Recent Study Reveals That Ecstasy Is Lethal

BA

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
20,156
Location
614, OHIO
A recent European study suggests that the drug called "ecstasy" ( MDMA ) is deadly when taken on its own. Human Psychopharmacology -- a medical research journal from England -- published the findings of the study in their October issue.

According to the study, 17 per cent of ecstasy-related deaths resulted when the victim had taken ecstasy and no other drug, and four out of five were male victims.

"I think the male predominance simply reflects the fact that young males are, in general, heavier users of all drugs than females are," said Dr. Harold Kalant, a professor at the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Toronto and author of The Pharmacology and Toxicology of "Ecstasy" ( MDMA ) and Related Drugs ( 2001 ).

"It isn't that males are biologically more vulnerable. It's simply that if you use more, you stand a greater chance of suffering harm from it."

Patrick Bartens, a second-year multimedia design student, said he tried the drug but doesn't do it anymore.

"I experimented when I was younger," he said. Bartens said he believes that everything has a risk.

"Going to sleep can kill you," he said. "[ecstasy] can kill you, but so can everything else."

Kalant said that recognizing a person that has taken ecstasy may not be as easy as it seems.

"A number of other drugs can have closely similar effects," Kalant said. "But you can at least have reasonable grounds for suspicion if somebody you know seems far more excited, talkative and irrational than is usual for that person." He added that if the person is sweating and thirsty, they may have used ecstasy.

"Ecstasy can kill you, but so can everything. . ."

Irene Bond, a full-time registered nurse at the Humber College Health Centre, said not many people have come to the health centre with ecstasy-related problems.

"It's more of an underground issue," she said, adding that the health centre is willing to help anyone who may want to talk about ecstasy or need rehabilitation services.


drugpolicycentral.com
10-23-03
 
hey hey hey, wait just a minute!

ecstasy-related deaths include heat stroke and hyponatremia.

didn't we already know that these can kill people?

this report seems to be suggesting it was the drug that killed these people, when this is simply not true.
 
"this report seems to be suggesting it was the drug that killed these people, when this is simply not true."

well, if you want to look at the source, these people killed themselves - but yes, ecstasy can kill people. If ecstasy can CAUSE heat stroke and hyponatremia in the absence of water and the presence of high temperatures, then it is the initial instigator (at least, after the decision was made to take it).
 
BlueAdonis,

Do you have the actual link to the article? I looked at the web site and it isn't obvious where it is located.

I have a problem with the manner in which this is being reported. They list percentages, yet they do not indicate the period of time that the percentages are taken from. Nor do they indicate the total number of suspected ecstasy related deaths that they are obtaining the "17%" from.

Here's a post that I made a while back on this very same issue. I think it is applicable here as well:

Originally posted by Brian Oblivion
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1289692&highlight=asteroid#post1289692

If you are going to reference an article, could you please at least include a link to the original?

Regarding the death rate. As I understand it, it is estimated that over one million people use MDMA in the UK in any given weekend. Assuming for a minute that is the case, let's see what the percentage rate of death MDMA poses:

72 deaths in 2001-02 = 104 weekends (or a total of 104,000,000 uses)

This means that out of the 104,000,000 users over that period of time, 72 died as a result of using MDMA. Which is a 1-in-1,444,444 chance that you will die directly as a result of taking MDMA. (It would be interesting to compare this with the alcohol related deaths in the UK over this same time period.)

In contrast, it is estimated that the chance of dying as a result of an asteroid hitting the earth is 1-in-100,000 (see: Airplanes More Dangerous Than Asteroids...)

Researchers say death from ecstasy isn't quick. They say it takes several hours for the hyperthermia (rise in body temperature) and brain swelling caused by the drug to take effect.
This is a medically inaccurate statement. MDMA does NOT cause brain swelling, this is the result of drinking too much water without replenishing one's body salt content. (see: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_health_water.shtml)

The article sounds like just another attempted use of disinformation.


There's no question that it is possible to die taking almost any substance. But based on the death rate reported among ecstasy users, the chances of dying from a direct asteroid strike are higher than dying from ecstasy use.
 
Ecstasy can kill... but I'd love to see a breakdown of deaths from side effects such as dehydration, and how many are from actual MDMA toxicity... the latter *can* kill, but the difference between an active dose and a lethal dose(assuming no drug interactions, a healthy user, and precautions taken against heat stroke of course) is incredibly large. Large enough that an accidental overdose is almost inconceivable.
 
I would make a huge ass comment but I'm in class, so I'll just kinda keep it to a short very, very sarcastic comment:
Thank God alcohol can't kill you. Otherwise, there would be a reason to make it illegal. And those nice little cigarettes ... great stuff! Woooohoooo!

Let's hear it for the sober team!
 
According to the study, 17 per cent of ecstasy-related deaths resulted when the victim had taken ecstasy and no other drug, and four out of five were male victims.

WOW now there is some science for ya!
 
Let's say Fred has arranged for a number of pills that will leave him a happy mess for the evening.

Let's further say that Fred takes no other substances during that evening.

The morning finds Fred dead.

Now, if he hadn't taken the pills, he would be alive.

Arguing about whether he died of heat stroke, too much water, or some other side effect of poor judgement rather than directly of MDMA toxicity is pointless nitpicking. That poor judgement is a direct result of the altered mindstate produced by the drug.

The blame for the death can be placed squarely on the decision to take the drug, and it's subsequent effects on the mind and body.
 
Petersko said:
The blame for the death can be placed squarely on the decision to take the drug, and it's subsequent effects on the mind and body.

How about putting some blame to uneducated drug users?
 
Petersko said:
Let's say Fred has arranged for a number of pills that will leave him a happy mess for the evening.

Let's further say that Fred takes no other substances during that evening.

The morning finds Fred dead.

Now, if he hadn't taken the pills, he would be alive.

Arguing about whether he died of heat stroke, too much water, or some other side effect of poor judgement rather than directly of MDMA toxicity is pointless nitpicking. That poor judgement is a direct result of the altered mindstate produced by the drug.

The blame for the death can be placed squarely on the decision to take the drug, and it's subsequent effects on the mind and body.

I don't think that it is nitpicking at all. There is a difference between death by drug neurotoxicity and a drug related death.

If Joe goes out drinking, gets drunk, and then crashes his car into a brick wall, it is an alcohol related death. Not a death due to alcohol neurotoxicity (i.e., it was preventable). That distinction is critical when trying to reduce such related deaths.

The issue here is medical. The statistics demonstrate that MDMA use is far less fatal than alcohol use. And that the cause of death is most often bad harm reduction management rather than neurotoxicity. Basically, the chance of dying from MDMA use (1-in-1,444,444) is almost non-existent.

These distinctions are very important, especially when trying to develop a "realistic" public policy about a substance.
 
Last edited:
Petersko said:
Let's say Fred has arranged for a number of pills that will leave him a happy mess for the evening.

Let's further say that Fred takes no other substances during that evening.

The morning finds Fred dead.

Now, if he hadn't taken the pills, he would be alive.

Arguing about whether he died of heat stroke, too much water, or some other side effect of poor judgement rather than directly of MDMA toxicity is pointless nitpicking. That poor judgement is a direct result of the altered mindstate produced by the drug.

The blame for the death can be placed squarely on the decision to take the drug, and it's subsequent effects on the mind and body.

This is the first logical response I've read. I love how most people on this board blame everything else in the world for deaths and misfortunes and never the drug.
 
I agree with Brian Oblivion on the importance of this distinction. However the issue is not entirely medical. It really depends on what you are after:

1) Suppose I am a psychiatrist trying to legalize MDMA for therapeutic use. I want to know what the chances of a fatality are when I give the medicine to the patient during a session. Obviously here the statistics of the number of deaths caused by heat stroke is not going to be a factor, as one can expect to be able to control and prevent this in a clinical environment.

2) Suppose I am an average Joe and I have a teenager kid named Bobby. Bobby has just made some dodgy looking friends and I am concerned after overhearing their plan to drop some E and dance the weekend away. To me as a parent, the most relevant statistic is the one that includes both MDMA neurotoxicity deaths and MDMA related deaths such as hyponatremia, heat stroke, and crashing your car into a brick wall due to impaired judgment.

3) Suppose I am a mature responsible adult user of E. I carefully watch the dosage, use pure E crystals only, and always have a reliable sitter for the group, who can watch the temperature, make sure everybody drinks water and sports-drinks, nobody gets into a car while still under influence, etc. Then I would estimate that the risk is somewhere in between (1) and (2).

Would be quite interesting to see accurate estimate for (1) and for (2), especially with links showing where the original numbers come from.

TH
 
kbee said:
How about putting some blame to uneducated drug users?

Well, if someone got too drunk and dropped dead of alcohol poisoning, would you say he died because he was an uneducated drinker?

It doesn't matter what effects of whatever substance the person ingested caused the death, the bottom line is: the person took the substance, and as a result of taking that substance, they died.
 
John_Paragon said:
It doesn't matter what effects of whatever substance the person ingested caused the death, the bottom line is: the person took the substance, and as a result of taking that substance, they died.

That is a gross oversimplification of the cause. If I get in the car to drive to work, I may be:

a. killed by falling asleep and hitting a tree
b. killed by an airplane falling out of the sky and hitting the interstate
c. killed in a carjacking
d. killed while looking down to change a CD and hitting a tree

all 4 deaths are attributable to me getting in my car and driving, but do they mean that driving a car is inherently unsafe? or does it mean there is some danger, but acting responsibly will boost my odds of survival exponentially? the answer is obvious...
 
Top