Claims that Ecstasy is harmless are reckless – and a lie

E-llusion

E-llusion

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
5,975
Location
ALASKA
In a recent article in this newspaper about Peter Jennings’ irresponsible program glamorizing Ecstasy, the show’s executive producer was not only dismissive of – but actually ignored – the scientific evidence that I cited in my letter to the president of ABC News. The article mentioned the eight studies and a review I named in my letter demonstrating the damage caused by Ecstasy to the brain, and it implied that all of these studies were based on the animal model. The show’s producer was quoted as saying the studies I referenced “had been superseded by studies on human beings.”

In my letter, however, I cited three studies and a review demonstrating the neurotoxic effects of Ecstasy – on human beings. Either the producer hadn’t read my letter, or he didn’t know about these important studies, or he was lying. In either case, he should have been taken to task. Moreover, these studies are not outdated. The oldest was published in 1999, while the most recent one was published last year – the same year that the German study much heralded by ABC News was published.

Considering the vaunted German study featured merely 30 actual Ecstasy users, I think it’s more than a little rash to dismiss myriad years of animal and human research demonstrating Ecstasy’s harmful effects solely on its basis. We’re not going to make policy based on one study of just 30 Ecstasy users. And ABC News, or anyone else, should stop and think before dismissing research based on the animal model – it is fundamental to modern scientific research.

Furthermore, the German study concluded that Ecstasy does indeed cause damage to serotonin-producing brain cells. And, while this study said that its results “might indicate” recovery, it hastened to add that it does not imply full recovery of the brain from the neurotoxic effects of Ecstasy.

To say, as the ABC producer apparently does, that Ecstasy’s harmful effects “aren’t true,” because some of the work of one scientist was withdrawn, isn’t just reckless – it’s a lie. Ecstasy was banned before the retracted study, and scientific evidence continues to show that it is extremely dangerous. The sad death of eighth-grader Irma Perez, who died from an Ecstasy overdose last month, testifies to that effect. It’s a disgrace that Peter Jennings and ABC News continue to trivialize the dangers and glorify the use of this brain-damaging narcotic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Souder respresents Indiana’s 3rd District in the U.S. House of Representatives. He wrote this for The Journal Gazette.

Link

Claims that Ecstasy is harmless are reckless – and a lie

Sun, May. 23, 2004
By Mark Souder
 
Right Mark, it makes perfectly good sense to use multiple, closely spaced, MASSIVE doses of MDMA to prove that it is toxic. 8(

Let's see you try the same research methods and dosage ratios except substute Acetaminophen (Tylenol) as the test product. Then you guys can try to explain why all of the test subjects died from massive liver failure, but that Tylenol is still "safe and effective." 8)

If you guys would use REASONABLE dosages on a REASONABLE exposure schedule I think we would be more interested in hearing what you have to say. But at the moment, the methods you are using is just like smashing a glass with a hammer, and then claiming that you've detected a crack in the glass. :\
 
He does make a point however of the irresponsiblity of the producers NOT to make a point of the possible problems of MDMA.

I suspect however that MDMA, now that it is not so demonised. Will hopefully lose its popularity and level of abuse, so it can be used what it is best at. A medicine to help relieve the suffering of those who really need it.
 
I don't totally agree with this guy, but he's right when he says that only the good of Ecstasy was exposed and its dangers not talked about. Sure the dangers of liver damage due to Tylenol use aren't exposed either, but one wrong can't be justified with another.
 
He does make a point however of the irresponsiblity of the producers NOT to make a point of the possible problems of MDMA.
Click to expand...
Towards the end of the show, I believe they had 3 people saying to camera how it was highly addictive, the awful comedowns that resulted and basically how it ruined a part of their life. They made a point of making the audience fully aware that it is a "street drug" and as such no one really knows exactly what they are getting with a supposed tab of MDMA. They touched on overheating and why using it at all night dance parties is dangerous. Lastly, it was made perfectly clear at the end of the program that no one really knows what the long term effects will be, and MDMA users today are taking a gamble believing that their will be no bad long term effects of ecstacy use.
 
Dj_TranceMadness said:
I don't totally agree with this guy, but he's right when he says that only the good of Ecstasy was exposed and its dangers not talked about. Sure the dangers of liver damage due to Tylenol use aren't exposed either, but one wrong can't be justified with another.
Click to expand...
The whole point I was making is that these researchers are using MASSIVE overdoses to "prove" neurotoxicity, and attribute that to the nature of the substance.

Absolutely any substance administered in a large enough quantity will kill you (even helium given that in enough volume by percentage will supplant oxygen).

Using massive overdoses to demonstrate toxicity proves nothing. The latest (non-NIDA funded) research, which IS using recreational dosages, isn't showing the dangers being hyped by these agencies. That is not conclusive as more "honest" research needs to be done. But, until now, all of the research has "technically" been rigged in favor of demonstrating harm.

We need more research which is not pre-determined to justify an agenda to find out the real truth. And we have not been getting that from Federal government sponsored research (and they've waisted a lot of tax dollars solely to justify their anti-drug agenda).

.
 
Last edited:
Umm....last time I checked, the dude didn't say it was "harmless". I think he may have said that it may not be as harmful as the government may have said it was, but I dont think he said harmless.
 
NuM!NouS said:
I agree with Brian Oblivion.

Our government is so full of bs.
Click to expand...
I think it is a two phased problem.

Part of the problem is that there are agencies who benefit from recreational drug demonization (they get increased funding as a result).

The other problem is one of perception. The sociological climate is such that (like with the inquisition) it is assumed that "drugs are bad." And taking any other position or stance is dangerous politically. In psychological terms, this is the same archetype as the "God verses Devil" mythos (which has been at the core of western society for over 2,000 years). So it is easy for those without complete understanding (and follow the "herd") to buy into this myth as applied to recreational drug use (because it is ingrained in both our culture and our neurobiological framework).

It wasn't all that long ago that this mentality prevented science from being commonly accepted. Look at the resistance that Galileo encountered. This resistance was enforced by the "Church" (mostly out of fear and for political reasons). But the masses bought into it for the same reasons that most people do today. It is the "popular belief," and we are readily wired to accept the cultural "God verses Devil" mythos.

I think that there are a limited number of ways to overcome this. One is by education such as the ABC special that Mark Souder feels so threatened by (i.e., much like "the earth is not the center of th universe" concept which was threatening to the masses and Church of the pre-Renaissance period).

The other, is to demonstrate the financial and social harm that is the result of the "War on Drugs." I estimate that the overall costs when you factor in: court costs, enforcement costs, secondary crime resulting from a black market product, annual incarceration costs, legal defense costs, opportunity costs to the incarcerated, lost of tax revenues resulting from otherwise integrated members of society being removed from the work force, health costs resulting from "bad" drug mixes (i.e., fake ecstasy), etc. - results in the neighborhood of about 100 billion dollars per year being spent.

That's like out paying for an Iraq style invasion each and every year. Treatment programs and education programs would cost a small fraction of that. And providing these drugs via a legal and FDA enforced distribution mechanism would completely eliminate the black market secondary crime (in fact, it would put these people totally out of business).

And it is not as though there isn't a precedent for such recreational drug distribution. Alcohol and tobacco have had legal distribution channels for a long time. And even have their own enforcement agency, the ATF.
 
BTW, here is an example of wide availability and successful education.

People can get "high" from "huffing" gasoline (and other hydrocarbon byproducts). But almost no one does it. Everyone knows for a fact that it is a very serious health risk (no need to use artificially high dosages to prove that). So no one (except for the mentally challenged) do this.


In contrast, alcohol (which funds a rather large lobbying effort) is very dangerous (the annual alcohol related death statistics prove this) is not treated as an issue by the drug enforcement agencies.

On the other hand, education IS working in the population for alcohol use. Granted, there is not a 100% elimination of alcohol harm. But there are successful treatment programs, and as a result of education many people limit or completely eliminate alcohol consumption. And the costs are very small when compared to the cost of the "Drug War." To further demonstrate, crime (and secondary crime) resulting from "black market" distribute (i.e., "bootlegging") was completely eliminated, and is now simply a part of US history.


Additionally, if Mark Souder were to ever read this, I would like him to consider the annual alcohol related death rate compared with that of MDMA use. The actual death rate from "real" MDMA (as opposed to "fake" drug mixes created by the black market and called "ecstasy") is extremely small given the population of MDMA users world wide.

With all due respects Congressman Souder, the War on Drugs is not working. This is obvious when examining it's history. It is time to rethink the process, and put into effect a better program which actually does reduce harm, and costs the tax payers far less in terms of real tax dollars, and in terms of harm done to our citizens as a result of prison time.

I suggest that it is time to start a dialog and eliminate the "us verses them" division which exists between lawmakers and harm reduction services such as Bluelight, and others. Together we can reduce the harm, and eliminate the crime, resulting from drug use. And do it much more effectively (and cost effectively) then it is being done now. Granted, there will never be a 100% reduction. But with honest research, and sincere and truthful drug education, the harm can be brought down far greater than it is now.
 
I'd just like to mention that Crazeee has invited Congressmen Mark Souder to join us in a discussion in this thread.

I have no idea if he will even take a look at it. But if he does, it may be advantageous to use this as a "meeting of the minds" rather than as a venue to vent frustrations.

Let's hope that Congressmen Souder will take us up on this invitation, and that we will be able to have an open and frank discussion with an attempt toward understanding both points of view.
 
That would be nice, but I'm sure he'll really enjoy some of our more "eccentric" members. =D

Just let us know when, and if he joins us. He might like having a bluelighter friend, or two.:)
 
Oh come on now, this man is a US Congressman ... you can't expect him to understand such a complex issue requiring an IQ over 100, after all he merely says what the voters want to hear than secures himself re-election each year thanks to his free campaign financing.
With the rare exception, Congressmen are not intellectuals capable of true, honest debate - they are mere puppets and machines, who care only about securing their own fortunes and presenting the faux All-American image the media glorifies so much.

I have no faith whatsoever in our legislature; only in the Judiciary do I have any hopes for retaining any semblance of freedom and democracy in this nation (although even this branch is being encroached on by the other two each day ..)
 
I would also like to say.. this man has constraints on what he can and cannot say. We have no strings attached on our speech on this forum, or in our lives really.. especially when compared to a politician. Even if he agrees/disagrees, or has some nice information, he may not be able to share it.

For example.. If you put President Bush and Howard Stern in the same room, Stern could rip him apart. Bush could not do the same and keep a good public image. Beyond "ripping apart", the whole butt kissing game of politics really does keep valid information out of debate, especially in the public light.

If he comes, that'd be wonderful. But i doubt it would really do anything, even in terms of discussion.
 
Those are excellent points!

If he were to join in a discussion, it would probably be advisable to speak to him before hand and find out what parameters he would be able to participate in. Then, the discussion could be moderated (aggressively) so that it remains within those parameters. I think that would help him feel more at ease, and would aid in achieving a more productive discussion.

I don't see the purpose of such a discussion to be an attempt to get him to admit to anything. Rather, to point out the issues, as we see them, from the point of view of harm reduction management.

It would be good if, at least, a non-adversarial dialog could be established between the two points of view. And given the international nature (and extremely large audience) of Bluelight, I think that this could be of benefit to everyone.
 
I agree. And moderated.. i think would be a light term, even aggressively. I would keep profanity out, joking, off topic comments, etc.. The thread would have to be ruled like a Nazi.

The other thing you are looking at is, people on this board to participate in illegal activity. Though illegal activity is not condoned on this board, and that we have strict regulations we attempt to enforce, people do ask for sources, people do try to break the rules. I wonder if a politicians would involve himself online in this type of environment. We do our best to keep things squeaky clean, but lets face it, politicians rarely speak to the users themselves.. and I believe there is a PR motive in that other than just lack of time to do anything but look at statistics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top