Outside of no physical addiction, is MDMA one of the most dangerous drugs?

[Kerensky]

I don't really like the Nutt, I find he takes his pro-drug bias too far


This is such a loaded question, really. The most damaging drug is the one you abuse the shit out of, they all have just as much potential to hurt as they do to make you feel good.

Drugs are not good, drugs are not bad. They're drugs. They do what they're supposed too.

Premier scientist in the UK on this subject and he's too pro-drug for a BL ED moderator?

LMFAO. Have you read his book? The 'ecstasy is safer than horseriding' comment was based on a thorough risk evaluation.


I'll answer the initial question - NO. According to all data we have, no MDMA is not one of the most dangerous drugs. Not at all. Kills vanishingly few, damages even with repeated use are minimal.

For an allegedly truth focussed HR board this place seems to be full of of overblown fear.

 

[Folley]

Premier scientist in the UK on this subject and he's too pro-drug for a BL ED moderator?

Yes. As I stated, he takes his pro-drug bias too far in the wrong direction.


There is a clear bias for both sides of the argument, here on BL we strive to give both sides equal weight so people can make their own decisions based on real, legitimate evidence. Saying it is "safer than riding a horse", even with a "thorough risk evaluation" is just sensationalism and really has nothing to do with the science of the drug.

There is a LOT of risk with MDMA, although this is boiled down to almost nothing with safe and responsible use.. that's why I dislike Nutt, he does his best to highlight all the pros of MDMA while avoiding the negatives. I agree with a lot of what he says, but there is a whole other layer to it that he often seems to leave out and that could get a lot of people into trouble way down the road.

 

[thatdreamer123]

Most every list that I have seen puts alcohol as the most dangerous far above MDMA with regards to damage to ones self and damage cause to others attributed to the drug. there are many articles on this that are easily available on the internet.

They arn't the be all and end all but well thought out enough IMO to use as a guide as to the danger involved in the use of a particular substance.

here is a graph from prof. David Nutt. his name carries some weight in the pro-drug community so I would consider it pretty accurate...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

This is what I was getting at!

This is the sort of pro drug stuff that seems really off to me. There NO WAY you could rank MDMA that low. Because the wa I look at it is, in order to gauge harm you have to gauge indulgence to an extent.

Just like someone posted here, sometimes they would use MDMA 4 times a week at max, and thats a lot for anything, but it really fucked them over.

I know SO MANY people who drink probably that many times a week and it hasn't done a fraction of that harm. Yes it can do immense amounts of harm with alcoholism and all that. But it seems nothing ever good has come of frequent MDMA use. And studies like this seem to be based off of purely addictiveness, and one time use damages.

Those two criteria really don't work out because the argument behind comparing alcohol to these drugs always seems to root back to "we live in such a backwards society that these drugs are illegal, and alcohol is not". When so obviously, if people use drugs like MDMA, hell if people use something as safe as LSD, as frequently as so many people here in the U.S. drink on a regular basis, we'd all be in BIG trouble.

This would lead me to think alcohol is safer. Maybe not when compared in single uses, but over time, ignoring the addiction aspect as so many of us drink on a very regular basis without problems.

When gauging the safety of drugs, you kind of have to account for frequent use. Why? Because outside of the tiny fraction of people who exercise HR in our little bubble here at bluelight, do not practice moderation.

I am a firm believer that alcohol is a very dangerous drug, and has many negative effects (pretty much date rape, causes addiction, and what other drug causes people to fight so much?), what other drug can be indulged upon as frequently with as little repercussions. How many people go through college drinking there days away, and end up really just fine? A lot. if you had replaced their drinking habits with MDMA or some other drug, they'd be in such awful shape by comparison.

I really hope this all comes off right haha, kind of trying to make a tricky point here.

Basically what I'm trying to get at is, if you ignorant frequent use as a factor in the harmfulness of a drug, you get some really skewed notions from it. Because I feel the most dangerous and scariest aspect of drugs is the permanent and long-term damage people retain from longterm frequent or casual use.

 

[boomer11]

No one really knows for sure how neurotoxic MDMA is a regular doses (100-200mg) 4-12x/year. It's obvious that at high doses it is neurotoxic and will cause long lasting changes.
Rarely do people die from taking it, and rarely do people become addicted to it, which is why it doesn't cause societal problems, but in terms of risks to the individual, no one can really say for sure how bad it is.
I personally only use it sparingly... a few times in the summer because it makes me to unmotivated and messes with memory to use during the school year. I like to think that my brain can over come any damage I do to it that way, but who knows.

 

[electrodevo]

I know SO MANY people who drink probably that many times a week and it hasn't done a fraction of that harm. Yes it can do immense amounts of harm with alcoholism and all that. But it seems nothing ever good has come of frequent MDMA use. And studies like this seem to be based off of purely addictiveness, and one time use damages.

Alcohol isn't as bad for the brain as MDMA, but it's *very* bad for the body. That chart I believe is indeed biased more towards overall body damage vs. mental health (which is probably a bit trickier to measure anyways since we know less in this area).

Alcohol has far different usage patterns (slow and steady ingestion vs. ingested all at once; plus there is a culture of moderate alcohol use -- how many trip reports do we have of moderate MDMA dosage?) which makes a lot of direct comparisons tougher. The illegal marketplace does not help here, in my opinion.

Even on a brain level, permanent neurotoxicity of MDMA is a topic of considerable debate; as I mentioned, I'm on the side that views it as not having a huge amount of permanent changes.

I don't think alcohol is more harmful than heroin, crack cocaine, or meth though -- that chart shows an unfortunate agenda. But comparisons to sport are worthwhile. Here in America, American football is quite popular. My opinion: long term participation in American football is certainly worse for your brain than MDMA -- at least you can recover from MDMA abuse versus repeated helmet-to-helmet contact.

 

[JWills20]

^ That'd be a great study.. but it will never happen. Completely unethical, really. You are almost forcing the subject to cause damage to himself, something he would have to live with for the rest of his life.

If not humans, could easily do it with a rat & it'd be easy as fuck to control that way. How are you so certain that MDMA regularly causes damage? They're lots of people who do it regularly who are fine. This board is a biased overview. When people experience problems with MDMA they search online, they reach this board. Think of all of the other users who regularly consume but have not experienced anything negative so haven't bothered to search online. The previous point about the lack of standard amongst MDMA consumed still holds true as well. Since Prof. Nutt obviously thinks just unaldureated MDMA is safe, I think it says something about how safe the chemical alone is.

 

[JWills20]

Woops double post haha

 

[Clocktower]

Here is a pretty good (reasonably well controlled) study that found a reduction of serotonin 2A receptor binding potential in humans who used MDMA regularly. Reduced binding potential may or may not be indicative of damage to neurons, but it seems to be correlated with some mental health issues.

IMHO, findings like these make frequent MDMA use seem more "risky" and less "safe."

 

[AlphaMethylPhenyl]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

 

[Niggasbebuggin]

I consume MDMA probably 3 or 4 times a year maximum. While I make it a somewhat regular habit to drink and smoke marijuana usually at least once a weekend. Not that I enjoy it more, but it has it's place and most importantly, socially acceptable.

I constantly hear people tour how MDMA is one of the least dangerous drugs and much less harmful than alcohol and possibly on par with marijuana when reviewed closely.

While I understand that it does not "put holes in your brain" or anything similarly mythical, I understand that it should be used only once every couple months to be safe.

I cannot think of any other drug (remember this is ignoring any sort of addictive factors), that SHOULD NEVER be used more than once every 2 or 3 months. Even of the much harder drugs.

I hear all sorts of people, even on here saying how they think they have permanent brain damage from frequent use and all sorts of problems.

Why is there such conflicting opinions on this? Usually with drugs, the well informed usually agree on these sorts of things one way or the other, whereas views of how harmful MDMA is vary greatly and it is always somewhat unclear to me how harmful it really is. Always this sort of on the fence "we know it's a neurotoxins but not to what extent".

Links to reliable sources on this would also be much appreciated, I've read what is on erowid but it once again is very unclear, and the "your brain on ecstasy" dancesafe slide show is like another language to me.

Thanks

I believe I saw something on worlds top 20 most dangerous drugs on BBC or something some time back and MDMA was listed around #16 or 17. So really I don't believe it to be all THAT dangerous, or atleast as dangerous as most media tell it to be.

 

[JWills20]

Here is a pretty good (reasonably well controlled) study that found a reduction of serotonin 2A receptor binding potential in humans who used MDMA regularly. Reduced binding potential may or may not be indicative of damage to neurons, but it seems to be correlated with some mental health issues.

IMHO, findings like these make frequent MDMA use seem more "risky" and less "safe."

Still not good enough if you ask me. The effects of MDMA are determined through the self-reported use of illegally-sold MDMA on the street. There still isn't enough control - this would not ever be regarded in scientifical studies of different domains. Instead the researchers try to draw parallels from averages for Danish MDMA & hair samples from the actual participants, which was pretty good in all fairness. It's a pretty decent study, I wish they'd discussed the overall significance of the results though. I.E What risk does this decreased SERT binding actually relate to? Then again they might have done, I got bored & had to stop reading it. Lol

 

[severely etarded]

Unfortunately, everyone's opinion of MDMA is based on what is sold on the street. Out of every illegal drug sold on the black market, MDMA is one of the worst with regard to fakes & impurities. It is therefore hard to determine just how dangerous unadulterated weekly consumption of MDMA really is. This is my opinion of why opinion is so varied amongst users. Further, the users who typically use it every week usually, and somewhat ironically, don't have the knowledge/education about the drug. Thus, they're not testing it & consuming random Ecstasy pills/powders weekly because their mate said it was 'Bangin MD' (Personal favourite expression ). Its not surprising that these users then report negative adverse effects from regular use of random chemicals & even cocktails of different substances in some cases. These consequences are then attributed to MDMA because that is what the uneducated user believes they are always taking. I've yet to meet one roller at a rave who knew what a test kit was when I mentioned it. Further, so many tell me they've 'dropped a gram.' The point is, not many users actually know what they're doing.

Unfortunately, there are not enough clinically-controlled longitudinal studies examining regular MDMA use at standard recreational doses (100-200mg). If you've read one or seen one somewhere, please tell me. The research is always involving rats getting their brain fried on 5mg/kg doses every hour - not realistic to the responsible, casual users.

This is my personal opinion as to why the opinion of 'MDMA' is so wide-reaching & varied.

very nice answer