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

FDA approves Ecstasy : New treatment of Iraq war veterans with resistant PTSD

You're joking right? Chronic MDMA use, even if it's "only" 1-2 times a week, is scores of times worse for your brain than ssri's or benzos, and especially so from a 'psychological' standpoint - regular use of e can very much and very easily put people into situations of cyclical depression and actually exacerbate the symptoms that would normally be treated with the use of SSRIs. I have many a friend who have been placed under such circumstances with no easy way out..

Yes, I'm well aware that MDMA isn't a completely safe drug, I've had friends go down similar routes and used it extensively for many years myself, but I've seen people far more messed up from prescription meds. MDMA is also a psychedelic - it's inherently NOT physically addictive.

Were the FDA to approve this, I'm assuming it would be approved for circumstances similar to the test, so MDMA would be administered at a dose of 100mg with a 40mg supplement 1 hour in, and this would be repeated maybe four times a year.

Under those circumstances, I'm sorry, but anyone that thinks MDMA poses more of a risk than, say, 30mg diazepam daily, is just wrong.

The whole point of this drug is that it's not a daily or even weekly dose. There's no direct mechanism of action that is making you better, the drug is long out of your system whilst you're still reaping the positive effects. It's a psychological healing - you're doing the healing yourself, the MDMA is merely the key.

Just remember, more people end up in A&E from taking Aspirin than do from taking MDMA.
 
Wonderful news. MDMA most certainly has medical value, and I'm glad to finally see the powers that deem chemicals as having medicinal value recognizing this. I gained a bit of faith in the FDA today. :)

If I were to design one of these studies, I'd introduce a second independent variable: whether or not ketamine was administered at the end of the roll. Not only does ketamine also show much promise in treating unipolar depression and chronic pain syndrome, but it also ameliorates a lot of the less desirable side effects of MDMA.

No, MDMA doesn't have a spotless safety profile. It has, like most medical drugs, a host of side effects that most people don't enjoy, and some of which have the potential for long term health hazards. There are probably some people that, due to the unique makeup of their bodies and brains, should never use MDMA, ever. There are doubtless medical conditions that are absolute contraindications for its use. But if these people can be identified, and ways to minimize the potential for harm are employed, I really think (again, as with any FDA-approved medicine), that for a subset of patients, the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.

I'm of two minds on the availability of pharmaceutical-grade MDMA to the general public. On the one hand, yeah, I'm all for drugs with fewer impurities and adulturants, that haven't funded the exploits of thugs who poach endangered plants, pollute land and water supplies, and massacre anyone who stands in their way. But if a significant amount of this legit MDMA gets diverted for recreational use, or the psychotherapeutic industry that's licensed to conduct MDMA sessions gets widely abused, this could set a very, very bad precedent for the willingness of the FDA to consider any future de/re-scheduling of any other drug people tend to find fun.
 
i think if the mdma therapy really worked for the victim, then tthe assumed excitement from mental freedom would in my opinion take priority over trying to get "high" from the mdma.
 
nice... not sure if this is a good thing though? ecstasy isn't necessarily a 'good' or 'safe' thing. yeah, it'll make ya happy, but i've experienced anxiety and mild depression after prolonged use of the drug. why not just stop war? this would sure stop PTSD. dumbass government.
 
nice... not sure if this is a good thing though? ecstasy isn't necessarily a 'good' or 'safe' thing. yeah, it'll make ya happy, but i've experienced anxiety and mild depression after prolonged use of the drug. why not just stop war? this would sure stop PTSD. dumbass government.

um but it is good and safe in the way they are using it, and even if war stoped, ptsd wouldnt. its not like they will be prescribed mdma, itll never be sent home(one would wissh tho) hah
 
Not sending people overseas to get PTSD in the first place would be more effective IMO.

This is not a good thing.


I love your posts Captain Heroin, but let us be realistic here! Do you not believe awareness is a good thing?
Agreed on your point though, certainly.
 
I love your posts Captain Heroin, but let us be realistic here! Do you not believe awareness is a good thing?
Agreed on your point though, certainly.

Awareness is a vague concept. What do you mean by that? Aware of what the MDMA experience is like?

why not just stop war? this would sure stop PTSD. dumbass government.

PTSD occurs outside of people who have served in the armed forces, but I don't disagree with your sentiment.

An EXTREMELY valid point - although, I believe so for somewhat different reasons. I concede the neurotoxicity of conventional psychedelic drugs is markedly lower than that of pseudo-psychedelic stimulant phenethylamines like MDMA. My personal argument in favor of the use of psychedelic phenethylamines/tryptamines is that they are far more psychologically revealing than MDMA, whose 'sweetness' is limited in large part to its empathogenic qualities. To truly recover from clinically diagnosed PTSD, I firmly believe one's psyche needs to be ripped open - as only 'true' psychedelics can do - and subsequently re-established from the ground up. Therefore, I think your argument for using psychedelics more favorably than psychedelic amphetamines is truly solid. The Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, Amazonians and Native Americans had tuned in (NOT a reference to Leary!) to this notion centuries, perhaps millennia ago; yet we, in our self-proclaimed 'Age of Enlightenment,' seem to struggle with such fundamental principles of using nature synergistically with our conscious experience.
I concur with your sentiment Vaya; I think that you have to understand that there is a reason why you have experienced the things you have in life. You have to gain a sense of how they have made you stronger, as long as you have survived and are still healthy in a physical sort of sense. Coming to terms with how horrible and dark life can be can help you see through to the brighter sides. Also, the more meaningful things in life are worth that much more in my opinion. There is a unique sense I get from having used mushrooms that life wouldn't be enjoyable if it wasn't challenging and even horrifying at times. There is a depth to being able to feel emotions more than one at a time (MDMA is a uni-directional experience, it somewhat forces you to be in a happy mood; as someone previously stated - it is hard to have a "bad trip" with it). At one point on mushrooms (on 7 grams of average potency mushrooms) I realized how overwhelming it is to experience seemingly all human emotion at the same time. After having this experience, I have learned how to use this to my advantage. I think the best way to sum up this idea is that an easy life isn't enjoyable. Despite having lived through approximately a third of a lifespan I wouldn't wish on anyone else I have a profound ability to appreciate my life and myself. I am sometimes baffled by this but it makes sense to me now.

Whether I have had an overall enjoyable, or difficult, experience with mushrooms or LSD, I feel that I have gained a considerable amount of knowledge regarding the way my mind works, and a greater hold on will power, self control, contentment with my own life, etc. I think that an appreciable contrast to what I am talking about is presented within Ayn Rand's works. The heroes always struggle the most and have more grief than anyone. The villains profit off of the work of others, but never enjoy their ill-gotten gains.

In short, Captain.Heroin, I both agree and disagree with that which you have stated in response to this fascinating news; that which I disagree with, however, is not to be disrespected, because your very intelligent mind contrived it and your thoughts are just as deserving of philosophical vivisection as any others. Thank you for returning to support your initial assertions. Quite thought-provocative.

~ vaya
Thank you Vaya. I also respect your opinions because they are well thought out. I hope this post better describes my feelings on this matter, though feel free to ask me to clarify if you are confused about any of it. :)

Also, you say that there are "*much worse*" mental disorders and diseases that should be addressed.

I don't believe you (or your loved ones; meaning family members such as your spouse, children, parents that you genuinely care for, etc.) have been afflicted with a neurological disorder. Therefore it is OK you disagree with me, I hope you never have to endure such a tragedy.
 
Last edited:
Many good and valid points here that i will not get into. It's too early for my brain to think that deeply. I will say that it is a good think that they are giving this a try, one way or another. As other have said, if they were to give it out at the pharmacy, it would lose much of its value as a tool. But MDMA sessions with a psychologist or whatever on hand could be very helpful for many people. just a thought; one reason that they probably started with war vets is that it was the government that put them in this situation to begin with, so the government should be helping them out as much as they can. Another (more likely) reason why is that if the government can pay for just a few MDMA sessions and for the most part "cure" someone of PTSD, it would be alot cheaper than paying out disability for psych. treatment and daily doses of pharmaceutical drugs over a lifetime. Regardless of why they are doing this, i think it's a good thing. Also if it works out well for the vets, they will probably move on to a broader range of test subjects, eventually making it a legitimate procedure for other people.

plus, if it works the government can take credit for helping vets which is just good PR for them.
 
on another note, not sending people to war WOULD be a good thing but it's just not gonna happen. There has always been war somewhere since there has been civilization. Plus do you know what will happen if they just pulled everyone out of Iraq /Afghanistan tomorrow? One crazy decades long civil war which would ruin alot more people's lives overall. Maybe not americans, but people are people. Regardless of the stupid reason we went there, we need to finish the job until they can govern themselves. Just my opinion. not trying to start a big controversial argument. It's just my 2 cents. I have 1 sister that is in Iraq for the 4th time, and 1 sister that just got back from Afghanistan for the second time. I would love to have them home and safe, never to go back. But despite what the media shows, we have done some good over there. whether we were invited to help or not.
 
I agree with EVERYTHING you've said, other than the first sentence.

I quite simply don't believe that the psychological addiction some people experience with MDMA can be anything like the crippling physical (and psychological) addiction so many people experience with SSRIs and benzos.

One of my friends is addictive to MDMA and it has almost killed her on several occasions. She was injecting it almost everyday in high doses and continues to use it despite being basically non-functional for the past three years (unable to eat, unable to sleep, unable to work). If that's not an addiction, I'm not sure what is.
 
One of my friends is addictive to MDMA and it has almost killed her on several occasions. She was injecting it almost everyday in high doses and continues to use it despite being basically non-functional for the past three years (unable to eat, unable to sleep, unable to work). If that's not an addiction, I'm not sure what is.

I'm not disputing that it can be a dangerous and psychologically addictive drug, but your friend is a rarity. Compare the number of people (even as a comparative percentage relative to number of users) that are as addicted to MDMA as your friend is, now compare that to the number of users that are addicted to citalopram, or diazepam, or fluoxetine.

If you abuse MDMA, it can be dangerous, yes. However, this won't be an option since people won't be taking their MDMA with them away from the therapists couch.

MDMA is not safe. Other legally regulated and widely available drugs are far less safe. That's the point I'm making.
 
wait isn't this a repeat from the 80s-90s when they were using it for psychotherapy? cool but it seems like this will come to a full circle
 
One of my friends is addictive to MDMA and it has almost killed her on several occasions. She was injecting it almost everyday in high doses and continues to use it despite being basically non-functional for the past three years (unable to eat, unable to sleep, unable to work). If that's not an addiction, I'm not sure what is.


I believe it is the most addictive drug on earth(at least to me), especially if using her r.o.a.
 
only statement worth reading in this entire thread.

drug legalization by the government is a way for them to "opiate the masses", not because they realize that these chemicals are "safer" than what they had originally thought them to be.

if you want clarification read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and then try to tell me that this isn't what our world is coming to.

You're entirely wrong. You can't take something (like MDMA, LSD, marijuana) that will change how you think about things and compare it to something that adds nothing new (like opiates). The "opiates for the masses" are the prescription drugs that the government lets us take. Opiates and benzos don't really bring anything new to the table, they just put us to sleep and make us dumber. Anything that expands and morphs the way you think is definitely NOT an "opiate for the masses". MDMA is becoming closer to legalization because it does help people with PTSD. The government is under a lot of pressure from almost everyone. We're in a war, our countrymen are being hurt and disturbed and the public wants solutions. We want to help our servicemen and women. The government needs to put aside the bullshit from the past (war on drugs) or we will rise up to help our own men and women without them. The public doesn't want to be in the dark anymore. If something can help a problem then it should be used, as long as it is safe (and the benefits severely outweigh the risks involved).
 
Everyone who has taken MDMA knows how powerful of an experience can be. The tides are turning and someday the entire array of schedule1 drugs will dissapear for a more balanced, scientifically based system that gives people a chance at life, instead of addicting them to more 'acceptable' substances and fillling the pockets of big pharma.

Amen to that brother...well said i sure fuckin hope so!!!!!
 
I wouldnt trust the FDA one bit at all.They are still part of the juggernaut that has tried for a very long time to alter brain and body chemistry to keep the human being a more sedated,unthinking and routine-based creature. They also approved flouride & aspartame. Yay!! I wouldnt be surprised one bit if there is a little more than mdma put in that 'medicine'. Watch out.
 
only statement worth reading in this entire thread.

It was a great statement, but was it so prolific as to warrant invalidating 56 of the 57 posts before yours? 8) Yikes...

TearItDown said:
You're entirely wrong. You can't take something (like MDMA, LSD, marijuana) that will change how you think about things and compare it to something that adds nothing new (like opiates). The "opiates for the masses" are the prescription drugs that the government lets us take. Opiates and benzos don't really bring anything new to the table, they just put us to sleep and make us dumber. Anything that expands and morphs the way you think is definitely NOT an "opiate for the masses". MDMA is becoming closer to legalization because it does help people with PTSD. The government is under a lot of pressure from almost everyone. We're in a war, our countrymen are being hurt and disturbed and the public wants solutions. We want to help our servicemen and women. The government needs to put aside the bullshit from the past (war on drugs) or we will rise up to help our own men and women without them. The public doesn't want to be in the dark anymore. If something can help a problem then it should be used, as long as it is safe (and the benefits severely outweigh the risks involved).

I think you make some really valid points, TID; to suggest psychologically expanding materials be placed in the same nuanced category as "Soma" (or, more realistically [and as you have already pointed out], opiates/opioids and benzodiazepines) is loo-duh-kriss. Sometimes I feel that Timothy Leary tried to introduce LSD in a similar manner, with the whole 'Turn on, tune in, drop out' tirade. But that's why he failed to be a positive influence on the psychedelic culture, and ultimately wound up in prison, then a jailbird, and (last I heard) doing tours of colleges on responsible drug use. His failure to inseminate the lazy minds of the masses with LSD is a culturally-based verification that LSD and similar compounds have no connection with the phrase "opiate of the masses."

~ vaya
 
Last edited:
Top