ecstasy isn't as dangerous as we think

[Pans-Advocate]

I would venture to say that the following is almost certainly true: for each person, there is a dose of MDMA that is categorically safe (probably slightly different for each person of course, with some outliers on both sides) and there is certainly a dose of MDMA that is categorically unsafe (the same statistical curve would apply here).

My suspicion is that the categorically safe single-dose range is <50mg - <80mg for most people, the categorically unsafe single-dose range is >200mg - >250mg for most people, and that most people can safely dose in between those levels once with no risk of lasting damage (assuming physiologically safe conditions, like hydration, temperature management, etc.)

Obviously this doesn't address polydrug users, people who roll in unsafe conditions, people who roll again and again in a short time span, people who dose twice in a night 4 hours apart, etc., etc., etc. ... and of course, there will always be statistical outliers who are genetically predisposed to being neurochemically fragile and shouldn't take MDMA at all.

My expectation is that taking up to a gram or two, in 100-150mg increments spaced 3 months apart, will show itself to be safe upwards of 90% of the time.

My expectation is that the level after which one can be assured that damage WILL show its ugly face, in SOME form, comes after any or many of the following: 300mg+ in one night, dosing weekly for more than 3-4 weeks, dosing more than twice in a night across a time span of longer than 4 hours, or dosing more than 6-8 grams over the course of a lifetime (no matter how large doses are or how they're spaced out). I daresay that most people are not cognitively self-aware enough to consciously notice the damage that they do to themselves with MDMA use, but I would also expect most of the damage done by moderate use (150-200mg doses, dosing a month apart, dosing across a time span of no longer than an hour and a half over the course of a night) to be reversible over time simply through healthy lifestyle habits.

I'd be interesting in discussing my conjectures with anyone who'd disagree with me, but I think my estimates line up with what little we know for sure on the subject.

 

[RGB]

Pans-Advocate, I agree with you, and I think this section of an FAQ on MDMA does as well:

Erowid.org: Yet Another MDMA FAQ :: Neurotoxicity

I find this section especially interesting:

One study of MDMA administered to primates most closely modelled human use and used doses of 2.5mg/kg given every 2 weeks for 4 months (2.5 mg/kg x 8 ) which found no evidence of neurotoxicity[2]. A single- dose study found a decrease in serotonin (5-HT) and it's major metabolite 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) in rhesus monkeys at 5mg/kg but not 2.5mg/kg. Another study gave rhesus monkeys 2.5mg/kg twice daily for four days and found depletions of 5-HT and 5-HIAA, but without any evidence of neurotoxicity from [3H]paroxetine binding to the 5-HT reuptake transporter[3]. The finding that depletions of 5-HIAA could occur in the absense of 5-HT neurotoxicity creates problems in interpreting the results of CSF 5-HIAA reductions in human users, which remains the strongest evidence of putative MDMA neurotoxicity in humans[4].

I think it's odd that the researchers are surprised that a decrease in 5-HT metabolites doesn't necessarily indicate neurotoxicity. MDMA is a 5-HT releaser -- why is it so difficult to imagine that one would be short on 5-HT following use of MDMA?

In general, I think there's a serious confusion over what the term "neurotoxicity" means. Neurotoxicity is not a symptom; it's an actual condition of the brain in which irreversible structural damage has occurred. This should not include receptor downregulation or 5-HT depletion, which are clearly normal functions of the brain, and reverse themselves with time. I wouldn't include depletion of TPH either. Even more so, this term should not include behavioral changes such as depression or anxiety, which are fraught with confounding factors.

Personally, I think the biggest danger posed by MDMA is not neurotoxicity, but the attitudes that people taking illegal drugs are forced to adopt. If you take MDMA, you've already entered an uphill battle against the public opinion that Ecstasy makes you "e-tarded", and that you're a junkie with no value to society. If you take MDMA, you're likely to party on the weekends, leaving you fatigued and out of sorts when you return to work or school. You likely spend your time in the company of people who're similarly lacking in motivation or ethics. You may prioritize enjoying yourself over more important long-term goals, and find that you begin to forget or ignore your responsibilities. Going back to the neurotoxicity debate, simply the fear that your brain is damaged is enough to inspire depression and anxiety, I'm sure, and the (reversible) changes to 5-HT stores and receptor sensitivity likely fuel this suspicion.

In summary, I think a negative public opinion, the harmful and short-sighted culture surrounding the drug, and misgivings furthered by the drug's short-term effects on mood and function, probably all conspire to harm a person more than neurotoxicity would. Once again, I am *not* saying that MDMA is without danger. There's obvious danger, both from the substance itself and from the culture in which it is used. This exclusive focus on neurotoxicity does little to further the discussion about MDMA's harm, because it causes us to ignore all the other factors (social, psychological, etc.) that can lead to a decreased quality of life from using MDMA.

Of course, I'm totally open to differing facts/opinions.

 

[CaliFortunate]

Very intelligent and interesting post RGB. I'm impressed.

 

[bben]

We have been through this before. Number one, your word isn't proof. I could ask you to link evidence but you could easily find some DEA web site full of claims. I could find some University study to counter it and we could do that all day. One thing is for sure, there is no absolute evidence of toxicity in the brain. your claims are not backed by science as usual. I am wondering if you work for the DEA propaganda department or if you were born with psychological problems that you really would like to blame on ecstasy.

I can find plenty of research papers that are not government funded, although they really are not needed as theres so much anecdotal evidence. Please post up these wonder University studies that tout MDMA as safe. As far as your last sentence, if that was the case then theres thousands of others that must want to do the same thing and blame MDMA for their issues. / sarcasm.

It's hard to talk any sense into a brick wall, so I'm not going to try. That post was more for the benefit of any other person perusing these forums.

Again, on a pro-drug website I don't expect many people to swing towards finding danger in a drug without enough research behind it to conclusively prove beyond without a doubt that its harmful. That can take decades of research and massive funding, which ecstasy will never have behind it. So until then we have to go by mostly anecdotal evidence which is extremely strong in favor of it harming certain prone individuals cognitive functions and mood.

You as usual counter nothing with any real substance.

 

[ResinTeeth]

MDMA is not safe . It has terrible side effects. That are SOMETIMES even ireversible .

Another good example from our community is dxmkid

This just made my day hahaha

 

[James707]

Pans-Advocate, I agree with you, and I think this section of an FAQ on MDMA does as well:

Erowid.org: Yet Another MDMA FAQ :: Neurotoxicity

I find this section especially interesting:



I think it's odd that the researchers are surprised that a decrease in 5-HT metabolites doesn't necessarily indicate neurotoxicity. MDMA is a 5-HT releaser -- why is it so difficult to imagine that one would be short on 5-HT following use of MDMA?

In general, I think there's a serious confusion over what the term "neurotoxicity" means. Neurotoxicity is not a symptom; it's an actual condition of the brain in which irreversible structural damage has occurred. This should not include receptor downregulation or 5-HT depletion, which are clearly normal functions of the brain, and reverse themselves with time. I wouldn't include depletion of TPH either. Even more so, this term should not include behavioral changes such as depression or anxiety, which are fraught with confounding factors.

Personally, I think the biggest danger posed by MDMA is not neurotoxicity, but the attitudes that people taking illegal drugs are forced to adopt. If you take MDMA, you've already entered an uphill battle against the public opinion that Ecstasy makes you "e-tarded", and that you're a junkie with no value to society. If you take MDMA, you're likely to party on the weekends, leaving you fatigued and out of sorts when you return to work or school. You likely spend your time in the company of people who're similarly lacking in motivation or ethics. You may prioritize enjoying yourself over more important long-term goals, and find that you begin to forget or ignore your responsibilities. Going back to the neurotoxicity debate, simply the fear that your brain is damaged is enough to inspire depression and anxiety, I'm sure, and the (reversible) changes to 5-HT stores and receptor sensitivity likely fuel this suspicion.

In summary, I think a negative public opinion, the harmful and short-sighted culture surrounding the drug, and misgivings furthered by the drug's short-term effects on mood and function, probably all conspire to harm a person more than neurotoxicity would. Once again, I am *not* saying that MDMA is without danger. There's obvious danger, both from the substance itself and from the culture in which it is used. This exclusive focus on neurotoxicity does little to further the discussion about MDMA's harm, because it causes us to ignore all the other factors (social, psychological, etc.) that can lead to a decreased quality of life from using MDMA.

Of course, I'm totally open to differing facts/opinions.

ahhh kodus on the info lol

 

[bluehairman]

I'm tired and I should be asleep but I want to point out that this post above is the FIRST time you have even remotely tried to discuss this matter intelligently - for that, I salute you and say thank you.

Unfortunately, it's not all good.

Let's accept for a moment that a website called 'dancesafe.org' is the bastion of medical research into ecstasy use - difficult, but I'm going to try:

A couple of paragraphs down into your article:

These two pictures show slices of a monkey's brain. The serotonin axons have been stained to make them appear as bright lines. The picture on the left (A) is from a normal monkey. The picture on the right (B) is from a monkey that was injected with a very large dose of MDMA.[1] As you can see, many of its serotonin axons have been lost. (Animal research suggests that when a neurotoxic dosage of MDMA is given, damage to the axons starts to occur in as little as an hour or two.)

"...a very large dose...." -

I believe the expression is WTF? - with comments like that you'll have to forgive me if I suspect something isn't quite right?

Truth is, I remember this article (well, this bit about the monkeys in particular) very well. - That 'large dose' was well above the 'average dose' of a human being and not just questionable but downright wrong. There is nothing remotely valid about that research - damage to the seratonin axons is the key - yet there is no proof it is actually damaged - like a fibrous hair it appears to grow back - the question is 'if' it grows back good and proper or is somehow damaged? I suspect it isn't - but let's give it another 50 years - if all the heavy users are in the funny farm then you are right, if they aren't, well...

My argument has only been one - that mdma is harmless, and safer than aspirin.

--

You'll be very pleased to hear that I can't be bothered to discuss this further, mostly because everything I have to say has already been said.

I have read every single one of your posts, and I must say you are a downright fool. You claim you need research on the fact that it's harmless, where's the research suggesting it's safe? You're being extremely hypocritical.

In fact, there is more research suggesting it is dangerous vs. safe, regardless of the source of research. Making your argument invalid.

 

[studlysemite]

Anecdotal, long term wise, it appears pure MDMA in normal doses does not cause people to turn into walking zombies. The link on erowid confirms this if you read it closely. It is a powerful drug, but so are all drugs which activate the neurotransmitters, including SSRIs, amphetamines, etc. The drug MDMA has been used as a therapeutic/party drug since the 1970's, and those were mostly older (40-something) people using it back then. If they were brain damaged we would have seen the results by now from the late-70s and early 80s. The FDA would not approve phase III trials if the drug were extremely neurotoxic as some hysterical posters have suggested.

I have a suspicion that some of the hysterical posters are ex-poly drug users who now feel guilt about their drug abuse and now feel a fervor to "warn all the kids". MDMA used as a party drug post-prohibition has been a disaster entirely created by its prohibition. Just like during alcohol prohibition, users are unaware of the potency and consume heroic doses often unintentionally. Combined with other substances... methampethamine, K, alcohol while dancing for 8 hours non stop... that combination is probably bad news. These poly-drug binges could only cause negative consequences down the line.

 

[bunkiie]

It is absolutely not dangerous. You are dangerous. People are dangerous. Alcohol is dangerous. I have had my share of issues from all this believe me. But I've rolled hundreds of times, my shamanic mediation skills have sky rocketed, ive had a binge period when I was 18, 26 days in a month. It was usually weekly. It lost the "magic' several times. But all things heal. You just need to grow spiritually from your experiences more. But my brain is pretty fine. Dissociatives, alcohol, opiates, cocaine, benzos, , and stimulants, all are completely pointless to utilize in this spiritual plane in the end of it for us. We have the power to stimulate, relaxation needs to come from quite a bit more than the outside world, inhibition isn't necessary for a conscious mind.

Marijuana and psychedelics, when perceived and used in the correct manner, are tools that help us improve upon this consciousness. With that intact and ever expanding there's no reason for anything else. MDMA is a stimulant, but it's attaching a mental feeling of pleasure to empathy and the ecstatic experience. Which is billions of times better than cocaine boosting your ego blindly and turning you into a lunatic. Your brain produces dopamine already. And mdma use is NOT going to send you in a direction that harms you or others around you. That's all within your power. It's much more likely that it would send someone away from that than towards it. It did for me.

How you perceive your experiences defines how they impact your reality. Don't let the government bullshit propaganda continue to infiltrate you, either consciously, subsconsciously, or unconsciously. Don't even refer to them as "drugs". Drug is a word invented to describe what they wish to label it as. But the word has been massively stigmatized. Marijuana is now considered a "medicine", which is better, but still has a link to the medical system in the minds of most people, which isn't going to help out in the end because most people rely on.

These are tools for the continuing evolution of the spirit and continuing our existences on this planet that we all inhabit, and to learn to become more one with with the universe.

Bluelight should take the "drugs" off of Psychedelic

 

[stuckinaloop]

26 days rolling on ecstasy in a month = i cant even imagine the damage

 

[felix77]

I can find plenty of research papers that are not government funded, although they really are not needed as theres so much anecdotal evidence. Please post up these wonder University studies that tout MDMA as safe. As far as your last sentence, if that was the case then theres thousands of others that must want to do the same thing and blame MDMA for their issues. / sarcasm.

It's hard to talk any sense into a brick wall, so I'm not going to try. That post was more for the benefit of any other person perusing these forums.

Again, on a pro-drug website I don't expect many people to swing towards finding danger in a drug without enough research behind it to conclusively prove beyond without a doubt that its harmful. That can take decades of research and massive funding, which ecstasy will never have behind it. So until then we have to go by mostly anecdotal evidence which is extremely strong in favor of it harming certain prone individuals cognitive functions and mood.

You as usual counter nothing with any real substance.

As usual, you have a really shorty memory. We had a whole thread where I posted peer reviewed articles and studies and you ranted about how un-credible they were. I won't be doing it again, it is easily search-able on this forum. Duke University found no evidence of brain damage and no proof of neurotoxisity, that isn't the final word on the subject but it certainly counters the crap you state as fact.

Yes thousands of people want to claim MDMA hurt them, it may have even hurt some. However, people who experiment with drugs, have issues they are born with that develop later all want some thing to pin their condition on. So I take any testimony with a grain of salt as the people making the claims do not truly know what the cause is. Also, for every thousand people that claim problems there are millions who haven't.

 

[montel]

Thanks you to the posters above - it's been great reading.

In summary - there are two sides to this argument...

One side believe that without a doubt mdma is extremely toxic and will fuck you up - curiously, this side has posted close to zero proof to backup their claims yet they are indeed 110% certain they are RIGHT! (feel free to read all 4 pages and tell me if I'm wrong?)

The other side (myself included) believe mdma does little or no damage at all and have happily backed this up (time and time again) with data from various external sources, including reputable data from the men in white coats who have tested the drug in laboratory conditions.

If anyone with half a braincell actually makes it to this fourth page - please judge for yourself as to which side is probably telling the truth.

Like others have mentioned - do some of you work for the DEA? If not, I hear they're recruiting.

Peace

 

[Pans-Advocate]

"Little or no damage at all" is a serious misrepresentation of what MDMA has the POTENTIAL to do.

It's easy enough to use MDMA in a responsible manner that results in "little or no damage at all" ... if one is well-informed and has a steady eye towards their own well-being. I think it'd be very hard to contest that. But it's also possible to do severe damage to oneself through MDMA use, and RGB did a great job of explaining the factors that play into that equation.

 

[roller11dude]

Thanks you to the posters above - it's been great reading.

In summary - there are two sides to this argument...

One side believe that without a doubt mdma is extremely toxic and will fuck you up - curiously, this side has posted close to zero proof to backup their claims yet they are indeed 110% certain they are RIGHT! (feel free to read all 4 pages and tell me if I'm wrong?)

The other side (myself included) believe mdma does little or no damage at all and have happily backed this up (time and time again) with data from various external sources, including reputable data from the men in white coats who have tested the drug in laboratory conditions.

If anyone with half a braincell actually makes it to this fourth page - please judge for yourself as to which side is probably telling the truth.

Like others have mentioned - do some of you work for the DEA? If not, I hear they're recruiting.

Peace

OK but the thing your missing is that 90% of studies say that MDMA DOES cause damage (and I'm not talking about the one where they accidentally gave chimps meth). Not saying that these are all true, but the fact that these exist and have been apparently able to find some sort of bad effects should phase you.
Of course there are also studies that show almost no damage. But these few studies vs. all the other studies plus tons of anectodal evidence around is not enough to convince me that MDMA is as safe as you think. I want to believe it is. I really do. And for most people i do believe it is a relatively safe drug, but to say there are no risks or side effects because theres no solid proof that it does is irresponsible. You just choose to ignore that evidence.

Anyways, i tried to find these studies you were talking about (Duke university?) and was only able to find studies that said it was dangerous. I'd love to read some of the articles that your talking about. If you could just post the names or links if their free that would be great.

 

[TheDEA.org]

A few quick thoughts...

MDMA can kill you, addict you, and really fuck you up psychologically.

MDMA is very safe if used in moderation.

The reason moderation is so important is because the brain tries to 'tune out' a signal that seems abnormal. If your brain is regularly exposed to a drug, you brain will alter itself (mostly by changing how sensitive it is to it's own neurotransmitters) to try to tune out the drug effect. Unfortunately, this process also throws the brain off-balance when the drug ISN'T around. That's why people who normally use a lot of caffeine (in coffee, pop, etc.) tend to be tired and unmotivated if they don't get their caffeine one day.

It's hard to say how long you should wait between uses in order to keep your brain from getting more and more off-balance. Some research suggests that full recovery of normal sensitivity to your own neurotransmitters can take as much as 2-3 months after a single large dose. So, if you wanted to be as careful as possible, I would say using MDMA about four times a year should be completely sustainable.

Obviously most people aren't going to be that cautious. My experience has been that most people will be OK if they allow around 4-6 weeks between uses. I wouldn't expect somebody to be able to withstand once a week usage in the long term without substantial negative effects on their emotional health. Unfortunately, that's a very common dosing frequency (and one I've been guilty of myself.)

What makes it a tricky thing to deal with is that because it happens slowly, one dose at a time, it can be easy not to notice that you're becoming less happy than usual, more nervous than usual, etc. until things really get bad. Pay attention to how you feel. Drug cravings, anxiety, or depression should be taken as a serious warning that you should slow down.

 

[bben]

As usual, you have a really shorty memory. We had a whole thread where I posted peer reviewed articles and studies and you ranted about how un-credible they were. I won't be doing it again, it is easily search-able on this forum. Duke University found no evidence of brain damage and no proof of neurotoxisity, that isn't the final word on the subject but it certainly counters the crap you state as fact.

Yes thousands of people want to claim MDMA hurt them, it may have even hurt some. However, people who experiment with drugs, have issues they are born with that develop later all want some thing to pin their condition on. So I take any testimony with a grain of salt as the people making the claims do not truly know what the cause is. Also, for every thousand people that claim problems there are millions who haven't.

For your one duke study I could post up ten times that number saying the opposite. Your right they're isnt complete proof, but do you really need it. Just talk to someone who was previously addicted to MDMA.

Im not saying MDMA will cause in problems in everyone (although given high enough doses it probably could) , but it has the potential to do so.

I remember that thread and I also remember being unimpressed by that study.

 

[flurrymolly]

people who ABUSE mdma, are really susceptible to brain damage. if people are popping all the time, they're gonna have some damage. plain and fucking simple. when people use it responsibly, and space it out, and know that they're taking clean mdma, im pretty sure they have nothing to worry about. i love mdma but i know it isnt harmless. i also know that it isnt going to stop me from being a doctor. abuse it and it will abuse you.

 

[ebola?]

Normally, the brain can and does handle a certain "base" level of oxidative stress (for instance, dopamine is broken down into a peroxide by MAO), but there's something about MDMA that apparently overwhelms the brain's ability to compensate for the stress, resulting in oxidative damage.

Sort of. Oxidative stress appears to be one key mechanism through which we age cognitively (in terms of declining faculties).

ebola

 

[trancerage]

Dude I love MDMA just like the next guy but I don't agree at all with what you just said .

Just because something doesn't cause deaths , it doesn't mean it's not dangerous .
MDMA is dangerous if used incorrectley (I.e not allowing your brain enough time to recover ).
I would say a hugeeeee amount of MDMA users don't follow this once a month bluelight rule . This then leads to brain damage which leads to various helth effects.
Every club I have been to , most people who roll in my school , alot of non bluelighter types say
that they use MDMA at least a few times a month .

A huge amount of MDMA users arent like us blighters . They are irresponsible users of the drug .

For example my friend....
He was depressed so he used , then he started to abuse , thing got worse , started to experience
side effects and now he is a mess . His memory is seriously impared , he's seriouly depressed all
the time and had terrible panic attacks . An he doesn't use any other drugs apart from smoking pot once evrything few weeks .

MDMA is not safe . It has terrible side effects. That are SOMETIMES even ireversible .

Another good example from our community is dxmkid

And yeah there is the LSD thing and cannabis myths . But those things have been realized by many that they are not true !
People who use LSD alot compared to others realize that this stuff does not make you jump out of windows . There's clear proof of that .
Same with cannabis . Tonnes o people smoke it an most enjoy it and don't become crazy .

But can you say the same with MDMA ? No . many People use it and expericne horrid depression, anxiety , etc .
Just look at the way MDMA works , it's obviously going to put strain on the brain !! Flooding all
that serotonin leaving the brain short of it, and needing to make more .
Chemical imbalances in the brain have been shown to be bad for the person mentally .


Sorry I'm not hating on you MDMA , I'm just saying What is true .

I think you are basing your whole oppinion on what you friend has done and gone through, of freaking course he will be depressed and have no short memory if he abuses, like rolling every weekend and during an extended period of time, if he takes a good break, and his depression isnt cause of something else but low serotonins levels, hell be fine, if he still fucked up, then hes just depress for something else and is blaming it on the MDMA...

 

[trancerage]

roller11dude, i remember i read the releasing agents article on wikipedia. MDMA put out much more serotonin than methamphetamine, and i think around the same amount of dopamine. Its the extreme release of serotonin that causes neurotoxicity. methamphetamine still is used medically, it is only neurotoxic in high high doses.

I rather have my brain fried that be a meth head, sorry, meth is just the worst drug around.