Powell: Students shouldn't dismiss dangers of Molly

poledriver

poledriver

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
11,543
Powell: Students shouldn't dismiss dangers of Molly

We all delude ourselves into thinking that something bad for us is actually OK sometimes. We eat too much fast food, carry on in unhealthy relationships, send text messages while driving. A voice in our head may tell us it's wrong, but we ignore it.

Lately among my peers, though, I've noticed a widespread willingness to accept claims that the illegal designer drug Molly is safe. With other drugs, there's at least an acknowledgement that the substance is harmful. With Molly, students happily swallow what friends say: "It's a pure and safe form of ecstasy."

Molly has gained popularity in the past couple of years, partly due to cultural references -- like in Kanye West's "Mercy" -- and the return of the electronic dance music scene. And in theory, it is indeed made only of 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methamphetamine, or MDMA.

But even if the capsules do contain only MDMA -- and there are good reasons to believe they don't -- it's ridiculous to think that because something is deemed pure, that means it's harmless, too.

The allure of the active ingredient is that it causes users to feel euphoric, with increased energy and warmth toward others.

It enhances lights and sounds. But the Drug Enforcement Administration classifies MDMA as a Section 1 controlled substance, meaning it has no medical use, has a high potential for abuse and is illegal.

MDMA can interfere with the body's ability to regulate temperature and cause dehydration, confusion, nausea and anxiety.

And because it depletes the brain of serotonin, a mood regulator, users typically feel depressed in the days after ingestion.

On top of that, regardless of its "pure" reputation, there's no easy way for users to make sure that the Molly they're buying isn't cut with other drugs.

Ecstasydata.org, an independent pill-testing laboratory backed by the nonprofit informational websites Erowid Center and DanceSafe, has found that pills sold as Molly often contain no MDMA at all, or include a variety of other ingredients ranging from caffeine to bath salts to detergent. White powder-filled capsules being marketed as Molly can contain just about anything.

Buying in to the misconception that Molly is harmless is, well, dangerous. And it perpetuates the drug's popularity.

Demand for the drug has skyrocketed in the last year on the Stony Brook University campus. I've seen it among my peers. Molly costs as little as $25 for a 0.2-gram capsule.

A counselor at the campus' Center for Prevention and Outreach said the center has noticed a surge in the use and discussion of Molly among students and is concerned about inaccurate perceptions about the drug.

While the center tracks reported drug use on campus, it breaks down numbers only as illicit or prescribed, so there are no hard statistics on Molly.

But a student survey conducted at Syracuse University recently found that 20 percent of participants on that campus had tried Molly, and a third didn't know the actual ingredients of the drug they consumed.

The use of Molly and the misconceptions surrounding it are widespread -- going well beyond Stony Brook and Syracuse. Drugs go in and out of vogue and Molly may not stick around much longer.

But it's important that in the meantime everyone -- users, parents and college officials -- accepts reality. It's popular and it's dangerous.

We can't persuade college students to abstain from drug use, but at the very least we should be honest with ourselves about what we're risking.

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/powell-students-shouldn-t-dismiss-dangers-of-molly-1.5141650
 
The article is written in a biased fashion for sure and I tend to think these type of things are written for one reason and one reason only.. But I do think that there are a lot of people who do take the whole 'MDMA is harmless' thing for granted. It's easy for people to think that there are no real dangers associated with things like MDMA because they've been lied too so much about them and it is easy (like the article states) to delude ourselves into thinking something that is bad for us is actually ok.

I'm not saying people shouldn't take MDMA - I believe people who want to take drugs like MDMA should be entitled to truthful and honest information and advice about what it is they want to do, and that is exactly what this article SHOULD BE DOING (giving people truthful and honest information), instead of continuing the constantly recurring trend of 'Drugs are bad, don't do drugs!'

Agreed though, terrible article.
 
The point of the article seems to be "Molly isn't harmless" - which, frankly speaking, is true.
 
after several extensive and scientific clinical trials

I disagree
 
The bench I am sitting on would be harmful if I slammed my head into it a few times. "Harm" is meaningless outside of a relative framework.

I have been out of the scene for a few years, so I can only really speak as an observer on the outside. But the methylone epidemic has really only added to the naivety. Back in my day, we had piperzines to contend with, which SUCKED, so there was a stronger motive for testing and awareness. Methylone feels a lot closer to MDMA, and is pretty safe, so it 1) gives a more believable false idea of MDMA 2) isn't as bad of a worst case, and people are more willing to guinea pig it.

Methylone also has virtually no comedown, so it also gives a false sense of security in that regard. The article I would write would be a neutral viewpoint on the evolution of prohibition, adulterants and testing kits/labs.
 
Whether or not "Christine Powell" actually has a point, her over-zealous cuntiness just pretty much demands that someone say, "go fuck yourself with a cactus!"

If it was somebody who had been around ecstasy users for years, used MDMA themselves, and saw the introduction of RCs being sold as MDMA creating ODs and overall problems among users, I'd have more respect for the article...

But, this "lady" just comes across as some 19 year old "junior" who wants to rain on everyone elses parade because she's missing out on the party!

"duh, sumtimes, we all think bad things are actually good! Derrr, ha ha, okay! "
 
Last edited:
Its true that ecstasy is not harmless, but compared to other drugs like alcohol, its certainly not as bad as the media make it out to be. ALL DRUGS HAVE SIDE EFFECTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ABUSE THEM.

But the Drug Enforcement Administration classifies MDMA as a Section 1 controlled substance, meaning it has no medical use, has a high potential for abuse and is illegal.
Click to expand...

If the DEA say so, then it must be true. And ecstasy doesnt have a medical use, because the DEA dont allow it!
 
^ I was ready to quote the same sentence, for the same reason. But the context is somewhat revealing, too, I thought:

It enhances lights and sounds. But the Drug Enforcement Administration classifies MDMA as a Section 1 controlled substance, meaning it has no medical use, has a high potential for abuse and is illegal.
Click to expand...

Is enhancing lights and sounds all MDMA does? Are these the primary effects? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Why would someone with no experience with the drug write about it? And why trust the DEA, who also say that cannabis has no medical use and a hight potential for abuse?

Lame article. Cactus, it is.
 
Wow, I was particularly full of piss and vinegar when I posted the "cactus thing"! Especially considering this is one of the forums "normal people" might actually come across and read! I hope I didn't make us look too bad!....but as crude a comment as it was, I'm not inclined to retract it!

It's kind of strange how a lot of these articles are always saying things about certain drugs "making a come back" or "gaining in popularity"....She implies Kanye West has something to do with it! It's kind of funny.....From my perspective, "ecstasy" has been a mainstay among drug users for a long time now....I guess saying things like that just gives it more of an air of urgency!

It's this woman's motivation for writing this article that disturbs me more than it's content, but that goes for a lot of things I read these days.
 
I get the impression that this child is more concerned with picking a hot topic for her article that will get it noticed than actually warning and educating people about mdma.
 
After reading pretty much exactly the same thing 25 years ago, when UK Drugs charity's were distributing awarenss leaflets about Ecstacy, I'd have hoped to see a more enlghtened approach.

The message that ravers shouldn't consider MDMA/Ecstacy (& remember, back in 1988 there was no difference) harmless has been said to death. Everyone knows that by now.

The big harm reduction message I took from late 80's/early 90's media reports, as well as leaflets by London & UK Drugs charity's & government agency's was that the real danger was of accidentally adulterated or overdosed pills, or that some strange new compound 100 times stronger than MDMA might end up in a pill.

Always dust off a little of WHATEVER you're taking, always warm up slowly & assume everything you get is stronger than it is & we'd all be that bit safer. Where's that message? I would always scrape off bits of pills & allery test them, every time! Now that mixture's of NBOMe's are around, this message should be EVERYWHERE!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top