• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Aus - Is ecstasy really that dangerous? All your questions answered

poledriver

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
11,543
Is ecstasy really that dangerous? All your questions answered

After two ecstasy deaths at the Stereosonic festivals, it’s imperative that we get our facts straight about the drug, or more young people will die, say two leading experts on drug use and policy

Ecstasy-pills-007.jpg


The recent tragic deaths of two young people after taking ecstasy at the Stereosonic music events in Sydney and Adelaide prompted much media comment. Unfortunately, much of it was misinformed.

Unless we can agree on the basic issues and realistic options, sadly more young people will continue to die. Ecstasy is very different from and a much less dangerous drug than “ice”, the subject of prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s announcement of a National Ice Action Plan on Sunday.

1. Why do young people with everything to live for take drugs like ecstasy?
For many young people, taking ecstasy is a very enjoyable experience, particularly at dance and music events. These young people consider ecstasy is a better, gentler and more social drug than alcohol, especially in dance music settings. Indeed, ecstasy is not associated with violence while alcohol is often linked to aggression and anti-social behavior.

2. What is ecstasy?
When most people buy ecstasy they hope to purchase MDMA, a psychoactive drug with weak stimulant and hallucinogenic effects. MDMA was used in the 70s and 80s as an adjunct to psychotherapy before being classified as dangerous after recreational use of the drug increased.

3. Is MDMA really a dangerous drug?
While all drug use, recreational or otherwise, can cause harm, pure MDMA is one of the least dangerous drugs known. Indeed, it is much less dangerous than drugs like alcohol, tobacco or cannabis. MDMA is rarely habit-forming. The vast majority of people only take MDMA in the context of dancing or partying. MDMA fatalities do occur but are extremely rare in comparison with the hundreds of thousands of doses taken every year in Australia. Professor David Nutt, a distinguished expert, was sacked from an official UK position for estimating in 2009 that the risk of death was greater from horse riding than from taking ecstasy.

4. But three people have died after taking ecstasy in Sydney this year. How can MDMA be called “a relatively safe drug”?
People have died after taking what they thought or were told was MDMA. But was it really MDMA? Because MDMA cannot be obtained legally, the black market manufactures the drug with unknown quality controls and expertise. Sometimes dangerous variants to MDMA (PMA or PMAA) contaminate the sold product – and these contaminants really are dangerous.

5. Are people “stupid” taking pills assumed to be MDMA when they might not be? Isn’t this, as a senior NSW policeman said, “just playing Russian roulette”?
No, people taking ecstasy are not taking stupid risks and they are definitely not playing Russian roulette – which carries a one in six chance of dying. But even when taking “street” ecstasy the chances of serious harm are still small, despite the inherent risks of consuming a black market product. There are about a dozen ecstasy deaths per year in Australia though every week tens of thousands of Australians take the drug. One of the reasons so many people keep taking ecstasy is that they know from their own experience and that of their peers that there is a very high chance that they will have an enjoyable experience and only a tiny chance that they will end up in hospital or die.

6. Some commentators advocate a “cultural change” so that ecstasy taking would stop thereby providing a solution to the recent spate of deaths. Will this ever happen?
No it won’t. Ecstasy is here to stay.

People will continue to use drugs like ecstasy much like they continue to use alcohol. We have more chance of “nudging” people to less risky behaviours if the drug is even partly regulated.

If Australians were willing for our country to become a police state like Singapore, it is possible that the use of ecstasy would decline considerably. Otherwise, where there is a demand, there will always be a supply.

7. What about cigarette smoking? Haven’t we seen a cultural shift with fewer people now starting to smoke than ever before?
Yes, we have. But that’s after considerable credible scientific evidence that smoking really is very dangerous. Here the Russian roulette analogy does apply: about 50% of smokers will die from a tobacco-related illness. And nicotine is also much more habit-forming than MDMA.

8. If MDMA is not as dangerous as claimed, why aren’t we finding other useful things to use it for other than recreation?
We are. There is some evidence that MDMA may be useful for treating people with post-traumatic stress disorder. Current trials in the USA use MDMA to treat veterans with PTSD from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Getting official approval for medical research using MDMA has been impossible until recently.

9. Why don’t we regulate MDMA manufacture and distribute it in nightclubs and dance festivals under close supervision?
Good question. Professor David Penington, former vice chancellor of Melbourne University, recommended regulating MDMA in 2012.

On the one hand, authorities justify their (ineffective) crackdowns on ecstasy by arguing that because MDMA is manufactured and distributed by the black market it must be terribly dangerous. On the other hand, when confronted with advocacy to regulate MDMA manufacture and distribution, the same authorities tie themselves in knots trying to argue all drugs (except alcohol and tobacco) are too dangerous to even consider regulating any new drugs.

10. What should we do now?
Australia should scrap saturation policing with sniffer dogs at youth music dance events and follow the Europeans: we should allow drug checking and evaluate the benefits and costs.

It won’t eliminate all risks, but will almost certainly reduce them.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ly-that-dangerous-all-your-questions-answered
 
Yeah no worries, I really liked this article as well. Alex Wodak and Gideon Warhaft are very balanced and knowledgable.
 
Managed to snag first comment, now top, on the /r/Australia reddit for that article lol.

Glad we're seeing more and more supportive articles containing much more realistic information.
 
^^^ where'd you find that?

As much as I'd like to agree with it, I'm not quite sure that's accurate (obviously I've got no REAL idea haha)....just something tells me that your average MDxx user won't switch to meth unless they've already well and truly lost the magic anyway...but maybe that's just me.
 
I think you only need to look at a lot of the banter on Australian Drug Discussion (and elsewhere on bluelight) from the era of MDxx drought (and predominately piperazine, RC or fake "ecstasy" pills) to see that it is true, at least in the Australian market.

While it probably isn't as accurate an assessment in countries with different drug markets (such as cheaper cocaine, or places where meth is rare or highly stigmatised) the stim/club/party drug scene in australia would indicate that it is true.
I recall seeing drug usage surveys from 2-5 years ago that definitely support the claim that aussies turn to meth in times of scarce MDMA.
There is a fair bit of crossover in these two markets in Australia, but i think the user population pushed them even closer together during the MDMA drought.
 
Do you follow him on twitter? He tweets and retweets some great stuff, i was just reading some of the links on this one -

Alex Wodak Retweeted
Alex Stevens ‏@AlexStevensKent 21m21 minutes ago
... and for more recent data on reducing drug use in Portugal, see Dr Goulão's presentation at http://www.issdp.org/issdpesc-working-group-on-european-drug-policy/ … (2/2) @BBCRADIOKENT

http://www.issdp.org/issdpesc-working-group-on-european-drug-policy/

I do follow him on Twitter! He's not very good at sticking to the 140 character tweet limit, but he has some really interesting stuff to say.
 
Yeah i follow Alex Wodak on twitter too. He posts some interesting stuff.
 
3. Is MDMA really a dangerous drug?
While all drug use, recreational or otherwise, can cause harm, pure MDMA is one of the least dangerous drugs known. Indeed, it is much less dangerous than drugs like alcohol, tobacco or cannabis. MDMA is rarely habit-forming. The vast majority of people only take MDMA in the context of dancing or partying. MDMA fatalities do occur but are extremely rare in comparison with the hundreds of thousands of doses taken every year in Australia. Professor David Nutt, a distinguished expert, was sacked from an official UK position for estimating in 2009 that the risk of death was greater from horse riding than from taking ecstasy.

MDMA has by far always been my drug of choice, particularly when clubbing, raving, etc. The euphoria is indescribably beautiful; and the intense feelings of love, comfort and acceptance by others in general is unmatched by anything else out there (Methylone comes closest, but it's still missing some of the "magic").

In contrast, I've never been much of a fan of the ganja mon. I usually will not refuse if someone's "passing the peace pipe around," but I very rarely purchase any for myself. I dunno - I just never really... whatever, doesn't matter.

With that out of the way, I'd like to note my opinion regarding the claim that MDMA is apparently "much less dangerous than drugs like cannabis:" The obvious potential for certain health risks typically associated with the smoking of any plant notwithstanding, I'm struggling to accept this claim that THC (Cannabis) is more of a risk to one's short and long term health than MDMA (which AFAIK can cause a significant amount of damage to 5-HT Axons in the frontal lobe region of the brain).

In fact, there's a huge thread in Ecstasy Discussion about a lot of poor souls suffering from so called "LTD Symptoms" (Long Term Comedown Symptoms) after choosing to consume some suspected MDMA. Admittedly, there may be other causes for their chronic pain and suffering such as certain impurities and/or adulterants, but I digress.

All in all, I really don't mean to make such a fuss out of it, so I shall be leaving it at that for the time being.
 
Yeah but also in the CD threads there are people who have lost their shit from cannabis use. Even on the other thread about 'most dangerous drug in the world' some people are discussing cannabis.

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/776363-What-s-The-Most-Dangerous-Drug-In-The-World/page2

I've used both MDMA and cannabis for over 20 years now and both seem pretty safe to me when they are used in moderation. Back in the 90's when I was using alot of MDMA (spaced out though) I never had much of a problem getting good import pills that did the job really well, I'd never feel the need to have 5 pills in a whole night or anything like that. 2 at most from memory. I'd usually just have 1 and maybe some speed or lsd or weed..LSD, MDMA and cannabis all seem pretty safe but still should be used in moderation and with respect. I dont use MDMA anymore though, I do miss it, but my contacts are not the same as they were back 20 odd years ago and there just doesn't seem to be the same amount of good quality high grade MDMA pills anymore (in my circles) and the 3 or so times I have tried crystal MDMA I have felt pretty underwhelmed. Same with a few friends. I am wondering if what I've read a few times about alot of the MDMA these days being made with pmk oil instead of safrole is something to do with it. I felt no magic at all unlike the old days, and I had no tolerance at all so it should have effected me alot more if it was decent stuff (tested up well, fizzed, smoke, fast to black/purp etc).

Some people I read about just take too much of whatever and therefore are treading a fine line of coming into more sorts of harms.
 
Last edited:
^^^ where'd you find that?

As much as I'd like to agree with it, I'm not quite sure that's accurate (obviously I've got no REAL idea haha)....just something tells me that your average MDxx user won't switch to meth unless they've already well and truly lost the magic anyway...but maybe that's just me.

I can't speak for decline in global supplies, but whatever caused it, the MDMA drought of 2009 - 2012ish definitely caused a massive surge in meth use in the local rave scene here in Adelaide, and it seemed to do the same in Sydney (along with GHB) from what I saw when I went over there and, I'm told, Melbourne.

Meth had always been around, but most people used it as a supplemental type drug - take a dab to add some energy to your buzz if you were too munted, or drop half a point (of the old cheap stuff) in a beer to kick the night off, or eat a bit to make it to work after a night out, it was never the main DOC except for a minority who'd mostly been going at it for years, for everyone else it was MDMA, then k/acid, then meth in distant third place. And the meth itself was mostly either powder or gluggy, damp stuff, and almost always just eaten, not the high quality crystal which everyone started smoking.

Then in late 2009 the MDMA vanished and all the pills were suddenly duds/pips/speedbombs. By coincidence, all the K dried up at the same time, and around the same time there was a huge influx of high quality ice (this is when the price doubled, but the purity made up for it).

So if you were going out and wanted something more than booze to catch a buzz and keep you dancing, your choices were basically start using meth, eat awful pills (which were mostly meth anyway, but people would keep trying in the hope that they'd land on a good batch) or trip every weekend (which a dedicated minority did, but weekly tripping is not for everyone). Meth was the closest alternative to pills, and it gave you the energy to keep going, so suddenly most of the rave crowd were smoking it every weekend. It wasn't that people made a conscious choice to swap to meth, it was just the only decent quality drug going around in high quantity.

It really did a number on the scene - the atmosphere degraded massively because people were no longer loved up, attendance dropped as people spent more time in their car passing a pipe around than in the venue, a lot of drama emerged surrounding money and dealing, eventually a lot of them developed a problem and stopped going out entirely, etc etc.

It was pretty tragic to see, honestly.
 
I guess my ignorance from having absolutely nothing to do with drugs besides alcohol during that timeframe would explain why that makes no sense to me; didn't even know there was a notable drought phase haha

I can see that people would turn to meth in some ways. I guess I just interpreted the infographic in a way that it was insinuating they had similar effects hence the switch in users. I also guess Aussie "ecstasy" pills are notoriously largely speed/meth anyway, so maybe people didn't even notice much of a difference haha



I've considered giving amps/methamp a shot for going out, since I'm only finding myself out once every 2-3 months and Canberra's nightclub scene is barely worth taking MDxx even in such infrequent occasions. Often a complete waste of a 'roll credit' haha. Might be ok for going out just for a night of dancing? Should it cross my path I'll consider it, but I'm generally not too keen on meth as it is.
 
I can't speak for decline in global supplies, but whatever caused it, the MDMA drought of 2009 - 2012ish definitely caused a massive surge in meth use in the local rave scene here in Adelaide, and it seemed to do the same in Sydney (along with GHB) from what I saw when I went over there and, I'm told, Melbourne.

Meth had always been around, but most people used it as a supplemental type drug - take a dab to add some energy to your buzz if you were too munted, or drop half a point (of the old cheap stuff) in a beer to kick the night off, or eat a bit to make it to work after a night out, it was never the main DOC except for a minority who'd mostly been going at it for years, for everyone else it was MDMA, then k/acid, then meth in distant third place. And the meth itself was mostly either powder or gluggy, damp stuff, and almost always just eaten, not the high quality crystal which everyone started smoking.

Then in late 2009 the MDMA vanished and all the pills were suddenly duds/pips/speedbombs. By coincidence, all the K dried up at the same time, and around the same time there was a huge influx of high quality ice (this is when the price doubled, but the purity made up for it).

So if you were going out and wanted something more than booze to catch a buzz and keep you dancing, your choices were basically start using meth, eat awful pills (which were mostly meth anyway, but people would keep trying in the hope that they'd land on a good batch) or trip every weekend (which a dedicated minority did, but weekly tripping is not for everyone). Meth was the closest alternative to pills, and it gave you the energy to keep going, so suddenly most of the rave crowd were smoking it every weekend. It wasn't that people made a conscious choice to swap to meth, it was just the only decent quality drug going around in high quantity.

It really did a number on the scene - the atmosphere degraded massively because people were no longer loved up, attendance dropped as people spent more time in their car passing a pipe around than in the venue, a lot of drama emerged surrounding money and dealing, eventually a lot of them developed a problem and stopped going out entirely, etc etc.

It was pretty tragic to see, honestly.

Good comment.
 
Top