• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!

David Nutt's comments about a potential system for legal MDMA regulation

T

terarc

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
582
Ok so a few of you may have read this article http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/drug-by-drug-guide-rational-drug-policy-david-nutt-522 where David Nutt proposes a regulatory system by which a user can have access to an MDMA tab on a restriction of 50 per year. I got in touch with him and he elaborated that this tab would be 50mg, and like the article said you'd be able to get one almost every week. He said that his research and knowledge indicated that this wouldn't really cause any negative effects, but higher doses less often might actually cause more 'damage' (serotonin depletion/neurotoxicity I guess). This seems to contradict with what most people say about the 2-4 times a year kind of thing so I was wondering what you guys with the actual experience have to say about it? Do you think one 50mg tablet of MDMA every weekend would do you less harm than taking 200mg every four weeks? Just interested! :)
 
a 50mg tablet might cause less serotonin depletion than a higher dose, but i guess the most important bit is that a 50mg tablet won't get me high. still, i'd be in favor of his system. with 50 of those per year, it's still more than i could consume with responsible use and there's nothing stopping us from saving up 200mg :)

but to get back to your question, i would be surprised if taking 50mg every weekend turned out to be preferable. inhibition of tryptophan hydroxylase lasts longer than one week and 5-ht2b agonism might pose a problem if it's used like this for a long period of time.
i also think we don't have a sufficiently good idea what taking 50mg every weekend does to people, simply because no one uses it like that ;)
 
Why would anyone bother taking 50mg esp. everyweek? Better than illegal but plain stupid; not sure taking 2.6 g a year is much better than 1g over four occaissions epscially since that amount will have no positives whatsoever; you'd simply save it up and do it all every month or two. I think for many E is a bit self limiting - i don't see the point
 
Interesting that Nutt is grappling with the realities of a regulation process. I think that people would save their allowance up.
I'm also sure that after an initial period of euphoria people would start to self-regulate.
After all nobody takes a 100 aspirin just because they can.
 
People would save them up and use them all at once. Imean, why not? 50mg is a waste on its own
 
Black said:
a 50mg tablet might cause less serotonin depletion than a higher dose, but i guess the most important bit is that a 50mg tablet won't get me high. still, i'd be in favor of his system. with 50 of those per year, it's still more than i could consume with responsible use and there's nothing stopping us from saving up 200mg :)
Click to expand...

That's reason why this system would never work out. Nutt`s say's he dont like dealers, this will actualy provoke people to save stuff and sell it.
 
I think 50mg every 2 weeks would be better, that way people would be forced to wait 1.5-2 months before rolls.
 
This is actually huge... Too bad he's out because this is a policy that could actually work.
ouchs2.png
 
A dose is known by everyone to be more than 50mg I'd wager such a policy would be at least 80mg....but even just the shock of it even being spoken of is like... Too much for my presently tripping mind to handle so I'm going back to my corner.
 
MagickalKat777 said:
Did we read the same article? Because he said 50 doses a year not 50mg...
Click to expand...


Yeah he says 50 doses per year. But like I said in the original post, I contacted him and this was his response:

"Thanks - good question
My estimate is based on a 50mg MDMA tab being used weekly
We know people use more than that without great harm so believe this would
be safe
But using higher doses less often might be less safe
However until we have proper safety data with known dosing there will be
uncertainty - and this should be borne in mind"
 
Well...at least the conversation is out there...which to me is a very big step.
 
People have used more without great harm but on average people are worse off the more MDMA they have used based on studies. You could argue that the studies are flawed, but there's an overwhelming amount of studies indicating some harm.

Now, for the actual proposed system I would say that it wouldn't work. Like others have said people could save up the MDMA as there'd be no point in doing 50mg. There are also more people that do not use MDMA than those that do and as such those people could easily take advantage of this and sell MDMA for a profit. The only thing this system would do is give access to clean MDMA. This would reduce a lot of the harm, but scientifically allowing this system would be not logical. This is because there's a lot of evidence suggesting that MDMA is neurotoxic. There would need to be a controlled study administering MDMA to drug naive individuals for definitive proof, but this would be unethical due to the evidence already found.
 
People have used more without great harm but on average people are worse off the more MDMA they have used based on studies
Click to expand...

I'm not just trying to be cynical but this statement can effectively apply to anything. I'm sure this kind of correlation could be drawn for just about any drug including alcohol and tobacco. Smoke more cigarettes = worse chance for lung cancer.

This is because there's a lot of evidence suggesting that MDMA is neurotoxic
Click to expand...

The neurotoxicity dangers are tossed around far too loosely on this forum. There's actually very little evidence to suggest that MDMA is neurotoxic at recreational human doses. All the evidence comes from frying rat brains. Don't get me wrong, taking MDMA regularly has it's dangers but it's unlikely that these dangers are actually a result of neuronal damage. More likely is that consistent serotonin depletion, in the absence of adequate replenishment, begins to take it's toll on you.

There would need to be a controlled study administering MDMA to drug naive individuals for definitive proof, but this would be unethical due to the evidence already found
Click to expand...

I've read a few studies which have done just this. How do you think the PTSD studies work? They're given MDMA and find relief - the complete opposite to neuron damage.

This would reduce a lot of the harm, but scientifically allowing this system would be not logical. This is because there's a lot of evidence suggesting that MDMA is neurotoxic.
Click to expand...

If MDMA was truly neurotoxic at recreational doses then it wouldn't reduce a lot of harm. This is kind of like saying 'doing this will help reduce harm but at the same time cause harm'.

Just tossing things in for debate.
 
JWills20 said:
I'm not just trying to be cynical but this statement can effectively apply to anything. I'm sure this kind of correlation could be drawn for just about any drug including alcohol and tobacco. Smoke more cigarettes = worse chance for lung cancer.



The neurotoxicity dangers are tossed around far too loosely on this forum. There's actually very little evidence to suggest that MDMA is neurotoxic at recreational human doses. All the evidence comes from frying rat brains. Don't get me wrong, taking MDMA regularly has it's dangers but it's unlikely that these dangers are actually a result of neuronal damage. More likely is that consistent serotonin depletion, in the absence of adequate replenishment, begins to take it's toll on you.



I've read a few studies which have done just this. How do you think the PTSD studies work? They're given MDMA and find relief - the complete opposite to neuron damage.



If MDMA was truly neurotoxic at recreational doses then it wouldn't reduce a lot of harm. This is kind of like saying 'doing this will help reduce harm but at the same time cause harm'.

Just tossing things in for debate.
Click to expand...

Great post! I believe it´s really like: "Smoke more cigarettes = worse chance for lung cancer."
 
There's a lot of research on humans that suggest MDMA causing long term cognitive and emotional impairment, as well as changes in serotonergic function similar to those observed in rat studies. After looking at a handful of research those studies found reduced binding of an SSRI, suggesting serotonergic damage. Serotonin reuptake transporter is only on the pre-synaptic neuron and reduced binding would suggest the absence of serotonin neurons. This isn't just tolerance either as people who have abstained for long periods of time still show similar bindings. They use this same method to determine neurotoxicity in rats as well, and is potentially the more accurate way to determine neurotoxicity over just looking at 5-HT and 5-HIAA (serotonin's metabolite) concentrations in cerebral spinal fluid. That's not to say that practicing harm reduction could potentially reduce or eliminate potential harm but the vast majority of people do not practice harm reduction.

Proof of relief is not proof of no neuronal damage. MDMA is considered a possible treatment for PTSD as it outweighs the potential cons of MDMA, but the potential cons of MDMA are still considered.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on the "reducing harm" portion. I meant to suggest that it would reduce harm by allowing access to clean lab grade MDMA. MDMA is relatively benign in terms of physical non-neuronal damage. Overdosing requires very high dosages. Adulterated MDMA can result in unknown drug interactions or be substances that may be potentially lethal like PMA.
 
Personally I think this topic is a case of you are either free to take MDMA or you are not. having some kind of regulation system opens itself up to abuse in so many ways. In my opinion it would be a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire.

David Nutt is definitely an interesting individual and often sparks interesting debate but I personally find his methods pretty hap hazard and I frequently disagree with his opinions.

I seem to recall a channel 4 documentary he was involved with and this was verging on a total pantomime with very limited fact and more speculation.

this kind of sais it all to me:

My estimate is based on a 50mg MDMA tab being used weekly
We know people use more than that without great harm so believe this would
be safe
But using higher doses less often might be less safe
Click to expand...

note the words "estimate" "so believe" "might"

does this sound like the words of a scientist or a glorified raver?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top