Do You Think Ecstasy Should Be Legalised???

[nimble]

i'd just like to respond to some of Roman Holiday's points.

Lord. I can't believe you people are going back to arguments like "people are too stupid to make choices themselves so E should be illegal."

that just isn't a very good statement at all. people aren't stupid, they just make stupid decisions. what i'm saying is that people should be making a responsible choice. people on this board are here because they would like to be educated about what they're putting in their bodies. those people out there that say "fuck the consequences" have no respect from me at all. to me thats just irresponsible, its an oppinion, not gospel. i don't have any doubt that the situation will remain the same whether it was legal or not, thats just how people are. that doesn't mean i have to like it.

Even in the 1980s, when E was legal and unregulated, the situation was not too terribly out of control.

i'd be willing to bet that middle school kids weren't actively searching out MDMA to go out and party all night. the 1980s were a different culture from today. the same rules don't apply.

and i totally agree with you that we shouldn't be criminals for wanting a little mind expansion, or to just feel good for a night. but facts are facts, MDMA is illegal, and as far as we can tell right now, its pretty harmful. for all we know it could be fucking us up more than we realize. i've done the research, i'm ok with the consequences. that isn't the same as saying fuck the consequences by any stretch of the imagination. this goes back to my stance on being educated.
and while i think that maybe a controlled legalization would probably be a nice middle ground, i still can't help but think that it would just get out of hand. with it being more readily available i can see people just snapping it up and popping it till their brains bleed. on the other hand, if MDMA were controlled, it would probably get more pure, and have less adulterants that fuck us up more. the only real way to know if that would work would be to try it. and i just don't see this happening.

 

[TheDEA.org]

MDMA is illegal, and as far as we can tell right now, its pretty harmful.

Nonsense. Even by the most pessimistic estimates rates of addiction are considereably lower from MDMA than alcohol, and the rate of death is almost trivial (about 4% of the death rate from alcohol in the US based on deaths per user/year.)

About the only carrot left held out is the claim that we're suffering brain damage...a claim I can find no credible support for, and a considereable ammount of evidence against. If anybody hasn't read it yet, click here and read carefully.

for all we know it could be fucking us up more than we realize.

I'm betting my brain that moderate use will cause no lasting harm. I know, everybody keeps saying that if you use ecstasy you damage your brain. And they are all wrong. Whether my opinion is an informed one or not you'll have to decide for yourselves.

with it being more readily available i can see people just snapping it up

It's become holy dogma that criminalizing drugs reduces use, but it's a theory that I can find little evidence to support. If anybody can tell me why Americans smoke pot at almost twice the rate of people in the Netherlands, I'd be happy to hear it.

 

[Raas]

they are all wrong. Whether my opinion is an informed one or not you'll have to decide for yourselves.

You've made us more than aware of your knowledge, but your overwhelming bias is freaking me out.

I can't believe you can say you've found "no credible support" for ecstasy causing brain damage, while there is thousands upon thousands of E-tards out there who've fucked themselves up.

Because Alcohol statistically kills more people, does not mean it is less dangerous than MDMA.

Unlike MDMA -
Alcohol doesn't leave some people throthing at the mouth, unconscious with 2 arms stuck up in the air after a normal dose (Yes i have seen this happen and it is not pleasant)

Unlike MDMA -
You know when you've been stupid with alcohol, and can stop and recover... rather than realizing you've overdone it on ecstasy and are showing permanant side effects from the drug.

Unlike MDMA -
Alcohol does not induce psychological disorders such as panic disorder and general anxiety disorder (and i have been through both from very moderate use of pills).

it's a theory that I can find little evidence to support. If anybody can tell me why Americans smoke pot at almost twice the rate of people in the Netherlands, I'd be happy to hear it.

Amercans also eat fast food at about 3 times the rate of people in the Netherlands! My point is Holland has a different culture to America.


I love the way you go against governent shit and put your message across, i really do... but trying to convince the whole world "ecstasy is completely safe to use", is.. well.. very dangerous.

 

[Negro-kitty]

Gee...

If MDMA were legalized, use would DECREASE (after a few months of initial increase, at worst), and most likely become more responsible.

If you think MDMA use would increase if it were legalized, you are a MORON. Your foolish, inaccurate predictions are worthless. Look at the data on this topic.

Legalization = less use. This has been documented several times, with alcohol and with marijuana.

don't attack people, refute opinions. thank you. -i-kat

 

[Raas]

^^^

I strongly, STRONGLY disagree with what you say there. It would NOT decrease and sell less than it does illegally.

The data you refer to involves cannabis and alcohol.

I have enough faith in the feeling of knocking back 3 pills in an evening along with some phat tune will have anyone coming back for more. I have enough faith in the psychological addiction of MDMA that it's popularity will grow.

Most of the public are uneducated/ignorant towards pills and disregard it as "bad". If the government approved of it, and believed it good enough to be legal, i'm sure just about EVERYONE would want to know what all the fuss about, and if it's really so amazing..

They'd want to try it once... and from experience of giving out pills, if a person swallows at least 2 good pills and have no bad side-effects they usually do come back for more.

 

[Negro-kitty]

Dude, alcohol is way, way, way more addicting in EVERY way than MDMA. And yet, people drank more during prohibition.

Cannabis and alcohol are very different drugs, and yet you see the same pattern when they are legalized. Thus, it follows that MDMA too would follow this same pattern. In fact it is FAR more logical to assume that it WOULD follow the pattern than that it would deviate.

attack the opinion, not the person please -i-kat

 

[TheDEA.org]

You've made us more than aware of your knowledge, but your overwhelming bias is freaking me out.

Everybody is biased. The question is who is right. I didn't pull that research on my site out of my arse. The largest, most sophisticated direct study of abstinant (but once heavy) ecstasy user's brains found that their serotonin systems were indistinguisheable in strength and distribution from those of people who had never used drugs. That carries some weight in my opinion, and that study isn't alone; in fact, the one study that is alone, that nobody else can find suppot for, that nobody else can explain or replicate...is the one study that claimed to find neurotoxic damage. (By Ricaurte, of course.)

I know many people are scared. I know most people would dissagree with me. But my bias is rooted in long and careful study of the research, not government TV spots and talk-show panic. I fully intend to continue to use on occassion, and have absolutely no misgivings about it. Perhaps I've badly misjudged or missunderstood something...but I don't believe so. I am certainly a heretic, but a well-armed one. I know the government is watching me (no, it's not paranoia...the real DEA web site now quotes my 1-2 mg/kg dosage advice, albeit with a typo.) But they don't come to argue. I get no e-mails telling me I'm wrong. I get no challenges from them in Usenet or groups like these. Come, ye government-annointed experts! Come, politicians and law enforcement! If you can find fault in my arguments...come expose me. If there is a god who can answer such a prayor, send George Ricaurte (the world's alleged leading expert on MDMA neurotoxicity) to argue with me!

I can't believe you can say you've found "no credible support" for ecstasy causing brain damage, while there is thousands upon thousands of E-tards out there who've fucked themselves up.

Disruption, yes, neurotoxicity, no. That somebody doesn't feel right for weeks, even months after a binge does not mean there was structural damage.

This needs to come with a fat warning: There is no doubt in my mind that neurotoxicity can occur at a high enough dose or under the wrong conditions. The question of interest however is whether the neurotoxic dose overlaps with common recreational doses, and in my most solemn opinion, the answer is no.

Unlike MDMA -
Alcohol doesn't leave some people throthing at the mouth, unconscious with 2 arms stuck up in the air after a normal dose (Yes i have seen this happen and it is not pleasant)

"The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'proof'." (Stolen, can't recall who from.) Case reports are interesting, but rates of injury and death are what matter. Small children choke to death on hotdogs with some regularity, but we don't make them illegal because the numbers are very small. Life isn't safe and nobody gets out alive. If somebody doesn't like the odds of particular activity, they shouldn't engage in it. I only want to be able to make the same judgement call without interference at gunpoint from a paternalistic government.

Unlike MDMA -
You know when you've been stupid with alcohol, and can stop and recover...

The tens of thousands of people who will die this year from accumulated liver damage from drinking might dissagree.

rather than realizing you've overdone it on ecstasy and are showing permanant side effects from the drug.

I doubt it's permanent, partly because many years ago when I was much less well informed on the matter, I managed to give myself the most severe case of e-tardation I've yet seen. Full recovery took a good 4 months or so, but it did come. Today, I feel better than ever. Our brains undergo a lot of reversible changes; it's not safe to assume any change is permanent or born of underlying structural damage. (The sometimes severe withdrawal from Paxil, heroin, etc. is caused by just such reversible changes.)

Unlike MDMA -
Alcohol does not induce psychological disorders such as panic disorder and general anxiety disorder (and i have been through both from very moderate use of pills).

Instead it provokes assault, rape and murder. If you've e-tarded yourself as I did, you have my sincere sympathy; but also my encouragement that you should make a full recovery.

Amercans also eat fast food at about 3 times the rate of people in the Netherlands! My point is Holland has a different culture to America.

That's actually what I was getting at: Culture, not legal status, is the main determinant of levels of drug use (in at least some cases.) That's why marijuana prohibition has failed and why it should be overturned in the US.

but trying to convince the whole world "ecstasy is completely safe to use", is.. well.. very dangerous.

Just so there's no doubt, using ecstasy kills people regularly. Abuse can seriously disrupt your brain and your life. But I do stand by my statement that I have seen no credible evidence of neurotoxicity (irreversible structural harm) in human users. The theoretical potential is very real, but I am absolutely convinced 'normal' use causes no such harm.

 

[silverfucked]

^^^(not reffering to DEA) The fact that you cannot have a sensible debate without condeming people and calling them morons for their ideas shows where you stand in this arguement.. Still I do respect your opinion.

Can ecstasy and weed be analyzed on the same level... I think not.. Weed has been used safely for thousands of years. Ecstasy has not. Just because some of you believe that MDMA, "most likely" does not cause neuronal damage does not mean that it is not occuring.. Would you rather have a nation full of brain dead depressed people cuz "we thought" MDMA didnt damage neurons..

The reason why weed use did not rise after its legalisation in the netherlands is because it was everywhere to begin with.. MDMA is not.. I think most people would agree that MDMA is much harder to obtain than weed, at least to a person who isnt seeking it.. People are offered weed all the time. It is fucking everywhere.. MDMA is in more strict "raver clicks" that most newbies are either introduced to, or have to actually seek out themselves by going to a club(though I dont know, this fact may change in the future)..

I do understand that some people are never faced with drugs, but id say the likelyhood of a newbie being offered weed is much much much higher than a newbie being randomly offered a pill.. Its price range and effects dictate this. When was the last time you were walking downtown and a homeless guy asked if you wanted to buy rolls.. It doesnt really happen. When weed was legalised, almost everyone had access to it to begin with.... It was just now in stores instead of at their friends houses(yes i do realise this is judgemental).. You can ask almost anyone anywhere if in there life they have been around marijunana somewhere sometime, and I bet 90% would say yes. The same would not go for MDMA, and for this reason I think it would explode on a newly legalised market.

The facts also show that harm is a much much much greater chance with MDMA than with marijuana.. So again they cannot really be compared. So why risk giving the ignorant(by my asshole standards) public access to a chemical that we know will be abused at least as highly as today, if not higher.. Its a risk.. risks are bad..

If it were up to me, half the people who take MDMA today would not be taking it.. But again its not up to me. These are the people who manage to get ahold of it legally.. God only knows what would happen would Dick Buttkiss could go up to the drug store to get "them X pills" cuz he heard they make you waanna fuck and shit.. I would bet that while maybe the number of users doesnt increase(though it probably would), the average of ignorant users would... Maybe only for the first year after its released.. However that one year is long enough for MDMA to ruin peoples brains and lives, as it has been proven more powerful n this area than weed or alchhol.. It only takes a couple months of habitual abuse with MDMA than with alcohol.. Those of you who deny this have not seen the effect of a weekly MDMA abuser after a couple months.. Sure their brain might return to normal, but is this really worht risking.. Is it really worth risking the health of the public just because the people were stupid enough to legalise this substance but not educate its own people?

MDMA may be ready for legalisation.. But until our government and more improtantly our people get out and educate people, I dont think it is... I dont think MDMA can be let out on a new market that is so powerful that anyone could have the shit within a day, without doing something about the market first. Surgeon General Warning my ass, we saw were that got us with cigarettes.

/end rant.

Im not out to make enemies.. So please dont make me one, im not making you one... I just wanna learn other opinions to feel more educated about my own.. Maybe itll change, who knows?

 

[nimble]

^^^
a more eloquent way of saying what i've been saying all along.
nice work.

 

[sMiLeYcHrIs]

The only good point in E being legal.....it would be cheap!

I doubt very much if it'd be cheap.

The government would just whack ludicrous amounts of tax on it like tobacco and alcohol in the UK

 

[kello420]

some drugs are just ment to be illegal, this is one of them.

 

[Negro-kitty]

*sigh* MDMA is not really that much easier to fine in Holland; it is easier to find weed there than it is here, likewise it is easier to find MDMA there, but the differences are proportional.

Someone is a moron if they refuse to believe logic and examine the actual facts, and instead choose to rely on their own foolish assumptions. I have no problem with opinions, I have problems with people who ignore the obvious.

no attacks or flames, please... phrase your opinion in a more constructive, less critical manner please - i-kat

 

[Negro-kitty]

To all of you who think MDMA should be illegal...do you think the same of cigarettes and alcohol? If not, you are the world's biggest hypocrites.

If you think all drugs should be illegal, then well, I hate you for trying to force YOUR personal values on OTHER people, but at least I can understand.

If you think alcohol and cigarettes should be legal, but MDMA should not, then there is just no point discussing this matter with you.

 

[Raas]

Negro-Kitty, people should be allowed a choice in what they do... but then again, providing a whole nation with such a powerful drug would create a plethora of problems. Free choice is good... but people do make mistakes. What do u think of decriminlisation?

Weed and alcohol are very different drugs, but have always been similar in their availability (be it legal or not) and the style of recreational use (can be used daily). Some will disagree, but all things considered MDMA really does kick the shit out of both alcohol and weed... with the dramatically increased availability, and surprisingly good effects..i still predict that legalization would create a strong increase in it's use. Unlike weed or alcohol.

______________________________________

DEA - I cant remember offhand the name of the study you refered too, but it did show that even heavy MDMA users had an indistinguishable SERT density as non drug users. Right? That is cool.....However, i still wonder how former ecstasy users brains would cope in the event of future emotional problems, compared to non drug users. The study does not show how someones serotonin system would react if something terrible would happen in the future.

The above is just an idea which i don't disbelieve or believe, so do correct me if it happens to be inconcievable..

I also ponder if it damages other parts of the brain which are not dependent on serotonin levels. An example of such is from reading experiences on erowid, and countless health problems on here.. it appears E can damage peoples speach long-term, causing them to stutter and slur when completely sober. The amount of reprts in regard to this i believe is very significant... but as far as i am aware.. ones serotonin levels, will not effect speach...?

 

[Negro-kitty]

Raas, so you PERSONALLY think it's ok for YOU to use MDMA, but not for other people?

I want you to think about the double standard you are creating. Don't you think EVERYONE thinks 'oh, well I'M responsible enough to use MDMA, but OTHERS aren't' ? How do you decide who is responsible and who is not?

Alcohol and tobacco are far more damaging than MDMA. Even considering the fact that far fewer people use MDMA compared to these legal drugs, the health damage from them is much worse!

Look, so what if people DID use MDMA more if it were legal...wouldn't that be a GOOD thing? I bet most of the increased use would result from people using MDMA INSTEAD of alcohol, which would be positive, considering that alcohol is more damaging! (Note: I am referring to HEAVY drinking when I compare alcohol use to MDMA use.)

Regardless of damage, why do you think it's YOUR job to tell OTHER people what they can and cannot do with their bodies? Why do YOU care?

If someone is high and injures you (that woudln't happen on MDMA, but might if crack were legalized, for ex.)...well, yeah, you take their ass to court, and they get punished. Still, most drug related violence is due to its illegality, and would be abolished by legalization.

If someone fucks themselves up, let's say they develop extreme anxiety and speech problems from taking MDMA every day for a few years. Ok, so that sucks for them, but they made that choice. There are people who HUFF GASOLINE, people who do BOXES OF NITROUS and the like, and these things are not illegal, nor are problems from this type of abuse out of hand. Why do you care if some dude fucks himself up? Isn't that HIS choice? What if he WANTS to fuck himself up, and doesn't care? I don't think YOU should have to pay for HIS healthcare (and there are laws that could be made to prevent taxpayers from dealing with the burden of drug abuse), but I don't think YOU should be able to tell him how he can treat HIS body.

Btw, Raas, MDMA does not 'kick the shit out of' alcohol (whatever THAT means)...if you think it does, I suggest you look at some medical research. Weed is definitely safer than both, I agree with you there.

Again, you are being completely illogical by saying that legalizing MDMA 'would create a plethora of problems' -- you have not given ANY evidence of even any LOGICAL SUPPORT of WHY you this would be so. You simply can't say 'THIS WOULD HAPPEN' without saying WHY. Saying 'MDMA is such a powerful drug' does not support your statement; how do you define powerful? You need to be more specific instead of throwing out these vague, meaningless comments.

 

[hyperspeeding]

Leeuwarder
registerd use.for example,you only can get 250 mg MDMA every month,only 3 grams of cocaine a month.

nice idea, but imagine how easy it would be to say stockpile it, then someone who was rather intent on overdosing coukld just wait a few months, as they usually do, then wham just use a few months in one go and u have hospitalisation, if not death.

i dont believe that the government is capable of educating the general masses effectivly enough to permit even the use of alcohol + tabacco, which would be why there are still so many deaths related to useage, sure in alcohols case its pretty hard (not impossible) to kill yourself via alcohol alone, it is usually the stepping stone to death (to put it bluntly), rather than the actual 'step' (ie. getting in a car and driving is the 'step' off the stepping stone of alcohol). Tabacco is just strange, we were all worried about passive smoking doing more damage than actually smoking, but now they find that passive smoking really isnt as bad as it was cracked up to be, this is one reason i believe that the governments really need to do a hell of alot before preaching to the public about the dangers and pit-falls of some substance use.

I guess this leads to me having to say that i generally try to look upon government findings with a certain amount of skeptiscim and hope that one day they will realise that not all the public are blind sheep willing to follow the preachings of un-confirmed or 'dodgy' government funded studies. I think the government needs to learn from its own mistakes regarding usage of other subtances before it goes anywhere near to legalising any current illegal substances, whether they be natural or chemical.

-Hyper

 

[E-llusion]

I think it should be legal. But then I don't want loads of kids doing ti to be cool.

Uhm, that is the main reason KIDS are doing it

 

[TheDEA.org]

However, i still wonder how former ecstasy users brains would cope in the event of future emotional problems, compared to non drug users. The study does not show how someones serotonin system would react if something terrible would happen in the future.

A fair question. Cells are constantly re-generating themselves, like a house being remodeled...parts are constantly breaking down and being replaced. As a result, if the main structure itself survives, smaller damage will eventually be repaired...I don't think it's likely that there's 'hidden' damage to the cells, at least not for too long.

I also ponder if it damages other parts of the brain which are not dependent on serotonin levels.

In most species MDMA selectively damages serotonin axons, although sometimes dopamine axons are damaged as well. Two human studies have examined ecstasy user's dopamine systems and found no difference between them and non-users. MDMA toxicity seems to be due to the drug being actively concentrated within the neurons, then being broken down metabolically (creating toxic chemicals in the process.) The apparent necessity of actively concentrating the drug seems to limit the possible places it could do harm (at sane dosages) to serotonin, dopamine, and perhaps norepinephrin axons.

it appears E can damage peoples speach long-term, causing them to stutter and slur when completely sober. The amount of reprts in regard to this i believe is very significant... but as far as i am aware.. ones serotonin levels, will not effect speach...?

Interesting. Shulgin actually describes a case where a young man was apparently cured of stuttering after using MDMA. It's a mystery to me, although I suppose it's possible serotonin levels could affect stuttering...serotonin tends to have a calming, supressive effect on nerve firing.

 

[Great Ocean Road]

Nope, I don't. Why? Well, because there's a good amount of people out there that would use the drug irresponsibly. I frequent raves and goa/psy trance parties occasionally, and I've seen a lot of younger (and by "younger" i mean 14-16) kids who are just totally wasted, when they should really be at home tending to more important matters that will affect the outcome of their future -- like studying for school and allowing their brains to mature and develop. If E was made widely accessible, I think that people would just lump it together with cigarettes and marijuana, which ISN'T what it should be classified with. E is a serious drug, and it should be treated as such. People who take the necessary precautions by spending the time to thoroughly educated themselves, knowing their limits and not over-doing it should MAYBE be given the privelege to indulge, but if they know nothing about what they're putting into their bodies, I don't think they should even be allowed to touch the drug, let alone consume it freely.

 

[DTMark]

To context this answer: Yes, I do use marijuana. I have never used MDMA as I feel the risk of permanent brain damage is too great to be ignored and there is simply too little known about the drug to be sure - however, give it another ten years and we'll probably know more, so I don't rule out trying it one day.

Without wanting to oversimplify the issue, I *thought* MDMA was banned due to negative mental side effects?

That being the case, surely there could only be three possible reasons for legalisation:

1. It has been proven that MDMA is safe

This is not true.

2. People will take it anyway even if it's illegal, so it would be safer for everyone if it were legalised

That's like submitting to terrorism and is a slippery slope. Shall we legalise breaking into cars and provide roadside hammers to smash the windows?

3. That the Government has no right to tell people what they can and can't take

If this were the case, and all illegal substances were made legal, the heroin addicts who have gone through hell to get off the substance and away from the lifestyle and people probably wouldn't be best impressed if they saw it in Boots being sold along with the tissues and hay fever treatments. (In any event, I wonder who if anyone would actually sell heroin/MDMA - probably not any high street Stores with reputations to consider).

MDMA might not be physically addictive, but part of addiction is in the mind. The fact that alcohol isn't strictly speaking 'addictive' doesn't stop people becoming alcoholics.

Looking at it the other way around, legalising a substance *would* (be honest) encourage some people that "it can't be that bad after all, you can buy it in Boots", or whatever. The people frightened of getting a "bad pill" illegally would no longer have this fear.

Ecstasy usage is not rife in this Country (450k users out of 60 million?) and usage *would* increase. It *is not* the same as marijuana for the reasons other posters have stated, and the fact that people do not have one joint and then drop dead twenty minutes later. (If this has happened, I stand corrected)

People who argue that tobacco should be illegal are probably right. But it's irrelevant, we are where we are, so the comparison simply doesn't matter. Hindsight is a great thing, but banning tobacco isn't an option - usage will vanish over time anyway.

A Government that legalised a recreational drug that is known to be potentially fatal would not last very long after the first/second/third death (whether through "responsible" or irresponsible use), so it simply won't/can't happen.