus will be published evidence on its functional effects in therapeutic, medical, and other situations. RESULTS: MDMA is a powerful central nervous system (CNS) stimulant which affects several neurotransmitter systems and intensifies a range of psychobiological functions. Its acute mood effects can be very positive and life enhancing, and the affirmative cognitions engendered during MDMA therapy may well endure afterwards. However, MDMA also has a number of potential anti-therapeutic characteristics. Acutely, it can also intensify negative cognitions, and these may similarly endure over time. Psychotherapists have found that setting, intention, and expectancy are crucial for a positive outcome, but these factors cannot be guaranteed. Post-MDMA, there is a period of neurotransmitter recovery when low moods predominate, and these may exacerbate psychiatric distress. The explanations proposed for MDMA-assisted therapy are all psychodynamic, and a neurochemical model needs to be outlined. It has been suggested that enduring therapeutic gains can follow a single session, but again, this lacks a clear psychopharmacological rationale. Finally, diathesis-stress models suggest that psychiatric individuals are more prone to acute and chronic abreactions to CNS stimulants such as MDMA. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of issues which need to be addressed before it can be argued that MDMA might be clinically useful for psychotherapy.

How appropriate that psychodynamic therapists (i.e. peddlers of ************) think MDMA is useful in therapy.

3point14

13th November 2009, 05:32 AM

I already have shown you the harms to individuals and society. You don't want to accept that they are real, though.

No you haven't. You haven't in the slightest. I may be wrong but I suspect you've put the cart before the horse with this Evidence=>Conclusion malarky.

This is, I think, your third or fourth response to my question and, to your credit, at least this one tries. The previous ones were all cryptic and obfuscating and quite telling. I really am done now.

Information Analyst

13th November 2009, 05:43 AM

As for MDMA's potential for use in therapy, Parrott has looked at that as well:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297639?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=10
Hard to judge anything on just the abstract.

CriticalSock

13th November 2009, 06:17 AM

Quote:
Indeed, one of the general problems with all psychosocial drugs is that their regular use tends to impair psychological well-being. This pattern is clearly illustrated with MDMA. Novice users who have taken it just a few times report few problems, whereas regular users can report a range of deficits. These may include poor memory, frontal-executive information processing deficits – such as impaired problem solving and reduced social intelligence, sleep disturbances, sexual dysfunctions, reduced appetite, reduced immunocompetence, and other functional difficulties (Fisk et al., 2005; Halpern et al., 2004; Morgan, 2000; Parrott, 2006a; Reay et al., 2006). Around 70 per cent of experienced users report memory problems which they attribute to MDMA, while other Ecstasy-attributed problems included mood fluctuation (80 per cent), poor concentration (70 per cent), depression (65 per cent), poor sleep (52 per cent)and weight loss (48 per cent: Parrott et al., 2002). These psychobiological complaints can be intensified by prolonged periods of on-drug dancing, possibly because the effects of MDMA are heightened by co-factors which increase energetic distress (Parrott, 2004, 2006a; Parrott et al., 2006). Prospective studies have shown that indices of immunocompetence, and performance measures of neurocognitive ability, significantly worsen over 1–2 years of continued Ecstasy/MDMA use (Pacifici et al., 2002; Zakzanis & Campbell, 2006).

That's pretty damning. I'd like to read the supporting reports that it's based on though. There are a couple of serious fudge factors in it however. The terms "regular use", "regular users" and "1-2 years of continued Ecstasy/MDMA use". You need to have some actual figures there for it to mean anything.

"regular users can report a range of deficits."- Ivor, you don't accept annecdotal evidence from drug users, so I guess we can ignore this bit?

"Around 70 per cent of experienced users report memory problems which they attribute to MDMA" and this bit?

If the numbers do stack up in this article then it looks very bad for Ecstasy. However I think that the effects it reports will only be attributable to heavy usage. But without the actual numbers it's impossible to say and thus impossible for this article to be of any use.

quarky

13th November 2009, 06:22 AM

Mdma is the worst tasting substance I've ever put in my mouth. That's a negative.

CriticalSock

13th November 2009, 07:41 AM

Mdma is the worst tasting substance I've ever put in my mouth. That's a negative.

The opportunity for filthy jokes is almost overwhelming me!

Furcifer

13th November 2009, 01:40 PM

Compare this to the very real and tangible damage that is easily proven and attributable to alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs other than MDMA.

Or even pot for that matter. It's certainly more prone to chronic usage and it really isn't good for your lungs. I think there are pretty good studies linking the prolonged usage to memory loss as well.

And even that pales in comparison to alcohol. Such a strange world we live in.

quarky

13th November 2009, 09:16 PM

The opportunity for filthy jokes is almost overwhelming me!

I was hoping someone would take the bait.

Zeuzzz

17th November 2009, 06:56 PM

Of course its less dangerous than horse riding, his paper clearly showed this. I remeber the thread I started on this when it was first published here Equasy: An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harm (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4433599#post4433599)

And check out Professor nutts interview on Sky News arguing with the newsreader from the other day, I think everything he says is totally reasonable and evidence based;

P5BrPuv9hWo

Zeuzzz

17th November 2009, 07:17 PM

How appropriate that psychodynamic therapists (i.e. peddlers of ************) think MDMA is useful in therapy.

I can safely say from first hand experience that MDMA improved my mental health no end. MDMA (was) a VERY unique chemical as it was the first true entactogenic chemical ever synthesised, one that actually promotes empathy and allowed people to be truthful to themselves and offered near inrivalled powers of theraputic truthful self introspection. You may have had to have tried it to understand fully its benfits, if used correctly/responsibly.

Before it was made illegal psychologists in america were using it on their patients with a lot of sucess. The most well known would be Leo Zeff, who treated thousands of people with MDMA with outstanding results every time.

MDMA is completely unique to other hallucinogens like LSD or Iboga that have been often attempted to be used as theraputic tools. Its effects are extremely consistant, and "bad trips" or adverse reactions are extremely rare.

http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/2/220
Is there a case for MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in the UK?
Ben Sessa

Psychopharmacology Unit, Dorothy Hodgkin Building, Bristol, UK

Much has been written in scientific and popular literature in recent years about the dangers surrounding the recreational use of the drug MDMA/ecstasy.

What is little known and understood however is the history of the apparently safe and effective use of MDMA as a therapeutic tool for psychotherapy. In this paper the author explores this history and describes the recent re-emergence of scientific interest in MDMA and other psychedelic drugs. There are currently several new double-blind randomised controlled trials underway re-visiting the subject. By acknowledging the limitations of this new research and emphasising the importance of exercising appropriate but realistic caution, the author asks that the medical profession consider a dispassionate and open-minded debate to examine whether MDMA might have a legitimate place as an adjunct to psychotherapy in modern psychiatric practice.

Its proving extremely efficatious in Phase I and II studies around the world in treating PTSD in people. The army have tested it on some troops with very promising results too. The worldwide studies are ongoing and sponsored by a group called MAPS (source (http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/)) which has gained FDA approval and approval in numerous countries worldwide to conduct its experiments. They are ongoing and the one that has been published showed very good results.

Full text (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6831/is_3_40/ai_n31466129/?tag=content;col1)
J Psychoactive Drugs. 2008 Sep;40(3):225-36.
MDMA-assisted psychotherapy using low doses in a small sample of women with chronic posttraumatic stress disorder.

Bouso JC, Doblin R, Farré M, Alcázar MA, Gómez-Jarabo G.

Departamento de Psicología Biológica y de la Salud, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. jbouso@santpau.cat

The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety of different doses of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy administered in a psychotherapeutic setting to women with chronic PTSD secondary to a sexual assault, and also to obtain preliminary data regarding efficacy. Although this study was originally planned to include 29 subjects, political pressures led to the closing of the study before it could be finished, at which time only six subjects had been treated. Preliminary results from those six subjects are presented here. We found that low doses of MDMA (between 50 and 75 mg) were both psychologically and physiologically safe for all the subjects. Future studies in larger samples and using larger doses are needed in order to further clarify the safety and efficacy of MDMA in the clinical setting in subjects with PTSD.

It works. I know from first hand experience.

To quote a bit more from the above publication thats very interesting:

3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, "Ecstasy") is a ring-substituted phenethylamine with a chemical structure related both to mescaline and methamphetamine. MDMA possesses a distinctive and unique psychological profile characterized by a specificity to act over the human emotional sphere (Shulgin & Nichols 1978) without notably affecting other psychological functions, such as visual perception or cognitive process (Harris et al. 2002; Tancer & Johanson 2001; Cami et al. 2000; Vollenweider et al. 1998). Because of this unusual quality, a new pharmacological category, entactogens, has been established to denote MDMA and some other chemically-related compounds (Hermle et al. 1993; Nichols 1986).

MDMA was first synthesized by the pharmaceutical company Merck in 1912 as a precursor of a haemostatic drug called methylhydrastinin, but it was not tested at that time either in humans or animals (Freudenmann, Oxler & Bernschneider-Reif 2006). In the 1950s, the U.S. army assayed a number of phenethylamines, including MDMA, in toxicological animal studies (Hardman, Haavik, & Seevers 1973) but there are no references regarding its use in military human experiments. This research remained secret until publication in 1973. At the beginning of the 1970s, the former Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (now the Drug Enforcement Administration--DEA) found MDMA for the first time being used on the street (Gaston & Rasmussen 1972) but the first scientific references regarding its pharmacological profile did not appear until the end of that decade (Anderson et al. 1978; Shulgin & Nichols 1978), some years after its rediscovery by the chemist Alexander Shulgin (Shulgin & Shulgin 1991).

From the rediscovery of MDMA until its prohibition in the U.S. in 1985, MDMA was widely used as an adjunct to the psychotherapeutic process (Grinspoon & Bakalar 1986), although no formal controlled studies were undertaken. It has been estimated that during this period around 500,000 doses of MDMA were administered in psychotherapeutic settings (Rosenbaum & Doblin 1991) and that about 4,000 people were introduced to the therapeutic use of MDMA just by Leo Zeff, Ph.D., the "Secret Chief" and leader of the underground therapeutic use of MDMA, (Stolaroff 1997; Shulgin & Shulgin 1991).

The inclusion of MDMA in the list of Schedule I controlled substances shut down all legal use, though in recent years there is a resurgence in the scientific investigation of the psychotherapeutic potential of MDMA (Check 2004; Doblin 2002), with studies investigating MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in subjects with PTSD approved in the U.S., Switzerland and Israel and one study at Harvard Medical School approved to investigate MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in subjects with anxiety associated with advanced-stage cancer patients (Allen 2006).

Before the prohibition of MDMA in 1985, it was used by a wide range of psychotherapists to treat diverse psychological disorders, including psychosis and anxiety, in individuals and couple therapy as well in group therapy (Grinspoon & Bakalar 1986; Greer 1985). MDMA was also useful in reducing physical pain secondary to some kinds of cancer (Greer & Tolbert 1998). Most clinicians agreed that it was most useful in the treatment of sequelae secondary to psychological trauma, such as child abuse or war stress (Greer 1985). The only quantitative data regarding the efficacy of MDMA were provided by Greer & Tolbert (1998, 1990, 1986) in their publications describing MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in 80 patients. Greer and Tolbert found that 90% of their patients reported positive experiences with lasting beneficial effects that remained at the one-year follow-up. Of those 90%, one third had experienced just one dose of MDMA, another third had experienced two doses, and the last third had taken more than two doses. In a follow-up utilizing a self-report questionnaire mailed to 171 patients treated by psychiatrists with MDMA and/or LSD-assisted psychotherapy in Switzerland between 1988 and 1993 (121 or 71% of questionnaires were returned with data), Gasser (1996, 1995) found that 65% of these respondents reported "good improvement" and 26% "slight improvement" after a course of LSD or MDMA-assisted therapy. Treatment consisted on average of three years of therapy with 70 nondrug sessions and seven sessions with MDMA or LSD.

Anecdotal accounts of MDMA-assisted therapy exist in print and in other media, including documents and testimony at the hearings on the scheduling of MDMA (www.maps.org/deamdma; Greer & Tolbert 1998; Grinspoon & Bakalar 1986; Wolfson 1986). Lastly, psychotherapeutic models using MDMA as an adjunct to the psychotherapeutic process in the treatment of depression (Riedlinger & Montagne 2001; Riedlinger & Riedlinger 1994), schizophrenia (Holland 2001), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Bouso 2001) have been proposed.

The therapeutic potential of MDMA consists in temporarily reducing or eliminating anxiety and fear, thus helping subjects gain access to their emotions and internal conflicts without the overwhelming fear normally associated with these emotions and memories. This ameliorative effect simultaneously helps subjects access these traumatic emotions and communicate them to a therapist, thus enhancing both the therapeutic alliance and the psychotherapeutic process (Greer & Tolbert 1998; Grinspoon & Bakalar 1986; Greer 1985). Since it enhances both introspection and the strength of the therapeutic alliance--the most important variables predicting therapeutic outcome (Alexander & Luborsky 1986)--MDMA seems an ideal tool for use in the psychotherapeutic process, especially for the treatment of PTSD (Bouso 2001). This article presents preliminary data from the first government-approved clinical trial designed to assess the safety and efficacy of MDMA in the treatment of PTSD. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital "La Paz" and by the Spanish Ministry of Health. Although the approved protocol anticipated the participation of 29 women with chronic PTSD secondary to a sexual assault in the first phase, a series of political decisions as a result of favorable media coverage, and unrelated to any scientific or ethical considerations, led to the sudden discontinuation of the study (Caudevilla 2006, 2003; Bouso 2003; Bouso & Gomez-Jarabo 2003; Doblin 2002) when only six subjects had been treated. Data from those six subjects who took part in the study are presented and discussed below.

Zeuzzz

17th November 2009, 07:22 PM

"I've never heard anyone say to me, 'methamphetamine improved my life, I'm a better person for having used methamphetamine'. Same with cocaine, I know lots of people that like to use cocaine, never heard anyone try to claim that cocaine is good for you. With MDMA lots of people think that the drug improved their life, and continue to think that after they've stopped using it" - Mark Kleiman, Phd. Drug policy analyst, UCLA. (source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNVGRBcDB0Q) [video])

And that pretty much sums it up in my opinion.

quarky

17th November 2009, 07:49 PM

Furcifer

17th November 2009, 08:41 PM

Mdma is abusable.

So is porn, cigarettes, food just about anything.The effects are temporary and the potential for abuse is low. At least low in relation to other less controlled things.

Of the psychedelics, it's probably the mildest, most controlled and pleasurable. If someone is going to do psychedelics, this is the one you should prefer. LSD has more pronounced effects, and mushrooms are harder to regulate. From a "safety" point of view MDMA is preferable.

If I knew someone who wanted to experiment I would like them to get a clinically controlled substance I knew wasn't going to hurt them. I'd give them the best options I could give them.

What's wrong with being realistic?

Zeuzzz

17th November 2009, 09:58 PM

What stops sober people doing this?

I would get high on life.

But I heard its cut with all sorts of crap.

:)

Zeuzzz

17th November 2009, 10:05 PM

Nutt's views are clearly not representative of the scientific consensus on the harms or uses of Benzodiazepines, MDMA or Cannabis.

And why do you say this? I think that you will find that his paper listing the drugs in order of most dangerous to least was published in the Lancet and co-authored by a lot of other respectable scientists, most of which were on the ACMD.

Infact I started an entire thread on this very paper which lists drugs in terms of overall danger when it came out, and everyone seemed to agree with the science and methodology used. If you have problems with it then I sugest reviving the thread to bring up any issues you may have, here it is: Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4219191#post4219191)

Ivor the Engineer

18th November 2009, 02:30 AM

And why do you say this? I think that you will find that his paper listing the drugs in order of most dangerous to least was published in the Lancet and co-authored by a lot of other respectable scientists, most of which were on the ACMD.

Infact I started an entire thread on this very paper which lists drugs in terms of overall danger when it came out, and everyone seemed to agree with the science and methodology used. If you have problems with it then I sugest reviving the thread to bring up any issues you may have, here it is: Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4219191#post4219191)

No, they didn't. Only 29 of the 77 psychiatrists Nutt asked to rate the harmfulness of drugs based on measures Nutt pulled out his ass responded.

This response (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/26_02_09_prof_ac_parrott.pdf) to a BBC journalist by Prof. Parrott addresses the Nutt et al. study:

Relative harm

My ACMD presentation was also concerned with Professor Nutt’s article published in the Lancet (Nutt et al, 2007). This article had attributed very low scores to MDMA on every harm scale, and so concluded that MDMA was one of the least harmful all the recreational drugs (18th out of 20). Unfortunately none of these statements was based on cited reference sources. When I re-scaled these scores using scientific data, then MDMA emerged as the 5th most harmful drug on this list (lower than heroin and cocaine – but broadly similar to some of the other Class A drugs). The Lancet article contains numerous incorrect statements about MDMA. One of the strangest statements made by Nutt et al (2007), was that ecstasy generated less pleasure than smoking a cigarette.

I don't expect you or any other drug users reading this to change your behaviour. After all, you have your anecdotal experiences to base your opinions on.

Zeuzzz

18th November 2009, 03:18 AM

I don't expect you or any other drug users reading this to change your behaviour.

I'm somewhat confused as to why you have to include the term 'drug users' as if its a certain type of person completely different from normal people. If you have ever drunk alcohol, smoked a fag, had a strong cup of coffee or been prescribed psychoactive medications you too are also a drug user. And I'll wager thats just about everyone here.

And I agree with the people before, Mr Parrot is by no means an impartial observer (I have seen him before on TV spouting pseudo-scientific drug scare tactic nonsense for the media) and has made it his mission to a) study the dangers of MDMA without sparing a second of time on its huge benefits and weighing the positive with the negative [as you should with any drug as few drugs have no side effects], b) to back up the govenments position on drugs by telling them what they want and c) to publically slate Nutt et al and all scientists that disagree with his personal conclusions.

And by the way when I said that no-one disagreed with the lancet publication I meant the people in that thread. Please revive it and point out any major errors if you will. But since its been cited over 100 times in the literature I'm sure that other people have already pointed anything you have to say out and improved on the methodology used.

Ivor the Engineer

18th November 2009, 04:27 AM

I'm somewhat confused as to why you have to include the term 'drug users' as if its a certain type of person completely different from normal people. If you have ever drunk alcohol, smoked a fag, had a strong cup of coffee or been prescribed psychoactive medications you too are also a drug user. And I'll wager thats just about everyone here.

Quite correct - I should have been more specific. Whenever I use the term 'drug user' from now on, please read it as meaning 'person who uses a drug or drugs to escape reality rather than deal with it'.

And I agree with the people before, Mr Parrot is by no means an impartial observer (I have seen him before on TV spouting pseudo-scientific drug scare tactic nonsense for the media) and has made it his mission to a) study the dangers of MDMA without sparing a second of time on its huge benefits and weighing the positive with the negative [as you should with any drug as few drugs have no side effects], b) to back up the govenments position on drugs by telling them what they want and c) to publically slate Nutt et al and all scientists that disagree with his personal conclusions.

And by the way when I said that no-one disagreed with the lancet publication I meant the people in that thread. Please revive it and point out any major errors if you will. But since its been cited over 100 times in the literature I'm sure that other people have already pointed anything you have to say out and improved on the methodology used.

MDMA was first synthesised in 1912 by Merck. What are these "huge benefits" you speak of which were not discovered and verified by either the pharmaceutical company or independent medical researchers in the 70+ years before it was made illegal?

I understand why you want to believe a drug you and many others like to abuse is beneficial.

BTW, Parrott has reviewed the therapeutic potential of MDMA:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297639?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=10

The psychotherapeutic potential of MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine): an evidence-based review.

AIMS AND RATIONALE: The purpose of this study was to review whether methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) has the appropriate pharmacodynamic profile to be a therapeutic agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Empirical descriptions of MDMA's subjective effects in humans will be reviewed to evaluate the proposal that MDMA has psychotherapeutic properties. The focus will be published evidence on its functional effects in therapeutic, medical, and other situations. RESULTS: MDMA is a powerful central nervous system (CNS) stimulant which affects several neurotransmitter systems and intensifies a range of psychobiological functions. Its acute mood effects can be very positive and life enhancing, and the affirmative cognitions engendered during MDMA therapy may well endure afterwards. However, MDMA also has a number of potential anti-therapeutic characteristics. Acutely, it can also intensify negative cognitions, and these may similarly endure over time. Psychotherapists have found that setting, intention, and expectancy are crucial for a positive outcome, but these factors cannot be guaranteed. Post-MDMA, there is a period of neurotransmitter recovery when low moods predominate, and these may exacerbate psychiatric distress. The explanations proposed for MDMA-assisted therapy are all psychodynamic, and a neurochemical model needs to be outlined. It has been suggested that enduring therapeutic gains can follow a single session, but again, this lacks a clear psychopharmacological rationale. Finally, diathesis-stress models suggest that psychiatric individuals are more prone to acute and chronic abreactions to CNS stimulants such as MDMA. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of issues which need to be addressed before it can be argued that MDMA might be clinically useful for psychotherapy.

So it looks like use of MDMA in psychotherapeutic context is likely to be a double-edged sword - some people might benefit overall, in others it may result in harm. However, even if MDMA is found to have therapeutic potential, that doesn't imply it is then desirable to allow it to be used recreationally.

quarky

18th November 2009, 07:38 AM

So is porn, cigarettes, food just about anything.The effects are temporary and the potential for abuse is low. At least low in relation to other less controlled things.

Of the psychedelics, it's probably the mildest, most controlled and pleasurable. If someone is going to do psychedelics, this is the one you should prefer. LSD has more pronounced effects, and mushrooms are harder to regulate. From a "safety" point of view MDMA is preferable.

If I knew someone who wanted to experiment I would like them to get a clinically controlled substance I knew wasn't going to hurt them. I'd give them the best options I could give them.

What's wrong with being realistic?

I'm not so sure.

Don't get me wrong...I'm very liberal about the subject matter, and even believe that a drug experience that is only for pleasure should be available. I consider pleasure to be worthwhile in its own right. Escape from reality? That, too. If reality sucks, wanting to escape it is not insane. Going to Disneyland is insane, imho. (Expensive, too.)

That said, I have experienced the negative aspects of mdma. This was before it was illegal, and the compound was pure; doses were measured; setting was excellent. I had the time of my life on it, as did most of the co-experimenters.

My trouble was that I couldn't resist it. The escape was so easy, compared to some other drugs, like lsd, which involve some work. The mdma experience was wonderful, yet the transition is so quick, that it barely explains itself.
This is a great state, but how did I get here? Can I replicate it without the drug? Can I take home any of its insights? Does the 'love' last? If not, can I simply keep taking the drug, like I would with prozac, or some other mood altering substance?

I didn't want to reveal this here, but now I feel obligated:
I took the drug once a week for 2 years. My bad? Sure. But it would have/could have been lots of people's bad had they had the access I had.

The downside was a pronounced anhedonia, after I decided to give it up.
And I decided to give it up because of the accumulative "body load".
There is something of a hangover that I've never felt with lsd, for instance.
The day after was pretty much a write-off, as per getting anything done.
There was a jaw-clamping, teeth grinding aspect, not uncommon.
My urinary tract was affected adversely.

But the real 'rub' for me was that my brain adjusted in a way that disallowed everyday pleasure. It was as if my seratonin dried up, unless I forced its flush with the drug. My brain compensated. I don't think this is unusual.

The depression i experienced after all the fun, was devestating. Nothing would touch it, and I tried almost everything legal, including 4 ssri's.
Sex without mdma was nearly pointless. (Music without lsd also suffered, but it was easier to accept that loss.)

It took 15 years for me to get back to a neutral base state.
Of course, its all anecdotal; and yes, I over did it.

In retrospect, I don't wish I'd never run into mdma...but I wish I had only taken it 3 or 4 times in my life...or, at least, only once a month, or 4 times a year.

I suspect that lots of others would fall into the same pattern of use that I did, if it was available. Yet, I never went to raves, or took amphetamines with it, or double dosed, or drove a car, or danced all night, or any of that sort of thing. In fact, I took notes; marked the time, date, setting, mgs. of drug, method of ingestion, and all that stuff. We were very careful about it; planned ahead; watched nutrition, etc.

Information Analyst

18th November 2009, 08:02 AM

In fairness, mdma use and abuse hasn't been around long enough to get a long view on it.
As far as the supposedly nastier drugs go, in their hey-day, they were widely touted as life changing, in a good way. As tools, rather than life styles, all the nasty drugs are actually the best ones. Its the potential for abuse that wrecks them. Mdma is abusable.
We've now passed the twenty year mark for widespread recreational use in the UK. Less widespread recreational and therapeutic use goes back an additional twenty years.

Information Analyst

18th November 2009, 08:12 AM

Quite correct - I should have been more specific. Whenever I use the term 'drug user' from now on, please read it as meaning 'person who uses a drug or drugs to escape reality rather than deal with it'.
Like people who drink each and every weekend, if not daily, you mean? Your problem is that you keep shifting the goalposts so that you can arbitrarily discount any statement that you do not agree with on no other grounds than how "compromised" you personally think the person making the statment is.

Ivor the Engineer

18th November 2009, 09:16 AM

Like people who drink each and every weekend, if not daily, you mean?

Yes, I'd say those people are abusing alcohol if they are drinking to get drunk or cope with an aspect of reality they find distressing.

Your problem is that you keep shifting the goalposts so that you can arbitrarily discount any statement that you do not agree with on no other grounds than how "compromised" you personally think the person making the statment is.

Your and other drug user's problem (apart from the obvious) is that your basic argument (i.e. alcohol and tobacco are harmful and legal therefore any drugs as or less harmful than them should also be legal) is crap. When this is pointed out to you, you have to pretend that drugs such as MDMA are not only less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, but actually beneficial.

Furcifer

18th November 2009, 09:29 AM

Zeuzzz

18th November 2009, 09:59 AM

but the consequences of abuse are much worse.

In terms of long term health risks Heroin is actually very safe, you can use it for years without causing many health issues, its just very risky and easy to overdose on, thats what you have to be careful of. The dosage people often aim for recreationally can be only three times less than a lethal dose. And of course its very addictive and produces bad (but non fatal) withdrawals. Not as bad as benzodiazepines though which can kill you whilst withdrawing if not tapered correctly.

Ivor the Engineer

18th November 2009, 11:00 AM

In terms of long term health risks Heroin is actually very safe, you can use it for years without causing many health issues, its just very risky and easy to overdose on, thats what you have to be careful of. The dosage people often aim for recreationally can be only three times less than a lethal dose. And of course its very addictive and produces bad (but non fatal) withdrawals. Not as bad as benzodiazepines though which can kill you whilst withdrawing if not tapered correctly.

What? Haven't you been listening to your hero, Prof. Nutt?

http://www.benzo.org.uk/blog/index.php?/archives/127-The-Canonisation-of-Professor-David-Nutt.html

"The (benzodiazepine) withdrawal period lasts between sort of 4 days to a couple of weeks at most I think." Prof. David Nutt, Brain Mechanisms and Treatments of Anxiety Disorders, Lundbeck Institute, November 2005.

“The case for benzodiazepine dependence causing real damage has not been made.” Prof. David Nutt, former chairman of the ACMD.

Zeuzzz

18th November 2009, 11:44 AM

What? Haven't you been listening to your hero, Prof. Nutt?

http://www.benzo.org.uk/blog/index.php?/archives/127-The-Canonisation-of-Professor-David-Nutt.html

I presume that he's talking about long term side effects, in that if there is any long term health damage done and if people return to their normal mental state afterwards. Which they do. Any idiot knows that a fair amount of people have died from having seizures after stopping benzos. But still Heroin is the most dangerous of the two for various other reasons.

Furcifer

18th November 2009, 11:47 AM

In terms of long term health risks Heroin is actually very safe, you can use it for years without causing many health issues, its just very risky and easy to overdose on, thats what you have to be careful of. The dosage people often aim for recreationally can be only three times less than a lethal dose. And of course its very addictive and produces bad (but non fatal) withdrawals. Not as bad as benzodiazepines though which can kill you whilst withdrawing if not tapered correctly.

I'm considering the propensity for abuse. E is no where as addictive. Not even close. There's two apects to consider, the psychedelic and the euphoria. It is very hard to get addicted to psychedelics. If you chase that high you have a very low probability of becoming addicted (but not zero). The chances of a user moving on to a harder drug like LSD are ther, but the chances of becoming addicted to LSD are remote. If a user is chasing a euphoria high E is still less addictive than heroin.

What I would be concerned with is an E user moving on to harder drugs like heroin. It happens, we all know the term "gateway drug". I would suggest that this is the biggest problem with E. That's being realistic. What's also realistic is considering the fact that regulation is a much better way of preventing this from happening. There's simply more benefit to regulation than the current method.

Information Analyst

18th November 2009, 11:42 PM

Yes, I'd say those people are abusing alcohol if they are drinking to get drunk or cope with an aspect of reality they find distressing.
The vagueries of your criteria continue to astound me. People generally drink to get a definite affect from alcohol, even if that doesn't cross into being "drunk," which - to me at least - would equate to a state in which they lose mental and physical control and co-ordination, usually accompanied with nausea at the time. That far exceeds the immediate acute effects of light of moderate MDMA use. Secondly, you seem to be twisting the fact that many people find MDMA use beneficial to their view of the world after use, which is completely diffrent to someone drinking to blot out reality whilst drinking. This isn't the same ballpark. It isn't even the same sport.
Your and other drug user's problem (apart from the obvious) is that your basic argument (i.e. alcohol and tobacco are harmful and legal therefore any drugs as or less harmful than them should also be legal) is crap. When this is pointed out to you, you have to pretend that drugs such as MDMA are not only less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, but actually beneficial.
Your problem is that you flatly refuse to believe that anything you morally disapprove of can be beneficial.

Ivor the Engineer

19th November 2009, 01:47 AM

The vagueries of your criteria continue to astound me. People generally drink to get a definite affect from alcohol, even if that doesn't cross into being "drunk," which - to me at least - would equate to a state in which they lose mental and physical control and co-ordination, usually accompanied with nausea at the time. That far exceeds the immediate acute effects of light of moderate MDMA use. Secondly, you seem to be twisting the fact that many people find MDMA use beneficial to their view of the world after use, which is completely diffrent to someone drinking to blot out reality whilst drinking. This isn't the same ballpark. It isn't even the same sport.

Like I said before, everyone who engage in such habits wants to believe what they are doing is beneficial (or at least not harmful). They are deluding themselves.

Your problem is that you flatly refuse to believe that anything you morally disapprove of can be beneficial.

I have no problem believing drugs which are abused by people such as yourself can be beneficial. For example, my father had great benefit from opiate derivatives while he was dying of cancer. There is research which suggests some types of cannabis may contain chemicals which can relieve psychotic symptoms.

And there's good news today for men who abuse alcohol. New research suggests men who drink heavily reduce their risk of heart disease by 50% or more:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8367141.stm

Alcohol 'protects men's hearts'

Drinking alcohol every day cuts the risk of heart disease in men by more than a third, a major study suggests.

The Spanish research involving more than 15,500 men and 26,000 women found large quantities of alcohol could be even more beneficial for men.

Female drinkers did not benefit to the same extent, the study in Heart found.

quarky

19th November 2009, 08:57 AM

Quarky: That's unfortunate. Abuse of any drug is a problem. Your case is not uncommon, however your drug of choice is. I'd just submit to you that had you substituted any other drug your case would probably be much worse now. There's no saying for sure, but I'm almost certain someone seeking the high from E would almost certainly transition to heroin. Heroin addicts usually function like you've described, but the consequences of abuse are much worse. Just something to consider.

I have to disagree. Using a drug once a week, without escalating dose, is pretty mild abuse by most drug standards. In fact, I can't really think of another drug that would compare. Most coke or heroin or meth bingers use daily, and with ever increasing amounts. Even drinking a bottle of wine once a week would barely qualify as a dangerous habit.

Information Analyst

20th November 2009, 12:04 AM

Like I said before, everyone who engage in such habits wants to believe what they are doing is beneficial (or at least not harmful). They are deluding themselves.This discussion seems to be going round in circles, with you constantly claiming either adverse effects or flatly refusing to acknowledge positive effects, instead falling back on vague generalisations that have as much validity as, "Drugs are bad, m'kay?" Plenty of people have said that their view of the world post-MDMA use has changed for the better, yet you apparently know better.

P.J. Denyer

20th November 2009, 04:20 AM

What I would be concerned with is an E user moving on to harder drugs like heroin. It happens, we all know the term "gateway drug". I would suggest that this is the biggest problem with E. That's being realistic. What's also realistic is considering the fact that regulation is a much better way of preventing this from happening. There's simply more benefit to regulation than the current method.

I'd suggest that this is to a large degree an effect of the drug being illegal.
1) At some point in the supply chain there is likely to be someone with a vested interest in supplying something more addictive to their downstream.
2) Having had a positive experience with one illegal drug many users will doubt the legal stance on others.

I've always felt the gateway drug argument was slightly spurious anyway, for the reasons above and also because it is self selecting and arbitarilly truncated. Can anyone realistically argue that a group which have been selected by their choice to obtain one illegal group are more likely than average to try another? And when back tracking their drug use why stop at E or cannibis or whichever other drug is being discussed at that moment had they experienced caffine before, cigarettes, alcohol?

quarky

20th November 2009, 08:32 AM

Candy cigarettes were my gateway. Yum! Remember their chalky taste?

whatthebutlersaw

20th November 2009, 08:53 AM

Just to update: no, Ivor, it wasn't autism I was thinking of. I have an autistic nephew and he has no problems with empathy. He is perfeclty capable of drawing the conclusion that other people do not function like him, and that this is fine.

I would also like to point out that you are not "accused of bigotry" when you go against the mainstream. Firstly, in this discussion you represent the mainstream, and secondly you get called a bigot when you engage in bigoted behaviour. You asserting that you aren't does not change it.

My musings were far more mundane and do not come with a diagnosis, but from a completely different part of the dictionary. They had more to do with your image of yourself contra reality. You kind of proved my point (at least to me) when you immediatly jumped at the opportunity to label yourself "nearly autistic".

But I really don't follow this thread to get sucked in to a discussion about your favourite subject. (I.e. you) I do however feel the need to point out that for someone who has been hanging around these forums for quite some time you do engage in a lot of goal post moving, well poisoning, flat out assertions without evidence, ad homs and hand waving.

Do you think you are able to engage in this discussion without reserting to calling everyone who opposes you a "drug-user"?

I tend to agree with Nutt, and your opposition in this thread, and I don't engage in anything more potent than coffee. Don't smoke, don't drink and don't do drugs - legal or illegal.

Argue from the facts. Try not to make any of them up. And less with the moral outrage please. The fact that you resort to namecalling (i.e "drug-users") about your opposition, when they clearly are not made up of only people who engage in recreational drugs, really does not speak well for your arguments.

You will get no more attention from me, so savour this.

homer

20th November 2009, 11:38 AM

Furcifer

20th November 2009, 03:19 PM

I have to disagree. Using a drug once a week, without escalating dose, is pretty mild abuse by most drug standards. In fact, I can't really think of another drug that would compare. Most coke or heroin or meth bingers use daily, and with ever increasing amounts. Even drinking a bottle of wine once a week would barely qualify as a dangerous habit.

For E, what you've described could be considered abuse. I'm not familiar with anyone taking it on a regular basis. Especially while trying to function as a working adult. Maybe I misread your post?

Furcifer

20th November 2009, 03:41 PM

1) At some point in the supply chain there is likely to be someone with a vested interest in supplying something more addictive to their downstream.

I've never seen this myself. It seems a little "Hollywood". If it's going to happen the user will seek a new drug from the dealer IMHO.

2) Having had a positive experience with one illegal drug many users will doubt the legal stance on others.

Which leads to experimentation, but not addiction.

I've always felt the gateway drug argument was slightly spurious anyway, for the reasons above and also because it is self selecting and arbitarilly truncated. Can anyone realistically argue that a group which have been selected by their choice to obtain one illegal group are more likely than average to try another? And when back tracking their drug use why stop at E or cannibis or whichever other drug is being discussed at that moment had they experienced caffine before, cigarettes, alcohol?

Well I agree with everything you've said here.

Maybe I wasn't clear with my post before. I was just trying to give Quarky a pat on the back for being honest, and ultimately ending his addiction.

Know your limits and stick within them. If you find yourself caught in a cycle seek treatment. It could be worse and it can get better.

quarky

20th November 2009, 05:18 PM

For E, what you've described could be considered abuse. I'm not familiar with anyone taking it on a regular basis. Especially while trying to function as a working adult. Maybe I misread your post?

I may have mis-read yours.
I'm saying that almost any one with an addiction is using their drug of choice more than once a week. I should think a person could use one of many popular drugs, once a week, without it being particularly problematic...especially if they aren't escalating the quantity. A meth addict doing 30 mgs, once a week, with no other drugs, has a problem barely worth mentioning. Similar for heroin; coke; ethanol; pot; etc.

My mdma experience was telling, in a way, because I couldn't get away with regular use, like one could with other illegal and legal drugs...if they were only using one drug, once a week, same dose.

I stopped because of side effects. The real suffering came from not having that ride anymore. I would have kept up that schedule if the compound didn't have obvious negatives. I wouldn't know how one could taper off from this sort of thing. The mdma ride won't happen at 1/2 the dose. Twice the dose isn't much different than the correct dose.

I think it should be legal. But I think a lot of people would run up against what I did. Feeling the love requires the drug. Love is pretty heady stuff to feel. Making love on mdma regularly, with your spouse, is a hard act to replace. Other drugs (except lsd) don't seem important. The mdma trip is loaded with heady implications. We get to taste an alternate way to feel about each other, and everything seems possible.

And then it must fade away. You don't learn how to 'feel' that way, or be that way. You don't gain control over the release of brain chemicals.
This is the danger. You have to keep with it, like prozac, even if only weekly, or you could get very sad. Yet the side effects are as bad, or worse, than any drug I've met, and I've met quite a few.

Furcifer

20th November 2009, 07:36 PM

I think it should be legal. But I think a lot of people would run up against what I did. Feeling the love requires the drug. Love is pretty heady stuff to feel. Making love on mdma regularly, with your spouse, is a hard act to replace. Other drugs (except lsd) don't seem important. The mdma trip is loaded with heady implications. We get to taste an alternate way to feel about each other, and everything seems possible.

A very insightful term you use here; "heady". I know it well. ;)

I'm going to cut it short and leave it at that for now. I want to say more, but all I can say is yah, I get where you're coming from and I know what you're saying.

quarky

21st November 2009, 07:58 AM

cool

Ivor the Engineer

21st November 2009, 09:13 AM

<snip>

You will get no more attention from me, so savour this.

Please say that's a promise. My world would be just a little brighter if I thought I never had to read another of your banal posts addressing what you think is wrong with me again.

Ivor the Engineer

21st November 2009, 09:28 AM

The worst thing about this whole mess is that it confuses . I don't even know what some of the drugs refered to here are or what they do . One thing that is clear however , is that the present law is failing as we see increasing drug use except for a reduction in cannabis use after it was classified down to class C. This may not be cause and effect of course ,but how does criminalising the victims of drugs help ?
Prohibition was tried in the USA and failed so why imagine the same would work for drugs ?
Surely the money spent on this 'war on drugs 'would be better spent on getting them off drugs ?
Anyhow why bother asking scientists , why not just ring up the Mail , Express etc since they seem to be setting policy here.

I agree with you. I think punishing drug users is often a waste of time. If people are taking drugs obviously they don't enjoy their life or are struggling to cope when they're sober.

I think we should try helping drug users come off drugs and target the dealers and traffickers.

This is what Portugal has actually done, rather than the misrepresentations often given on this forum and in the media:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

Drug policy of Portugal

The drug policy of Portugal regards drug abuse as a matter of public health.

Under Portuguese law, there are no criminal penalties for the personal use of any drug.[1][2] Drug abusers are dealt with by administrative and therapeutic means.[3][4][5]

Regulation

Individuals found in possession of small quantities of drugs are issued summons. The drugs are confiscated, and the suspect is interviewed by a dissuasion commission including a civil servant, a psychiatrist, and an attorney.[7][8] Based on the patterns of drug abuse, the individual may be subject to fines, therapy, or probation.[citation needed]

Drug trafficking remains illegal and is prosecuted.[7]

Zeuzzz

21st November 2009, 12:30 PM

If people are taking drugs obviously they don't enjoy their life or are struggling to cope when they're sober.

Thats clearly rubbish in most cases. Most people use them enhance social or special occasions in my experience.

The only two people that I have met that dont drink or use any drugs due to lifestyle choices (anything whether 5-meo-amt or coffee) suffer from clinical depression.

This is a very vague general statement.

Oh wait, they both get prescribed SSRI's and various anti-despressants. So I guess they do use drugs, really.

Infact I dont think I've met anyone who doesn't use drugs in some way or the other. I bet you use or have used drugs too.

Ivor the Engineer

21st November 2009, 01:08 PM

Thats clearly rubbish in most cases. Most people use them enhance social or special occasions in my experience.

<snip>

Then you must have had some very idiosyncratic experiences. In my experience, a drug such as alcohol is used to cope with stress, anxiety, boost confidence and reduce inhibition by most people most of the time they use it.

Furcifer

21st November 2009, 02:16 PM

Then you must have had some very idiosyncratic experiences. In my experience, a drug such as alcohol is used to cope with stress, anxiety, boost confidence and reduce inhibition by most people most of the time they use it.

If I didn't have a few drinks in me already I'd probably take offense to this. Seeing as that's not the case I just consider you an ol' Fuddy Duddy. :D

I can respect your opinion Ivor because at the heart of it there is genuine concern for people. I don't think you're pulling a "I'm better than you are. neener neener neener" For the most part you are right. I just think it's a little foolish to put everyone up to your standards. Within your own circles I would expect you to maintain this expectation. I'd even encourage it. But I just don't see it as realistic for society as a whole.

In a game of checks and balances you represent the much needed "check". Like I said, I can respect that.

bobdroege7

21st November 2009, 06:15 PM

Anyone know the difference between Ecstasy and MDA?

Furcifer

21st November 2009, 06:20 PM

Anyone know the difference between Ecstasy and MDA?

Ecstassy is MDMA. You can google the D and find out. There's a big difference.

Matthew Best

21st November 2009, 11:04 PM

Then you must have had some very idiosyncratic experiences. In my experience, a drug such as alcohol is used to cope with stress, anxiety, boost confidence and reduce inhibition by most people most of the time they use it.

I think you must have had some very idiosyncratic experiences. In my experience people frequently drink a glass of wine or beer because they like the taste.

Zeuzzz

22nd November 2009, 02:42 PM

Anyone know the difference between Ecstasy and MDA?

Its a metabolite of MDMA, a lot of MDMAs effects come on when the MDMA is broken down into MDA. There are numerous other metabolites of MDMA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Pharmacokinetics

I think that MDAI (5,6-Methylenedioxy-2-aminoindane) is thought to be another. Or this may be another synthetic product from the Nichols et al purdue laboratory. Its like MDMA but instead of being a stimulant and empathogen is nearly entirely empathogenic.

dtugg

22nd November 2009, 04:59 PM

Zeuzzz

22nd November 2009, 05:14 PM

I just noticed and read through this thread. I just want to say that I was a regular ecstasy user for about six years (haven't used it in almost a year). Only FSM knows how many pills I've taken, probably several hundred. And this was often mixed with other drugs, most notably LSD and/or ketamine. I do not suffer from any negative long term side effects. None at all. Nor, to my knowlege do any of dozens of my friends who have used the stuff. And short term side effects for me were mildly unpleasant at most, although I know that some people feel like total crap for for a day or two after taking ecstasy. I know one kid who took about 100 pills over five day or so. He was definitely screwed up for a while after that although he eventually returned to normal. But he was an idiot. The vast ecstasy users are much more responsible.

There is no good reason whatsover for MDMA to be illegal. At least with drugs like heroin are very dangerous and addictive. MDMA is extremely safe as far as psychoactive drugs are concerned and is not addictive.

You'll be very conforted by this guys use then, truly ridiculous. Shows that it does have a psychological addiction hazard for some people, and also shows that its effects are no where near as toxic as you often hear.

40,000 pills is a titanic amount to take of any pill and still be alive at the end of it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/apr/04/drugsandalcohol.drugs1

The strange case of the man who took 40,000 ecstasy pills in nine years

· Usage increased to 25 tablets a day at peak
· Memory problems and paranoia may be lasting

Doctors from London University have revealed details of what they believe is the largest amount of ecstasy ever consumed by a single person. Consultants from the addiction centre at St George's Medical School, London, have published a case report of a British man estimated to have taken around 40,000 pills of MDMA, the active ingredient in ecstasy, over nine years. The heaviest previous lifetime intake on record is 2,000 pills.

Though the man, who is now 37, stopped taking the drug seven years ago, he still suffers from severe physical and mental health side-effects, including extreme memory problems, paranoia, hallucinations and depression. He also suffers from painful muscle rigidity around his neck and jaw which often prevents him from opening his mouth. The doctors believe many of these symptoms may be permanent.

The man, known as Mr A in the report in the scientific journal Psychosomatics, started using ecstasy at 21. For the first two years his use was an average of five pills per weekend. Gradually this escalated until he was taking around three and a half pills a day. At the peak, the man was taking an estimated 25 pills every day for four years. After several severe collapses at parties, Mr A decided to stop taking ecstasy. For several months, he still felt he was under the influence of the drug, despite being bedridden.

dtugg

22nd November 2009, 05:20 PM

Yeah, I've heard of that guy. Totally ridiculous. Even still, I wonder how much of that long term damage was caused by MDMA and how much was caused by other drugs that may have been present in the pills he took.

CriticalSock

23rd November 2009, 02:28 AM

CriticalSock

23rd November 2009, 02:48 AM

I'm not so sure.

Don't get me wrong...I'm very liberal about the subject matter, and even believe that a drug experience that is only for pleasure should be available. I consider pleasure to be worthwhile in its own right. Escape from reality? That, too. If reality sucks, wanting to escape it is not insane. Going to Disneyland is insane, imho. (Expensive, too.)

That said, I have experienced the negative aspects of mdma. This was before it was illegal, and the compound was pure; doses were measured; setting was excellent. I had the time of my life on it, as did most of the co-experimenters.

My trouble was that I couldn't resist it. The escape was so easy, compared to some other drugs, like lsd, which involve some work. The mdma experience was wonderful, yet the transition is so quick, that it barely explains itself.
This is a great state, but how did I get here? Can I replicate it without the drug? Can I take home any of its insights? Does the 'love' last? If not, can I simply keep taking the drug, like I would with prozac, or some other mood altering substance?

I didn't want to reveal this here, but now I feel obligated:
I took the drug once a week for 2 years. My bad? Sure. But it would have/could have been lots of people's bad had they had the access I had.

The downside was a pronounced anhedonia, after I decided to give it up.
And I decided to give it up because of the accumulative "body load".
There is something of a hangover that I've never felt with lsd, for instance.
The day after was pretty much a write-off, as per getting anything done.
There was a jaw-clamping, teeth grinding aspect, not uncommon.
My urinary tract was affected adversely.

But the real 'rub' for me was that my brain adjusted in a way that disallowed everyday pleasure. It was as if my seratonin dried up, unless I forced its flush with the drug. My brain compensated. I don't think this is unusual.

The depression i experienced after all the fun, was devestating. Nothing would touch it, and I tried almost everything legal, including 4 ssri's.
Sex without mdma was nearly pointless. (Music without lsd also suffered, but it was easier to accept that loss.)

It took 15 years for me to get back to a neutral base state.
Of course, its all anecdotal; and yes, I over did it.

In retrospect, I don't wish I'd never run into mdma...but I wish I had only taken it 3 or 4 times in my life...or, at least, only once a month, or 4 times a year.

I suspect that lots of others would fall into the same pattern of use that I did, if it was available. Yet, I never went to raves, or took amphetamines with it, or double dosed, or drove a car, or danced all night, or any of that sort of thing. In fact, I took notes; marked the time, date, setting, mgs. of drug, method of ingestion, and all that stuff. We were very careful about it; planned ahead; watched nutrition, etc.

Glad you were able to break the cycle Quarky. Strangely I've been going through something similiar. I've been playing online games for about 6 years and getting progressively more overweight and out of shape all the time. Last month I finally bit the bullet and got rid of my World of Warcraft account and sold my PC. Since then I've been depressed, sleeping badly, irritable... the works! I just hope that I can start enjoying the gym, because up to now it's just been hell.

Ivor the Engineer

23rd November 2009, 03:25 AM

You mean like when you have a headache and take an Aspirin?

Are you saying people take MDMA to get relief from the emotional pain of everyday life?

Zeuzzz

23rd November 2009, 06:18 AM

Are you saying people take MDMA to get relief from the emotional pain of everyday life?

To just butt in and give my perspective quick...

Some people will find MDMA works for this if they are not completely content with themselves or suffer from depression or another mild mental illness, whether social anxiety or chronic lethargy. The relief it gives people to be able to relax and be at peace while contemplating issues that usually evoke a plethora of unwanted negative emotional feelings and mental blocks is a very handy tool for many minor mentall illnesses, the negative emotions seem to vanish and the person can be open and frank with themselves in situations where they may have been in self denial, or their mind blocking the answers or memories. Thats why it seems to help people with PTSD so much.

It all depends on the set and setting however. If (as is common practice) someone were to take MDMA in a club and just jump around dancing all night due to its music enhancing qualities they will learn very little and will not know this side of MDMA. But sit down in a quiet place with a group of mates and usually within a while of ingestion everyones talking about things they usually wouldn't, they might appologise for something that they never occured to them needed an appology before, tell people how much they mean to them, these things tend to be things that have been on their mind for ages yet they did not really realise. It brings people closer.

When the average person who has no mental illness uses MDMA the results are pretty much the same, but they may be less profound as they are already in a relatively happy place.

The trouble is that some people use too much of it in one go, or use pills they have not tested and so use too much. This can create a very bad following few days and the positive effects of that night can be wasted by the subsequently caused depression. In responsible doses however this is not usually an issue.

quarky

23rd November 2009, 09:01 AM

I had the dubious honor of turning many people on to their first mdma experience.
You could almost set your watch for the moment (roughly 45 minutes after ingestion) when the person(s) would have an immense wave of empathy.

What an odd thing! Prior to these experiments, I considered empathy to be too abstract an emotion to be turned on or off by a chemical. In an odd way, it almost made humanity feel cheap; predictable.

Some strange anecdotes of my experience:

Out of possibly 40 people, one guy, a good friend, and the smartest, most competent person I know, had an absolute bummer on it.

One other person, a woman, and possibly the happiest, most open person I know, had absolutely no effects from the drug.

The wooiest observation I had:

When the 'shift' happened, it was the whole world that shifted. It happened every time.
Dogs that had been barking, stopped barking. Dogs that were normally unfriendly would come up to the gang and lie down next to us. A chainsaw in the background would stop running. A motor boat on the river, where we normally went during these experiments, would turn off the motor and drift down river.

After several hours of sublime peace, all the normal 'negative' aspects of the audio/visual world would return. The dogs would bark again. The chainsaw would start up again. The motor boat would star its engine and come up-river.

A shift of the assembledge point?

Zeuzzz

23rd November 2009, 10:54 AM

What an odd thing! Prior to these experiments, I considered empathy to be too abstract an emotion to be turned on or off by a chemical. In an odd way, it almost made humanity feel cheap; predictable.

It is very odd indeed, and very fascinating too that we now have medications that can consistantly (seemingly) turn on or off a very specific emotion. In fact I dont think that there are any other other drugs that consistantly trigger the same type of very specific and complex emotional responce nearly every time. I haven't heard of a drug that suddenly makes you jealous say.

Shulgin said that MDMA was like a looking glass that enabled you to see the world the way it 'really is' without all the hassle of thinking in our deeply entrenched separatist ways. Not sure I agree with him tbh, but I can see his perspective. In our culture we've been trained trained for individual differences to stand out, you look at someone and you immediatly think, brighter, dumber, taller, richer, poorer, and lump them into different categories and treat them this way. We get so that we only see others as separate from ourselves in the ways in which they are separate. He said that one of the remarkable things about the MDMA experience is suddenly seeing the ways in which people are like you and not different from you. Some people are blind to this perspective, and the mode of thought MDMA can offer is extremely beneficial. However some people seem to have mastered this already without the need for MDMA. So I can see why it would not work on some people.

Zeuzzz

23rd November 2009, 01:59 PM

Also MDMA has a very odd knack of turning electronic music like this mix I uploaded to youtube into what sounds like an absolute genious musical masterpiece.

OlqBFc8Oaik

Ivor the Engineer

23rd November 2009, 02:14 PM

It doesn't concern you that your understanding is based on psychodynamic theories?

Ambrosia

23rd November 2009, 03:34 PM

Just thought I'd add my thruppence worth to this thread..

Ivor: have you ever taken any drugs of any kind whatsoever? It strikes me as odd to be so anti-drugs.

Drugs are everywhere, people drink tea/coffee in the mornings, drink alcohol, eat chocolate or neck a sugary soda, smoke cigarettes/cigars, sprinkle nutmeg on their egg nog, eat fiery chilli, etc etc etc, why? because it's FUN!

All drugs - in fact everything you ingest will have some impact on your lifespan. Most activities you do carry risk, the question is, is the benefit worth the risk?

"illegal drugs" have a positive impact on the world we all live in that many anti drugs proponents don't seem to acknowledge, most of the music that enriches peoples lives every day was produced by people who were high on something, the Beatles were so high they let Ringo sing a couple of tunes...

To get back on topic(ish) I am a fan of "Underworld" and the majority of their early albums were written whilst the band were high on ecstacy. I am pretty sure (though I can't prove it) that there are people who enjoy Underworlds music that have never taken illicit drugs.

I really dislike the fact that I live in a country where the government continues to ignore science in pursuing drug policy, and just flat out refuses to have a grown up debate on drugs in general.

quarky

23rd November 2009, 05:45 PM

Also MDMA has a very odd knack of turning electronic music like this mix I uploaded to youtube into what sounds like an absolute genious musical masterpiece.

OlqBFc8Oaik

I'm never understood the music and dancing part of the trip. Must be a generational thing. None of my peers get it, either. We mostly got immobilized, in a puddle of love. That sort of music reminds me of meth. No offense, but its very odd to me. In fact, I never thought of mdma as enhancing music at all.
(Acid, for sure.)

Furcifer

23rd November 2009, 06:10 PM

I'm never understood the music and dancing part of the trip. Must be a generational thing. None of my peers get it, either. We mostly got immobilized, in a puddle of love. That sort of music reminds me of meth. No offense, but its very odd to me. In fact, I never thought of mdma as enhancing music at all.
(Acid, for sure.)

I wouldn't say it "enhanced" music. I'd say it facilitated an understanding and friendship you otherwise might not experience. It's easier to come to an agreement. If your scene was hanging out, then that's what it was. If it was raving, that's what it was. If it was getting in a fight, not your scene.

Zeuzzz

23rd November 2009, 06:16 PM

That sort of music reminds me of meth. No offense, but its very odd to me. In fact, I never thought of mdma as enhancing music at all.

Well that is most bizarre, repetitive electronic music sounds great on ecstasy. What I find happens with music like that (that I could not bear before I heard it on MDMA) is that the main beat goes into your subconscious and you instead listen to all the melodies around the beat, whilst your body is in sort of mutualistic symbiosis with the pulse of the music and really feels like it needs to move to the rhythm. Before when I listened to that sort of music the repetitive drum beat just stayed very consiously there, and would not go away making it sound rather annoying. But ever since hearing it on MDMA I have been able to bear the Drum and Bass genre, and now positively love it infact. And I have yet to find a person that does not share a huge boost in music appreciation whilst under the influence.

Have you actually been in a situation where you were using MDMA in a place with prominent music playing? Or was it not usually taken in that environment?

Also why would you say meth music for that style? (as in methamphetamine I presume, not bk-pmma [methedrone])

This song might be more to your fancy. Loove the original just as much as this DnB remix of it. Hit the road jack - Ray Charles

NFg8hgrJL7E

Prometheus

23rd November 2009, 06:29 PM

Zeuzzz

23rd November 2009, 06:30 PM

I've gone off on one now. Cant stop listening to music as I was at a party earlier and indulged in some 4-Fluoroamphetamine as I have not drunk any alcohol for an entire week now (nearly unheard of for a student) and it was extremely enjoyable, not quite comparable to MDMA but similar in many regards. Sinobright Soho based pharamaceuticals never disappoint :)

This is a cracker of an MDMA type electronic track if I ever heard one.

0prFicLgXxw

Zeuzzz

23rd November 2009, 10:51 PM

This is an excellent summary of events so far, the first studies in america have been done but not yet published and the scientists doing the study are in this clip giving a lecture to try to persuade the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK to also take part in the study.

QBpU9cYivw4

Lets hope the govenment does not get in the way of this one.

Ivor the Engineer

24th November 2009, 02:23 AM

Just thought I'd add my thruppence worth to this thread..

Ivor: have you ever taken any drugs of any kind whatsoever? It strikes me as odd to be so anti-drugs.

I drink alcohol socially three times a week, a total of about 5 units. If I’m alone I don’t drink alcohol at all. If I’m going to drive within 2 hours of my last sip I don’t drink. The most I consume in any one day is 4 units (Christmas and Birthdays). I don’t drink while skiing down a mountain. If there is evidence that the amount of alcohol I consume is, on balance, significantly* harmful, I’ll cut down my consumption or stop drinking alcohol completely.

Drugs are everywhere, people drink tea/coffee in the mornings, drink alcohol, eat chocolate or neck a sugary soda, smoke cigarettes/cigars, sprinkle nutmeg on their egg nog, eat fiery chilli, etc etc etc, why? because it's FUN!

Argument from equivocation.

All drugs - in fact everything you ingest will have some impact on your lifespan. Most activities you do carry risk, the question is, is the benefit worth the risk?

What information do you use to assess the benefits and the risks? Is it from a reliable source?

"illegal drugs" have a positive impact on the world we all live in that many anti drugs proponents don't seem to acknowledge, most of the music that enriches peoples lives every day was produced by people who were high on something, the Beatles were so high they let Ringo sing a couple of tunes...

To get back on topic(ish) I am a fan of "Underworld" and the majority of their early albums were written whilst the band were high on ecstacy. I am pretty sure (though I can't prove it) that there are people who enjoy Underworlds music that have never taken illicit drugs.

Correlation is not causation.

I really dislike the fact that I live in a country where the government continues to ignore science in pursuing drug policy, and just flat out refuses to have a grown up debate on drugs in general.

When the people on the other side of the debate behave like out of control children, it’s hardly surprising the government refuses to debate the issue.

*E.g., non-drinkers living significantly longer than light drinkers.

CriticalSock

24th November 2009, 02:47 AM

Are you saying people take MDMA to get relief from the emotional pain of everyday life?

This was your original comment:

Quite correct - I should have been more specific. Whenever I use the term 'drug user' from now on, please read it as meaning 'person who uses a drug or drugs to escape reality rather than deal with it'.

An aspirin doesn't cure a headache, it just masks the symptoms, while your body does whatever it does to recover. You take the aspirin to escape the reality of your body's repair process.

My point was that your definition of "drug user" includes the mundane aspirin taker. Your attempt to create a demonic group of people, who through selfish venal depravity are destroying society and themselves is FAR too broad in its scope.

Yes, there are people who's lives have been ruined by drugs, and people who have ruined the peoples lives around them by their use of drugs, but they are a small subset of the group "drug users", a group to which you also belong. (assuming you take aspirin).

I know that some people in this thread are arguing that not only is ecstasy not harmful, but it is actually beneficial. I can't make that argument as I don't have the facts. My argument, and Professor Nutts argument that we started this thread with is (as I understand it):

Society accepts drinking
Society accepts smoking
Society accepts horse riding

Even though they cause a degree of harm to individuals and to society.

Society does not accept Ecstasy

Even though it causes less harm to individuals and to society than the above activities. I don't think Prof. Nutt mentioned drinking and smoking in his report, but I've included them because the degree of harm from their use is way higher than Ecstasy or horse riding!

Ivor the Engineer

24th November 2009, 04:03 AM

Zeuzzz

24th November 2009, 05:27 AM

If there is evidence that the amount of alcohol I consume is, on balance, significantly* harmful, I’ll cut down my consumption or stop drinking alcohol completely.

Whereas there is not much debate that ethanol is quite well tollerated by the body some of the the metabolites of alcohol - acetyldehyde for example, is very toxic as its metabolism is intracellular, and so stresses the effected cells. Alcohol is also very bad for people deficient in vitamin B1 (there is a syndrome name for this but I forget). The thing about alcohol is that it is a very vague drug in terms of the brain receptors it effects, it hits nearly all major receptors to some extent, each of which stimulate the release of numerous neurochemicals.

A very interesting publication from your favorite guy, Prof Nutt was published a while back on this issue;

Alcohol Alternatives: A Goal for Psychopharmacology (2006)
The Journal of Psychopharmacology 2006 May;20(3):327-8

Drug misuse is the leading preventable cause of excess mortality
and morbidity with tobacco being the main mortality culprit as it
results in over 100 000 deaths per year in the UK (Foresight,
2005). However alcohol is a growing problem worldwide that
some believe may have already overtaken tobacco in terms of
overall health and social care costs because of the consequences of
intoxication, such as accidents, with subsequent medical complications
(Room et al., 2005). Faced with the huge role of tobacco
in illness causation, a number of health improvement or harm
reduction strategies have been implemented. Initial efforts focused
on the reduction of the cancer producing tar content in tobacco
and more recently substitute nicotine delivery systems with
reduced health consequences such as nicotine gum, patches and
lozenges have become readily available. In addition buproprion
(Zyban) has been licensed as an aid in smoking cessation where it
works possibly by reducing craving or depression during the quit
attempt (see Lingford-Hughes et al., 2004). Could similar
approaches be used for alcohol? To some extent the drug relapseprevention
approach is already available as both acamprosate and
naltrexone have been shown to be helpful in this (see Lingford-
Hughes et al., 2004). But could we make a safer alcohol – or a
substitute drug alternative? Here we examine the options in the
light of the lessons learnt from tobacco.

The toxic element in alcohol is ethanol, a two carbon chain
alcohol that has a complex pharmacology (Lingford-Hughes and
Nutt, 2003). The sedative, ataxic and eventually terminal anaesthetic
actions are thought to be mediated by interactions with
primary amino acid ionotropic receptors especially GABA-A and
glutamate. Ethanol acts as a GABA-A agonist so increasing
central inhibition and as antagonist at the NMDA type of glutamate
receptors so reducing central excitation. The pleasurable
effects are probably in part due to these interactions but may also
involve interactions with endogenous opioids, dopamine and other
amine systems. Aspects of alcohol toxicity may reflect specific
interactions e.g. the nausea is in part due to agonist actions at the
5HT3 receptor leading to vagal nerve stimulation.
How can these effects be reduced or abolished?

[...] Perhaps the Foresight report will encourage some ambitious pharma companies to take up this challenge and try to make a safer alcohol, and use this to challenge the current regulatory barriers. The benefits to society could be so profound that legislative change might be readily produced!

It also increases risks of cancer in various areas.

Moderate Alcohol Consumption and Cancer
Klim McPherson
Annals of Epidemiology

Abstract

Alcohol consumption may increase the risk for at least six types of cancer, although the evidence is not uniformly strong. Alcohol is not a carcinogen in standard tests but is likely a cocarcinogen, at least in the digestive tract. The strongest association is with cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx (seven-fold increase for heavy consumption). For moderate consumption (2–3 drinks/day for men and 1–2 drinks/day for women), the risks never increase above twofold and are mostly less than 25% above baseline. The evidence from the epidemiological literature suggests that 25g/d of alcohol is associated with a relative risk of 1.9 for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, 1.4 for cancers of the esophagus and larynx, about 10% for colorectal cancer (mechanisms unclear), and 20% for liver cancer (mechanisms well described). The association between alcohol and breast cancer is not strong and not necessarily causative, at least for moderate consumption.

In the United Kingdom, cancer deaths attributable to alcohol consumption above the recommended limits (caused mostly by colorectal cancer) are maximal for men aged 65 to 74 years and for women at ages 75 to 84 years. It is postulated that if everyone in the United Kingdom drank “sensibly,” there would be a marked increase in cancer deaths.

And compared to other drugs alcohol has quite a low LD50 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose) making the chances of overdosing on it far more likely than many other drugs.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-toxicity-of-recreational-drugs/1
The most toxic recreational drugs, such as GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) and heroin, have a lethal dose less than 10 times their typical effective dose. The largest cluster of substances has a lethal dose that is 10 to 20 times the effective dose: These include cocaine, MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, often called “ecstasy”) and alcohol. A less toxic group of substances, requiring 20 to 80 times the effective dose to cause death, include Rohypnol (flunitrazepam or “roofies”) and mescaline (peyote cactus). The least physiologically toxic substances, those requiring 100 to 1,000 times the effective dose to cause death, include psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana, when ingested. I’ve found no published cases in the English language that document deaths from smoked marijuana, so the actual lethal dose is a mystery.

http://het.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/251
The neurotoxicity of alcohol
Clive Harper

Department of Pathology, Blackburn Building, D06, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; cliveh@med.usyd.edu.au

Patterns of drinking are changing throughout the world and in many countries this will be detrimental to the health and welfare of the local population. Even uncomplicated alcoholics who have no specific neurological or hepatic problems show signs of regional brain damage and cognitive dysfunction. Many of these changes are exaggerated and other brain regions damaged in patients who have additional vitamin B1 (thiamine) deficiency (Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome). Quantitative neuropathology techniques and improvements in neuroimaging have contributed significantly to the documentation of these changes but mechanisms underlying the damage are not understood.
My surmise is that smoking marijuana
is more risky than eating it but still
safer than getting drunk.[/quote]

Information Analyst

24th November 2009, 08:05 AM

I drink alcohol socially three times a week, a total of about 5 units.
That's more than I would drink in three months. Still, each to their own, eh?

Information Analyst

24th November 2009, 08:12 AM

Can you tell the difference between people who have taken aspirin and those who have not from their overt behaviour?
You could if they had both previously complained of having a headache, by virtue of whether they still seemed to suffering from the symptoms of one.
Can you tell the difference between people who have taken MDMA and those who have not from their overt behaviour?
Depending on the setting, I would say that most people would not be able to tell that someone was on a low to moderate does of MDMA. It's probably on a par with someone who has had half a pint to a pint of beer in that respect.

Zeuzzz

24th November 2009, 09:44 AM

Depending on the setting, I would say that most people would not be able to tell that someone was on a low to moderate does of MDMA. It's probably on a par with someone who has had half a pint to a pint of beer in that respect.

I'd agree with this, they'd more likely think you were a naturally happy outgoing confident person than under the influence of a drug. Its amzingly easy to get along with just about anyone using MDMA and not really seem like your intoxicated in any way. As long as you dont do more than the recommended dosage and end up hugging every random person in sight. Your pupils might give it away as they can get quite large. But it does not produce very socially noticeable side effects like loss of balance, violance, or slurring of speech like alcohol does, quite the opposite infact, maybe as its a CNS stimulant not depressant.

quarky

24th November 2009, 05:03 PM

Well that is most bizarre, repetitive electronic music sounds great on ecstasy. What I find happens with music like that (that I could not bear before I heard it on MDMA) is that the main beat goes into your subconscious and you instead listen to all the melodies around the beat, whilst your body is in sort of mutualistic symbiosis with the pulse of the music and really feels like it needs to move to the rhythm. Before when I listened to that sort of music the repetitive drum beat just stayed very consiously there, and would not go away making it sound rather annoying. But ever since hearing it on MDMA I have been able to bear the Drum and Bass genre, and now positively love it infact. And I have yet to find a person that does not share a huge boost in music appreciation whilst under the influence.

Have you actually been in a situation where you were using MDMA in a place with prominent music playing? Or was it not usually taken in that environment?

Also why would you say meth music for that style? (as in methamphetamine I presume, not bk-pmma [methedrone])

This song might be more to your fancy. Loove the original just as much as this DnB remix of it. Hit the road jack - Ray Charles

NFg8hgrJL7E

I listened to the links. I must say, I don't get it. Sure don't want to alienate you, as you may be one of very few here that dig my ramblings...but the thing that is so odd to me is more than a simple matter of musical tastes:
Its that the electronica stuff is sort of the antithesis of the mdma 'groove', in my world. Its more of a mental peace kind of place to me, and the fast, repetitious, computery music is the opposite vibe.

When raves started happening (never been to one) I was quite baffled that the drug sort of led to that for the younger gang. I could only imagine dealing with that type of scene on speed, maybe. The other old fart psychonauts I know have also expressed their bewilderment about this.

At first I thought they must be taking something else, because it seemed so incongruent. But I have resolved that its a generation gap phenomena.
I'm not a prude, and I like most types of music, and even play a wild stratocaster at 160 bpm's...but never on mdma.

Its all quite subjective, and I'll add this for the sake of more anecdotal data:
We always rolled in a safe place with natural beauty and privacy; mostly on a river bank in the mountains. In more than 100 episodes with mdma, I've never not had sex. Perhaps that's why it tended to go the direction it went.

For what its worth, I was also a major acid-head, and never wanted to make love on it.

CriticalSock

25th November 2009, 04:09 AM

I listened to the links. I must say, I don't get it. Sure don't want to alienate you, as you may be one of very few here that dig my ramblings...but the thing that is so odd to me is more than a simple matter of musical tastes:
Its that the electronica stuff is sort of the antithesis of the mdma 'groove', in my world. Its more of a mental peace kind of place to me, and the fast, repetitious, computery music is the opposite vibe.

When raves started happening (never been to one) I was quite baffled that the drug sort of led to that for the younger gang. I could only imagine dealing with that type of scene on speed, maybe. The other old fart psychonauts I know have also expressed their bewilderment about this.

At first I thought they must be taking something else, because it seemed so incongruent. But I have resolved that its a generation gap phenomena.
I'm not a prude, and I like most types of music, and even play a wild stratocaster at 160 bpm's...but never on mdma.

Its all quite subjective, and I'll add this for the sake of more anecdotal data:
We always rolled in a safe place with natural beauty and privacy; mostly on a river bank in the mountains. In more than 100 episodes with mdma, I've never not had sex. Perhaps that's why it tended to go the direction it went.

For what its worth, I was also a major acid-head, and never wanted to make love on it.

Have you tried listening to Sigur Ros on Ecstasy? O. M. F. G.

CriticalSock

25th November 2009, 04:40 AM

Yet more argument through equivocation.

Can you tell the difference between people who have taken aspirin and those who have not from their overt behaviour?

Can you tell the difference between people who have taken MDMA and those who have not from their overt behaviour?

Equivocation Fallacy
Explanation
The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.

How is what I said equivocating? You're the one who has variable definitions for the term "drug user".

I maintain that your definition of drug user includes both users of Aspirin and Ecstasy. Whether it's possible to tell the difference between people who have taken one kind of drug and those who have not from their overt behaviour is irrelevant.

Ivor the Engineer

25th November 2009, 05:24 AM

Information Analyst

25th November 2009, 06:36 AM

The equivocation is in trying to equate

"I have a headache. I'll take an aspirin to relieve the pain."

and

"I want to radically alter my perception of reality. I'll take some MDMA."

The type and degree of perceptual change is totally different.
Define what the "radically alter(ed) perception of reality" to be in this context.

Cuddles

25th November 2009, 07:03 AM

Recreational drug use is a less than zero-sum game. The heavier the usage, higher the highs and lower the lows are, the more negative the sum. In general, changing your perception of the world with drugs does not make your lot better - only effort and luck can do that.

I drink alcohol socially three times a week, a total of about 5 units.

So it finally comes out. Ivor is in fact a drug abuser and by his own arguments should be ridiculed for wasting his life in a less than zero-sum game trying to escape from reality.

I don't expect coherency from Ivor at the best of times, but this has turned out to be one of the funniest threads I've seen in a long time.

Ivor the Engineer

25th November 2009, 07:09 AM

Define what the "radically alter(ed) perception of reality" to be in this context.

http://www.enotes.com/drugs-substances-encyclopedia/ecstasy-mdma

In his book Illegal Drugs: A Complete Guide to Their History, Chemistry, Use and Abuse, Paul M. Gahlinger quoted a frequent ecstasy user who said: "E makes shirtless, disgusting men, a club with broken bathrooms, a deejay that plays crap, and vomiting into a trash can the best night of your life."

Ivor the Engineer

25th November 2009, 07:27 AM

So it finally comes out. Ivor is in fact a drug abuser and by his own arguments should be ridiculed for wasting his life in a less than zero-sum game trying to escape from reality.

I don't expect coherency from Ivor at the best of times, but this has turned out to be one of the funniest threads I've seen in a long time.

I don't drink to get drunk or relax (i.e. escape reality) - in fact I often don't drink alcohol at all when I go out since I'm usually the person driving. 'Social' drinking for me is usually with family members in their or my home and limited to a glass (125ml) of red wine (about 1.6 units). On special occasions I may have a glass of Champagne as well. In total I never exceed 4 units in any one 'session' lasting several hours.

The health benefits and risks of low to moderate alcohol consumption have been well researched. Here's a summary:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/alcohol-full-story/index.html

Can you (or anyone else) provide a summary of the health benefits of using MDMA in a typical recreational setting? I don't think you can because there aren't any - MDMA used in this way is only harmful to health.

dtugg

25th November 2009, 08:18 AM

You've never been drunk in your life, ever?

Information Analyst

25th November 2009, 08:20 AM

http://www.enotes.com/drugs-substances-encyclopedia/ecstasy-mdmaIn his book Illegal Drugs: A Complete Guide to Their History, Chemistry, Use and Abuse, Paul M. Gahlinger quoted a frequent ecstasy user who said: "E makes shirtless, disgusting men, a club with broken bathrooms, a deejay that plays crap, and vomiting into a trash can the best night of your life."
You could say the same for alcohol, but even so, it's not an answer to my question. How do you personally think MDMA ""radically alter(s) perception of reality"?

Ivor the Engineer

25th November 2009, 08:23 AM

You've never been drunk in your life, ever?

No.

The most I've ever drunk (when I was 17 and doing my A-levels) was 4 pints of beer ETA: over about 3-4 hours. Just made me very chatty and, the next day, feel slightly ill. This is when I learned abusing alcohol is a less than zero-sum game.

Ivor the Engineer

25th November 2009, 08:32 AM

You could say the same for alcohol, but even so, it's not an answer to my question. How do you personally think MDMA ""radically alter(s) perception of reality"?

Quarky has provided another description:

<snip>

The wooiest observation I had:

When the 'shift' happened, it was the whole world that shifted. It happened every time.
Dogs that had been barking, stopped barking. Dogs that were normally unfriendly would come up to the gang and lie down next to us. A chainsaw in the background would stop running. A motor boat on the river, where we normally went during these experiments, would turn off the motor and drift down river.

After several hours of sublime peace, all the normal 'negative' aspects of the audio/visual world would return. The dogs would bark again. The chainsaw would start up again. The motor boat would star its engine and come up-river.

A shift of the assembledge point?

Will that do or is this a "how do you know until you've tried it" line of argument?

dtugg

25th November 2009, 08:41 AM

No.

The most I've ever drunk (when I was 17 and doing my A-levels) was 4 pints of beer ETA: over about 3-4 hours. Just made me very chatty and, the next day, feel slightly ill.This is when I learned abusing alcohol is a less than zero-sum game.

OK, you can say that's true (for yourself) since you've drank enough to at least effects a little.

Before you said:

Recreational drug use is a less than zero-sum game.

How could you possible know this is true for MDMA since you've (presumable) never used it before?

Ivor the Engineer

25th November 2009, 09:06 AM

<snip>

How could you possible know this is true for MDMA since you've (presumable) never used it before?

From reading the physical harm it does to users.

Or is the claim now that (for example) a MDMA users mood goes from 'normal' to 'loved-up' and back to 'normal' again with no unpleasant side-effects either side of the 'loved-up' phase, such as hyperthermia, jaw clenching and low-mood?

For more information, see here (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/821572-overview).

dtugg

25th November 2009, 09:08 AM

From reading the physical harm it does to users.

Or is the claim now that (for example) a MDMA users mood goes from 'normal' to 'loved-up' and back to 'normal' again with no unpleasant side-effects either side of the 'loved-up' phase, such as hyperthermia, jaw clenching and low-mood?

For more information, see here (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/821572-overview).

I've taken hundreds of ecstasy pills. It hasn't done any physical harm to me.

Ivor the Engineer

25th November 2009, 09:14 AM

I've taken hundreds of ecstasy pills. It hasn't done any physical harm to me.

How do you know that it hasn't done you physical harm?

For example, most drinkers don't know they've damaged their liver.

CriticalSock

25th November 2009, 09:15 AM

The equivocation is in trying to equate

"I have a headache. I'll take an aspirin to relieve the pain."

and

"I want to radically alter my perception of reality. I'll take some MDMA."

The type and degree of perceptual change is totally different.

That's not the argument that you were originally pursuing though. We're not talking about degrees of effect. You stated:

Quite correct - I should have been more specific. Whenever I use the term 'drug user' from now on, please read it as meaning 'person who uses a drug or drugs to escape reality rather than deal with it'.

Can you agree that this is a bad definition of a drug user, in that it doesn't convey your actual meaning in that it includes both Aspirin takers and Ecstasy takers?

I think the reason you're avoiding this is because any harsher definition such as "destroys lives" or "crippling addiction" will end up excluding Ecstasy. And that's the whole point of Prof. Nutt's statement isn't it?

dtugg

25th November 2009, 09:23 AM

How do you know that it hasn't done you physical harm?

For example, most drinkers don't know they've damaged their liver.

Because they only thing it might harm (if you take way too many pills) is the brain. And my brain fuctions as well as it did before I ever took MDMA.

Ivor the Engineer

25th November 2009, 09:30 AM

That's not the argument that you were originally pursing though. We're not talking about degrees of effect. You stated:

Can you agree that this is a bad definition of a drug user, in that it doesn't convey your actual meaning in that it includes both Aspirin takers and Ecstasy takers?

I will agree that it does not convey, at least to you, what I intended it to. Aspirin is generally (intended to be) used for relief from pain. I.e., as a medicine to treat the symptoms of a disorder. Are you claiming recreational use of MDMA is medicinal?

I think the reason you're avoiding this is because any harsher definition such as "destroys lives" or "crippling addiction" will end up excluding Ecstasy. And that's the whole point of Prof. Nutt's statement isn't it?

I'll add one word to my definition to hopefully improve its accuracy:

Whenever I use the term 'drug user' from now on, please read it as meaning 'person who uses a drug or drugs recreationally to escape reality rather than deal with it'.

Ivor the Engineer

25th November 2009, 09:31 AM

Because they only thing it might harm (if you take way too many pills) is the brain. And my brain fuctions as well as it did before I ever took MDMA.

Have you had your brain tested before and after taking MDMA?

dtugg

25th November 2009, 09:41 AM

Have you had your brain tested before and after taking MDMA?

I've taken standardized and IQ tests before, during, and after, and I've consistantly scored around the same percentile wise. Plus, I still have a near photographic memory. If, on the off chance there is some sort of physical damage to my brain, it must be so slight as to have no real effect, and I wouldn't really care.

Information Analyst

25th November 2009, 09:42 AM

I will agree that it does not convey, at least to you, what I intended it to. Aspirin is generally (intended to be) used for relief from pain. I.e., as a medicine to treat the symptoms of a disorder. Are you claiming recreational use of MDMA is medicinal?

I'll add one word to my definition to hopefully improve its accuracy:

Whenever I use the term 'drug user' from now on, please read it as meaning 'person who uses a drug or drugs recreationally to escape reality rather than deal with it'.
That corner you've painted yourself into must be very snug by now...

Ambrosia

25th November 2009, 04:20 PM

I drink alcohol socially three times a week

Why do you drink alcohol?

I know many people who responsibly took Ecstacy tablets once every other week. Whats the difference between a person like yourself who drinks responsibly, presumably for enjoyment, and a person who drops a pill once in a while to have a good time?

What makes taking drugs bad yet <insert preferred legal intoxicant here as appropriate> acceptable?

Thats the multi million pound question I'd love to get the answer for.

Argument from equivocation.

I am making the point that there are mood altering substances that are present in many foods/drinks people consume in everyday life. It strikes me that most people take drugs of one form or another nearly every day, and puzzles me that some drugs like MDMA which are not all that harmful are villified, usually loudly, by people who just can't function well in the mornings until they've had a cup of tea for example.

The science on a few drugs is in, for the most part, drugs like MDMA are relatively harmless but whenever the government gets told this by it's Science advisors it sticks it's fingers in it's ears and tries to ignore the evidence. MDMA has positive theraputic uses, yet it's still on the list of drugs that apparently have no use other than to get you high and are so dangerous they must remain banned.

Correlation is not causation.

History is littered with examples of gifted artists who got wasted in order to help inspire them.

Were it not for drugs the world would be a poorer place.

When the people on the other side of the debate behave like out of control children, it’s hardly surprising the government refuses to debate the issue.

The government is sticking it's fingers in it's ears over the "drugs" thing and has been for decades. It fires it's Science advisors who tell them what they don't want to hear. It's "drugs czar" is a policeman, why can't we have a drugs czar whos a recovered alcoholic/ ex junkie who has overcome that problem, understands it and pushes ideas to help people with those problems to overcome them?

It's way past time we had a proper grown up debate on all sides about drugs and about which policies would be best for the whole of society. Thats another thread though.

quarky

25th November 2009, 06:39 PM

I'd love to hear from the 'over 60' crowd, if any of them have had lots of mdma experience.

Ivor the Engineer

26th November 2009, 01:06 AM

Why do you drink alcohol?

Partly to minimise the number of people whining (pun not intended) at me for not drinking while they are.:)

I know many people who responsibly took Ecstacy tablets once every other week. Whats the difference between a person like yourself who drinks responsibly, presumably for enjoyment, and a person who drops a pill once in a while to have a good time?

How do you responsibly take a pill when you do not know what its ingredients are or their relative or absolute quantities?

The idea that people who are irresponsible enough to take pills containing who knows what will suddenly become responsible consumers of pharmaceutical-grade pills is rather hard to believe.

What makes taking drugs bad yet <insert preferred legal intoxicant here as appropriate> acceptable?

Thats the multi million pound question I'd love to get the answer for.

Not much. Someone who drinks alcohol to excess and is hung-over the next day is just as irresponsible as someone who takes several E’s over the weekend and feels like crap till the following Wednesday.

As a society we already drink too much alcohol. What makes you think if MDMA was made legal for recreational use people would not over-indulge in that as well?

I am making the point that there are mood altering substances that are present in many foods/drinks people consume in everyday life. It strikes me that most people take drugs of one form or another nearly every day, and puzzles me that some drugs like MDMA which are not all that harmful are villified, usually loudly, by people who just can't function well in the mornings until they've had a cup of tea for example.

I don’t think any of that’s true. Caffeine is a good example of a less than zero-sum drug. A one-off dose may provide a stimulant effect, but using it frequently results in users having to take it to function normally.

The science on a few drugs is in, for the most part, drugs like MDMA are relatively harmless but whenever the government gets told this by it's Science advisors it sticks it's fingers in it's ears and tries to ignore the evidence. MDMA has positive theraputic uses, yet it's still on the list of drugs that apparently have no use other than to get you high and are so dangerous they must remain banned.

What are the positive therapeutic uses for MDMA? Is there any evidence for these uses which does not ultimately rely on the discredited ideas of Freud?

History is littered with examples of gifted artists who got wasted in order to help inspire them.

Were it not for drugs the world would be a poorer place.

I disagree. It would be different, but I don’t think it would be poorer without recreational drugs. But I realise it’s important for users to believe that recreational drug use is somehow beneficial to individuals and society. The thought ‘I’m doing myself no good by taking this’ would probably make it so much harder to swallow/snort/inject/inhale.

The government is sticking it's fingers in it's ears over the "drugs" thing and has been for decades. It fires it's Science advisors who tell them what they don't want to hear. It's "drugs czar" is a policeman, why can't we have a drugs czar whos a recovered alcoholic/ ex junkie who has overcome that problem, understands it and pushes ideas to help people with those problems to overcome them?

It's way past time we had a proper grown up debate on all sides about drugs and about which policies would be best for the whole of society. Thats another thread though.

Like I said before, I think the Portuguese have the right kinds of ideas on how to deal with drug users.

Eddie Dane

26th November 2009, 01:11 AM

CriticalSock

26th November 2009, 02:46 AM

I will agree that it does not convey, at least to you, what I intended it to. Aspirin is generally (intended to be) used for relief from pain. I.e., as a medicine to treat the symptoms of a disorder. Are you claiming recreational use of MDMA is medicinal?

Of course not! Why on earth would I claim that?

I'll add one word to my definition to hopefully improve its accuracy:

Whenever I use the term 'drug user' from now on, please read it as meaning 'person who uses a drug or drugs recreationally to escape reality rather than deal with it'.

And so we come back to horse riding on this weary merry-go-round.

I'm not saying that Ecstasy is medicinal, I'm not saying its good for you. I'm saying that your derogatory label "drug user" must necessarily either be so broad that it includes aspirin users and horse riders, or so narrow as to exclude ecstasy users.

CriticalSock

26th November 2009, 03:00 AM

Partly to minimise the number of people whining (pun not intended) at me for not drinking while they are.:)

It's a good pun though! :)

The idea that people who are irresponsible enough to take pills containing who knows what will suddenly become responsible consumers of pharmaceutical-grade pills is rather hard to believe.

As long as you keep maintaining this concept of a subset of humanity, a drug addled Untermenschen if you like, you'll keep making breathtakingly wrong comments like this. Given the choice between a £3 street pill of dubious origin and a £5 over the counter pure as an angels kiss pill, Everyone will go for the £5 pill. Not becuase they're perfect, drug dealer hating, citizens, but because the experience they're going to have is going to be so much better.

Father Dagon

26th November 2009, 03:06 AM

It may be true that E is less dangerous than riding horses, but what of it?

Cost/benefit requires two variable, and here we're only seeing one. I'm interested not just in what the risks of an activity are, but also the rewards.

It seems to me that the rewards of horse riding are greater than the rewards of E, though that may differ from person to person.

There are also the social and psychological effects of drug addiction that don't seem to be factored in to the equation here.But the cost/benefits are also different. You can't say that E or horseback riding is the objectively best. - Psychonaut or equunaut, it's just a matter of choice.

And it's interesting that harm reduction for alcohol (or coffee) is a given, but harm reduction for other drugs is considered propaganda.

dtugg

26th November 2009, 03:17 AM

I've rode horses before. Ecstasy is about a million times better.

Father Dagon

26th November 2009, 03:28 AM

I've rode horses before. Ecstasy is about a million times better.What kind of style did you ride?

dtugg

26th November 2009, 03:44 AM

What kind of style did you ride?

Western. My grandfather used to have horses.

Eddie Dane

26th November 2009, 04:24 AM

I've rode horses before. Ecstasy is about a million times better.

Amen.

dtugg

26th November 2009, 04:39 AM

Some of you may want to check out Ecstasy Rising with Peter Jennings (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1564288654365150131#). When I first saw it, I expected it to be little more than anti-drug propaganda but it's not. It's actually a very fair documentary which includes a history of the drug and criticism of the propaganda and lies put out by the government. I'm still a little surprised something like this was aired on network TV in the US. Kudos to ABC and Peter Jennings (RIP).

Ivor the Engineer

26th November 2009, 04:39 AM

<snip>

As long as you keep maintaining this concept of a subset of humanity, a drug addled Untermenschen if you like, you'll keep making breathtakingly wrong comments like this. Given the choice between a £3 street pill of dubious origin and a £5 over the counter pure as an angels kiss pill, Everyone will go for the £5 pill. Not becuase they're perfect, drug dealer hating, citizens, but because the experience they're going to have is going to be so much better.

You have misinterpreted what I said.

I did not mean to suggest the users of illicit drugs today would not become consumers of pharmaceutical grade versions in the future if legalised, rather that such people would be unlikely to become responsible consumers of such products. I say this because such people already demonstrate that they do not behave responsibly when they use drugs they do not know the ingredients of and which are produced by and profit organised crime.

CriticalSock

26th November 2009, 05:33 AM

You have misinterpreted what I said.

I did not mean to suggest the users of illicit drugs today would not become consumers of pharmaceutical grade versions in the future if legalised, rather that such people would be unlikely to become responsible consumers of such products. I say this because such people already demonstrate that they do not behave responsibly when they use drugs they do not know the ingredients of and which are produced by and profit organised crime.

Ah yes, I got the emphasis wrong when I read it. Apologies.

I still disagree with your clarification (of course!).

To buy drugs on the street and profit organised crime (like when you go skiing in Bulgaria) is an irresponsible act. You're equivocating that with the responsible use of the drug. The people who you are trying to force into your pigeonhole are not inherently irresponsible. They're not paragons of virtue either, they're just people!

Yes, if legal, over the counter ecstasy was available, there would still be people who would not take it responsibly, but again (and again and again) this is also true of all the other things like booze. The vast majority of people would use Ecstasy responsibly, just like the vast majority of people don't go out every Friday night and get pissed and sleep on park benches.

Ivor the Engineer

26th November 2009, 06:13 AM

Ah yes, I got the emphasis wrong when I read it. Apologies.

I still disagree with your clarification (of course!).

To buy drugs on the street and profit organised crime (like when you go skiing in Bulgaria) is an irresponsible act. You're equivocating that with the responsible use of the drug. The people who you are trying to force into your pigeonhole are not inherently irresponsible. They're not paragons of virtue either, they're just people!

I don't go skiing in Bulgaria.:p

The funding of organised crime is only a secondary irresponsible action, requiring the ability to imagine the consequences one's actions have on others not physically present or in the future. Since most people are rather ignorant and selfish I don't expect many to give a thought about anyone but themselves. So the primary and most obvious example of such drug users' impulsive, irresponsible nature is the willingness to risk putting unknown amounts of toxic chemicals in their bodies.

The chances of me trying any illicit drugs is zero because I don't have any confidence that the claims of the people selling them are truthful or accurate and that they do not contain harmful substances.

Why do you trust them?

Yes, if legal, over the counter ecstasy was available, there would still be people who would not take it responsibly, but again (and again and again) this is also true of all the other things like booze. The vast majority of people would use Ecstasy responsibly, just like the vast majority of people don't go out every Friday night and get pissed and sleep on park benches.

IIRC, 25% of people in the UK drink too much. About 20% smoke. That is not a small number of people. Should we add to those the fraction who will end up harming or killing themselves (either directly or indirectly) with MDMA, Amphetamines, Cocaine, Heroin, GHB, Ketamine, LSD, etc.?

dtugg

26th November 2009, 06:33 AM

The chances of me trying any illicit drugs is zero because I don't have any confidence that the claims of the people selling them are truthful or accurate and that they do not contain harmful substances.

Why do you trust them?

I almost always tested my pills. Plus I was good friends with my dealers and they took the stuff too. There are also websites with test results and user reports for pills.

Matthew Best

26th November 2009, 06:46 AM

IIRC, 25% of people in the UK drink too much. About 20% smoke. That is not a small number of people. Should we add to those the fraction who will end up harming or killing themselves (either directly or indirectly) with MDMA, Amphetamines, Cocaine, Heroin, GHB, Ketamine, LSD, etc.?

There would probably be a large overlap. I tend to think that people are either addictive personalities or they aren't. The sort of person who is going to get addicted to cocaine is, in the absence of cocaine, going to get addicted to alcohol, or cigarettes, or something else.

Father Dagon

26th November 2009, 06:47 AM

Western. My grandfather used to have horses.Try english jumping for a change. ;)

Matthew Best

26th November 2009, 06:54 AM

Is English jumping a million times better than riding western?

Father Dagon

26th November 2009, 07:08 AM

Is English jumping a million times better than riding western?I don't know. I just suggested a change.

Anyway, there's a lot of variables in comparing deaths from E and horseback riding. Of course there's always that poor n00b that goes trail riding alone. I don't have any raw data, but I suspect that most deaths from horseback riding is among those who compete at fairly high levels.

CriticalSock

26th November 2009, 08:02 AM

quarky

26th November 2009, 09:21 AM

Well, there's this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyRDDOpKaLM).
And then there's this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf13MmZIcLs)

:D

I'm with Henry Rollins on this one.

On the rest of the debate, I'm sitting on a fence.I agree and disagree with all of it.

Recreation is medicinal. Too bad doctors don't actually prescribe recreation.
Its all too easy to one day discover that your life sort of sucks, even though you did all the right things.

The weird, underlying spot for me is a partial empathy for criminal behavior...or at least, the bravery that comes with identifying beyond the boundaries of the acceptable.

There is something about the underground; the radical experience that is frowned upon by the status quo; that is essential to the human spirit; a safety valve, in a way, amidst the potential for too much control; too much homogeny; too much boredom.

Things could easily go full circle:

Use of psychoactive substances could become so main-stream, that the radical experience; the edge viewpoint; could emerge from the radically sober.

See how too much empathy can mess-up a person's soul?

Ivor the Engineer

26th November 2009, 10:41 AM

I don't go skiing in Bulgaria.:p
hehe!

The funding of organised crime is only a secondary irresponsible action, requiring the ability to imagine the consequences one's actions have on others not physically present or in the future. Since most people are rather ignorant and selfish I don't expect many to give a thought about anyone but themselves.
So why did you bring it up?

Because I wasn't classing you as one of the ignorant and selfish, and thought you were capable of considering the distant in time and/or space consequences of your actions. Have I overestimated you?

So the primary and most obvious example of such drug users' impulsive, irresponsible nature is the willingness to risk putting unknown amounts of toxic chemicals in their bodies.

You're describing the whole of humanity!!

How so? Most of the people I know are picky about what they put in their mouths, sniff up their noses or inject into their body.

The chances of me trying any illicit drugs is zero because I don't have any confidence that the claims of the people selling them are truthful or accurate and that they do not contain harmful substances.

Why do you trust them?

Because they are businessmen. They're not out to kill you.

I never got on the wrong side of them (always paid at the time, didn't come onto their girlfriends even when they came on to me... that sort of thing) I only ever had short, consequence free transactions. So they were never tempted to kill me that way either.

So it never crossed your mind that some of the ingredients in the drugs you bought from them could contain chemicals which are going to harm you in either the short or long term?

IIRC, 25% of people in the UK drink too much. About 20% smoke. That is not a small number of people. Should we add to those the fraction who will end up harming or killing themselves (either directly or indirectly) with MDMA, Amphetamines, Cocaine, Heroin, GHB, Ketamine, LSD, etc.?

You're railing against the whole of humanity!!

Again, how so? There appears to be only two groups of people who what drugs to be legalised and sold in Boots. The first group are the drug users themselves. The second group are the woolly liberals whose ideology includes the belief that all prohibition is ultimately bad and everyone should be able to have access anything they want.

Ivor the Engineer

26th November 2009, 10:43 AM

I almost always tested my pills. Plus I was good friends with my dealers and they took the stuff too. There are also websites with test results and user reports for pills.

How did you get access to the Mass-Spec. to test the pills you bought?

Zeuzzz

26th November 2009, 03:10 PM

Can you (or anyone else) provide a summary of the health benefits of using MDMA in a typical recreational setting? I don't think you can because there aren't any - MDMA used in this way is only harmful to health.

Health benfits? Mental health benefits? the recent study conducted in america and recently presented (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBpU9cYivw4) in the uk to the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK showed a remarked increase in curing one of the most serious mental health problems PTSD. A control group was given MDMA and then counselling and another group a placebo and counselling. In the placebo group 85% of the participants still met the criteria for having PTSD and in the MDMA group only 15% of them still had PTSD. Which is a cure.

Zeuzzz

26th November 2009, 03:12 PM

How did you get access to the Mass-Spec. to test the pills you bought?

Marquis reagent tests to check the contents of them chemically are relatively cheap, and you can take other steps like wash them with acetone to dissolve anything that is not MDMA.

Ivor the Engineer

26th November 2009, 03:43 PM

Marquis reagent tests to check the contents of them chemically are relatively cheap, and you can take other steps like wash them with acetone to dissolve anything that is not MDMA.

http://www.dancesafe.org/documents/druginfo/testkits.php

Here are the things that a testing kit can do:

* They can tell you if a pill you have contains at least some ecstasy-like substance.
* They can tell you if a pill you have is completely fake, meaning one that contains no ecstasy-like substance at all.
* They can tell you if a pill you have contains only speed, DXM, or 2CB.

Here are the things that a testing kit cannot do:

* They cannot tell you how pure your pill is.
* They cannot tell you how much ecstasy is in your pill.
* They cannot tell you which one of the ecstasy-like compounds is in your pill. It might be MDMA, MDA, MDE, or a perhaps even a combination.

So apart from purity, quantity and the exact compound, ecstasy users know what they're taking.:boggled:

Ivor the Engineer

26th November 2009, 03:54 PM

Health benfits? Mental health benefits? the recent study conducted in america and recently presented (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBpU9cYivw4) in the uk to the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK showed a remarked increase in curing one of the most serious mental health problems PTSD. A control group was given MDMA and then counselling and another group a placebo and counselling. In the placebo group 85% of the participants still met the criteria for having PTSD and in the MDMA group only 15% of them still had PTSD. Which is a cure.

I've already accepted that MDMA and other illicit drugs may be discovered to have medicinal uses in special circumstances. My question was:

Can you (or anyone else) provide a summary of the health benefits of using MDMA in a typical recreational setting? I don't think you can because there aren't any - MDMA used in this way is only harmful to health.

Though I haven't read the study, I'm pretty sure none of the patients suffering from PTSD were treated by sending them to a rave and telling them to pop a few pills to make the music sound better.

Furcifer

26th November 2009, 04:51 PM

How did you get access to the Mass-Spec. to test the pills you bought?

I'd just like to address this if I could. You seem to be focused on this notion that taking MDMA is some sort of crap shoot, where the odds are not in your favor.

This simply isn't the case. I've never seen "bad E". I've seen varying degrees of effect with the exact same pill from the exact same batch. There's certainly a wide variety of reactions to taking the pill, so many that the effects can only be best described as "subjective".

The same goes with alcohol. I know of several people that drink, but refuse to drink rye or whisky because of the effects they experience. Do a little research on the effects of cider if you don't believe me.

You're trying to make a case for E being some crazy street drug because of the variety of effects people describe. It's just not true.

The fact that a majority of people have taken E and not suffered any serious medical problems is testament to the fact that almost all of what you are getting is pure MDMA. Your objections based on this notion that you don't know what you are getting are in error.

I'll point this out to you again because you seem to have missed it before. MDMA is a chemical. The complexity of creating it makes it very hard to "whip up". You either make MDMA or you don't. If you screw up you don't get a poison, you get garbage. A useless pile of nothing. Contamination is a possibility, but there simply isn't the same risks as there are with cocaine.

When the prices are high, there is the potential for MDMA to be cut with other drugs or fillers. The cost of other drugs, their effects and other physical characteristics make this prohibitive. The only other drug that really fits the bill is meth.

Meth is cheap, and from what I hear has similar effects. MDMA could be cut with meth but there is some point of diminished returns. At some point it's cost prohibitive and it becomes blatantly obvious.

Given the average E user consumes about 1 gram a year, offending your clientèle doesn't make sense. It's all by word of mouth, and E cut with meth simply won't sell. And why would you cut a bunch of E with say a gram of meth, and make your money off it over a year, when you can sell a gram of meth in about 30 seconds on the street anyways?

The reality is there are people who like to poison people. The number of cases where someone get hospitalized for E related complications are just about the same as someone being randomly poisoned. Maybe not even randomly, maybe due to negligence. Like food handling.

dtugg

26th November 2009, 05:08 PM

So apart from purity,

There are marquis tests to that tell you if there are other drugs in addition to ecstasy.

quantity

Not a big deal. Nobody ever puts too much ecstasy in pills for economic reasons and it's impossible to put a dangerous amount in one pill. If you take one pill to start, you won't take too much.

and the exact compound, ecstasy users know what they're taking.:boggled:

I was fine with MDA or MDE, although the only times I got those pills, I was told that's what they were (the effects are different enough to tell). MDMA is far more commom because the synthesis for all three is very similar, they are all just as illegal, and because everybody wants MDMA.

quarky

26th November 2009, 06:45 PM

There are marquis tests to that tell you if there are other drugs in addition to ecstasy.

Not a big deal. Nobody ever puts too much ecstasy in pills for economic reasons and it's impossible to put a dangerous amount in one pill. If you take one pill to start, you won't take too much.

I was fine with MDA or MDE, although the only times I got those pills, I was told that's what they were (the effects are different enough to tell). MDMA is far more commom because the synthesis for all three is very similar, they are all just as illegal, and because everybody wants MDMA.

The notion of taking "one pill to start" reeks of crap-shoot to me. What do you do? Wait an hour, and if you aren't high enough, take another?
Imho, knowing the correct dosage, and taking it in a single dose is essential to the experience.

Crud, I must be turning into an old fart. The kids today...
They're taking away the sacred. Maybe that's good.
It also amazes me that kids drop acid and drive to the mall, or even go to school. For my generation, it was a big deal; a sacrament, even.

I guess that sounds a bit wooish.

As far as the chemistry goes, there are plenty of phenethylamines, no more difficult to synthesize than mdma, that are active in much smaller quantities.
Hence, there could be economic incentive to sell them as mdma.

I'm a bit disappointed that Ivor's stance, which is not insane, has engaged all the pro-mdma forces. You guys should be more curious about me. I don't really have a horse in this race. It worries me slightly that some of you have a sales pitch going on which has nothing to do with the value of mdma in treating trauma.

Frankly, I can't think of another drug that has more chance of not being what is supposed to be than mdma. The few times I've analyzed some of the pills the kids here take as mdma, had none.

Zeuzzz

26th November 2009, 07:58 PM

Frankly, I can't think of another drug that has more chance of not being what is supposed to be than mdma. The few times I've analyzed some of the pills the kids here take as mdma, had none.

Yes MDMA is notoriously bad for this, most people just called them pills and this is supposed to mean ecstasy, but now people selling them realise that this is a perfect excuse to sell any old thing as a pill. It is extremely rare that pills are going to be poisonous and fatal, as for the people selling them the market works the way that all markets do, if a products rubbish or dangerous people will not buy it. Thats why its essential to only get of people you really know and trust.

MDMA is a hell of a strong drug (in large doses) and I certainly dont advocate its usage to the general population, especially to people that can not even take the time to learn about it fully first.

Pills can contain a number of legal high products usually now as they are much cheaper and do produce effects. Thing is they are not researched nearly as well as MDMA and are still technically research chemicals.

Pills might contain MCpp, TFMpp, BZP, or other piperazines. Your unlucky if you get these but its not particularly dangerous to your health (short term). Its a psychedelic experience rather than empathogenic and long term effects have not been researched.

If your lucky they may contain Methylone, Butylone, or 4-fmp which are similar in effects, but still not as well researched.

If your extremely unlucky you might get PMA or Bromo-DragonFLY. Both of which have caused fatalities, the first as its just very toxic and the latter because the dosage is so small its the same amount needed as for LSD (less than 1mg, usually 200ug) yet is very dangerous if too much is consumed (unlike LSD).

Always use pure crystal MDMA in my experience pills just aren't worth the risk. And take all the necessary precautions.

If only drug eductaion would say vital things like this. Instead its all still utterly hopeless.

dtugg

26th November 2009, 08:09 PM

The notion of taking "one pill to start" reeks of crap-shoot to me. What do you do? Wait an hour, and if you aren't high enough, take another?

Sure. Why not?

Imho, knowing the correct dosage, and taking it in a single dose is essential to the experience.

I agree, it's best that way. You don't need to in order to have an awesome time though.

As far as the chemistry goes, there are plenty of phenethylamines, no more difficult to synthesize than mdma, that are active in much smaller quantities.
Hence, there could be economic incentive to sell them as mdma.

I dunno, I've only come across other phenethlylamines (2c-x) in pressed pills a few times but they weren't sold as MDMA.

I'm a bit disappointed that Ivor's stance, which is not insane, has engaged all the pro-mdma forces. You guys should be more curious about me. I don't really have a horse in this race. It worries me slightly that some of you have a sales pitch going on which has nothing to do with the value of mdma in treating trauma.

I'm just relating my personal experiences, which have been overwhelmingly positive. I don't have a personal stake in this either. I'm not an ecstasy dealer and I don't even do it anymore.

Frankly, I can't think of another drug that has more chance of not being what is supposed to be than mdma. The few times I've analyzed some of the pills the kids here take as mdma, had none.

Those kids need to find better drug dealers.

dtugg

26th November 2009, 08:18 PM

Always use pure crystal MDMA in my experience pills just aren't worth the risk. And take all the necessary precautions.

Never happened to me, but molly can contain all kinds of crap just like pills.

Zeuzzz

26th November 2009, 09:04 PM

Never happened to me, but molly can contain all kinds of crap just like pills.

Thats why you should even test that and wash it too. PMA can be a result of a bad synthesis of mandy.

Cuddles

27th November 2009, 05:11 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8382072.stm

Steeplechase and hurdle racing in the Australian state of Victoria will be abolished in 2010, prompted by the deaths of 20 horses in two years.

CriticalSock

27th November 2009, 10:34 AM

Because I wasn't classing you as one of the ignorant and selfish, and thought you were capable of considering the distant in time and/or space consequences of your actions. Have I overestimated you?

False dichotomy. But you have overestimated me, I'm an ignorant, selfish bastard! :)

How so? Most of the people I know are picky about what they put in their mouths, sniff up their noses or inject into their body.

They drink and smoke and ride horses and ski and do an endless number of things which prove that they take crazy unnecessary risks with their health and lives. So they're only picky on unimportant criteria such as which particular way they're going to choose to risk themselves.

So it never crossed your mind that some of the ingredients in the drugs you bought from them could contain chemicals which are going to harm you in either the short or long term?

Yes it crossed my mind. Like I said before though these people are in the selling drugs business, not the killing punters business. I took precautions, but it was no great worry.

Again, how so? There appears to be only two groups of people who what drugs to be legalised and sold in Boots. The first group are the drug users themselves. The second group are the woolly liberals whose ideology includes the belief that all prohibition is ultimately bad and everyone should be able to have access anything they want.

What other groups do you imagine would want to push legalisation? Completely disinterested groups? There's a logical fallacy there, but I don't know what it's called.

There's a Berkley Breathed comic strip which is so pertinent to this. I'll try and dig it out and scan it over the weekend.

Furcifer

27th November 2009, 04:30 PM

Frankly, I can't think of another drug that has more chance of not being what is supposed to be than mdma. The few times I've analyzed some of the pills the kids here take as mdma, had none.

Cocaine. I've heard so many stories I can't imagine anyone wanting to bother with the drug at all. But they are stories, so I can't confirm anything on a personal basis.

MDMA I can on the other hand. Perhaps it's the area I live in. Most of the MDMA we saw came from a chemist whose father was a Professor of chemistry. At that time a benchmark was set, we knew exactly what we were getting and exactly what to expect.

I can't recall a single incident during that time to suggest E was any more harmful than horse riding. I can recall one incident, which played out exactly like every other you hear about. Some girl partied for 2 days straight, drank alcohol at some point prior to taking the E, danced for 6 hours straight at some after hours club, and ended up in the hospital dehydrated.

I don't want to down-play the potential for MDMA to contain unknown amounts of god knows what. It's there. In most places it remains a street drug. If someone is going to do E they need to realize this and take extra precautions to make sure what they are getting is MDMA. If you have to ask someone, ask, if you have to get it tested, get it tested. If you have to wait until you are absolutely sure, then wait. I don't even go to restaurants until I get a reliable review from someone.

It's just a sad state we live in when someone comes forward and says "Hey, this isn't such a bad thing, people are going to realize this eventually. Let's get the people we train to administer drugs to administer this drug, remove all the unknowns and make it as safe as we can" and we fire him.

CriticalSock

2nd December 2009, 01:30 AM

Sorry for the delay. My Bloom county book was hidden in the attic!

Here are the strips I was talking about:

http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq207/criticalsock/Image3.jpg

I found another pertinent one too!

http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq207/criticalsock/Image2.jpg

Zeuzzz

2nd December 2009, 04:52 PM

Cocaine.

Yep thats true cocaines purity is nearly always less if you compare coke to MDMA.

And I should just point out that the reason that I dont go around telling any old person to try MDMA is not due to the drug or it being pharmacologically dangerous but due to all the extra risks that arrise as a result of its prohibition and current drug laws, which cause far more issues than they solve.

Zeuzzz

7th December 2009, 05:23 AM

Seeing as Ivor thinks its fair game to go around in any thread here posting about other peoples choices of recreational drugs completely off topic, presumably in an odd attempt to smear my image, I thought that we would obide by the membership agreement and continue the discussion here in a thread thats actually relevant.

A person who will trust a criminal when he's selling you illicit drugs, but one who will distrust hundreds of scientists who publish their work and data for all to see.

IMO, that's an example of an idiot.

Ok fair enough. I think that the point of this thread showing that illicit drugs are actually more often than not pharmacologically safer than many legal ones has been lost on you but anyhow...

Please elaborate on this and say which drugs you are referring to so I can reply.

Zeuzzz

7th December 2009, 07:01 AM

another post from that thread due to Ivors perculiar hijack, belongs here not there;

Actually it makes him look quite correct in his assessment. And you actually owe him an apology for saying that his was a "completely laughably wrong accusation".

When Ivor elaborates on what he means then I might, until then I dont think he's made a valid point that I can respond to properly.

Andrikos

17th January 2010, 12:13 PM

As Professor Nutt stated: "One problem
is that sometimes you get into what I think of as
an illegality–logic loop. This is an example of a
conversation that I’ve had many times with many
people, some of them politicians:
MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity
with an illegal one.’
Professor Nutt: ‘Why not?’
MP: ‘Because one’s illegal.’
Professor Nutt: ‘Why is it illegal?’
MP: ‘Because it’s harmful.’
Professor Nutt: ‘Don’t we need to compare harms to
determine if it should be illegal?’
MP: ‘You can’t compare harms from a legal activity
with an illegal one.’
repeats …
I have been surprised how diffi cult this concept
is to get across to some people, whether they are politicians, fellow scientists or members of the
general public. The supposition that if something is
illegal its harms can’t be assessed in the same way as
if it were legal is one that is quite difficult to break".

buzzjunky85

24th January 2010, 08:56 AM

I have read all postss!!!
I was amazed at how people who never tried mdma are against, and those who tried it speak in favour pationately!!
ALL YOUR NEGATIVE THOUGHTS & SKEPTICISM WILL EVAPORIZE AFTER YOUR FIRST MDMA USE.
If politicians would have tried it at least once it would be made LEGAL overnight
I find it so sad that non-experienced users can never understand us :((
Besides I have to add, even if it was more dangerous than horse riding it would have still been all worth the risk! because the experience is simply life changing.

Zeuzzz

31st January 2010, 02:53 AM

the experience is simply life changing.

This it can be, but people who get profounder effects from it are more likely to abuse it, so watch out. Once every 3 months, never more than 250mg a night, and high vitamin C are whats considered a very safe dose in terms of reducing any harm.

Zeuzzz

10th February 2010, 04:01 AM

Just found the first ever song I listened to on MDMA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZZUOORiy3U). I would say that the main effect I got from the whole experience, second to the empathy with everyone, was a whole new way to listen music, music seemed to come alive in a way thats hard to explain.

Read about a local death at a horse event in my county recently. Death figures nationally are not good.

Richard Masters

17th February 2010, 01:50 PM

I'm not so sure.

Don't get me wrong...I'm very liberal about the subject matter, and even believe that a drug experience that is only for pleasure should be available. I consider pleasure to be worthwhile in its own right. Escape from reality? That, too. If reality sucks, wanting to escape it is not insane. Going to Disneyland is insane, imho. (Expensive, too.)

That said, I have experienced the negative aspects of mdma. This was before it was illegal, and the compound was pure; doses were measured; setting was excellent. I had the time of my life on it, as did most of the co-experimenters.

My trouble was that I couldn't resist it. The escape was so easy, compared to some other drugs, like lsd, which involve some work. The mdma experience was wonderful, yet the transition is so quick, that it barely explains itself.
This is a great state, but how did I get here? Can I replicate it without the drug? Can I take home any of its insights? Does the 'love' last? If not, can I simply keep taking the drug, like I would with prozac, or some other mood altering substance?

I didn't want to reveal this here, but now I feel obligated:
I took the drug once a week for 2 years. My bad? Sure. But it would have/could have been lots of people's bad had they had the access I had.

The downside was a pronounced anhedonia, after I decided to give it up.
And I decided to give it up because of the accumulative "body load".
There is something of a hangover that I've never felt with lsd, for instance.
The day after was pretty much a write-off, as per getting anything done.
There was a jaw-clamping, teeth grinding aspect, not uncommon.
My urinary tract was affected adversely.

But the real 'rub' for me was that my brain adjusted in a way that disallowed everyday pleasure. It was as if my seratonin dried up, unless I forced its flush with the drug. My brain compensated. I don't think this is unusual.

The depression i experienced after all the fun, was devestating. Nothing would touch it, and I tried almost everything legal, including 4 ssri's.
Sex without mdma was nearly pointless. (Music without lsd also suffered, but it was easier to accept that loss.)

It took 15 years for me to get back to a neutral base state.
Of course, its all anecdotal; and yes, I over did it.

In retrospect, I don't wish I'd never run into mdma...but I wish I had only taken it 3 or 4 times in my life...or, at least, only once a month, or 4 times a year.

I suspect that lots of others would fall into the same pattern of use that I did, if it was available. Yet, I never went to raves, or took amphetamines with it, or double dosed, or drove a car, or danced all night, or any of that sort of thing. In fact, I took notes; marked the time, date, setting, mgs. of drug, method of ingestion, and all that stuff. We were very careful about it; planned ahead; watched nutrition, etc.

Sadly, I experienced long-lasting cognitive problems after one use (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5605548#post5605548). Did you say you recovered to baseline after 15 years? If so, I have 10 more years to go.