• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators: Esperighanto

MDMA vs. Ecstasy

N

nickygstar

Greenlighter
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
4
I watched a documentary about the most dangerous drugs. It was interesting that MDMA was number 18, LSD 14, Cannabis 14, Alcohol 5, cocaine 2, heroin 1. I'm open to dicusssion about this order and I have a few questions. I appreciated this subject may have been talked to death. Upon doing research I with some major gaps and this discussion is purely for knowledge and entertainment, so lets keep it light hearted. I know its hard to compare these drugs in a quantitative manner. Heres some question:

Per person, is someone statistically (no circumstances taking into consideration, and excluding obvious issues with impurity with MDMA, assume its mix with a negligent binder) more likely to die from acute alcohol use or acute ecstasy use.

What are the brain differences? Alcohol has effects on the prefrontal cortex, and MDMA on the serotonin system.

I will just say from my experience, Alcohol are ecstasy are both amazing drugs, but the have short term negative effects, whereas the long term effects are hard to grasp.

Any thought?
 
By acute use do you mean as in taking a huge amount at once? If that is the case the MDMA is definitely more dangerous to your body then alcohol. With alcohol you will just blackout and maybe get in some trouble, or hurt yourself (unless you drink an absurd amount of alcohol, such as a gallon of liquor, and shut your liver down). An overdose on MDMA can very likely end in life threatening cardiac issues and hyperthermia, which is not as easy to treat as curing a hangover.
 
MDMA is a potent neurotoxin.... how exactly is that safer than LSD which is non-toxic?


Also, heroin is relatively safe for the body (other than addiction issues/IV complications)... meth is much worse for you than heroin I would say, and MDMA is basically as damaging as meth with long term use.... so I do not like the sounds of this study one bit.


You have a link?
 
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm I thought this list was well know, it's our friend Professor David Nutt and his colleagues who have made this list. He is one of the world leading neuropsychopharmacologist and is also a psychiatrist. And my opinion is this list is a very accurate representation of the actual dangers of drugs. I have never understood why people have so much trouble finding this list believable. There is more research supporting this list. Remember it is more dangerous to go horseriding or play football than to be on a roll :)
 
There are some parts that i agree with and some that i dont. Methamphetamine causes considerable harm to others: stealing, robbing at gun point, running from cops, using while pregnant, tears families apart, ect. Meth psychosis can do crazy things to people making them do crazy things. I watched a documentary about how crime and meth purity were positively correlated. I think it was based in oregon, so im not sure if its a national statistic.
 
Last edited:
Well yes, but that has more with the current legal status of the drug, and the lifestyle that follows with addiction to a illegal substance, than the substance it self imo You don't see alcoholics rob people for their next fix so often do you? If you owe your dealer money, and have problems getting the money sooner or later they will force you to rob someone or something. If you haven't paid your bar tab in a while the worst thing that can happen is that you get kicked out of the bar, and told not to come back before you have the money.
 
alcohol vs. ecstasy

Eforeurope said:
Well yes, but that has more with the current legal status of the drug, and the lifestyle that follows with addiction to a illegal substance, than the substance it self imo You don't see alcoholics rob people for their next fix so often do you? If you owe your dealer money, and have problems getting the money sooner or later they will force you to rob someone or something. If you haven't paid your bar tab in a while the worst thing that can happen is that you get kicked out of the bar, and told not to come back before you have the money.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point, if its based on societal impact then ecstasy is relatively low because people don't enjoy it too often (in most cases) whereas alcohol is often used to excess
 
Folley said:
MDMA is a potent neurotoxin.... how exactly is that safer than LSD which is non-toxic?


Also, heroin is relatively safe for the body (other than addiction issues/IV complications)... meth is much worse for you than heroin I would say, and MDMA is basically as damaging as meth with long term use.... so I do not like the sounds of this study one bit.


You have a link?
Click to expand...

actually while heroin is safe in terms of toxicity that does not equate to it being safer in general... heroin is and will always be a *very* dangerous drug...(take it from an ex dope addict).. the way you determine is a drug is dangerous is based on how much potential the drug has for causing harm both in occasional and habitual use... the problem with heroin is that the amount that gets you high is not much less than the amount that shuts down respiration... this means that the potential for people to do just a bit too much means that they die... heroin is highly physically and psychologically addictive, which give our current legal status drives people to do very harmful things to themselves...

granted meth is very bad too... its not physically addictive but the psychological addiction is so strong that it makes people to crazy things to keep having it...

MDMA on the other hand does not have as much potential for harm.. granted you can still kill yourself with MDMA but you have to do *alot*... you have to use it alot to do significant damage, and the potential for habitual use is low (because it operates primarily in the serotonin pathway as opposed to the dopamine pathway...
 
Yeah I tried showing my mates and family that documentary but they still don't get it.
Don't have time to watch it again but I remember they assessed the drugs on acute dangers, long-term dangers, addictive properties and impacts on society. Its not really much surprise that its so low; the chance of an acute adverse reaction are minute and comparable to getting on a horse, the overdose LD50 (rate at which you have 50% chance of dying) is something like 50mg/kg and I don't see people taking 4-5 grams on a night out. Long-term dangers are still relatively unknown but can't be huge. Its not addictive in nature although they're some extreme stories of people taking it all the time and experiencing severe cognitive impairing but they're extremely rare. Finally, its not like we see people fighting while their rolling, stealing to fund the habit or any general negative impact on society.

The researchers, and some Government officials, admit that the main dangers lie within adulterated chemicals being sold as MDMA on the black market. This therefore leads to the illegelisation and criminalisation of the drug causing the main dangers. Not to say it should be legalised as then the uneducated idiots would probably abuse it all the time causing increased psychiatric and hospital admissions.

In my opinion, legalising and decriminalising the drug would only work accompanied with a whole revamp upon the way drugs are portrayed and taught in schools. Similar to the 'drink responsibly' campagne surrounding alcohol, a campagne surrounding MDMA promoting why you can't just take it every weekend, the effects on the body etc, in combination with a media attempt to revamp societies general view on the substance may enable the masses to understand it more and therefore make it somewhat socially accepted.

Unfortunately thats very hypothetical and unlikely to happen and/or even work but i'd love to see the Government actually listen to the professional drug advisors they employ and pay to assess the objective dangers of a drug.
 
Well if you could buy ecstasy legal i guess it would be with intstuctions for use on the packaging :) Idiots will be idiots anyway so not much can be done about that other than to try to educate them :)
 
warning: I havent read the thread.

However just from the title, mdma and ecstasy are the same thing. Please dont be confused.
 
FWIW, statistically you are more likely to die in a horse riding accident or falling off a step ladder than from taking e.
 
thelastclubkid said:
actually while heroin is safe in terms of toxicity that does not equate to it being safer in general... heroin is and will always be a *very* dangerous drug...(take it from an ex dope addict).. the way you determine is a drug is dangerous is based on how much potential the drug has for causing harm both in occasional and habitual use... the problem with heroin is that the amount that gets you high is not much less than the amount that shuts down respiration... this means that the potential for people to do just a bit too much means that they die... heroin is highly physically and psychologically addictive, which give our current legal status drives people to do very harmful things to themselves...

granted meth is very bad too... its not physically addictive but the psychological addiction is so strong that it makes people to crazy things to keep having it...

MDMA on the other hand does not have as much potential for harm.. granted you can still kill yourself with MDMA but you have to do *alot*... you have to use it alot to do significant damage, and the potential for habitual use is low (because it operates primarily in the serotonin pathway as opposed to the dopamine pathway...
Click to expand...

I would agree with most of this....

But I thought heroin almost never causes OD's on its own? It's usually only when combined with benzos/alcohol.... and meth may not cause actual physical withdrawals, but I've heard many poly-drug addicts say an amphetamine habit is harder to break than opiates..



Meth can be used safely too you know... I mean it's given to kids for ADD. If you used MDMA as much as people who use meth did (some people do..) you would do a lot more damage to yourself...

These studies always seem to assume people are using MDMA compeltely safely, but are abusing the SHIT out of meth and heroin 8)



TBH, I don't like studies like this. All drugs are bad... just to different degrees. You can use any of those drugs completely safely, or those drugs can own you and make you their bitch. All drugs need to be used with respect, and MDMA is no exception.



In fact, MDMA needs to be respected more than any other drug IMO
 
Folley said:
TBH, I don't like studies like this. All drugs are bad... just to different degrees.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. That's the ENTIRE PREMISE of this article. They rated drugs, empirically, objectively, and quantitatively, in order of their harm to users (both acute and long-term, separately) and in order of their harm to society. What can you possibly not like about an assessment done in that way? It is exactly the kind of assessment that should be used to determine sensible drug policy.

Also, these studies don't "assume" anything about people's use patterns. That's what empirical means. From data gathered from hospital admissions, user surveys, addiction specialists, psychiatrists, etc, they statistically analyze patterns of use, and determine the harm done based upon those patterns. The fact is, if you took all of the MDMA users and all of the heroin users, normalized for the total number of users, and then categorized them into "light", "heavy", and "my life and body are falling apart because of my use of this drug", the MDMA pool is going to favor the "light" category, with less in the "heavy", and a few outliers in the third category. The heroin group is going to look very different. Analysis like that, along with the actual physical effects of being a "light" or "heavy" user of each drug, is how they determined the potential harm of each drug to the users.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top