• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators:

Why is ecstasy illegal?

it was made illegal in 1985 cuz it was getting too popular as a club drug under the reagan administration at the start of the "war on drugs." it got way too popular way too fast and the DEA decided it was bad before any studies were conducted.

originally they made it illegal because not enough was known about the drug and it needed to be properly studied and made sure it was safe for the public to consume. after that a few BS studies came out, bad publicity due to its use at raves and clubs, and here we are. 20 years later and theres too much stigma and misinformation for it to be legalized right now.

i will say this though, its use is rapidly growing and more and more information is available as time goes on. although i dont see it being decriminalized anytime soon i do believe it will eventually happen.
 
Cus governments suck. It pisses me off that they make rules on what I can and cannot put in me body.
 
questionmark said:
originally they made it illegal because not enough was known about the drug and it needed to be properly studied and made sure it was safe for the public to consume. after that a few BS studies came out, bad publicity due to its use at raves and clubs, and here we are. 20 years later and theres too much stigma and misinformation for it to be legalized right now.
The offical reason was that a related compound (possibly methamphetamine?) was known to cause neurotoxicity in rats and so they banned MDMA incase it caused similar damage.

Since then the general concensus is that if it does cause neurotoxicity at moderate recreational levels, its so small that we can't find conclusive evidence for it.
Shifty486 said:
8( I dont understand it, I bet if Bush tried it he would make it legal
He's done cocaine, but that is still illegal :\
rollthatrack said:
Apart from a few very localised religions (Celtic Druids or North American Indians) all religions deplore the use of mind altering substances so please don't go putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of Christianity. Islam prohibits the consumption of alcohol.

Though I do agree with your general point, religion now has a lot of negative points to it given its influence on modern culture with rules or dogma enormously out of date. IIRC the Catholic Church didn't retract its "The Sun goes around the Earth" view offically till something like 1910 8) But thats a rant for Thoughts and Awareness.
 
bush on coke... HA! Thats something i'd like to see very much! As an Australian, can I ask that the American public boycot bush until he does a couple of lines again. LOL... just kiddin hehehe
 
AlphaNumeric said:

Apart from a few very localised religions (Celtic Druids or North American Indians) all religions deplore the use of mind altering substances so please don't go putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of Christianity. Islam prohibits the consumption of alcohol.
They don't want you getting your religious/spiritual experiences anywhere else.
 
Perhaps it was a result of the profiteering of the original dealers in Texas.

And if so, perhaps history repeats itself as demostrated in the past few years with RC's.
 
Its the psychoactive quality of it all, they just don't think people are responsible enough to deal with it.

They'd rather produce gangs of murdering gun toting, drug slinging scumbags whose product might actually be poison.

Call it hypocracy, I could go on and on here about what a waste it is to spend trillons in the drug war, when users will always find a way.

stupid.
 
There will always be a market for drugs regardless of whether they are legal or not. The fact that they ARE illegal means that the manufacturers and suppliers can charge more for them. This means that the drug cartels make more profits.

Now what do the drug cartels spend their money on? Arms.

If you look at a map of illicit drug manufacturing and distribution, you will see that most drug production occurs in volatile regions. I am thinking of Afghanistan, India, Columbia.

Countries are kept in perpetual states of war to keep the arms industry buoyant. The US along with the UK are the largest manufacturers and exporters of arms in the world. They therefore have a vested interest in keeping the price of drugs artificially high because it keeps the economy strong.

The War On Drugs is a lie. The intelligence agencies know where the production takes place and if there was a real compunction to wipe the labs out, it could be done in a few hours across the globe.

The truth is that without the drugs industry, the world economy would collapse. Governments are happy to keep the status quo because politically it looks good to take a tough stance on drugs.
 
Financeman: While I think your argument relies on a few things we just can't know for sure and thus sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, I'm inclined to agree.

The 'black economy' is huge across the world, and where there are trillions of dollars flowing through people in the underworld their interests become powerful, whether or not they themselves have any direct say in policy the sheer scope of their contribution becomes a 'fact on the ground', around which a path must be negotiated with utmost care.

Not so much a case of them WANTING it this way, more a case of really being able to do fuck all about it.

--- G.
 
Morrison's Lament said:

Not so much a case of them WANTING it this way, more a case of really being able to do fuck all about it.

--- G.

That is a valid point of view but I cannot agree. With satellite technology, international intelligence agencies and historical knowledge of where drugs such as herorin are produced, taking these manufacturing plants would be child's play for the US.

I try not to sound like a Conspiracy Theorist but all my points are researched and logical. The problem with topics such as these are that they are circular. ie I cannot categorically prove the government has a vested interest in the drugs trade and nobody can categorically prove they do not.

The anti-government/anti-mainstream/anti-media point of view is always labelled the Conspiracy Theory by politicians and the media.

I always find it interesting to read the alternative press such as Aljazeera.com

Noam Chomsky is also a good writer on the subject of media and the way it is used to control public opinion.

A few years ago, the argument that there were not WMD in Iraq was a conspiracy theory.
 
financeman said:
That is a valid point of view but I cannot agree. With satellite technology, international intelligence agencies and historical knowledge of where drugs such as herorin are produced, taking these manufacturing plants would be child's play for the US.


I'm not disagreeing there, not at all. I'm not saying they can't do it, I'm saying they can't do it without fucking themselves and the world over worse than it already is. That is to say, they'd rather not have the drug situation, since it's a headache. However, they can't get rid of it without chopping off their own head.

I try not to sound like a Conspiracy Theorist but all my points are researched and logical. The problem with topics such as these are that they are circular. ie I cannot categorically prove the government has a vested interest in the drugs trade and nobody can categorically prove they do not.

You can't prove a negative, period. However, I see your point.

The anti-government/anti-mainstream/anti-media point of view is always labelled the Conspiracy Theory by politicians and the media.

True, but there are a lot of crazy conspirady theories out on the net, and this raises ones guard.

I always find it interesting to read the alternative press such as Aljazeera.com

Noam Chomsky is also a good writer on the subject of media and the way it is used to control public opinion.

Agreed on both counts.

A few years ago, the argument that there were not WMD in Iraq was a conspiracy theory.

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.
 
Shifty486 said:
8( I dont understand it, I bet if Bush tried it he would make it legal
its illegal because its a DRUG That causes DAMAGE to your body, and is potentially FATAL if used by an idiot that is uneducated.
 
Re: Re: Why is ecstasy illegal?

bfisher said:
its illegal because its a DRUG That causes DAMAGE to your body, and is potentially FATAL if used by an idiot that is uneducated.

That's not why drugs were made illegal in the first place, it's a retcon. Like the Klingon thing on Enterprise, someone cooked it up later on to explain a weird discrepancy.

--- G.
 
Top