There is a broad band of Australians who consume illegal drugs in the privacy of their own homes alone or with friends and who generally don't step out on them and go crazy in public. The illegality of substance(s) of choice means they break the law procurring or producing them but under the spotlight is obviously where these folk don't want to be. I don't want to start a shitstorm defending one drug or another with straights and detractors, but I do believe ecstasy deserves a special mention.
MDMA effects are well catalogued and I don't think anyone can argue that users are prone to violent or anti-social behaviour, otherwise it might be called 'aggro' rather than 'ecstasy'. Of course the honeymoon period is well and truly over in Oz and the authorities have done a pretty good job reducing imports of MDMA powder, pills and chemicals needed to press pills domestically. My point is that a consequence of such efficient policing and some fairly blatant media misinformation has led to an upsurge in violent crime acted out against Joe and Jane Citizen. Unable to get what they want, users are also switching to other more potentially harmful substances. I'm sure there would be some stats somewhere to back this up.
Subscribers to this site and others talk of the club scenes, music and cultural events favoured by E users falling into decline or at least changing for the worse. The vibe is fading. Those who do find decent pills seem to be in the minority and even then supply is haphazard. Everyone knows noxious MDMA/ecstasy substitutes are making people sick, and worse. Fact! So, maybe some non-E-users might chime in and add their two bob's worth here. The Nancy Regan era 'just say no' catchcry has failed just as miserably as prohibition has. People will always to rail against draconian social controls, period. Its human nature.
So, that being said, is it defensible to keep crushing a comparativley benign substance like ecstasy, used (and yes, probably abused) by millions worldwide, when the laws of supply and demand guarantee other less user-friendly substances will continue to be pedalled to meet consumer needs? Be brave. Have a say.
MDMA effects are well catalogued and I don't think anyone can argue that users are prone to violent or anti-social behaviour, otherwise it might be called 'aggro' rather than 'ecstasy'. Of course the honeymoon period is well and truly over in Oz and the authorities have done a pretty good job reducing imports of MDMA powder, pills and chemicals needed to press pills domestically. My point is that a consequence of such efficient policing and some fairly blatant media misinformation has led to an upsurge in violent crime acted out against Joe and Jane Citizen. Unable to get what they want, users are also switching to other more potentially harmful substances. I'm sure there would be some stats somewhere to back this up.
Subscribers to this site and others talk of the club scenes, music and cultural events favoured by E users falling into decline or at least changing for the worse. The vibe is fading. Those who do find decent pills seem to be in the minority and even then supply is haphazard. Everyone knows noxious MDMA/ecstasy substitutes are making people sick, and worse. Fact! So, maybe some non-E-users might chime in and add their two bob's worth here. The Nancy Regan era 'just say no' catchcry has failed just as miserably as prohibition has. People will always to rail against draconian social controls, period. Its human nature.
So, that being said, is it defensible to keep crushing a comparativley benign substance like ecstasy, used (and yes, probably abused) by millions worldwide, when the laws of supply and demand guarantee other less user-friendly substances will continue to be pedalled to meet consumer needs? Be brave. Have a say.
Last edited:
