• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators:

Why is ecstasy illegal?

Morrison's Lament said:

Eh, no, it wasn't. I've actually spoken to Hans Blix about this issue as well as attended a lecture he held ,and it was very much the mainstream view outside the Whitehouse.

--- G.

That's interesting. Totally different story over here in the UK where Tony Blair used this argument backed up with secret service "evidence" to convice Parliament and the masses that war was the only answer.
 
That was indeed one of the most interesting encounters of my life. The lecture was sublime, the Q&A afterwards was hillarious.

Random person: "Mr. Blix, when did the surveillance of your activities by microphones and such stop?"

Blix looked around.

Blix: "Who says it stopped? We might all be on some machine in the CIA!"

laughter erupted ;)

--- G.
 
BTW, I think a large point is how the media filters information. You can get the impression of any outlandish fantasy if it's propogated through enough media outlets, and the governments of the UK and USA effectively controlled the release of information and thus the terms of the debate over Iraq.

Experts like Hans Blix were bound to confidentiality and could not speak while they were working, while the people foaming at the mouth for war were bound by no obligations, apparently not even the obligation to tell the truth.

--- G.
 
It is indeed a dangerous world we live in.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1378539,00.html


Dr David Kelly is the first British citizen whose sudden, unexpected and violent death has been denied an inquest. Three weeks after Dr Kelly's body was found, Lord Falconer ordered that the inquest into his death be adjourned indefinitely and subsumed into a public inquiry by invoking section 17a of the Coroner's Act 1988.
The section is designed to avoid duplication of inquiry in cases of multiple deaths where the cause of death can, to some extent, be assumed from the outset. But Dr Kelly's was a solitary death coming amid a political storm concerning doubts over the government's case for war with Iraq, and its cause required rigorous investigation. The Hutton inquiry had no power to call a jury, subpoena witnesses or cross-examine them under oath.

Disquiet expressed recently by paramedics over finding very little blood at the scene of Dr Kelly's death gives credence to our view that it is highly improbable Dr Kelly died of haemorrhage from a transected ulnar artery. From such a wound he would have lost only about a pint of blood, and for death to occur he would need to have lost some five pints. And Co-Proxamol levels in his blood were one-third of what is normally regarded as a fatal dose.
In his report, Lord Hutton confirmed that he had seen a photograph of Dr Kelly lying with his head against the base of a tree. Two volunteer searchers stated they found Dr Kelly's body slumped against a tree. Yet the paramedics who arrived later, and five other witnesses, including the forensic pathologist, reported that the body was flat on its back a foot from the tree. Police photographed the body in this position. Given that there is photographic evidence showing the body in two different positions, it must be determined who moved the body, and when and why.

The law requires a verdict of suicide to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Why should Dr Kelly's death receive less scrutiny than any other sudden, unexpected and violent death? As things stand, suicide has not been proved, and we still do not know how he died.
Dr Michael Powers QC
Martin Birnstingl
Specialist in vascular surgery
Chris Burns-Cox
Specialist in internal general medicine
C Stephen Frost
Specialist in diagnostic radiology
David Halpin
Specialist in orthopaedic and trauma surgery
William McQuillan
Specialist in orthopaedic and trauma surgery
Andrew Rouse
Consultant in public health
John Henry Scurr
Specialist in vascular surgery
Searle Sennett
Specialist in anaesthesiology
 
financeman said:
I completely disagree. There are so many ways of linking one thing to another economically and to just boost arms sales is a tenuous link compared to the other costs (to society therefore to the government) of illegal drugs.

You are right that no one (except maybe world leaders etc :| ) can prove or dis-prove it but I think it is highly improbable.

Morrison's Lament said:
Like the Klingon thing on Enterprise, someone cooked it up later on to explain a weird discrepancy.

--- G.

:D
 
Karaboudjan said:
I completely disagree. There are so many ways of linking one thing to another economically and to just boost arms sales is a tenuous link compared to the other costs (to society therefore to the government) of illegal drugs.

You are right that no one (except maybe world leaders etc :| ) can prove or dis-prove it but I think it is highly improbable.

Sorry, it is not a tenuous link. Government agencies' involvment in the
drugs trade is well documented. The drugs trade plays a large part the funding of arms although is not the only source of funds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1590827.stm


Trafficking

US government agencies have been crucial in escalating this supply of heroin to the western world.

In 1947 the CIA's supply of arms and money to Corsican gangs recruited to harass French trade unionists in Marseille docks was the beginning of the 'French Connection' which supplied heroin to North America until the early 1970s.

Heroin trafficking subsequently developed in areas of SE Asia suffering from weak central governments, endemic warfare and private armies allied to the CIA.

Soviet occupation

Crucially, in 1979, the Carter administration shipped arms to the mujaheddin [Muslim holy warriors] resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. These American-backed rebels raised money for arms by selling opium, and by 1980, 60% of heroin in the US originated in Afghanistan.
 
There is no medical reason for it to be used legally. Why would they manufacture a drug purely for recreational use. Misuse of recreational drugs has a big effect on government resourses. Smoking and alcohol abuse costs the tax payers millions each year. Its too early for it to be made legal for any reason. In forty years when more tests and autopsy's have been done on the ecstasy generation will we see what damage it has really done.
 
I think that they might partially re-legalize MDMA someday. There are still alot of doctors and researchers who believe that MDMA can be used for certain treatments in the psychiatriac field. I heard theres even a few rogue psychiatrists who use it to treat people with special problems.
 
SoLiDo said:
There are still alot of doctors and researchers who believe that MDMA can be used for certain treatments in the psychiatriac field. I heard theres even a few rogue psychiatrists who use it to treat people with special problems.

Indeed there are. MDMA was used as a psychotherapy aid before it was criminalised. The reclassification was forced through by the DEA against advice from many learned experts.

I would avoid the word "rogue" though because of the connotations of the word. I prefer "enlightened"

:)
 
financeman said:
Oh dear.... I suggest you look up www.maps.org

So what you think it will be llegalised? decriminalised? It will never be. It may become available for medical use by prescription, thats about it. And that doesn't mean it is legal. What are you going to do? go to a psychologist or doctor and pretend you have had a severe trauma, parkinsons, been raped, etc so you can get this stuff, if it becomes available. It wouldn't be easy to get and you are dreaming if you think you could. It will be hard to convince a doctor you have parkinsons if you haven't really got it. And it is illegal to possess a drug if you haven't been prescribed it.
 
What are you going to do? go to a psychologist or doctor and pretend you have had a severe trauma, parkinsons, been raped, etc so you can get this stuff, if it becomes available

A group of friends could just take turns raping each other and getting MDMA prescriptions.

--- G.
 
goodfellas said:
So what you think it will be llegalised? decriminalised? It will never be.

How do you know?

It may become available for medical use by prescription, thats about it.


Aaaah so it will be legalised?

And that doesn't mean it is legal.

Huh?

What are you going to do? go to a psychologist or doctor and pretend you have had a severe trauma, parkinsons, been raped, etc so you can get this stuff, if it becomes available.

Nope. I suggested no such thing

It wouldn't be easy to get and you are dreaming if you think you could.

Didn't say I could

It will be hard to convince a doctor you have parkinsons if you haven't really got it.

Chuckle :\

And it is illegal to possess a drug if you haven't been prescribed it.

Really?

Originally posted by Morrisons Lament

A group of friends could just take turns raping each other and getting MDMA prescriptions.

LOL You'd like that huh?

:D
 
Last edited:
It's illegal NOW.
We eat this stuff NOW.
If it is ever legally available...it's not NOW.
Who says that you will still be eating it when it's available?

And besides....they can't legalize marijuana in the US (in my opinion) because there are so many people in jail doing time for it, and it's just snowballing. The gov't makes $$$CHING CHING$$$ off that shizz. Less police force would be needed, which makes a lesser amount of available jobs.


More people= more problems.
 
Although some weird things have happened at the fringes, the real reason the drug war exists is simply that politicians believe that drugs and DRUG USERS are bad for society. The latter part, 'dangerous drug users', is where things get a little strange. Historically, the drug war has been a tool of racial and cultural oppression as well as a simple public health matter. Marijuana was outlawed during the Great Depression when white southerners feared losing already scarce jobs to competition from hispanics. Cocaine was outlawed when it became associated with the rise in prominence of black jazz culture. Every psychedelic the government could think of was outlawed in about 1970 during the height of the Hippie movement. Crack became the national menace when the press started frothing at the mouth over 'crack crazed blacks' in the inner city. (Interestingly, a white person is twice as likely to be a crack user as a black person.)

Over the years the American drug war has become more 'medicalized', focussing on public health as its justification, but still also has very strong roots in the puritanical idea that altering your mind is in of itself inherently wrong and a threat to society.

People that think the drug war exists to fund the CIA or make money for prisons are at best being overly simplistic; while these may at times have been motivation for some people, the vast majority has supported the drug war because they believe drug users are immoral and a danger to the public. And in some cases, they're even right.
 
Top