British peoplpe taking MDMA LIVE on TV right now

@LD50 said:

@Snail said:

@Mageman said:

@Snail said:

I don't operate with those assumptions, though you keep implying that.

The desire to feel ecstatic (especially present when one is depressed) can more easily lead to lack of control in the taking of this drug, than in the consumption of coffee. This independently of whatever dependency quotients you can throw at me.

I had already said that though. So I've reached the conclusion that I've already said what I had to say, and if I argue against that post any more extensively we'd going in circles.

You can mediate the depression, and as more recently showed with pure mdma it does not even have to really occur on any meaningful/big level. One trip of mdma does not ''break you'' and make you crave for more, that is silly.

You keep misinterpreting what I say. If you are to reply to me again please devote more time to reading my post, because, again, I am not saying that at all.

I am not saying that the depression happens because of MDMA. You seem to have misunderstood this? I am asking you to hypothesize a person who is depressed because, say, he or she was dumped by a significant other, or due to the loss of a family member. Shit happens to people.

You can meditate a depression. You can also take ecstasy and instantly feel better. To someone acquainted with the drug, how tempting is that?

I am not saying that one trip of MDMA "breaks you", I have no idea where you found that in my posts. I am talking about long-term consumption, led to significant increase by a state of depression.

I must agree. MDMA is not something everyone should be taking every weekend to party with necessarily.

"The long-term effects most frequently reported included the development of tolerance to MDMA (59%), impaired ability to concentrate (38%), depression (37%) and ‘feeling more open towards people’ (31%)."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hup.529/abstract;jsessionid=42A8E9824DBC91B90137E4BD034AFE0E.d03t02

Acute, sub-acute and long-term subjective consequences of ‘ecstasy’ (MDMA) consumption in 430 regular users

1. Suzanne L. Verheyden,

1. John A. Henry,

1. H. Valerie Curran

Article first published online: 1 OCT 2003

DOI: 10.1002/hup.529

Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental

Volume 18, Issue 7,pages 507–517, October 2003

Thank you for posting an actual scientific study. Others in this thread seem to be happy to argue day and night on their opinions when really all you need to do is show some evidence supporting your arguments.

Just reading over the abstract it looks like they interviewed quite a few "regular MDMA users", so the subjects use of the drugs was not controlled. That, I think, makes this study much less useful because it's impossible to link the usage to the effects, never mind the source of the MDMA which could have been, and probably was, laced with other drugs or additives.

I'd like to know how those long-term statistics compare to those of alcohol or marijuana.

wow some buzz killers in this thread, clearly some bitter people who never had the joyous experience that is pure mdma, take it with some hot lady and you'll probably have the best night of your life!

MDMA = MY DICK MUST ANNIHILATE

Probably.

@RollingZeppelin: Just because they are "regular MDMA users" doesn't mean they weren't getting controlled doses during the study, so I don't think you should be so dismissive of it.

@Snail said:

@RollingZeppelin: Just because they are "regular MDMA users" doesn't mean they weren't getting controlled doses during the study, so I don't think you should be so dismissive of it.

So you think the scientists who performed this study made certain that all 466 subjects were taking medically-controlled MDMA doses over the long term? They even say in the abstract that the sub-acute effects were affected by "concomitant use of cocaine or amphetamine".

I'm not dismissing it entirely, those statistics are interesting, but I would like to see a study on a more controlled population to isolate the effects of the MDMA.

@Brodehouse said:

@Snail I'm not actually being rude or 'trying to offend you'. I'm talking straightly regardless of whether or not you want to hear it. You're being completely dismissive of anything that doesn't suit your opinions and I see no reason to tolerate it.

You were actually pretty rude and assumed I was ignorant on a variety of topics, etc. But whatever. I am not being completely dismissive of anything that doesn't suit my opinions, just recently I asked the Giant Bomb community to tell me 23 games to play, and I'd play them. Some of those games I would have probably been dismissive of, but I'm open to new suggestions. I used to detest swimming classes, for nine years of my life (nine) they were the bane of my existence, I hated it with a passion and yet, on impulse just a few years ago, I decided to pick up on that and turns out it became an activity I wanted to do regularly.

Again, that is an assumption about myself that makes you sound rude, and overly judgemental. You said that you think I am being "completely dismissive of anything" that doesn't suit my opinions. That's a pretty strong claim to make about someone you don't know.

I don't feel like I owe you an explanation. I'm just fleshing this out for you. I am arguing back without writing down assumptions about your personality. You keep doing that, and all your assumptions are negative. I'm not saying I give a shit about them, but they certainly don't help keeping a conversation civilized. Not on the internet, not anywhere.

@Brodehouse said:

You're accusing me of not reading what you've said; no, I have. And I continue to raise the same point. You talk about the enjoyment of reading as valid because of the benefits as pertains knowledge; the enjoyment of reading is valid because _enjoyment is the purpose_. Tertiary rewards or 'improvements' make it no more or less legitimate or tangible. 'Shallow' is this tune you keep whistling, but it's meaningless because that outlook is naturally subjective. All activities are ultimately shallow when viewed from a different perspective. Reading, video games, sex, psychotropic drugs, sports, it's all the same in that they're designed for human enjoyment.

Okay, I disagree with that, but I've been on the forums all day (for shame) and don't feel like writing the extensive response I'd write to that. Maybe some other time, though probably not. Just know that "shallow" may be relative, but if you look at it like that, you go into a wormhole of abstracts that's just impossible to argue in. I find that the pleasure people get from drugs is unauthentic (i.e. not stemming from experiences, but instead forced by outside chemicals), and therefore consider the emotions that brew from drugs like MDMA to be shallow and meaningless. Unattached and forced.

@Brodehouse said:

Your second piece about 'harm' almost is accurate before you lose yourself. It's about responsibility; the legitimacy of an activity lies not in its capacity to be abused. 'Different' harms yes, incomparable? No. They are very easily comparable. They all have rewards and penalties for their use and abuse. I've broken countless bones and had a few hangovers, I've gained weight and lost weight and spent thousands of dollars on both alcohol and new glasses (probably more on the latter). The point is I am responsible, and can choose my leisure activity responsibly. Some others aren't, but that doesn't somehow tear down the validity of the activity. Otherwise we can't play games because someone put the baby in the microwave to stop it from screaming, so they could play more world of Warcraft. Also, considering how bad tennis is for your knees and arm, that's an amusing comparison. What do they get out of tennis, besides stress fractures and bone pain? Enjoyment? Aha.

I have already argued about the responsibility of taking this drug, and how familiarity with its use can develop into addiction under a condition of depression. I feel like I made a good point, and I really don't want to have that argument again. If you are so inclined, please read through the thread. It starts on page 4 I think, and I mostly had that argument with Mageman.

And from Tennis you get more than enjoyment. I know people who play tennis for enjoyment and to keep fit, and professional tennists seem to be extremely healthy people. Ecstasy, unless it is consumed in very controlled medicinal doses, is bad for your health. Someone posted a study on this thread confirming that.

I really think you're going on an edge by comparing taking ecstasy to healthy, popular activities with positive long-term results. You have a solid, structured argument, and make some good points, but I can't agree with you and feel like I am on the right here.

@RollingZeppelin said:

@LD50 said:

@Snail said:

@Mageman said:

@Snail said:

I don't operate with those assumptions, though you keep implying that.

The desire to feel ecstatic (especially present when one is depressed) can more easily lead to lack of control in the taking of this drug, than in the consumption of coffee. This independently of whatever dependency quotients you can throw at me.

I had already said that though. So I've reached the conclusion that I've already said what I had to say, and if I argue against that post any more extensively we'd going in circles.

You can mediate the depression, and as more recently showed with pure mdma it does not even have to really occur on any meaningful/big level. One trip of mdma does not ''break you'' and make you crave for more, that is silly.

You keep misinterpreting what I say. If you are to reply to me again please devote more time to reading my post, because, again, I am not saying that at all.

I am not saying that the depression happens because of MDMA. You seem to have misunderstood this? I am asking you to hypothesize a person who is depressed because, say, he or she was dumped by a significant other, or due to the loss of a family member. Shit happens to people.

You can meditate a depression. You can also take ecstasy and instantly feel better. To someone acquainted with the drug, how tempting is that?

I am not saying that one trip of MDMA "breaks you", I have no idea where you found that in my posts. I am talking about long-term consumption, led to significant increase by a state of depression.

I must agree. MDMA is not something everyone should be taking every weekend to party with necessarily.

"The long-term effects most frequently reported included the development of tolerance to MDMA (59%), impaired ability to concentrate (38%), depression (37%) and ‘feeling more open towards people’ (31%)."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hup.529/abstract;jsessionid=42A8E9824DBC91B90137E4BD034AFE0E.d03t02

Acute, sub-acute and long-term subjective consequences of ‘ecstasy’ (MDMA) consumption in 430 regular users

1. Suzanne L. Verheyden,

1. John A. Henry,

1. H. Valerie Curran

Article first published online: 1 OCT 2003

DOI: 10.1002/hup.529

Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental

Volume 18, Issue 7,pages 507–517, October 2003

Thank you for posting an actual scientific study. Others in this thread seem to be happy to argue day and night on their opinions when really all you need to do is show some evidence supporting your arguments.

Just reading over the abstract it looks like they interviewed quite a few "regular MDMA users", so the subjects use of the drugs was not controlled. That, I think, makes this study much less useful because it's impossible to link the usage to the effects, never mind the source of the MDMA which could have been, and probably was, laced with other drugs or additives.

I'd like to know how those long-term statistics compare to those of alcohol or marijuana.

It's also an old study. I try not to use any evidence older than two years in any serious debate. You have a valid objection.

However, I'd like to point out that I was using the evidence to illuminate my point:

"MDMA is not something everyone should be taking every weekend to party withnecessarily."

If by calling my article into question you are taking the position that "everyone should be taking MDMA every weekend to party with"...well Sir, I have two words for you.

Kick Starter.

;]

@Snail said:

@Mageman said:

@Snail said:

I don't operate with those assumptions, though you keep implying that.

The desire to feel ecstatic (especially present when one is depressed) can more easily lead to lack of control in the taking of this drug, than in the consumption of coffee. This independently of whatever dependency quotients you can throw at me.

I had already said that though. So I've reached the conclusion that I've already said what I had to say, and if I argue against that post any more extensively we'd going in circles.

You can mediate the depression, and as more recently showed with pure mdma it does not even have to really occur on any meaningful/big level. One trip of mdma does not ''break you'' and make you crave for more, that is silly.

You keep misinterpreting what I say. If you are to reply to me again please devote more time to reading my post, because, again, I am not saying that at all.

I am not saying that the depression happens because of MDMA. You seem to have misunderstood this? I am asking you to hypothesize a person who is depressed because, say, he or she was dumped by a significant other, or due to the loss of a family member. Shit happens to people.

You can meditate a depression. You can also take ecstasy and instantly feel better. To someone acquainted with the drug, how tempting is that?

I am not saying that one trip of MDMA "breaks you", I have no idea where you found that in my posts. I am talking about long-term consumption, led to significant increase by a state of depression.

So you can potentially take one dose of MDMA and potentially cure a longterm depression (yes this happened in clinical trials and not even worth debating at this point), or just take damaging SSRI like drugs for the rest of your life that dont do shit to cure the underlying issue. Take this from personal experience, I was once on an SSRI and the withdrawal even from a low dose was severe for me and very unpleasant. All the SSRI did was artificially mask the depression I had and also had a ton of side effects and I eventually realized that and came off. The SSRIs are also dangerous and possibly account for all sorts of health issues including widespread suicides.

I am of the opinion that the best way to deal with depression is sober, at least it was/is for me.

However, I dont think it is fair to ignore the apparent therapeudic value of MDMA just because of some beurocratic nonsense. Of course, extasy can be addicting and cause serious harm if taken regularly, but that is the case with a lot of drugs used in medicine. Opiates are super addicting and dangerous but they are pretty much all we have used for pain in hospitals. Antibiotics screw you up if you take them too long. Even paracematol/acetominephen will cause liver failure at around 4000mg+ and people regularly take 1000mg for headache. The fact is, the most dangerous aspect of MDMA is dehydration, which is no big deal in a therapeudic setting. The drug itself is less toxic, if it even is toxic, than most over the counter medicine.

I honestly dont think it would be that big of a deal to just legalize "illegal" drugs as a method of harm reduction. I say this because people that want them still get them, but if they were legal they would not be cut with all sorts of nonsense and be impure. Its the impurity of the filler that causes people a lot of trouble. Many people that end up in the hospital probably never even took MDMA but were given a pill of some other wierd impure stimulant made in some dudes basement. The war on drugs is an abject failure and always will be one. 55,000 people have died due to the cartels in mexico and the body count is rising. At the same time, exponentially more drugs are getting into the US. 90% of all incarcerations are drug related. Legalization, taxation and federal/state regulation are the answer to all these problems.

@Snail: I didn't say you were ignorant on a variety of topics, just specifically the comparability of recreational drug use to recreational anything else. They all have rewards and drawbacks, but you were picking and choosing which ones you declared relevant (arbitrarily saying that loss of vision through reading was fine, when loss of vision through anything else would of course be unacceptable). When presented with things that don't conform to what you want (the likelihood of serious injury in 'wholesome' activities) you used some strange metric regarding how long they've existed as activities, and summarily dismissed them. If you want to call me judgemental, that's fine; the only reason I decided to respond was I was aggravated by your own judgemental attitudes regarding people who chose to use recreational drugs and wanted to correct some assumptions you were making. It is difficult to have a civilized conversation if one side of the argument is deemed irrelevant and ignored.

The 'authenticity' is actually illuminating. I can see now, though I urge you to look deeper into it. It's not that it's inauthentic, consider someone who has a religious or hallucinogenic experience; regardless of whether or not it's tangible, they did authentically experience it. It's not that the experience is inauthentic, it's that it's unearned. 'Forced'. I don't believe that true joy is necessarily dependent on how difficult it was to achieve; this is an argument that comes up regarding in video games often. Fun is fun, and it exists because it is fun. The idea that fun must be earned in order for it to exist at all does not mesh with me. Fun earned, and fun unearned (and you can replace it with 'joy' or 'happiness' in the larger argument) are merely different paths to the same thing. They are two smaller circles inside a larger one.

Regarding the penalties of use, absolutely familiarity can lead to addiction (as well as greater tolerance), and it's the same with all things that alter your mood, whether it's drugs, food, or any activity. Under a condition of depression with a lack of personal responsibility, anything can become harmful. Once again, World of Warcraft isn't a negative experience, but there are easily some awful stories that can be told. You brought up 'more than enjoyment' and that's once again, the language of a censor (I'm not even labeling you one, I just want you to know to avoid that language in the future). Enjoyment and responsibility are what really matters; 'benefits' are tangential to the cause. Video games help with concentration, problem-solving, hand-eye cooridnation; entirely tangential. Anyone extolling those virtues as what makes video games 'okay' is only creating a narrative where those virtues are more important than pure enjoyment. Art exists for art, not as reinforcement for social mores. Video games are a legitimate activity because people enjoy them. Et al.

Once again, I don't do MDMA at all, and weed and alcohol becoming rarer and rarer. Because they don't fit into my life right now (mostly my wallet), and the high you get from ecstasy doesn't seem like my style. I'm really unhappy with the high you get from booze, too, but it's cheaper and legal, so I deal with it. I have a raging caffeine addiction, but I haven't gone to rehab because I can afford it and I like the way I feel after about 2-3 cups. And people who use ecstasy responsibly, probably feel the exact same way. It fits into their lives well enough. People who play World of Warcraft responsibly probably feel the same way. People who drink booze responsibly probably feel the same way.

edit: And yes, I'll admit it's an argument full of abstracts. It's essentially a conversation about the nature and validity of human joy. That's not something you do outside of early modern French philosophy classes.

@LD50 said:

@RollingZeppelin said:

@LD50 said:

I must agree. MDMA is not something everyone should be taking every weekend to party with necessarily.

"The long-term effects most frequently reported included the development of tolerance to MDMA (59%), impaired ability to concentrate (38%), depression (37%) and ‘feeling more open towards people’ (31%)."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hup.529/abstract;jsessionid=42A8E9824DBC91B90137E4BD034AFE0E.d03t02

Acute, sub-acute and long-term subjective consequences of ‘ecstasy’ (MDMA) consumption in 430 regular users

1. Suzanne L. Verheyden,

1. John A. Henry,

1. H. Valerie Curran

Article first published online: 1 OCT 2003

DOI: 10.1002/hup.529

Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental

Volume 18, Issue 7,pages 507–517, October 2003

Thank you for posting an actual scientific study. Others in this thread seem to be happy to argue day and night on their opinions when really all you need to do is show some evidence supporting your arguments.

Just reading over the abstract it looks like they interviewed quite a few "regular MDMA users", so the subjects use of the drugs was not controlled. That, I think, makes this study much less useful because it's impossible to link the usage to the effects, never mind the source of the MDMA which could have been, and probably was, laced with other drugs or additives.

I'd like to know how those long-term statistics compare to those of alcohol or marijuana.

It's also an old study. I try not to use any evidence older than two years in any serious debate. You have a valid objection.

However, I'd like to point out that I was using the evidence to illuminate my point:

"MDMA is not something everyone should be taking every weekend to party withnecessarily."

If by calling my article into question you are taking the position that "everyone should be taking MDMA every weekend to party with"...well Sir, I have two words for you.

Kick Starter.

;]

I actually agree with you, I don't think the use of any drug should be considered safe until a proper long-term study has been performed. But some people see the less dangerous short term effects and want to try it, it's not like they're going to wait 30 years to see a proper study done.

Ultimately, it's up to the individual on whether they think it's worth the risk or not. It would be nice to have a study that shows exactly what the effects are so people can make a better judgement.

@Djnuttty said:

MDMA = MY DICK MUST ANNIHILATE

Probably.

Mature Dance Maximum Anal is the original japanese meaning

Aaaaaand...SCENE!

@Snail: I don't want to inject myself too much in this discussion, but I wanted to address one thing specifically if I may. I have to say that I dissagree when you say "it is not authentic because it isn't produced by experiences, or genuine feelings, it is forced by an outside, synthetic chemical. I don't see that as authentic. I realize that our brain works through a series of chemical reactions, and that many outside sources provide different chemical reactions. But not that strong. They don't make you feel ecstatic." I think a lot of your particular viewpoint hinges on this axiom which I am not sure is correct in my opinion.

In my life I have had numerous profound experiences some of which involved drugs and some that did not. However, they all were important and factored into who I am currently as an individual. Some of the positive experiences I had involving drugs were very spiritual and profound and the subjective experience was not artificial or forced in any way. Not to be crass, but I think you presume too much when you differ important moments in people's lives to nothing but artifice. I felt ecstatic when I hiked up to the top of half dome in Yosemite for the first time. Although the experience was real and natural, it was only the result of endorphins and high altitude if you want to reduce it like that. Another time, I almost froze to death after falling into a river when it was 15 degrees out. I started hallucinating and having strange feelings not at all unlike an "artificial" drug trip. In fact, if some told me that I was dosed on mushrooms and PCP I probably would have believed it at the time. The point is that everything we feel is just chemicals and neurotransmitters in the brain, and everything that changes these molecules effects the way we percieve reality.

Like you say, you don't need drugs to feel anything that humans were meant to feel. But that said, they can be one hell of a shortcut to certain things and positive drug experiences done safety are not invalid simply because of their artificial nature. Most primitive tribes used drugs to mark rites of passage for 100x longer than modern man has not, but that should not diminish the serious nature that mankind put upon those experiences. So ultimately, I dont think its fair to judge another's experience in such binary real and unreal terms. People watch movies and games and read books knowing they are fake but can still have emotional responces and a change in perspective. Everyone gets to walk their own path and what matters is what you take away from an experience and not what led you to it in my opinion. Thanks for posting your thoughts in this thread as well as everyone else because it is growing way more interesting than it probably should :)

@RedRavN: You call them shortcuts. I find shortcuts to that sort of human emotions to be a despicable thing. Maybe there's a bit of a stigma there, but I just hate the notion. It's taking a path that's way too easy to be right.

It gets really personal here, and there's no way either one of us is going to convince the other on the internet.

Maybe I would have responded to your answer more in length (sorry about making it so short), but I'm really tired by now and, like I said, the particular point you emphasized is most likely the most personal part of this whole argument.

I see a whooooooooleeee lot of people in this thread who really need to eat some e's and hug it the fuck out.

How ironic. :D

molly

@Snail: I'm not even going to bother. Your 'common sense' has nothing to back it up besides the same regurgitated drug paranoia. You make gross assumptions and judgements with no backup ("there's no such thing as responsible use of drugs!") besides the way you feel. You're saying all drug use is abuse, regardless of the reality of the situation. It's not about the internal consistency of logic, or even a realistic examination at why people do things, it's simply "drugs are bad, and if you do drugs you're bad". That's both simplistic and untrue.

As for your 'ecstasy is like cheating'; yeah, your problem with it is exactly what I thought. You think that emotion unearned is somehow inauthentic. It's not. You can fall back on "I'm talking common sense and you're not!" but that's not what's going on here. You can claim it's artificial (it is) but trying to claim it's ethically bad is a complete wall banger.

Going back to harm, you still refuse to look at the core cause and are just focused on possible outcomes. If we're focused on possible outcomes, then I guess I need to list every single person who let their lives go to shit due to addiction to anything that isn't MDMA. The problem is with addiction and responsibility, you can try to construct an evil, society destroying chemical monster if you wish, but that's not actually what's going on. You keep shifting the goal posts on this one because you don't want to think that wholesome activities can be abused.

Explain to me exactly what "being a censor" is in the way you put it. I'm not getting that.

It's the narrative of enjoyment being an addendum to benefits such as problem solving, hand-eye coordination, so on. "It's okay to enjoy this, because you're learning". The only people who start this narrative are interested in using it to get rid of things they don't want around; you can't enjoy this, because there's nothing good about it besides how fun it is. The enjoyment is always the most important part, without that human life is unrecognizable.

You actually have not 'countered' my arguments with anything other than dismissal. "Common sense" being used as a blanket statement is not a counter, it's just "that's wrong because that's how it is".

And I'm not in French philosophy classes, I'm just well read. 'Less down to earth and bohemian'..? Are you calling me a hippie again? I'm the one being condescending? What a laffo.