• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Has Dr Shulgin killed 100 British teenagers?

wooger

wooger

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
765
Okay so I know this article is really, really old but I was so curious as to see people's reactions to it on here...

It seems to me to one of the weirdest articles ever written.. here goes...

This weekend, in clubs, pubs and bars across Britain, a million young people will take Ecstasy.
With luck - and it will take a lot of good fortune - none of them will die horribly as a result. But what is certain is that many thousands will experience a bad trip, one which may ruin their health, and their lives, forever.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lled-100-British-teenagers.html#ixzz1eTK9mchL
Click to expand...

You can read more here

I'm sorry if this is old and outdated, but I wonder.... do you think people would still take stuff like this seriously?
 
Dr. Shulgin didn't give MDMA to anyone who died from it. people will always abuse drugs. Does the goverment get in trouble for allowing people to sell alcohol to people who abuse it? Absolutely not.

People will buy into this gargabe because most opinions, especially regarding drugs, are easily malleable.

Also, since MDMA is illegal it must be manufactured illegally in most cases. I seriously doubt any of the deaths associated with MDMA were from 99-100% pure MDMA. I can also bet there were other drugs present in the ecstasy they ate.
 
If it was pure MDMA and they took it responsibly then most people have zero chance of dying. Of course some people may have a bad reaction to it. Everyone is different I mean people die from eating peanuts for god sakes. Every drug even prescription ones has a certain percentage of people that can die just from taking it once.

And also you can't blame shulgin for things that happen to people when they are in the drug. Did he force feed it to them? It would be like the government blaming Einstein and all those scientists that were involved in creating the atom bomb for all the deaths in Japan. You got to take responsibility for yourselves
 
And his recipes for the potentially lethal chemical formula are now freely available on the World Wide Web. Teenagers with the right ingredients could create the drug in their own bedroom. They wouldn't even need to visit a dealer.
Click to expand...

God I wish it were that easy. "The right ingredients" require dealers.
 
Here we go...

I wonder how many people with peanut allergies George Washington Carver has killed?
 
^^
That's weird. Maybe food distributors are just getting more lax in separating different foods to prevent peanuts from contaminating none peanut foods
 
'We are no longer accepting comments on this article.'

I think they've realised that the vast majority of their readership does not agree with them.
 
The comments on George Washington Carver and Jack Daniels were very appropriate, given the stupidity of the original article.
I also wonder how many deaths Henry Ford is responsible for. :p
 
What an unbelievable article.
I may be one of the most outspoken opponents of MDMA on BL, and even I found this to be ridiculous.
But the analogy about peanuts doesn't quite hold up.
Although the production of peanut butter required human intervention, the peanut is a creation of nature.
MDMA, a synthetic compound and amphetamine, is NOT.

So far as pure MDMA can cause unexpected deadly consequences, Shulgin DOES bear some responsibility.
But he cannot be held responsible for the INCREDIBLE demand for the drug.
The sheer volume of consumption can only be blamed on human nature.

The individual chemists creating the pills certainly bear some responsibility, as do the dealers.
Politicians, healthcare workers, and the eduction system is responsible for the presence or LACK of correct information.

Bluelight and other drug using communities online have a special responsibility to disseminate reliable information about harm reduction.
When a 'heavy' user starts refuting research because they find a weakness, they are putting new users in danger.
The arrogance of youth is valuable in terms of survival, but applied to drugs it is the height of stupidity.

This is where the writer of this article takes issue.
The kids dying from this drug are KIDS.
They cannot be held as responsible as true adults, with fully functioning brains.
So assigning blame to the modern creator of MDMA is an easily justified step - to some people.

But the individual is ultimately responsible - no matter who created the drug, who synthesized it, who dealt it, and who recommended its foolish use online.
This has always been the case throughout history - individual actions carry consequences.
Sometimes the consequences are unfair or unexpected.

Others DO bear some responsibility - and this includes some readers of this thread.
But the person taking the drug assumes more responsibility than all others - and ALL the consequences.

For those that agree that BL and its members bear some responsibility...
There is a WEALTH of data earned through YEARS of hard work by BRILLIANT scientists.
There is no definitive proof, but there is a consensus that MDMA 'damages' the brain.
This consensus includes theories backed with significant data.

At high or repeated doses, this 'damage' is evident through numerous methods of detection.
Some believe that even undetectable damage may be present in the 'safe' user.
The experience of 'rolling' itself shares many features with the ACUTE responses that lead to death.

One of the most striking points in the article is that 100 people have died from MDMA in the UK.
Only 100.

For the time-frame and population in question, this is a surprisingly LOW number.
In a single week, cigarettes and alcohol probably kill this many people in the UK.
While the sudden death of young people is NOT to be dismissed...
It is also NOT to be the focus of debate.

It seems rather clear, even to a person that nearly DIED from Serotonin Syndrome (me), that MDMA does not kill its victims often.
Even in 'toxic' doses on laboratory animals, survival is the trend.
Controlling body temperature increases the survival trend.

The issue to be concerned with is not death, it is collective brain damage.
Or psychological problems.
Or cognitive alterations.
Or the loss of valuable visceral emotions for the rest of your life.
Or the speeding of age-related decline.

There are greater issues at play than death.
But who is looking?
Not the users of the drug.
Not even Shulgin.
 
First Bad Comedown said:
the analogy about peanuts doesn't quite hold up.
Although the production of peanut butter required human intervention, the peanut is a creation of nature.
MDMA, a synthetic compound and amphetamine, is NOT.

So far as pure MDMA can cause unexpected deadly consequences, Shulgin DOES bear some responsibility.
Click to expand...

More people die from peanuts than MDMA, it would seem.
That is what you can call unexpected consequences!

And your binary distinction between "nature" and "synthetic" may be oversimplifying things, since all "synthetic" inventions were created by humans, a natural thing, and are therefore at least "second-degree natural". Peanuts are also created by water, air, soil, nutrients, specific seeds, and light, which are all "natural", and therefore may be seen as "second-degree natural".
While you may argue that there are differences in degree, it is hard to argue that they are of completely different kinds, as if there were a binary opposition.

Do you blame the inventors of penicillin and aspirin for unexpected deaths?
How about the inventors of prozac, or french fries?
Do you chose to draw a line somewhere in the continuum?
Is there no other "correct" place to draw the line?
Just wondering what you think, because it seems like oversimplification to me.

In any case, the MDMA / peanuts thing also seems to me a fair comparison, as I feel that nobody bears any responsibility for MDMA deaths, or peanut deaths, apart from the individual who chose to partake (as well as, arguable, society at large for failing to provide sufficient information and education regarding risks and harm reduction).
 
He never fucking told anyone to take drugs. He never advised it. Should we blame the first bacteria to produce cyanide hundreds of millions of years ago for the holocaust? No. The bacteria didn't tell Hitler "Hey man I got this badass stuff called cyanide, good for killing people with big noses"...
 
As 'binary' as the distinction may seem to you...
I drew a pretty FAIR distinction when I concluded that the individual bears the greatest responsibility.
This goes for peanuts, french fries, and amphetamines.

But amphetamines require a LOT more intervention to exist.
Very few human beings are capable of synthesizing this compound, much less discovering it.
Your equating these is far more 'binary' than anything I have said.

Inventors also bear responsibility.
This is the legal view in many cases, and it could be argued as a moral view.
It is not an all-or-nothing prospect, with the user assuming 100%.
Responsibility is SHARED.

The proportion could be argued.
For example - the inventors of Prozac do indeed bear responsibility.
But the pharmaceutical industry that produces them have profited BILLIONS of dollars and they contribute staff members to the FDA.
Who do you think I blame more?

How about families of Prozac users that committed suicide?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdkFasjSJ_g

Just as with MDMA, the 'adverse events' seem to be the minority.
Yet the nature of it is so VIOLENT that the minority deserves to be acknowledged.
Nobody told these people that the newest miracle pill could result in such emotional pain that its users would WISH for death.

So yes - Prozac's inventors bear responsibility.
The FDA and the legions of doctors so arrogantly prescribing it bear more.
Yet it is the individual that ultimately bears the bulk of responsibility.

Penicillin, which I am highly allergic to after several child-hood exposures, is different from the other drugs.
Its goal is healing infection, while MDMA and Prozac are designed to change brain function.
While all three could be applied in admirable ways...
Isn't an acute and lethal reaction to healing infection more acceptable than a failed attempt at curing depression?
Perhaps not to the victim...

French fries?
The corporations that PROFIT from its widespread marketing and consumption DO bear responsibility.
While I do not believe in the American response of suing companies when personal responsibility is obviously greater...
No other food contributes to the 'obesity epidemic' like french fries.
It is truly an evil and destructive food.

But as with drugs it is the DOSAGE that causes damage.
I enjoy fries probably once per month OR LESS.
I'm also 30 years old and invested in my personal health.
When I was younger I would eat them 4 times a week, like most of my peers.
Many here will not realize just how bad french fries are until they reach their 40s.

My father is a brilliant man, but at 55 years old he is suddenly fighting diabetes due to poor choices made over the course of decades.
Yet fast-food restaurants STILL bear some responsibility.
It was not always understood that starches are so damaging...

So this undermines both the individual and corporate responsibilities, doesn't it?
Knowledge is required, isn't it?

Shulgin could not have known the 'neurotoxicity' of MDMA when he synthesized it.
This undermines his responsibility as well.
If I had to assign a proportion of blame, he would receive a miniscule amount.

Is this enough 'drawing the line'?
Do we need percentages?

Ok.

Shulgin gets 2%.
Does this help?

By my arguments, those that profit bear greater responsibility than the creator.
The manufacturing and distribution of the drug is taken out of the hands of its creator.
In the case of Shulgin, he has made the formulas public - and this entitles him to a greater share.
But those that currently manufacture and distribute MDMA should be FORCED to share harm reduction techniques to their customers.

In terms of 'profit' it is the INDIVIDUAL that profits most.
By using the drug we inherit an unbelievable wealth, at least for a while.
This is a simple argument.

You have refused to argue one of my primary points - that Bluelight bears a SPECIAL responsibility.
And many members utterly fail in this regard, disseminating false and harmful information.
In my opinion, this places more responsibility HERE than on Shulgin or on public education.

If this weren't the case, I wouldn't be spending so much time on BL since my own near-lethal reaction to MDMA.
I should have never trusted the words of people that glorify the world's most popular amphetamine...
While I am quite angry at the arrogant culture of ecstasy users that ASSURED me of the drug's 'safety'...
I must admit a great level of personal responsibility.
 
The idea that we should hold scientists responsible for the misuse of their creations** by others is so absurd its not even worth talking about. People will always misuse technology, that doesn't mean we should go back to living as apes. Its the individual's responsibility to educate themselves regarding the risks of taking a drug, and the decision whether or not to ingest the substance is theirs alone. When you put a drug in your body, you are taking responsibility for any negative effects that you may have inflicted upon yourself -- only some sort of immature goober would turn around and blame their problems on the guy who invented or synthesized the drug. Part of being a responsible adult is owning your own choices, and being extremely careful because sometimes you make a choice that results in irreversible negative consequences.

I hate this idea that is so prominent nowadays, that people are like children that need to be protected from their own stupidity. I say we should make it easier for people to access factual information about drugs from primary sources -- and then let people kill themselves by using them irresponsibly if they still want to. Yes, all deaths are tragic blah blah blah -- but people die everyday, and sacrificing our freedoms to protect people from their own stupidity is preposterous.

(**yes I realize that Shulgin didn't invent MDMA, but only rescued it from obscurity.)
 
Fuck me. The whole world has forgotten the meaning of 'personal responsibility', hasn't it.
 
First Bad Comedown said:
As 'binary' as the distinction may seem to you...
I drew a pretty FAIR distinction when I concluded that the individual bears the greatest responsibility.
This goes for peanuts, french fries, and amphetamines.

But amphetamines require a LOT more intervention to exist.
Very few human beings are capable of synthesizing this compound, much less discovering it.
Your equating these is far more 'binary' than anything I have said.

Inventors also bear responsibility.
This is the legal view in many cases, and it could be argued as a moral view.
It is not an all-or-nothing prospect, with the user assuming 100%.
Responsibility is SHARED.

The proportion could be argued.
For example - the inventors of Prozac do indeed bear responsibility.
But the pharmaceutical industry that produces them have profited BILLIONS of dollars and they contribute staff members to the FDA.
Who do you think I blame more?

How about families of Prozac users that committed suicide?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdkFasjSJ_g

Just as with MDMA, the 'adverse events' seem to be the minority.
Yet the nature of it is so VIOLENT that the minority deserves to be acknowledged.
Nobody told these people that the newest miracle pill could result in such emotional pain that its users would WISH for death.

So yes - Prozac's inventors bear responsibility.
The FDA and the legions of doctors so arrogantly prescribing it bear more.
Yet it is the individual that ultimately bears the bulk of responsibility.

Penicillin, which I am highly allergic to after several child-hood exposures, is different from the other drugs.
Its goal is healing infection, while MDMA and Prozac are designed to change brain function.
While all three could be applied in admirable ways...
Isn't an acute and lethal reaction to healing infection more acceptable than a failed attempt at curing depression?
Perhaps not to the victim...

French fries?
The corporations that PROFIT from its widespread marketing and consumption DO bear responsibility.
While I do not believe in the American response of suing companies when personal responsibility is obviously greater...
No other food contributes to the 'obesity epidemic' like french fries.
It is truly an evil and destructive food.

But as with drugs it is the DOSAGE that causes damage.
I enjoy fries probably once per month OR LESS.
I'm also 30 years old and invested in my personal health.
When I was younger I would eat them 4 times a week, like most of my peers.
Many here will not realize just how bad french fries are until they reach their 40s.

My father is a brilliant man, but at 55 years old he is suddenly fighting diabetes due to poor choices made over the course of decades.
Yet fast-food restaurants STILL bear some responsibility.
It was not always understood that starches are so damaging...

So this undermines both the individual and corporate responsibilities, doesn't it?
Knowledge is required, isn't it?

Shulgin could not have known the 'neurotoxicity' of MDMA when he synthesized it.
This undermines his responsibility as well.
If I had to assign a proportion of blame, he would receive a miniscule amount.

Is this enough 'drawing the line'?
Do we need percentages?

Ok.

Shulgin gets 2%.
Does this help?

By my arguments, those that profit bear greater responsibility than the creator.
The manufacturing and distribution of the drug is taken out of the hands of its creator.
In the case of Shulgin, he has made the formulas public - and this entitles him to a greater share.
But those that currently manufacture and distribute MDMA should be FORCED to share harm reduction techniques to their customers.

In terms of 'profit' it is the INDIVIDUAL that profits most.
By using the drug we inherit an unbelievable wealth, at least for a while.
This is a simple argument.

You have refused to argue one of my primary points - that Bluelight bears a SPECIAL responsibility.
And many members utterly fail in this regard, disseminating false and harmful information.
In my opinion, this places more responsibility HERE than on Shulgin or on public education.

If this weren't the case, I wouldn't be spending so much time on BL since my own near-lethal reaction to MDMA.
I should have never trusted the words of people that glorify the world's most popular amphetamine...
While I am quite angry at the arrogant culture of ecstasy users that ASSURED me of the drug's 'safety'...
I must admit a great level of personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Did anyone make you take MDMA? As in hold you down and shove a pill down your throat? If that was the case then whatever happened to you was not your fault but if you took that pill willingly then it's just your responsibility since you choose to take it.
 
I wish the government and drug enforcement agencies would make harmful, cheap MDMA substitutes the main priority and not MDMA itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top