Is MDMA as "harmless" as we wish to believe?

[MrSpeedyG]

The stupidity in this thread jeez

 

[thatdreamer123]

^right

It's gotta be somewhere in between, I think the only logical way to compare it is repeated use...

Sure, one time MDMA usage might be not as bad for you as alcohol or marijuana, but you gotta realize most people who smoke or drink (MOST), do it often. And MDMA use often (every 1 to 2 weeks, or more, or less) is bound to be pretty bad for you. How? look at people who have been there, people on here, people around you doing it a lot, and they come out pretty effed up. compare it to how, many young people (college kids, clubbers, etc.) drink on a weekly basis, maybe twice, are not nearly as messed up as they would be if they were all rolling 1 to 2 times a week, and I don't think you can dispute that.

I'm fully aware that alcohol is extremely destructive, and destructive in different ways than mdma, but if ALL the people in United States, switched from drinking to MDMA (1 night drinking = 1 night on MDMA) and kept up that schedule as they would drinking, I'm positive they'd be in far worse shape, FAR worse.

I understand a lot of apply moderation and harm reduction, and thats great, but you can't simply apply that to the population of the world, thats just immature.

And the whole marijuana is more harmful than MDMA is fucking laughable, SOOO many people i know (including myself) smoke marijuana close to a daily basis, if we all rolled on a daily basis? i don't even want to think about it. I don't know how else to put it, we 'd be FRIED.

 

[JWills20]

Lol.... MDMA does damage your heart and organs you know. It is a stimulant, which are known to damage the cardio vascular system. Just because you don't notice it happening doesn't mean it isn't happening. Just thought i'd throw that in there.

Give me some science as to how MDMA will damage your CV system, then i'll believe you. The metabolites produced from MDMA are barely toxic to the peripheral nervous system. I'd love to hear your evidence-based response.

And to the people who get addicted to cigs and alcohol, that is their own fault. I have used those off and on for years and never got addicted, MDMA caused me much more harm even though i used those 2 50 fold more than MD.

Possibly one of the most ignorant posts yet. Your argument is quite simply 'Well, I've done it for years and i'm fine. So it's just everyone else being a pussy.' Nicotine induces a release of Dopamine into the reward pathway of the brain. That is what makes it enjoyable to smoke. This pathway is responsible for regulating motivation, hence why cigarettes are so addictive. The dopamine keeps motivating you to smoke them again. I also smoke cigarettes occassionally and i'm not addicted (2-3 cigs a week max), but I certainly won't deny that they exhibit extremely addictive properties. Far more so than MDMA.

I get that MDMA caused you lots of harm and certainly agree that it can cause negative effects. But, the majority of people who take MDMA do not experience negative effects that outweigh the positives. You are the minority, not the truth-bearer (as you seem to think so). The statistics provided by Professor Nutt show this. Only a small percentage of MDMA users cause harm to themselves. You are in that small percentage.

 

[rave_itsrealfun!!!]

The fact of the matter is that every single user of Mdma is doing some degree of harm to themselves. It's just that the vast majority of recreational users taking it once a month or less, do not notice the damage. This does not mean that it isn't injuring the human body - as a scientifically proven neurotoxin that's just what it does. To keep your body in the best shape possible, the obvious choice is to never touch this shit.

Massive neurotransmitter dumps to feel heavenly bliss out of a toxic street chemical are extremely unhealthy. Abusing stimulant drugs that typically are stomped on and produced in unsanitary conditions by unprofessionals is not good for the heart, liver, or brain. This is common sense. If you need a study to be convinced of this, then you must be completely out of touch with the reality of things, and jaded by drugs. Out of all the recreational drugs, use-per-use Mdma is one of the worst, in terms of how much it takes away from you, and I would really recommend that no one ever touch it. To toy with the part of your brain that is responsible for love and empathy in your life in order to get high for a night, when there is currently a major controversy around and investigation into possible negative side effects that really do appear to exist, is quite simply stupid as fuck.

Personally, I had a great time rolling and nothing much bad ever happened. I just woke up to the bullshit, and quit while I was ahead.

 

[ShytK]

the fact of the matter is that every single user of mdma is doing some degree of harm to themselves. It's just that the vast majority of recreational users taking it once a month or less, do not notice the damage. This does not mean that it isn't injuring the human body - as a scientifically proven neurotoxin that's just what it does. To keep your body in the best shape possible, the obvious choice is to never touch this shit.

Massive neurotransmitter dumps to feel heavenly bliss out of a toxic street chemical are extremely unhealthy. Abusing stimulant drugs that typically are stomped on and produced in unsanitary conditions by unprofessionals is not good for the heart, liver, or brain. This is common sense. If you need a study to be convinced of this, then you must be completely out of touch with the reality of things, and jaded by drugs. Out of all the recreational drugs, use-per-use mdma is one of the worst, in terms of how much it takes away from you, and i would really recommend that no one ever touch it. To toy with the part of your brain that is responsible for love and empathy in your life in order to get high for a night, when there is currently a major controversy around and investigation into possible negative side effects that really do appear to exist, is quite simply stupid as fuck.

Personally, i had a great time rolling and nothing much bad ever happened. I just woke up to the bullshit, and quit while i was ahead.

amen.

 

[JWills20]

The fact of the matter is that every single user of Mdma is doing some degree of harm to themselves.

A very fair point. But if you follow that philosophy, every single-time McDonald's eater is causing some degree of harm, more-so than the comparative salad consumer. Every person who chooses to drive a car to work is placing themselves at a higher risk than the walking counter-part. Where do you draw the line at what 'degree of harm' outweighs the benefits? Most users of MDMA do not report negative effects that outweigh the positives, despite most users not even abiding the HR reduction that is so cherished on this forum.

It's just that the vast majority of recreational users taking it once a month or less, do not notice the damage. This does not mean that it isn't injuring the human body - as a scientifically proven neurotoxin that's just what it does.

I'm not sure I understand the whole 'you won't notice the damage.' If everytime you took MDMA it was destroying your serotonin system, you would certainly notice that. The brain is very sensitive to neurochemical changes. I would agree that higher cognitive functioning could lessen without you realising straight away, but emotional well-being - certainly not. I've been taking MDMA for nearly 2 years now. Most of it has followed strict HR guidelines, other times have been irresponsible. When am I due these negative effects from inevitable damage? Are you really suggesting that every MDMA-user is basically a walking time bomb just waiting to explode? I've met ravers from the 90s (my hairdresser for one haha), who is now in her 40s and she told me she's fine. When are all these inevitable negatives going to happen to her?

To keep your body in the best shape possible, the obvious choice is to never touch this shit.

Another fair point. But why are you on a HR forum? This is quite simply prohibitive advice. The obvious choice is not to eat unhealthy foods, not smoke, not drink, not drive as these activites all impose a higher danger to yourself than simply sitting indoors. While your inside you should also avoid the kitchen as there are knives in the kitchen. Knives are proven to be sharp and dangerous objects, the obvious choice is to avoid them entirely.

Massive neurotransmitter dumps to feel heavenly bliss out of a toxic street chemical are extremely unhealthy.

Pseudo-science hysteria. This is not far off some of the Government propaganda.

Abusing stimulant drugs that typically are stomped on and produced in unsanitary conditions by unprofessionals is not good for the heart, liver, or brain.

This is a problem with illegalizing the drug, not the actual dangers of the pure drug itself. When explaining to my friends who are more drug-naiive, I use alcohol as a reference because they can relate to it (everybody drinks). If you illegalized alcohol, the demand for alcohol would not subside. As a result, a new opportunity would open up on the black market for criminals to make money. Now instead of following strict policies & regulations of how to create ethanol (like is now), criminals will take the fastest and cheapest route of synthesis. If the Government then try to tighten up the accessibility by destroying the neccessary pre-cursors (as happens with illegal drugs), copycat versions of the drug are produced to try and fill the demand for alcohol. This all results in poorly produced ethanol and untested research chemicals being sold. This steeply increases the risk of taking alcohol. The prohition of alcohol caused deaths because it became made and sold by unprofessional criminals of which ethanol is actually a pretty toxic substance. When it's poorly synthesised, it can be fatal.

Out of all the recreational drugs, use-per-use Mdma is one of the worst, in terms of how much it takes away from you, and I would really recommend that no one ever touch it.

Research does not suggest that. Like I said, MDMA is comparably low in terms of harm to the user. This is not my opinion, that is epidemiological research.

To toy with the part of your brain that is responsible for love and empathy in your life in order to get high for a night, when there is currently a major controversy around and investigation into possible negative side effects that really do appear to exist, is quite simply stupid as fuck.

You admit yourself there is debate. There is no conclusive evidence linking recreational MDMA-use with negative side effects. Ramp up the doses in mice and sure the evidence is pretty conclusive. Like most things, responsibility is a big part of the dangers of the drug.

Personally, I had a great time rolling and nothing much bad ever happened. I just woke up to the bullshit, and quit while I was ahead.

Your another person who the positives outweighed the negatives. What exactly is the 'bullshit'? The many users who find the positives outweigh the negatives? or the few who find that they don't? I would say that the stats don't lie, but of course stats are constantly manipulated. But i'm inclined to accept Professor Nutt's stats on the harm of MDMA-users as I see no reason why he would bias toward the drug. In doing so, he loses his well-paid job for the Government and is labelled as 'stupid' or a 'druggie' by society. Just like you seem to label those who disagree with you as a druggie -

This is common sense. If you need a study to be convinced of this, then you must be completely out of touch with the reality of things, and jaded by drugs.

I always find it a funny arguement when somebody resorts to the classic 'you're just fucked up by drugs, what do you know'.

 

[dpd_mnk92]

You guys are never going to come to any sort of agreement. Findings on MDMA are so contradictory that you could just about back ANY claim about the drug up with some sort of "evidence". "Debates" about MDMA aren't really debates, because there isn't a reliable pool of evidence to draw from. It ends up being COMPLETELY based on ones personal experience.

This is why a pro-MDMA moderator on an MDMA forum who has taken the drug responsibly for 2 years will insist that his DOC is exactly what David Nutt says it is. This is also why people who have experienced terrible side effects of the drug will view David Nutt's assertion that MDMA is safer than alcohol as dangerously simplistic.

Whilst it is important for both sides to recognise this (to prevent hours of endless debate on an essentially undebatable topic), I think the pro-MDMA guys have more to learn from victims of MDMA use/ abuse than the other way around.

People who have suffered once are likely never touching MDMA again for fear of bringing back a range of complications - information about how MDMA is "safer than alcohol" is not gonna do this crowd any good! On the other hand, the pro-MDMA guy who has used responsibly for 2 years would be wise to keep his mind open to the POSSIBILITY that MDMA can be incredibly dangerous, at any dose.

 

[cope]

You guys are never going to come to any sort of agreement. Findings on MDMA are so contradictory that you could just about back ANY claim about the drug up with some sort of "evidence". "Debates" about MDMA aren't really debates, because there isn't a reliable pool of evidence to draw from. It ends up being COMPLETELY based on ones personal experience.

This is why a pro-MDMA moderator on an MDMA forum who has taken the drug responsibly for 2 years will insist that his DOC is exactly what David Nutt says it is. This is also why people who have experienced terrible side effects of the drug will view David Nutt's assertion that MDMA is safer than alcohol as dangerously simplistic.

Whilst it is important for both sides to recognise this (to prevent hours of endless debate on an essentially undebatable topic), I think the pro-MDMA guys have more to learn from victims of MDMA use/ abuse than the other way around.

People who have suffered once are likely never touching MDMA again for fear of bringing back a range of complications - information about how MDMA is "safer than alcohol" is not gonna do this crowd any good! On the other hand, the pro-MDMA guy who has used responsibly for 2 years would be wise to keep his mind open to the POSSIBILITY that MDMA can be incredibly dangerous, at any dose.

while i agree with f1n1shed, this is the best post in this thread.

take care guys.

 

[F1n1shed]

The fact of the matter is that every single user of Mdma is doing some degree of harm to themselves. It's just that the vast majority of recreational users taking it once a month or less, do not notice the damage. This does not mean that it isn't injuring the human body - as a scientifically proven neurotoxin that's just what it does. To keep your body in the best shape possible, the obvious choice is to never touch this shit.

Massive neurotransmitter dumps to feel heavenly bliss out of a toxic street chemical are extremely unhealthy. Abusing stimulant drugs that typically are stomped on and produced in unsanitary conditions by unprofessionals is not good for the heart, liver, or brain. This is common sense. If you need a study to be convinced of this, then you must be completely out of touch with the reality of things, and jaded by drugs. Out of all the recreational drugs, use-per-use Mdma is one of the worst, in terms of how much it takes away from you, and I would really recommend that no one ever touch it. To toy with the part of your brain that is responsible for love and empathy in your life in order to get high for a night, when there is currently a major controversy around and investigation into possible negative side effects that really do appear to exist, is quite simply stupid as fuck.

Personally, I had a great time rolling and nothing much bad ever happened. I just woke up to the bullshit, and quit while I was ahead.

Agreed it doesn't take a scientist to know that taking a drug that works similar to methamphetamine , yet on more fragile neurons is very damaging if not the most damaging main stream drug out there (it is). Dose for dose MDMA is more neurotoxic, than crack, meth, coke you name it (excluding foreign RC's that we know nothing about)

Jwills you actually need me to cite sources to say it is damaging to the heart and organs? I am done with you sir, i will not waste time. You are the one that is ignorant, not me as i said i use drugs...but gave up on MDMA because it is all false promises. It is all about being the happiest in the moment, and then coming home to a shell of your former self. It takes a real self aware person to notice it, obviously you are not at that level yet.

Rave_itsrealfun says : Massive neurotransmitter dumps to feel heavenly bliss out of a toxic street chemical are extremely unhealthy.

Jwills20 says: Pseudo-science hysteria. This is not far off some of the Government propaganda.

You are far lost, i suggest you switch majors in university this neurology study and such isn't working for you if you truly believe this is pseudo science.
These people are not out to scare us away from MDMA, they dislike all drugs. But with MDMA they specifically always focus on neuro toxicity and long term serotonin problems .... well simply because that is what it does. That is the main thing you should be worried about, when speaking of heroin government papers don't focus on toxicity of heroin so much rather they focus on addiction.... well simply because most people don't just use once they go back for more.

Be more open minded Jwills, you are not supporting harm reduction if you think this is government scare propaganda. You are basically giving MDMA users comfort to keep rolling... which is not a good thing.

 

[ShytK]

If the government research should focus on anything it should be on one-off cases. I mean if you get addicted that's like a million percent your fault. But one off cases can be just using bad judgement one night, being slipped into a drink, etc. Government needs to prioritize the research it does by first appealing to the smarter people rather than the morons.

That's the problem in today's society. More aid to the idiots so that they can reproduce more of their kind.

 

[JWills20]

You guys are never going to come to any sort of agreement. Findings on MDMA are so contradictory that you could just about back ANY claim about the drug up with some sort of "evidence". "Debates" about MDMA aren't really debates, because there isn't a reliable pool of evidence to draw from.

It ends up being COMPLETELY based on ones personal experience. This is why a pro-MDMA moderator on an MDMA forum who has taken the drug responsibly for 2 years will insist that his DOC is exactly what David Nutt says it is. This is also why people who have experienced terrible side effects of the drug will view David Nutt's assertion that MDMA is safer than alcohol as dangerously simplistic.

First of all, good post. Your right that there is a debate and that findings can sometimes appear conflicting. Now, one person may view this as 'well, the drug is clearly unpredictable and thus dangerous' (the typical view of academics against MDMA) or 'Perhaps there are methodological constraints and flaws that cause results to vary between studies' (The view of most academics pro-MDMA). I tend to lend more toward the latter reason. This is because human studies often use self-administered 'Ecstasy' off the street. Not to mention numerous studies examining polydrug users. These are all variables that could very much result in conflicting research results, confounding the actual evidence about pure MDMA, rather displaying evidence for Ecstasy (which is very unpredictable itself. Coincidence? Perhaps). Further, the reason I am so pro-MDMA (despite my own positive experiences, which I try to leave at the door), is because every study I've read which controls these variables, and therefore administers pure MDMA at controlled doses to drug-naiive participants, shows minimal deficits. If you find studies which do find differences (there is one which does report a cognitive deficit IIRC), i'd be more than happy to read them and reconsider my views.

People who have suffered once are likely never touching MDMA again for fear of bringing back a range of complications - information about how MDMA is "safer than alcohol" is not gonna do this crowd any good!

I never said MDMA is safer than alcohol. The drugs are different. Alcohol is a peripheral toxin at higher doses, MDMA is a neurotoxin. Both have their selective dangers, just one has all the dangers downplayed, while the other seems to have everything over-exaggerated.

On the other hand, the pro-MDMA guy who has used responsibly for 2 years would be wise to keep his mind open to the POSSIBILITY that MDMA can be incredibly dangerous, at any dose.

I have been responsible for the most part. But the fact remains that the majority of users are not responsible and have never heard of the '1 month rule' or the 'test kit'. I would disagree that MDMA is dangerous at any dose, however I would agree that it's dangerous in higher doses/ mixed with other drugs.

@Finished1 We should just agree to disagree. Thanks for your advice about switching degrees, but I'm quite happy doing what I'm doing.

 

[rave_itsrealfun!!!]

JWills20, why exactly are you promoting occasional Mdma use? Is it so that you can keep up your own rolling habit without worrying about fucking your mind? You sure enough sound like an addict in denial to me. I know it's a great time and all, but that dirty drug fries your brain. You are seriously downplaying the risks. Picking a knife up in a kitchen, or eating fast food, is much different than making the unnecessary choice to use an unregulated black market chemical that comes from some criminals dirty den and is obviously toxic to some extent. The criminal has an open black market to take advantage of, and all they care about is selling the drugs. It is NEVER pure, even shit that passes the reagent tests could easily have been tampered with. Cutting the drugs increases profit without raising the risks, absolutely every drug dealer scum will be doing this because they are risking a jail sentence to get you the drugs. And it is never going to be legalized, these risks will never go away.

You can pick apart my argument all you want, but at the end of the day what is going to happen? You are going to go out there, find some greasy criminal to buy a dirty pill off, reagent test it so that you can convince yourself it is 'safe', then go out on the town and blow your brain cells to smitherines, risking permanent changes to your mind. In your own mind you'll be king of the heavens but others will just see you as sweaty high fucker. Just what the fuck is the point of promoting this kind of immature, dangerous, pointless, and foolish self abuse?

When you take Mdma, you are putting trust in the criminal cooks, all the drug dealers through which it passed hands, and the science of Mdma which generally points to it being fairly risky and untrustworthy. You are also choosing to ignore all the horror stories. Many people have suffered long term comedowns from very limited Mdma use. They are begging for mercy and have no idea what to do. Are you exempt from this risk because you take precautions and use it once per month? Fuck, no, you're the same species. You are literally putting your entire life as you know it on the line in order to get high, with the awareness that permanent negative changes to your body are in fact definitely going to happen whether you notice it or not, how is that ever worthwhile? It sounds like you have an ego problem. Why do you feel such a need to support the sellers of hard drugs when this terrible industry is the result of multiple innocent deaths, cases of permanent brain damage, and overdoses each year? By taking the drug, you are becoming a link in this brutal chain of suffering. Respectable individuals keep away from this dirty industry of death, let alone try and convince others that it is ok to dive into. I personally think that in the case of Mdma, moderators should be doing everything they can to convince others that the risks in every case outweigh the benefits in terms of using this trash, and if they are here to help people get high on Mdma, then bluelight is not serving a positive purpose because even with the knowledge of harm reduction you are playing with fire when you take Mdma. Some people get completely swept up by it whether they were planning to or not, it's called a honeymoon phase but really it's just addiction at a lower frequency of use than is typical with drugs but a higher rate of damage. I have seen it happen time and time again. In fact I would say that an initial period of overuse is typically what occurs. And the experience is so incredibly powerful and amazing that even having it a handful of times is likely to cause problems down the road and for some once is all it takes, besides the fact that many people choose to make a habit out of it at the highest possibly socially acceptable frequency of use among users of once per month.

Many years ago when I was younger and dumber I went through grams upon grams of pure, crystal Mdma and it was absolutely the most wonderful period of my whole entire life because the drugs really do feel that good in the short term and they really do help you to open up emotionally to others and to yourself in the short term as well. But there are long term effects of this, when everything is said and done you shall see. Not a single user escapes the consequences of their hit of heavenly bliss. At the end of the day they will make you more anxious, antisocial, dumb, and possibly worse. It began with overuse but after the honeymoon period (the period where you are so in love with the experience that you are blind to the risks of it) I started to take it within reason. Before I knew much about this stuff I used to take it multiple times per week, in massive whopper doses, dropping and sniffing it into the next day, and it was certainly not methylone. I literally had a lifetime worth of awesome good times in one year. I totally came out ok, or so it seems. I don't trust that this is so, I might be missing a part of my brain for all I know. When I truly sit down and analyze myself, some very negative subtle changes have occurred that are obviously a result of the Mdma experience as they are the antithesis of it. I wish I never used, and I have been one of the relatively lucky ones. My abuse was hardly intense compared to some, I've taken the substance maybe 30 times in my life. It ended up being more than enough. I do not have a picture perfect view of the internal workings of my body. However, I have been out of the scene for years, and once you completely stop taking Mdma it will give you a new perspective on your history with it.

I guess I've sort of realized that this isn't actually a harm reduction forum. The moderators are current users of hard drugs themselves! Just where is the sense in that? And your opinion goes to show that you don't even understand or have that much experience with Mdma and it is obviously skewed due to the fact that you are still indulging in the heavenly bliss. Back when I was still a user, I would have ranted and raved about how Mdma is a Godsend and everyone should try it. Just look at my username. If you knew what was truly up, then your opinion would be different. You would be urging others to stay away. The best type of mod, would be a burnout. I guess I've realized that I dislike it here, this website is full of drug abusers in denial. That's the whole point of it, to encourage people to continue using brain destroying drugs in a way that minimizes the damage. A much better idea is to never even touch the stuff to protect your body and mind from such obvious threats and that is what we should be drilling into the mind of each unfortunate user so that nobody ruins their life. These people who get fucked over by limited Mdma usage are worth a damn. They were functional human beings who are no longer so. I just don't vibe with people who are smart enough to be aware of what they are doing and are willing to support violent crime and take disgusting, dirty and highly addictive street chemicals that have a horrible impact on our society as well as the human body for the selfish purpose of personally getting a high when there is ongoing extreme suffering in the world due to the popularity of the drug. As an ecstasy user you are no better than the cocaine users who are a prerequisite to the thousands upon thousands of drug murders that happen in the southern half of this continent by creating the demand, when they could just give the fucking coke a rest. Even if it is primarily the laws at fault every user and their bank account plays a part. Or are you into that shit too? It's another one that feels like heaven, is utter shit for the body, involves dangerous cutting agents, has horrible societal consequences, makes you feel cool and as a euphoric ego booster makes it easy to be in denial about your use - you might like it.

 

[Blue_Phlame]

In light of the Electric Zoo incident, if you do drugs or have done drugs, you need to read this.

Finding Molly:
http://www.kissmyangeles.com/view/story/finding_molly

 

[dpd_mnk92]

First of all, good post. Your right that there is a debate and that findings can sometimes appear conflicting. Now, one person may view this as 'well, the drug is clearly unpredictable and thus dangerous' (the typical view of academics against MDMA) or 'Perhaps there are methodological constraints and flaws that cause results to vary between studies' (The view of most academics pro-MDMA). I tend to lend more toward the latter reason. This is because human studies often use self-administered 'Ecstasy' off the street. Not to mention numerous studies examining polydrug users. These are all variables that could very much result in conflicting research results, confounding the actual evidence about pure MDMA, rather displaying evidence for Ecstasy (which is very unpredictable itself. Coincidence? Perhaps). Further, the reason I am so pro-MDMA (despite my own positive experiences, which I try to leave at the door), is because every study I've read which controls these variables, and therefore administers pure MDMA at controlled doses to drug-naiive participants, shows minimal deficits. If you find studies which do find differences (there is one which does report a cognitive deficit IIRC), i'd be more than happy to read them and reconsider my views.

I disagree with both the pro and anti MDMA explanations of contradictory findings, which you have put forward. Imo methodology is always manipulated so that the study arrives at a predetermined conclusion. The funder has always got an agenda, otherwise the funder wouldn't be funding the study in the first place. Most pro-MDMA guys are trying to get MDMA approved in a clinical setting, so understandably, they are NOT going to risk the slightest chance that their study shows anything more than a "negligible" difference between MDMA-takers and non-MDMA guys. These researchers, with the help of previous studies, can easily create a seemingly objective study without the risk of findings "surprising" them by contradicting their original hypothesis. This brings me back to my original point that all we can learn is that under very specific conditions, carefully selected by the researchers, MDMA can either be devastating or completely safe. In other words, we don't learn very much at all.

The clear methodological constraints you talk about affect all studies, even the studies you are in favour of. Ravers will never take MDMA in a lab. Researchers aren't able to push the boundaries of these types of experiments for numerous ethical reasons. Finally, it is impossible to operationalise the type of damage done by MDMA. Cognitive decline isn't even a common complaint among most ABUSERS of the drug, so why would you even bother measuring this in people who have been administered small amounts of clean MDMA, over a short period of time? To arrive at a predetermined conclusion maybe? Because we, as humans, don't have the tools or ability to measure the type of MDMA does? The damage caused by MDMA is predominantly emotional. Until we have a way of objectively measuring emotions, which are inherently unmeasurable + abstract, we'll have to hold up our hands and admit that we know close to nothing.

The classic pro-mdma study proves to us that low dosing of lab grade MDMA over a short period of won't produce noticeable cognitive decline, and the classic anti-mdma study proves that higher-than-recreational doses can destroy an animals serotonin network. We don't know THAT much more than this tbh. Someone who has read through enough research on both sides, without entertaining any preconceived notions about the drug, would surely realise that studies from either side are pretty inconclusive. They merely show what they want to show.

I don't believe you are pro-MDMA because you've read a few studies, and I don't believe I'm anti-MDMA because i've read a few studies. I do believe that you genuinely believe that these studies have guided your opinion, however. Our opinions of MDMA are so clearly shaped by our experiences with the drug - hard to deny this, really. We then go on to seek out research and information that fits with our rigid view of the drug - this is called the halo effect, applies to most things in life, and is a perception "flaw" which is deeply tied in with our very nature. No one escapes this phenomenon. For you a few powerful MDMA experiences (probably the best you have EVER felt in your life?) will shape your view and for me, spending over 9 months dealing with what can only be described as the direct opposite of a roll, has reshaped mine.

 

[JWills20]

I disagree with both the pro and anti MDMA explanations of contradictory findings, which you have put forward. Imo methodology is always manipulated so that the study arrives at a predetermined conclusion. The funder has always got an agenda, otherwise the funder wouldn't be funding the study in the first place.

I don't really disagree with this. Unfortunately, whoever has the money has the power. Then again, it is a conspiracy. You would like to think that at least some research is done honestly in the hopes of finding actual answers instead of just proving their theory.

Most pro-MDMA guys are trying to get MDMA approved in a clinical setting, so understandably, they are NOT going to risk the slightest chance that their study shows anything more than a "negligible" difference between MDMA-takers and non-MDMA guys. These researchers, with the help of previous studies, can easily create a seemingly objective study without the risk of findings "surprising" them by contradicting their original hypothesis. This brings me back to my original point that all we can learn is that under very specific conditions, carefully selected by the researchers, MDMA can either be devastating or completely safe. In other words, we don't learn very much at all.

You're right. I'd never actually considered that the controlled clinical trials may just be inherently biased toward MDMA. I liked to think that they were just trying to isolate the actual effects of MDMA, but you could definitely be right.

The clear methodological constraints you talk about affect all studies, even the studies you are in favour of. Ravers will never take MDMA in a lab. Researchers aren't able to push the boundaries of these types of experiments for numerous ethical reasons.

Yep that's true. But unless you can provide a sound theoretical reason why pure MDMA would cause any more damage in a rave setting, and then back it up empirically, it is a null point. Of course you could delve into hot environments, exercise, poor hydration etc. But it is still confounded by the same methodological flaws. I remember reading the cortisol theory raised in another thread. It does appear to be a promising theory, but until pure MDMA is administered in a lab vs rave setting it's hard to really determine the difference. For this I can only go on my own experiences, to which I've noticed no difference between the two. I sweat more and exercise harder at a rave, but ultimately the comedown is the same if not better.

Finally, it is impossible to operationalise the type of damage done by MDMA. Cognitive decline isn't even a common complaint among most ABUSERS of the drug, so why would you even bother measuring this in people who have been administered small amounts of clean MDMA, over a short period of time? To arrive at a predetermined conclusion maybe?

I wouldn't say it is impossible. Difficult - perhaps. The reason cognitive decline is measured is because there are scientific theories to underpin MDMA-induced cognitive decline. I've no idea if abusers do not report it, but the science is there. In my own experiences, I have had follow-up days with mild brain fog and what I call the 'spaceman effect' where I feel a bit spaced out and not cognitively alert. Akin to a very mild weed mindfuck where you're forgetful, but nowhere the strength of being stoned. It's not unpleasant nor does it really effect me to the point where it's worth mentioning, but it's subtly there. I find that my emotional well-being is actually increased the next day: I'm more empathetic, sociable and at ease with the world. Perhaps i'm just an anomoly.

Because we, as humans, don't have the tools or ability to measure the type of MDMA does? The damage caused by MDMA is predominantly emotional. Until we have a way of objectively measuring emotions, which are inherently unmeasurable + abstract, we'll have to hold up our hands and admit that we know close to nothing.

There are scales out there available to examine emotional well-being. The first that comes to mind is the Profile of Mood State (POMS) which does exactly what it says on the tin - tests your current mood. You could question the validity and reliability of these tools, but that's a whole different story.

The classic pro-mdma study proves to us that low dosing of lab grade MDMA over a short period of won't produce noticeable cognitive decline, and the classic anti-mdma study proves that higher-than-recreational doses can destroy an animals serotonin network. We don't know THAT much more than this tbh. Someone who has read through enough research on both sides, without entertaining any preconceived notions about the drug, would surely realise that studies from either side are pretty inconclusive. They merely show what they want to show.

We need to find a balance in the middle, with no bias either way. That is the only way the research can progress.

I don't believe you are pro-MDMA because you've read a few studies, and I don't believe I'm anti-MDMA because i've read a few studies. I do believe that you genuinely believe that these studies have guided your opinion, however.

I try to leave the my personal experiences at the door. But it's obviously hard to completely do so.

Our opinions of MDMA are so clearly shaped by our experiences with the drug - hard to deny this, really. We then go on to seek out research and information that fits with our rigid view of the drug - this is called the halo effect, applies to most things in life, and is a perception "flaw" which is deeply tied in with our very nature. No one escapes this phenomenon. For you a few powerful MDMA experiences (probably the best you have EVER felt in your life?) will shape your view and for me, spending over 9 months dealing with what can only be described as the direct opposite of a roll, has reshaped mine.

I have heard of the halo effect. I watched a Derren Brown thing about how body language will alter a person's opinion of you while you're saying the exact same thing. IIRC, if body language is positive then the other social interacter is more inclined to perceive your conversing as positive, independent of what you even say. There's no doubt that positive/negative experiences create an inherent bias. The hardest thing to do is to try and step away from that, and view something from a completely neutral standpoint. I try to do this, but perhaps i'm not very good at it!

 

[F1n1shed]

Jwills i'm gonna keep this short and simple, you are the little dog the experienced users are the big dogs here. I don't give 2 damns about your moderator title, i had people asking me to apply but i didn't and rest assure any moron can get Mod title (laugh was a mod, he knows NOTHING on the subject).

I've been here since 08, when i first started rolling and took breaks from this site but have always been checking it off and on. Over the years i have seen first hand what this chemical can do, and how fast it can off set a persons WHOLE entire life (until they decide to stop using and recover which takes months if not over a year). A lot of these people only using 2-3 times.... some more but point being two to three times can destroy a persons psych!!!

Wax on wax off j wills, respect your elders we know more about this than you do whether you believe it or not. Do not beat around the bush with those absurd arguments about eating fast food and stuff, that is a perfect example of what a drug user does to justify. Wax on wax off little one, listen to your elders!

Edit: i'd also like to know what other drugs you currently use, and how often you roll. How many doses you take in a night etc this all makes a big difference.
If you only roll, and do it once in a blue moon i can see how you don't really notice ill effects but regardless just let me know so i can get a better understanding of your view point.

 

[ShytK]

You two guys know there is a thing called private messaging right? I don't think anyone is reading these latest posts anymore except you two.

 

[rave_itsrealfun!!!]

Once again Finished definitely knows what is up with this shit.

JWills is the typical hard drug user in denial. You know, that you're into hard drugs right? One of the absolute worst of them all. You're a user of them, a supporter. It ruins peoples lives, and it always starts with one hit, the moderate use that you think is ok.This is NOT GOOD and you should stop. But you won't listen to us, because you think you know better.

 

[Folley]

^ So because someone doesn't want to allow another person to make dramatic, unfounded claims that makes them a drug addict who will ruin their lives?



I don't really know why anyone tries around here anymore, everyone is so closed minded when it comes to this topic.... MDMA is not bad, it's not good. IT'S A FUCKING DRUG.

 

[JWills20]

Well, I was enjoying the debate until it turned into a flame war against me. As a result, I'm going to close it. I can't see any progress happening anytime soon.