Why is MDMA illegal? Opinions plz

[Anabolic Bob]

MDMA is illegal because the american government is prohibitionist regarding all non-taxed drugs that give pleasure.

simply said, but this is the truth.

 

[Lylesburg]

To the topic title:
Because, in the 30's, good ole' US of fucking A decided that it would make all fun things illegal. And that the whole world should follow in that decision, because, well, the president of the motherfucking US of A sez so.
That's one goddamn colonization that went wrong, I tell ya. I bet if not so much Europeans colonized the country and eradicated the local civilization but instead exploited them the way we do now like in 3rd world countries. We'd still have legal drugs that don't suck, like alcohol. But nooo, some poor runaway European dude had to find gold on that piece of crap land.

I resent that statement about the USA.We are the youngest country in the world & most powerful we are obviously doing something right.

 

[koggi]

I resent that statement about the USA.We are the youngest country in the world & most powerful we are obviously doing something right.

Actually East Timor is the youngest country. U.S.A most powerful? yes. also the most fuckin arrogant. I love my country too and we also do somethings right but not everything

 

[VibratingRainbow]

Actually East Timor is the youngest country. U.S.A most powerful? yes. also the most fuckin arrogant. I love my country too and we also do somethings right but not everything

haha.. I agree

 

[Lylesburg]

Actually East Timor is the youngest country. U.S.A most powerful? yes. also the most fuckin arrogant. I love my country too and we also do somethings right but not everything

Really East Timor I was not aware of that thx for that little tidbit . I never said we werent arrogant nor did I say we did everything correctly just that we are doing pretty damn good.

 

[Lylesburg]

To the topic title:
Because, in the 30's, good ole' US of fucking A decided that it would make all fun things illegal. And that the whole world should follow in that decision, because, well, the president of the motherfucking US of A sez so.
That's one goddamn colonization that went wrong, I tell ya. I bet if not so much Europeans colonized the country and eradicated the local civilization but instead exploited them the way we do now like in 3rd world countries. We'd still have legal drugs that don't suck, like alcohol. But nooo, some poor runaway European dude had to find gold on that piece of crap land.

You cant tell me this comment isnt just as arrogant you wanna know why well england is just are bastard cousin lol

 

[Sprinklervibes]

Oh yeah the UK is fucked up too offcourse. They cope with USA. 8)

I resent that statement about the USA.We are the youngest country in the world & most powerful we are obviously doing something right.

Yeah USA is basically a second Europe with a rich soil and more unity. Hmm other than that, the need to dominate the world. America is now kind of in the colonizing stage Europe was in 100's years ago where it thought the Western culture and religion was thé culture and should be followed in any country. Careless of those countries interests. Well, it'll all backfire some day.. USA will never win the war on terrorism the way it's going now. And as soon as the terrorists get their hands on enough nukes, it's bye bye America. lol j/k offcourse not trying to scare you people the way your goverment does

 

[Lylesburg]

Oh yeah the UK is fucked up too offcourse. They cope with USA. 8)


Yeah USA is basically a second Europe with a rich soil and more unity. Hmm other than that, the need to dominate the world. America is now kind of in the colonizing stage Europe was in 100's years ago where it thought the Western culture and religion was thé culture and should be followed in any country. Careless of those countries interests. Well, it'll all backfire some day.. USA will never win the war on terrorism the way it's going now. And as soon as the terrorists get their hands on enough nukes, it's bye bye America. lol j/k offcourse not trying to scare you people the way your goverment does

If you think its just gonna be America that gets nuked if something like that happened you are very naive we arent the only ones fucking with terrorists its the whole United Nations we just put more of what we are doing in the media.

 

[Infinite Jest]

Guys, could we please try to get this back on topic? We've got a whole forum where you can discuss US foreign policy

 

[Lylesburg]

Guys, could we please try to get this back on topic? We've got a whole forum where you can discuss US foreign policy

Yeah I hear Ya

 

[Amberthefrog]

There is no conspiracy, yes the prohibition of MDMA is ridiculous but it does not stem from a government plot. You could argue that prohibition has been in some ways pushed along by the pharmaceutical industry for obvious reasons...that’s about the only real conspiracy i can think of.

MDMA is just one in a chain of drugs to be victims of prohibitions, this started out with opiods, cocaine etc - drugs that have a high potential for abuse and can and will damage society, this also moved on to alcohol, but as Capone et al showed; drugs don't create crime, prohibition does. Unfortunately the general public has never really extended this understanding to other drugs, although it is (IMO) clearly the case that prohibition has nothing but a negative impact.

After the initial drugs were prohibited, the laws gradually got worse and worse and the general morals of prohibition moved making it easier and easier to ban substances. Originally a drug was only banned if it had large potenti9al for abuse and caused great damage to society - i.e innocent until proven guilty i suppose. Over the years this has shifted, now days if a psychoactive appears no evidence is needed for any potential of harm before its banned. (Just look in Pihkal and Thikal for a long list of chems. that have suffered this fate).

A point to consider however is that it probably isn't the governments fault, at least not to great extents. At the end of the day the vast majority agree with drug laws as a whole, this is not down to government indoctrination, it's down to a complex situation that has been fed by a huge range of factors over the years.

In truth i often wonder if a lot more politicians don't realise and accept that prohibition is a disaster and just don't come out with it; at the end of the day it will never quiet be the most important issue to most people, and the majority of voters would think your average politician was deranged if they declared they were fighting for an end to prohibition.

This is just my limited take on it, to paraphrase i don't believe in a conspiracy related to MDMA or any other drug, i don't think any specific body can be credited with full responsibility for it's legal status - the government is for the most part giving the people what they want. Finally i think the burden of change lies with the people, if we as a society wish for more sensible drug laws then we really shouldn't wait around for them to change by themselves - they won't. If you agree with controlled legalisation then spread the word - you don't have to be interested in politics, just bring it up in a conversation sometime with your friends or family - a well structured argument may change their view more than it seems.

Just my two cents.

 

[Liric]

At the end of the day the vast majority agree with drug laws as a whole, this is not down to government indoctrination, it's down to a complex situation that has been fed by a huge range of factors over the years.

But it is the government/establishment that by and large controls communication/media, and so are able to manipulate availiable information. This is the communication age, begotten by the electronic revolution, so to speak. People believe in freedom of information; the assumption that if something is true or false, they would most certainly know about it from some source or another. What people "know" is that drugs are anathema to everything good and desirable. While I have no doubt that many people unconciously accept and even cherish their own ignorance, if the popular literature (read: propaganda) were to give relevant, truthful information about drugs it would be a great insult to the American public to suggest that considerable objection to drug policy would not result.

Anyhow, ecstacy is illegal, I believe, because the establishment saw the 60s reocurring. The notion of 'government conspiricies' always prompts skepticism at the image of sinister men in suits with evil, knowing grins and long cigars scheming to rip off the American public, but the fact is the government will do what is in its best interest. Crowds of young adults gathering in mass ritual-party under the influence of a boundary-dissolving psychoactive makes for a sort of cultural revolution not favorable to western capitalist ideals. Ecstacy is easy to profile as a drug of abuse, and the medical evidence can be easily fabricated to prove it (hey, its the government). The harm reduction argument doesnt work, because a society that can live with the more harmful and far more widely-used alcohol could no doubt weather any negative aspects of legalized MDMA. The difference is alcohol is not about to facilitate any major changes to the accepted western ideology of profit, narcissism, and greed.

 

[qwedsa]

If you think MDMA showed you the meaning of life, you need to reconsider your goals.

k, i guess tolerance, empathetic understanding, and loving everyone are horrible goals. good thing E's illegal huh

 

[Afterm4th]

If you think MDMA showed you the meaning of life, you need to reconsider your goals.

Any drug can show you the meaning of life.

Just as long as you do not believe that the meaning of life is the drug.

 

[Ismene]

drugs that have a high potential for abuse and can and will damage society

Not sure coke and opiates damage society. In the 1800's everyone in the UK used opium the same way they would use aspirin today. You could also buy pure smack and coke over the counter. During this period Britain was the most powerful country on the face of the earth and had the biggest empire mankind has ever known.

Prohibition damages society - not the drugs themselves.

 

[Rated E]

"Because you touch yourself at night!"

 

[Rated E]

I think MDMA is illegal because, in my experience, its much more notiecably damaging than other drugs, such as alcohol and weed (< now that should be legal). Sure, MDMA is fine if used responsibly, i've been through a variety of usage patterns and I've come to the conclusion that waiting about a month between use is the best and the negative effects are barely noticeable using this much. However, most people i know find it hard to use at this rate (monthly) unless they already abused for a while and experienced the negative effects it had on them. A majority of people can not use responsibly as it is, if it were legal the amount of people abusing would be enormous. Think about it, how many people try e for their first time and say they hate it, most of the first timers i see love it and start using it regularly until they notice the damage their doing.

 

[Amberthefrog]

But it is the government/establishment that by and large controls communication/media, and so are able to manipulate availiable information. This is the communication age, begotten by the electronic revolution, so to speak. People believe in freedom of information; the assumption that if something is true or false, they would most certainly know about it from some source or another. What people "know" is that drugs are anathema to everything good and desirable. While I have no doubt that many people unconciously accept and even cherish their own ignorance, if the popular literature (read: propaganda) were to give relevant, truthful information about drugs it would be a great insult to the American public to suggest that considerable objection to drug policy would not result.

Whilst i agree that the government no doubt influences and restricts the media, personally i believe that the public does so more; if people don't like what a source of media tells them then they won't use it. Simple as that, business. The overall mood of the media is influenced heavily by that of the people. Now you could argue that it has been a slow controlled process, where by the government has slowly pushed the media along this road and the public have gradually followed. I don't believe this is the case specifically, or at least the government has no intestinally done this with a desired goal from the word go. In other words no conspiracy.

Not sure coke and opiates damage society.

Addiction damages society to some extent or other, that extent along with levels of personal freedom and responsibility defines (or should define) the drug policy. All drugs can be indirectly harmful to society, IMO alcohol is *the* worst, followed by such things as opiates, coke and meth. I also however believe strongly in personally freedom and responsibility and believe the governments job is to protect liberty not to limit it in anyway. I also believe that whilst the above mentioned drugs are harmful to society, prohibition of them is more so - as such i would never suggest prohibition of any substance. Unfortunately the populace does not agree with me - they know the above are bad for society (a view greatly increased by the media) yet they as a whole have not yet figured prohibition is worse (with the exception of alcohol).

I think MDMA is illegal because, in my experience, its much more notiecably damaging than other drugs, such as alcohol and weed

Is it? More so than alcohol? The direct effects of alcohol are very clear on society (at least here in the UK), the amount of social damage - violence, crime, addiction - that alcohol causes is light-years beyond that of MDMA which causes next to no violence, less addiction (and addiction that does occur will not directly have a repercussion on society, at least not to the extent of alcoholism) and miles less crime (obviously excluding the crime relating to possessing the MDMA itself...) Far far more people die from alcohol, in fact i think the current UK stats. show that an average alcohol consumer is 10-30 times more likely to die as a result than the avergae escatsy consumer is. (Note the word ecstasy, i.e. impure pills which most certainly cause a lot more damage than MDMA).

The main thing with the above is that, IMO in the Uk at least the public *know* that alcohol causes more damage than MDMA, this has been made clear by the growing social problem of binge drinking here. It seems to me that MDMA will get off more lightly on our side of the pond in years to come, after all the current conservative party leader believes it should be downgraded .

 

[Ismene]

Addiction damages society to some extent or other

Onlywhen the drug is prohibited tho. There are countless heroin addicts who were addicted to opiates after being wounded in the war. They get their heroin prescribed from the doctor and lead totally healthy, fulfilling lives. Being a heroin addict would cause no more problem than being a diabetic as long as you had access to a regular supply of pure heroin. It's not the drug - it's the fact that it's illegal that's the problem. Make athritis drugs illegal and you'll have thousands of pensioners robbing your car trying to get money to afford them on the black market.

Being addicted to black market heroin being sold at black market prices is the only thing that may damage society because addicts need to devote their entire lives to scoring their next fix.

 

[Liric]

^The body could undergo regular use of heroin with no more health consequence than diabetics using insulin? I dont know much about diabetes, but that would surprise me. In any case the issue would be one of public health probably similar to alcoholics. The criminal element would be essentially gone, although the personal toll of addiction would still be an issue for the individual, not the public as the criminal side now is.

Now you could argue that it has been a slow controlled process, where by the government has slowly pushed the media along this road and the public have gradually followed. I don't believe this is the case specifically, or at least the government has no intestinally done this with a desired goal from the word go. In other words no conspiracy.

Like I said, conspiracy implies that the perpetrator is fully aware of the motivations and consequences of his actions. The point is that it is not usually so black and white. People act unconciously on a regular basis and are often motivated by desires and needs which they will not readily admit to themselves. The extreme case would be a psychotic murderer who is able to convince himself that his actions are not wrongful by some twisted rationale. I believe the same thing happens on a government/population level, wherein a collective might adopt certain methods or ideals on the premise that they are doing right when they are motivated more by greed or weakness. I would note the US government, and most of the population as well, as groups which probably self-decieve in this way on a regular basis.