Talk:MDMA

NPOV in "toxic/dangerous effects" section?

Though it's not a glaring flaw, the toxic/dangerous effects section has a very optimistic and supportive tone to it. Although it is only using what I'll assume are factual figures, it presents them in a skewed way.

For inclusion in section of medical use?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskinesia

---

[quote]MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine), most commonly known by the street names ecstasy or XTC (for more names see the full list), is a synthetic entactogen of the phenethylamine family, whose primary effect is believed to be the stimulation of secretion as well as inhibition of re-uptake of large amounts of serotonin as well as dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain, inducing a general sense of openness, empathy, energy, euphoria, and well-being. [/quote]

The first problem with this statement is that MDMA is never referred to as Ecstacy when trying to buy pure MDMA on the street. If one wants MDMA one asks specifically for MDMA and nothing else. Everyone knows when you buy E you get MDMA (if your lucky) and some other cocktail of sh*t.

Request for archiving fulfilled

I really don't think that archiving request, nor the fulfilling of it, was very wise. __meco 10:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Streetname section

The section on colloquial references is bloated and I have a hard time seeing the actual purpose of it in its current state. Anyone? __meco 20:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Method of Production and Contaminated Pills

This sentence has been removed due to lack of citation :Most blackmarket pills are made in basement labs with household chemicals [citation needed](often containing other products) and are thus dangerous because of their impure content. The information provided by the media, police and the Home Office (UK) suggests that MDMA supplied to Europe is mainly produced in laboratories in Israel and the Netherlands.

In the same section are other unverified statements especially about contaminents and additives, (e.g. cocaine and heroin). I have yet to find any test results showing these two particular contaminants. Cocaine is highly unlikely as it is vastly more expensive than MDMA and such a small amount ingested would have little effect. Similarly for heroin. PLEASE PROVIDE SOURCES. Or the offending parts will be removed. --Dumbo1 17:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You can confirm cocaine and heroin as substituents at: http://www.ecstasydata.org

Personally, I am concerned about the accuracy of the statement:

"Sometimes more dangerous chemicals such as PMA or methamphetamine alone or in combination with MDMA are added to ecstasy tablets."

I am not aware of evidence that meth is more dangerous than MDMA. I think that PMA and Meth should be neutrally referrred to as 'other potentially toxic psychoactives'.

--Mattbagg 06:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

History

I believe much of the alleged history in the article is inaccurate. For example, MDMA was used by Shulgin in the 70s not 60s and he didn't really bring it to public attention, just to the attention of some scientists and a therapist named Leo Zeff. I have made a first pass at editing this section.

--Mattbagg 06:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit removed from front page

"It must be noted that in the U.S., being in possession of "X" amount of ecstasy pills can lead to a conviction of manslaughter, due the risk the someone may die under heavy use of the drug.( Need legal citation/note ) "

I think this spectacular claim submitted by User:Sam, Happy Mancan stay here until it can be verified. __meco 09:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In my state, manufacturing or importing more than 30 kilograms of MDMA, or more than 30 kilograms of a mixture containing is a CAPITAL felony actually punishable by death. See: Florida Statute Title XLVI Chapter 893 Section 193 I find it easy to believe other states have similar laws. Cloaked Dagger 20:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaming discussion

Moving to Ecstasy (drug)

Our policies say that we should use the most common name... why is this article at Methylenedioxymethamphetamine? bogdan 17:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest the best peg to hang this article on would be MDMA. __meco 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

@bogdan. There is a very good reason. MDMA is a precisely defined chemical substance, whereas ecstasy is not. It is a drug that often contains also other amphetamines and in some cases not a trace of MDMA, although sold as E. Most often the producer is the only one who knows what is in it. But indeed, in this article one should sort out everything that belongs to the article Ecstasy. --84.136.234.127 18:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article does not substantiate claims that dilution and specifically contamination is a prevalent phenomenon. Also, the article is about this "precisely defined chemical substance". The fact that it has various other aspects than the chemical / biochemical aspects are sidelines that can easily be dealt with as such within an article about MDMA. It should be noted that communities and authoritative sources such as Erowid, Lycaeum, and indeed Alexander Shulgin, when discussing various social / entheogenic / other aspects all use MDMA as primary reference however noting that other terms exist. __meco 08:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Notes:

I'm finding it a little confusing to read your comment since there are no aticles to merge. There is but this one. The question is merely whether it should reside under the name Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, which it currently does – a name few people are going to recognize as being MDMA/Ecstasy when browsing a category directory for instance, or one of the two alternative names MDMA and Ecstasy, both currently being redirect pages to Methylenedioxymethamphetamine. If we bother to consider what the other Wikipedias have chosen to name their corresponding article we find that 10 have chosen "Ecstasy", 5 have chosen "MDMA" and six I cannot determine due to foreign alphabets, however, judging from the length of the article name I think at most one of those could have chosen "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine". Another comparison shows that LSD is thte main article name whereas Lysergic acid diethylamide and LSD-25 are redirects to that page. When the proper chemical name is as unwieldy as in the case of "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine" I think it's unreasonable to keep the article under its current name. __meco 13:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving to MDMA

It has been suggested to move this article to MDMA. I find this a very good idea. --84.136.207.196 01:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion. Ecstasy and MDMA are not the same thing. Although MDMA is commonly the principle ingredient in ecstasy, ecstasy frequently contains other agents (frequently other pyschoactive components, not just cutting agents) in a high enough proportion that they have separate street names. Pure MDMA is usually referred to as Molly, while Ecstasy is a combination of pyschoactive compounds with MDMA likely being the principle ingredient. 67.87.98.164 03:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this article's name is "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine", which is the full name of MDMA (MethyleneDioxyMethAmphetamine). This is the proper Wikipedia convention, and there is a redirect from MDMA to here. Secondly, Ecstasy and MDMA are the same thing. The name "ecstasy" was given to the substance MDMA. The fact that some people try to pass other things off as ecstasy is the same age old problem of being ripped off -- scammed. Molly is just another slang term for MDMA, and while it has recently come to refer to (mostly) unadulterated MDMA in the underground illicit drug trade, Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide. For approximately 20 years, the term "ecstasy" had referred to MDMA and nothing else. Only within the past ten years has "ecstasy" pills being commonly mixed with meth, dxm, heroin and sometimes experimental research chemicals become a growing problem. --Thoric 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with moving it either to MDMA or Ecstacy (drug). Having it here is not useful. Morwen - Talk

How is having it here not "useful"? Please explain yourself. --Thoric 16:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the full name is almost comically unwieldy. I was confused briefly at what this article even was, and I'm decently familiar with this stuff (er, drug articles, not MDMA). There really isn't a convention that relates to this specifically, as far as I know, because there isn't an INN for MDMA. (Actually, heroin has the INN diacetylmorphine, but the page is at heroin. Go figure.) I think it would be *much* more helpful for readers, and no less accurate, to have this article at a less unwieldy title, either MDMA or ecstasy (drug). --Galaxiaad 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, this has already been said elsewhere on the page. I stand by what I said though. By the way, Thoric, I adore the psychoactive drug diagram. --Galaxiaad 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's correct name is 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine! I believe most people would be familier with the name MDMA, rather than "methylenedioxymethamphetamine". Because of this, I think it is probably better to rename the article MDMA.(Technically though, it should be 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine! As a scientist, this is what I would prefer!) There's no strict convention, but most other articles on drugs use common names rather than the correct chemical name of the molecule, for example fluoxetine. By analogy to the methylendioxymethamphetamine article, the fluoxetine article should be renamed N-methyl-3-phenyl-3-[4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-propan-1-amine! Fluoxetine is a made up name, akin to the use of Ecstasy as a name for MDMA. The article really should NOT be renamed Ecstasy. Bobby charriot 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. What's the point of renaming if people (wiki readers) are typing MDMA or Ecstasy and are directed to the correct page which starts with the name of the drug? Type in Tylenol (like more American readers do) and they are promptly redirected to the name of the drug (parecetamol, and the page explains the other name acetominophen). So why is the current name a problem? It takes people to where they want to go. The article says right in the first sentence that 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine is also known as MDMA and Ecstasy. No problem here. I say keep the way it is. Gaviidae 13:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Addiction and Tolerance

I quickly rewrote this section to reflect the ambiguity of the scientific and medical literature. It could probably use some smoothing. Some of the points may be controversial to some. --Mattbagg 15:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving unsourced information to talk page

This has been hanging atounf for way too long without any verification. Sections may be returned if they're documented:

Pills sold illegally on the street do not always contain MDMA as the only active ingredient. In British Columbia, Canada, recent government tests showed that some of the pills tested contained methamphetamine in doses as high as 20 milligrams . Analogues of MDMA such as MDEA, MDA and MBDB are often found, and more rarely other psychoactive additives such as amphetamines (speed), DXM, ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, PMA, 4-MTA, caffeine, ketamine (Special K), 2C-B, 2C-T-7 or other compounds may be present . In addition to MDMA ecstasy pills may contain cocaine, heroin, or mescaline ; Mescaline is an especially unlikely contaminant, as a large amount is required for an effective dose . There have been a few cases where an extremely potent synthetic opiate, Fentanyl, has been identified in pills , which could potentially be very dangerous if people took several of them thinking that they only contained MDMA .

Aspirin, paracetamol (acetaminophen), or even canine heartworm tablets have had the letter E scratched into them and have been sold as ecstasy [1], for enormous profit. While overdose from MDMA itself is rare, many more toxic substances are often sold as ecstasy , and overdose or other adverse reaction to adulterants is not uncommon .

__meco 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify that this moving is according to Wikipedia policy, WP:V states "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}." As this unverfied information has been in the article for some time it is my prerogative to move the text here pending verification of these numerous unsourced statements. And I might add what Jimmy Wales is quoted qith stating on this same subject (also at WP:V): ""I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." __meco 23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

On that basis, you could probably delete a large proportion of anything outside the top 100 articles on Wikipedia. I'm in the camp that believes that some information is better than none, and that the Wikification process will take place naturally over time. If we remove stuff, aggressively, it (i) annoys people and (ii) makes the Wikification process a lot less likely, because people tend to edit what's in front of their noses, rather than copying stuff between pages which takes longer. Just my view, but there's lots written about this topic elsewhere.

Most of all, though, the sections you have removed are objective, verifiable facts, and not POV. Links may be missing but they will surely be added over time. Punanimal 14:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

And then they will be reintroduced into the article, one by one. __meco 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

On that basis, would you therefore please delete almost the whole article on England, which is largely unsourced. Feel free. Punanimal 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gay Drug

This drug is known in some circles as a gay drug (especially when taken by males). The increased emotion and desire to rub everything and oral fixation and connection to dance culture all make it gay. This article never addresses this issue. ShadowyCabal 15:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference? Never heard of that, FWIW. Morwen - Talk 16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Sucking lollipops and really "understanding" everyone. And you get all sweaty and dancy. Fucking gay! Not to mention Jay Mohr in Go (film). You know, these homos get together with their hot oil rub downs and whatnot. ShadowyCabal 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

While this drug may make some people a little less homophobic, that certainly doesn't make it a "gay drug". --Thoric 20:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying this drug makes you gay like sodomy makes you gay. I'm saying it has a social stigma, like eating lots of chocolate or watching Grizzly Man. I just want this article to acknowlege if such a stigma exists. If this social stigma doesn't exist, my heterosexual friends have been making up excuses not to induldge in an awesome drug. ShadowyCabal 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is more of a "social stigma" (and evidence to go along with it) to mark methamphetamine as a "gay drug", than to mark MDMA. (The New York Times published a report stating that a survey of homosexual men had reported that 25% had used crystal-meth within the past few months). I have not come across any similar data to draw a strong trend between MDMA use and homosexuality, but much of this is meaningless as a survey of homosexual men would likely show that 90% had consumed alcohol within the past few months -- does that make alcohol a "gay drug"? --Thoric 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. So long as we're all on the same page here. ShadowyCabal 05:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

never heard of that for crystal meth or E. Liquid gold is perceived as a 'gay thing' round my parts because it makes your anus dilate (or so the 'stigma' goes) but it doesn't stop straight people sniffing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.56.35 (talk • contribs) 15:02, August 22, 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have only presented stereotypes in defense of your argument, and nothing that has to do with actual homosexuality. I don't think stereotypes should be posted in this article. 4.234.51.41 18:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Quality Drop

This article is of markedly lower quality than it was a couple of months ago (and I see it's been knocked off the good article list.) I haven't yet gone back through the history to see what's gone wrong, but a revert to an earlier time is more than a little tempting. Thoughts? Anthony Citrano 10:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps too few people have a watchful eye on this particular article. When a vandal like this is being fixed like this without anyone noticing what has happened and this is combined with fairly frequent editing so that checking edits done in, say the last 5 days in itself becomes a daunting task, the article will deteriorate steadily. __meco 01:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment. Having just read the article for the first time, and being very pro the liberalisation of MDMA (atleast) this article isn't so much pro such a view but very agressive against views contrary to this stance. user:mr_happyhour August 22 2006

Agreed wholeheartedly. Regardless of liberalisation sentiment, what we need is quality and fairness and facts. The article has gone a bit junior-high-school in its tenor. I reiterate my "vote" for a reversion to a better quality date, which I'd roughly guess is sometime back in May or June. How to determine the most proper way to do this (that won't tick off a bunch of folk)? Anthony Citrano 23:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, I'm against such a dramatic reversion. I think the low quality parts would be easier to fix than to re-add all the sutble higher quality edits. And the current article is pretty good; mostly it just needs some more references. --Mattbagg 19:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good is in the eyes of the beholder. The idea that this represents a neutral point of view is, interesting to say the least. Two examples of sophomoric behavior- First, the Parkinson's section. Why all the ad hominem about Ricaurte? Is this relevant to an encyclopedic entry? Second, the descriptions of scientific findings. All qualified with caveats that come from an agenda, not a neutral point of view. This is the strategy employed by the tobacco industry and the Bush administration on climate change. Selective critique of the scientific literature without any attempt at legitimate synthesis of results to determine what is likely true. A neutral point of view reports the evidence for and against with citation. A biased point of view reports evidence and then says "but some people don't believe it". again, bush on climate change. Blackrose10 16:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving unsourced claims to talk page pending references

"The Netherlands is by far the biggest XTC producer in the world. It is estimated that about 80%-90% of all the pills ('knijters', 'pilletjes' or ' piefies' in Dutch) in the world are produced in the Netherlands."

I think we should actively move all unsourced claims and assertions here. I think the fact that we don't often do this is a major reason why the quality of the article has significantly deteriorated since the time it was listed as Good. __meco 15:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Effect

The article stipulates that one of the effects of ecstasy is 'a relieving sense that problems in life are insignificant'. I am not sure this is appropriate; rather, to be more precise, something like 'it is easier to face problems in life', or 'realisation of who we are, what we have lead to a decreased burden of problems of life'. Im just afraid the sentence currently in there doesnt portray the effects of the drugs quite well, and can misinform.

Also, in the same section: 'the feeling that something "tremendously important" or "fundamental and positive" is occurring'. It is put in a way that seems to make that statement sound absurd. --DragonFly31 00:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above (Recent Quality Drop) - this is a good example of the greater problem with which this article now suffers.... Anthony Citrano 22:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the same

"MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine), most commonly known by the street name ecstasy, Thizz, E, beans, or XTC, is a ...

I thought an e tab is not pure MDMA, ecstasy tablets are mainly made of MDMA but most of them also contain Caffeine, Methamphetamine, in some cases, Diphenhydramine, Procaine and I have even heard about tables made with some Ketamine and Pseudo/Ephedrine.

Why is this not mentioned on the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaddyC (talk • contribs) 02:59, August 31, 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's a rumour? This article already suffers from all sorts of rumours of what people have heard or believe and unless there's a reliable source to such claims the article should not have to propagate them. __meco 08:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Ecstacy" / "E" is supposed to contain nothing but MDMA, but it is common knowledge that it's buyer beware when you're buying unregulated substances as opposed to real phamaceuticals. Cutting drugs with other substances is hardly anything new. Sometimes you get what you asked for cut with other drugs, sometimes you get something completely different, and sometimes you get nothing at all. --Thoric 00:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and the qualm expressed by PaddyC is as (ir)relevant here as it would be in the article about heroin. This, as you contend, is the principal response (the one I make above would be subsidiary). __meco 16:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Even our most reliable psychoactive information source, erowid, states quite clearly and boldly, "Ecstasy tablets are notoriously impure, often containing chemicals other than MDMA. See Ecstasydata.org for pill testing results." I think this is something that should definitely be mentioned in the article. I would say cite erowid as a source, and also link to Ecstasydata.org. I've also heard of something along the lines of pillreports.com (maybe org instead of com?). I think, if anybody wants to take the time, there's probably plenty of citable things there, or maybe just a link to the site. On a MySpace group all about Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, when discussing the common impurity of Ecstasy, these two websites were linked to, as showing certain pills and their purity, or lack thereof. Not only that, but being an Ecstasy user myself (only three times so far, but still), I know that most users are aware of the fact that impure pills are common. So I believe this should be stated in the article. 4.234.51.41 18:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Devil - as usual - is in the detail. Whether intentionally or not, phrases like "notoriously impure," "common impurity," and "impure pills are common" can be taken to imply a large minority, if not a majority, and this is certainly the angle to most government/anti-drug propaganda. Obviously there are variations from country to country and region to region, but it's significant that one review (AC Parrott, 2004) of past survey results from the UK, the US, the Netherlands, Italy and the Czech republic concluded that, "the most recent surveys suggest... MDMA purity rates of around 90-100%." And even that has to be seen in the context that the similar MDA and MDE/MDEA made up a substantial part of the non-MDMA content. Nick Cooper 23:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Page name

So, I don't much like it here, I would prefer it at Ecstasy (drug) or MDMA. I don't mind which. Anyone want to speak in defence of the article being at the name Methylenedioxymethamphetamine? The "proper wikipedia policy" here would beWikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) (actually a guideline not a policy), which recommends common names where they exist - this would imply moving it. There's more specific naming conventions on Chemistry - is there any section of that which overrides "common names"? Morwen - Talk 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy/guideline to follow would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/General/Naming of drug pages, which states that the International Nonproprietary Name should be used. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not really advice for this context, though is it? It's saying "use ibuprofen not some random trademark" (or dealing with the case that there are two popular scientific names), rather than dealing with the case where the drug has a non-scientific common name, or an abbreviation which is more popular than the full name. 194.66.226.95 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy states: 'Wikipedia policy on naming convention states that, "naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." To that end, the World Health Organization International Nonproprietary Name (INN) forms the basis of this policy.' .. so if it has an INN, that is the name to be used, otherwise the name that 'the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity.' I would say it fits the context. Personally, if there is no INN, maybe MDMA or XTC (I think Europe does know it mainly under that name). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how a name which probably most people would find it almost impossible to spell or even know the actual name of, makes "linking to those articles easy and second nature". This isn't a solely a biochemistry jargon article where this sort of verbosity might be forgiven: it has interest to a far wider audience. 194.66.226.95 18:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I did not say methylenedioxymethamphetamine is the INN name .. the person above asks, what is the policy. This is the policy that we apply to, and to find this article, we use redirects, type MDMA in the search box (or click on the link that I provide), and see where you get (notice the first line '(Redirected from MDMA)')! And there is nothing wrong with an article using a link MDMA (as this paragraph now does have two), you will get at the right spot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So, does anyone want to speak in defence of having the article here? I am declaring my intention to move it in a few days, either to Ecstacy (drug) or to MDMA. I would be happy to discuss the merits and policies.... Morwen - Talk 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I support any of the two alternatives over the current name. __meco 20:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with any name change, as Wikipedia norms are already being applied here. MDMA, as a search term, redirects here, and searching for ecstasy turns up a disambiguation page that will lead one here. And look at another, similar, recreational drug: 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine is not listed as MDA (although searching for MDA will lead you there). Don't change the name, as methylenedioxymethamphetamine is the proper article title, and MDMA (the next logical choice) already redirects users here.--Ryan! 01:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please, don't move pages because 'you don't like it here.' Policy says that the INN name should be used (which may very well be methylenedioxymethamphetamine, but maybe even more difficult, could be '1-(benzo[d][1,3]dioxol-5-yl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine'), so please check what the INN-name of this compound is, and then propose a move to that name. If there is no INN, the first logical choice might be MDMA, which is against policy (abbreviations should not be used as a pagename). The next choice would be Ecstacy, which is already in use as a disambiguation page, so the choice would be between 'methylenedioxymethamphetamine' or 'ecstacy (drug)' .. the latter has exactly the same problem as the first, people might not link correctly to that. Redirects bring you to this page, there is nothing wrong with not being able to remember the name methylenedioxymethamphetamine as a link, just create a link to MDMA or to ecstacy (drug) in articles that need a link to methylenedioxymethamphetamine (as most pages in Wikipedia already do). So I oppose the move. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• I vote move to MDMA or Ecstacy (drug), per Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/General/Naming of drug pages, there is currently no INN, so "naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" would suggest MDMA or ecstacy (I don't currently mind which). Methylenedioxymethamphetamine doesn't seem to me to fit with the whole Wikipedia feel; it is just not accessible, hardly anyone really uses it except to show off. I'm a phamacist and I struggle to remember or spell it! PeteThePill 22:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • So, on the one hand we have the actual naming policy, which says to move, on the other hand we have Dirk who says that the policy says not to move. If Dirk would like justify reading of policy, please do so. Morwen - Talk 14:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting Subjective effects

I think the subjective effects are heartfelt descriptions but are not systematic. They partly overlap each other and are difficult to find citations for. What about something like this instead?:

Effects desired by users include:

• increased positive emotion and decreased negative emotion
• increased sense of well-being
• increased sociability and feelings of closeness or connection with other people (Vollenweider et al. 1998, Greer and Tolbert 1986)
• reduced defensiveness and fear of emotional injury (Greer 1985)
• a sense of increased insightfulness and introspective ability (Shulgin and Shulgin 1991, Greer 1985)

These descriptions are easier to link to citations than the current ones, although some may feel they don't capture the spirit of the current ones. --Mattbagg 19:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Broken link

This link is 404: UK National Drugs Line factsheet on Ecstasy

Dubious citation

A study conducted by Bryan Yamamoto of Boston University alsoshowed that MDMA damages the blood-brain barrier. He gave the drug torats and then injected a dye into their blood that is normally toolarge to cross the blood-brain barrier, yet the dye easily reached thebrain. Even though the rats were given no subsequent doses of ecstasy,newly injected dye could still penetrate the brain 10 weeks later. This dysfunction of the blood-brain barrier exposes the brain totoxins and pathogens. Although Yamamoto does not know exactly how longthe drug's effect lasts in humans, it is estimated that 10 weeks in arat's life corresponds to five to seven human years (Vollmer 2006).13

I have removed this dubious paragraph because I could not find such a study using PubMed. The provided reference refers to a lay press article and is not accessible without paying a fee. Cacycle 21:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Ricaurte had also come under fire for supplying PET scans to the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy that were used in anti-drug literature (Plain Brain/Brain After Ecstasy) that seemed to suggest MDMA created holes in human brains, an implication that critics called misleading. Ricaurte later asked the Agency to change the literature, citing the "poor quality" of the images." lacks a citation and can be found at http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Ecstasy_(drug)#Long-term_effects They do not seem to acknowledge credit so maybe it was copied from here. I can't tell, just though I would say something.

Metabolites?!?

"Metabolites of MDMA that have been identified in humans include 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), 4-hydroxy-3-methoxy-methamphetamine (HMMA), 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyamphetamine (HMA), 3,4-dihydroxyamphetamine (DHA, also called alpha-methyldopamine), 3,4-methylenedioxyphenylacetone (MDP2P), and N-hydroxy-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDOH)."

I would like to find the IPAUC nomeclature of these metabolites. Diagrams of these metabolites would show visibly how it is metabolised.

Using my limited chemical nomenclature and chemsketch:

• HMMA is (2-methoxy-4-[2-(methylamino)propyl]phenol)? SMILES: Oc1ccc(cc1OC)CC(C)NC ?
• HMA (4-(2-aminopropyl)-2-methoxyphenol)? SMILES: Oc1ccc(cc1OC)CC(C)N ?
• DHA (4-(2-aminopropyl)benzene-1,2-diol)? SMILES: Oc1ccc(CC(C)N)cc1O ?
• MDOH (1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-N-hydroxypropan-2-amine)? SMILES: CC(NO)Cc1ccc2OCOc2c1 ?

--x1987x(talk) 02:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Physical Effects" section

I've removed this section, as not only was it rather disjointed and misplaced, but most of the claims were either repetitive of what was already in the article (e.g. jaw-clenching), or asymptomatic in light of the standard references to the effects of MDMA (e.g. "weightlessness" and "tightening of skin under chin"). References to "intoxication" and "drunkenness" only seem plausible in event of excessive - and therefore atypical - consumption. I've also removed the reference elsewhere to "possible muscle aching after usage" as this is widely regarded as a result of dancing continuously while under the influence of MDMA, rather than a direct effect of the MDMA itself (cf. Saunders). Someone who has not been dancing for hours will not experience muscle ache, while someone not on MDMA who has been dancing for hours will experience it. Nick Cooper 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hyponatremia?

Anyone know of any statistics on Hyponatremia and Ecstasy use? It is quoted often as a possible negative side effect of E use, but is much rarer than most people think I believe. I saw some statistics on this before from UK or US but can't remember where from. That stupid British girl is the only case I can remember where it happened, and I don't think there were that many more instances of it as it isn't too hard to avoid if you have a brain in your head.

Really? and how do you know this? There is actually a lot of reason to believe that MDMA specifically interferes with normal regulation of salt balance. And there is not just one case report, there are many in which hyponatremia is an associated factor of medical emergency. Try using PubMed once in awhile, it is very simple to search. What is unknown is if water chugging is required to produce a dangerous hyponatremia or if individual sensitivity is involved but the evidence (i.e., lots of uninformed water chugging, relatively few hyponatremic deaths) leans toward individual sensitivity. So hyponatremia may indeed be easy to avoid, but only if you have the right genetic endowment.Blackrose10 17:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Methamphetamine

It seems like MDMA has methamphetamine in it. But it is generally considered chemically a close relative mescaline. It effects seem to be more similar to methamphetamine though. Is MDMA a sort of mix between methamphetamine and mescaline? Zachorious 17:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, MDMA does not have methamphetamine "in it," as both are distinctly separate molecules. The same three atoms that exist in methamphetamine (carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen) exist in MDMA, but alongside oxygen. Mescaline is composed of the same atoms as MDMA, but again in different proportions, i.e.:

Methamphetamine = C₁₀H₁₅N

MDMA = C₁₁H₁₅NO₂

Mescaline = C₁₁H₁₇NO₃

Nick Cooper 17:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing effects

This article could do with a section / expansion of a section to incorporate the effect that Ecstasy has on Body temperature. i.e. Details on how this effects the UCP3 in skeletal muscle to produce hypothermia etc Genomaniac 15:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I never heard it affected skeletal muscle, but rather the hypothalamus, which regulates body tempurature and thirst. I haven't found that seratonins affect it, but steroids do. While hyperthermia is mentioned briefly in the article, I'd like to find the specifics and then list them near the beginning with the other side effects. Gaviidae 13:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

New Research On Long-Term Negative Effects (or absence of...)

http://www.umcutrecht.nl/research/agenda/2006/10/Ecstasy+leaves+memory+intact.htm

ccasional use of ecstasy (an average of a total of two pills) or frequent cannabis use (several marijuana cigarettes a week over a period of an average of four years) does not lead to long-term abnormalities in memory or ability to concentrate, or related brain activity. These are the main findings in Gerry Jager’s doctoral thesis. She studied the long-term effects of the popular drugs ecstasy and cannabis on brain functions (memory and ability to concentrate) using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Jager will receive her PhD from Utrecht University on October 31. The title of her thesis is, “Functional MRI studies in human ecstasy and cannabis users.”

Don't know when this will be published or where, but it would definitely be worth looking in to in respect to this wiki.

The University and website hosting are both in The Netherlands, so the study will presumably be Dutch. If an abstract is published in English, it would definitely become very relevant to the article. Thank you for alerting us to the study.--Ryan! 03:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Title: Functional MRI studies in human Ecstasy and cannabis users

Author: Jager, G.

Year: 2006

Publisher: Utrecht University

Document type: Dissertation

Full text: The full text of this item will be available after 30-04-2007

http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2006-1031-200808/UUindex.html

Looks like we'll have to wait until end of April. Also looks like it'll be in English. So many students in Utrech and Leiden and Groningen are English speakers and foreign students so don't worry about it being in Dutch. Gaviidae 13:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Marriage Counseling

Did anyone notice that this is in "other putative uses" in the infobox? It sounds like vandalism to me. mrholybrain's talk 13:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Before it's scheduling a small group of psychologists did use MDMA for Marriage Counseling Cloaked Dagger 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. —Mets501 (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Methylenedioxymethamphetamine → MDMA — I can't even say methylenedioxymethamphetamine - how can we expect that it could be the most common name (per WP:NC)? I won't argue that this and Ecstasy are different drugs - but, following this article's lead, we'd have to rename Codeine to 7,8-didehydro-4,5-epoxy-3-methoxy-17-methylmorphinan-6-ol! A perfect example of why the "most common name" convention is a key part of WP:NC. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Strong oppose - Preverably no acronyms as name (there may be more things that use the same abbrev, though there is no disambiguation at the moment at MDMA), and the redirect is in place, so a) one can link to MDMA (works perfectly, click on the link!), or type MDMA in the searchbox, you get to the right place. Codeine is named following INN (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/General/Naming of drug pages), apparently methylenedioxymethamphetamine does not have an INN, hence this name is used. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Knowledge of "MDMA" seems widespread, even on a colloquial level, but very few know what it stands for (this is quite apart from the fact that various sources do not use it as a single word). I find the objection to using an acronym unconvincing, since there are plenty of "real world" examples where the acronym is far more widely known and recognised for what it is than the actual phrase it represents (e.g. NTSC, SECAM, MI5, etc.). Nick Cooper 13:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ...LSD, NASA. A WP:RM to move NASA to the full name failed recently. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. There seems at least some doubt as to whether the acronym is much better known, so we should follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) and leave the name spelled out. Andrewa 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. MDMA is an acronym, methylenedioxymethamphetamine is what the acronym stands for. MDMA should redirect to Methylenedioxymethamphetamine as it currently does. "Ecstasy" is a slang term, and should not be used, but is allowed as a redirect to the proper article. If you take a look, all Wikipedia articles are under the full expanded title of the acronym, and the acronym redirects to the proper article. Any that don't are incorrect and should be corrected. Any article that is named by a slang term for which there is proper name is also incorrect and should be corrected. Also, specifically drug related articles should be under the proper generic name of the substance as you would read it on a pill bottle. I can assure you that phamaceutical grade MDMA is not labeled "Ecstasy". --Thoric 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your claim about "all" acronyms redirecting to the "proper" name is clearly incorrect, as the various examples cited above by myself and others demonstrate, and I suspect that any attempt to rename most of them would be met with strong resistance (if they haven't already). Nick Cooper 17:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose MDMA is an acronym. It is also an ambiguous acronym. MDMA may refer to the Museum Domain Management Association (MDMA), Midwest Direct Marketing Association (MDMA), Minnesota Donkey and Mule Association (MDMA), Multithreaded Daemon for Multimedia Access (MDMA), Many Delinquent Modern Anarchists (MDMA), Medical Devices Manufacturers Association (MDMA) and several others. MDMA may one day need to become a disambiguation page. Methylenedioxymethamphetamine is precise and unambiguous. MDMA on the other hand is not. Thus, I oppose this move. Bendono 01:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Personally, I find the redirect arguments unconvincing since it goes both ways - so that's a push. Therefore WP:NC takes precedence and that convention is clear that the most common name should be the article name. If you can find CNN articles and other common world examples where Methyldiowhatever is used in a regular sentence, that would be a more effective argument. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The WP:NC policy does talk about using both the full name and the acronym (abbreviation) and which should preferably be used (citation: "Convention: Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (NATO, laser, radar, and scuba are good examples of acronyms that are commonly thought of as words).". In this case, both MDMA and methylenedioxymethamphetamine are used by BBC and CNN; the former indeed occurring more in a google test, ecstasy occuring way more, for both we can question if it is the name which is more known to the public; I think most people recognise XTC/ecstasy, but I don't know if people know MDMA or methylenedioxymethamphetamine. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have been all for moving it to Ecstasy (drug) but I read folks saying that MDMA and Ecstasy are not 100% the same thing. Also, now that you mention it, both BBC and CNN are good examples of acronym article titles. ;D —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

XTC/Ecstasy are not the same thing, hence not viable as a new name. And I don't see the problem with methylenedioxymethamphetamine, as I said, you don't have to type it. IMHO MDMA is not according to WP:NC. What would be viable is the INN (but I don't know if it has an INN). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add some stats, a quick check on Google returns:

"ecstasy"/"ecstacy" + drug = 1,500,000

"MDMA" + "ecstasy"/"ecstacy" = 1,040,000

"methylenedioxymethamphetamine" = 287,000

"methylenedioxy methamphetamine" = 54,000

"methylenedioxy-n-methamphetamine" = 72,000

Using the abbreviation would, of course, circumvent the fact that there isn't even consistency in the full name. Nick Cooper 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cleanup

Cleanup box just added by somebody. Long-term adverse effects needs massive work.

Please sign your posts on talk pages. Unless somebody (that person or others) comes here to the talk page and says precisely how the article needs cleaning up, the tag should simply be removed IMO.

Far better, of course, for them to have cleaned the article up themselves... discussing proposed changes here first if they appear controversial. Andrewa 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

PMA and methamphetamine are more dangerous than MDMA; potential for neuroprotection with bupropion

On June 22, 2006, MattBagg stated:

Personally, I am concerned about the accuracy of the statement:

"Sometimes more dangerous chemicals such as PMA or methamphetamine alone or in combination with MDMA are added to ecstasy tablets."

I am not aware of evidence that meth is more dangerous than MDMA. I think that PMA and Meth should be neutrally referrred to as 'other potentially toxic psychoactives'.

[end quote]

I can offer fairly good evidence that both PMA and methamphetamine are more dangerous than MDMA. First, case studies have revealed a greater potential for overheating (hyperthermia) with PMA. Overheating due to PMA occurs more frequently than with MDMA, occurs at lower doses than MDMA, and typically is more severe. Here is my reference for the above claims: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/174_09_070501/ling/ling.html

Second, methamphetamine has more addictive potential than MDMA. I think that this should be fairly common knowledge, but if not, you would not have to look far to find references related to meth addiction. In addition, methamphetamine is mentioned in a far higher number of emergency room visits than MDMA. For example, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) statistics for 2004 revealed that MDMA was mentioned in 8,621 emergency room visits, whereas methamphetamine was mentioned in 73,400 emergency room visits. You can find this information here: https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/DAWN2k4ED.pdf (Table 4, p. 24)

Finally, when MDMA is considered alongside a list of legal and illegal drugs, it ranks toward the bottom in terms of overall risk. For example, the UK Select Committee on Science and Technology recently determined that MDMA is an altogether safer drug than heroin, cocaine, alcohol, ketamine, benzodiazepines, amphetamine, tobacco, cannabis, and LSD, to name some. You can find the results of this study here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031we15.htm

One last thing I wanted to mention is that bupropion (Wellbutrin) is an antidepressant which is not considered to be an SSRI. It is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. Previous research has indicated that dopamine uptake inhibitors protect against MDMA serotonin depletion, without having any apparent effect on body temperature. The reference for this can be found here: http://www.maps.org/w3pb/new/1999/1999_shankaran_204_1.pdf

Basically, since bupropion is not an SSRI and instead is a dopamine uptake inhibitor, it has the potential to provide neuroprotection without affecting the positive effects of MDMA. Of course, bupropion specifically administered along with MDMA would be necessary for an even higher degree of certainty in this effect. Personally speaking (yeah, here comes some anecdotal evidence), I have taken Ecstasy (pills purported to be MDMA) several times along with bupropion, with no complications, and an unnoticeable lessening of positive effects.

Okay, signing out.72.147.252.133 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)MDMAresearchguy

There's some good information there, and the references are good. But it's not encyclopedic as is, because it's structured as an argument. We just present the information, we don't structure it in this way.

Thank you for the contribution. I'd encourage you to try to add the encyclopedic information to the article, but now it's here someone else might, that's one of the reasons for having talk pages. And adding any of this without making the article into a POV essay will be quite a challenge. Andrewa 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Any negative user opinions about ecstasy are missing

There are no negative user opinions mentioned in this drug article. The negative long-term effects section is started with sentence "these are debated among scientist" - but this is outdated. Maybe between neurobiologist there were some debate, a long time ago, but between psychiatrists and psychologist things stand strong - MDMA or ecstasy definitely has pleasant primary effects, but it is a drug with all it's negative consequences. THERE'S NO MAIN PROBLEM to take enough water when on ecstasy... this is really funny. Nobody is going to tell you what really happens on ecstasy and what kind of different psychical problems you are starting. (I'm writing this as student of psychology with my own experience of mdma). There is always only this "QUASI-scientific approach" to describe hallucinogens, but things are really simple - nobody needs this DRUG, and EVERYBODY who will take it will suffer the ways he is not able to imagine now. I don't suppose my voice will be heard because of lobby for ecstasy - on every forum they are users who ALWAYS advocate it, and EX-USERS ho hate it. And, there are some more informations from another side: http://ecstasy-effects.com (why THIS is not in links?? - and don't lie, I posted this address before, altough I don't have anything to do with it).

so, to summarize - after common folks read this article, they have 1000x times better view on ecstasy as it is in reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.102.3.94 (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

If by "better view" you mean more realistic, then I agree. There are no real downsides to moderate use of MDMA in humans, as demonstrated by study after study as well as the tens of millions of MDMA users who have neutral or positive feelings about their experiences with the drug. There are huge downsides to addictive abuse of most substances or activities that humans can choose to incorporate into their lives. Sinned 13:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one look at the top page of "Ecstasy Effects" reveals numerous demonstrably false or highly misleading claims. The bottom line is that it is a commercial site "selling" a "recovery programme," and as such cannot be considered an impartial source of information. Nick Cooper 14:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well all i can say is this...you can take ecstacy or not...no one forces u too...u have a choice...the issue really is that many people want to take ecstacy...even have taken it before and thoroughly enjoy its effects without experiencing any negative effects...yet they are not allowed to make their own choices...and so we have this ridiculous situation and battle over the information on it, simply as people arnt allowed to make their own choices over it...thats the root of the problem on this page...and incidently i have never "suffered" from taking ecstacy...that is ridiculous...surely as with anything...even nuts or milk or gluten...some people will "suffer" from taking it...to say everyone will suffer is ridiculous and we can come up with a million signatures stating so from past users...cases of normal standard doses that "suffered" are so much harder to find than people pleased with standard doses...and weve even got ricaurte on record stating experiments with it on humans arnt especially dangerous...there are a million and one chemicals out there more dangerous than this one...this issue is unfortunately influenced by the fact that there are huge sums of money involved on all sides...it could be a major competitor with other things such as tobacco, alcohol, and various drugs...the cocaine lobby doesnt want people using mdma...the tobacco people dont...the beer companies dont...the heroin pushers dont...big pharmas "psychotherapeutics" pushers dont...there is a massive lobby against it...yalls best hope is to get a big pharma on ur side with a "hybrid... MDMA attached to something patantable" drug...and there is great politcal fear for several reasons...fear that people may stop taking their other substances if they came to try mdma...fear that people will think differently afterwards...fear that the chemical can cause major political changes...after my review of the evidence surrounding humans and their favored biochemical imbibings i think really only the first fear has ground...and this just barely...i just dont think any chemical yet created is enough to greatly influence and change a persons thinking and basic personality and way of life...at most they can sway a person...go ahead an e-out cheney and see if theres a difference...no way...anyways wikipedias responsibility is to provide as accurate a picture of mdma as possible under the circumstances so people can make informed choices about the biochemical, have accurate scientific info, and if they choose to use it they use it responsibly and in the manner that is proven most beneficial and pleasant...thats the issue with all chemicals and substances...getting people to behave and act responsibly with them...with some its no easy task...look at worldwide alcohol statistics and the number of abusers and ill effects...its frightening...russias men may be losing 10 years on average from their lifespan...its crazy...yet should we ban alcohol? of course not...first of all we know it doesnt work to use such tactics...tons of people use responsibly...and its even thought to be healthy in moderation...and as people can choose freely whether to take it or not...the information on it is somewhat not quite so polarized...the key to bringing alcohol further towards responsible use isnt prohibition yet is propaganda...its up to ur parents, schools, the media, and ur peers to get u to make appropriate choices...when the government tries to force you it usually ends badly...the governments job is propaganda... not dictation...Benjiwolf 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Animated MDMA molecule Gif

Can someone who is better at the drug boxs than me integrate the spinning MDMA gif?

You can find the code for the .gif in the MDMA History Archive from the Microswitch edit of the same name.

24.144.50.186 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Super sex myth or true

A lot of people claim that MDMA creates a heightened sexual experience, while other say it actually makes sex near impossible because of factors such as erectile dysfunction while on it. Are there any studies or research that have any information towards proving one, both, or none to be true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.20.224.240 (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Most of the literature and a wide sample of annecdotal evidence suggests that - inevitably - it's complicated. Some men experience erectile dysfunction, other do not, while of the latter, some can acheive ejaculation and some can't. However, it seems that the latter - and even not getting an erection in the first place - is not necessarily a "problem," since the other influence of MDMA is to put the user in a state of mind that the simple aim penetration and ejaculation seems far less important. Saunders (various, but certainly in Ecstasy Reconsidered) reports something along the lines of sex that is more prolonged and tender - sensual, rather than sexual. Nick Cooper 13:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's original research, but I can tell you having a girl chewing on your neck feels absolutely amazing while rolling. As said above, it's complicated, some people have sexual disfunctions while on it and others don't, but ecstasy most certainly does increase tactile(touch) sensations and sexual activity most definitely is a tactile sensation. So it stands to reason that of course ecstasy would increase sexual pleasure, erectile disfunction can be a side effect yes(and some combine it with viagra for this very reason), but also as said there are other things you can do that are sexual while not needing to involve penetration and not everyone has these side effects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.8.109.202 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Still no seeing negatives of ecstasy?

Haha :) dear Nick Cooper, well, you know, I have the advantage that I'm not personally interested in ecstasy anymore - as you are. It's very clear that you are at least casual ecstasy user, because logic related to ecstasy seems to be nothing for you. Your nice stylization will change nothing about it.

1) You are ready to condemn some web page with minority opinions, because you find it impartial - maaan, who are you gonna believe then? A drug dealer?! Or current user (e.g. alcoholics never let in "I'm dependent")?! Or a company which has lots of practical cases and goes AGAINST ITSELF by saying "people, don't do it". Do you understand this or are you totally goofy? :) If their main goal were to make money (or they would love mdma), they would be running webpage just like this one. They would be RATIONALIZING any danger behind non-emotional quasi-facts like following:

2) "There are no real downsides to moderate use of MDMA in humans, as demonstrated by study after study." This is plain lie. Only to know ecstasy belongs to metamphetamines is enough. Just look here. Speed is not ecstasy? Ok, here you can read about ecstasy causing 50% memory loss after first experiences with it. This is outdated? Ok - here you have it one more time, frankly and fresh.

3) Neurons oxidization with hydrogene peroxid, loss of memory - every user of ecstasy accepts it, BECAUSE IT'S WORTH IT! Ecstasy is not "neutral" or "somewhat good", no, ecstasy is GREAT! It is the most georgious thing in your life, everyone says it after first time. They even have the feeling they have it under control (of course, otherwise it would not feel good!), and EVENTUALLY experience pure happyness. They can count on it - at least few hours. Morning after they are changed for months, seeing only one side of the coin. I've seen people to be HELL decided to stop their "moderate use" and have seen them in a month saying "Aaaah, yees, I remember... let's move on, well you know I'm kind of crazy HAHA." In Douglas Rushkoff's Kyberia there are ex-users after years of staying clear saying "man, maybe everybody has some sum of happyness.... sometimes I think I deplate mines already with mdma" - and that's exactly the point of psychical suffering.

Nick Cooper, I want now that you admit that drug recovery company saying "don't take drugs" are going against themselves, and definitely don't need to think up facts. And I want you to admit that you lied when you said "There are no real downsides to moderate use of MDMA in humans, as demonstrated by study after study" because I showed you several scientific researches about it. That's all (I'm not dumb to be awaiting that current user admits psychological negatives altough he experiences it).

yours sincerely Vladimir Marcek, czech republic

PS BENJIWOLF: I'm not and expert on goverment and money flows as you are, but I know that existence of one drug is not reason for existence of multiple drugs. Ecstasy can't be used "moderately" (remember, metamphetamine), and if, then maybe in 50x smaller amounts than it is common. Have you seen somebody on ecstasy while you were clear? I believe so. So you must know why it is strictly banned on whole world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.9.253 (talk • contribs)

To:Vladimir in Czech...i appreciate ur concern, yet ur contribution is somewhat reactionary and too emotionally charged and unscientific. One of your links is to methamphetamine and already higher up in this article it clearly establishes MDMA is not crystal meth, in fact the famous retracted article on this issue was exactly a switch of crystal meth for MDMA by Ricaurte, and he was severely chastised for that switch, dont make the same mistake as he did. They are 2 totally different substances and not even in the same category of drug classification...if u can say MDMA is meth than i can say coffee is cocaine...formulas:MDMA C11H15NO2 crystal meth C10H15N...(even if MDMA didnt have oxygen attached and had the same 3 elements yet in a different ratio it would be a totally different substance with possibly entirely different chemical nature)....In fact it isnt so banned, it was legal for a long time in the US, and while not normally legal it is tolerated in many countries, (and it was made illegal mostly worldwide as of pressure from some individuals in the US government)(and the opinion of the DEAs own judge wasnt followed) and as to myself being "clear"...i have only taken MDMA a handful of times in my life...i am almost always "clear"..and anyways i am especially "clear" the few times i have taken MDMA...in fact thats why i have a good opinion of it...i have experienced exceptional clarity while taking it...i have seen people on MDMA...they are basically quite normal...a little lovey dovey or like theyd drunk a few beers...yet greatly interested...more communicative generally...their thoughts and speech isnt impaired like if theyd drunk a few beers...theyr super sweet usually...anyways... i have nowhere seen MDMA causes "50%" memory loss the first time or even after repeated overdoses...as well memory is a complicated variable comprising many things and short term memory is just one aspect of it...Another of your linked articles has a scientist saying people that have used MDMA a few times in their lives DONT show any permanent memory loss or impaired functioning...these studies were with frequent users as well...none of these studies looks at people that use MDMA in combination with antioxidants or utilizing other neuroprotective measures...in any case people can read what they wish and then make their informed choices...in fact thats what people from my part of the world fought for over in ur part...to allow people to make their own choices...please stop trying to meddle in my part of the world and remove our freedoms and ability to make our own choices...im not concerned with what other people voluntarily put in their bodies when they have access to the info about it as long as they dont attack others with an axe like people using alcohol sometimes do...I am concerned with all the toxic chemicals they use that end up in my body from their pollution and that damage all my body systems including mental and reproductive abilities, and that cause mutations in my genetype... and all creatures genetypes for that matter...anyways here is a link for u[2] so stop trying to ban my choice to use MDMA Vlad and i wont mess with ur ability to drink Pilsner Urquell...its a nice beer...tastes nice...i have drunk it a few times...yet i really try not to drink alcohol...its impairs many body systems including the brain and memory...only do studies examining very light use show any possible benefit...so its only usually when im with friends that really drink a lot that i have a beer or two...in fact as i travelled thru lovely slovakia some great slovakians kept buying me beers and alcohol...yet really insisted i drink it...and to be nice i did...yet i had a headache afterwards and it likely did damage to my brain...sincerely...benjiwolf... — Preceding unsigned comment added by benjiwolf (talk • contribs) 14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir, your barely-coherent and entirely conjectural ramblings are not worthy of any response other than this one, although you hardly help yourself by throwing quotes at me which I never used. Nick Cooper 14:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir, that isn't science. From the first article you linked to: "Fifteen MDMA users, ranging in age from 17 to 31, participated in the year-long study. Participants of the study took the drug an average of 2.4 times per month." They have no controls in this study, they don't monitor the intake of these users, they don't measure the dosage, they don't measure the purity (how do you know they aren't eating methamphetamine and ketamine?) There's absolutely no evidence that these people ever ingested MDMA, because the researchers did not perform a controlled study. This is about as scientific as conducting a random telephone survey of 15 people. Sinned 05:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

From the second link you pasted, "After 18 months, 59 first-time ecstasy users who had taken six tablets on average and 56 non-users were re-examined with the same techniques and tests. The study found that low doses of ecstasy did not severely damage the serotonergic neurons or affect mood. However, there were indications of subtle changes in cell architecture and decreased blood flow in some brain regions, suggesting prolonged effects from the drug, including some cell damage. In addition, the results showed a decrease in verbal memory performance among low-dose ecstasy users compared to non-users. ". Once again, there are no control groups in these studies. There's no monitoring of the ingestion of the drugs, there's no evidence that they ingested MDMA, there's no measurement of doses, there's no verifiable measurement of frequency of dose. There's not even evidence of any harmful effects, because the only result they measured was a decrease in blood flow in certain brain regions, which for all they know is a positive change. There's no mention of OTHER drugs used during the 18 month time period, not even alcohol use. This isn't science, it's drug war propaganda. Sinned 05:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A Final Response to Vladimir

looked a little more into the last study Vlad quotes, as this one had the most to it, then i saw some problems...study was done in amsterdam, and one of the first things we notice is that the volunteers were at "high risk" for ecstacy use yet never had tried it...what does that mean "high risk"...likely it means they are irresponsible volunteers or hard partiers or something of this nature...and a few of them that really abuse their bodies over that 18 months could really skew those results...and right away we see they might misuse whatever they get a hold of...yet here is where i see the real problem...these people that used "on average 6+ occasions" ...how did they get their MDMA?...from the streets??...on the streets of A-town? if uve ever been there, ull know that there are hundreds of swindlers and pushers selling anything they can find that is cheap to come by and passing it off as "exstacy" or "coke"...they are typically illegal immigrants or hard drug addicts with no incomes other than what they can swindle...(to get actual MDMA one is better off with a full Dutch one knows privately yet even here we still wouldnt know for sure the exact makeup of the pills)...we have no idea what these users ingested, it could have been anything, and after 6+ pills the odds of one being something other than E are very high...i went to a free pill test center in amsterdam and heard from the staff, that there are all sorts of things people are trying to pass off as "XTC" on the streets...anyways this is the problem...these young people are being put at risk as they have no way to aquire real and pure standardized MDMA, as the tests show, and the UKs own parliamentary committee found, that this drug is minimally harmful and less so than alcohol and tobacco...yet millions of young people are put at risk as the way it is handled...instead of accurate and truthful propaganda, and info on how to use it responsibly, sources where it can be acquired in pure form in known and standard dosages, we have a situation where young people have no idea what they are putting in their bodies...they may have found some real MDMA a few times, know they like it and it isnt harmful, and then get fake MDMA on other occasions that in fact does serious harm to them...that situation is criminal...and the responsibility for undoubtedly millions of americans and europeans being slightly poisoned on occasion lies with some in the american government and how they have handled this! We know full well, that in human history people will acquire what they want...making MDMA illegal has compounded its problems, luckily it is innocuous enough so that at least it itself leads to few problems...its the hundreds of adulterations that have led to the more severe toxicity issues...and fire away ur propaganda nancy reagan as u conduct ur "ever so christian astrology seances", there is nothing especially wrong with christianity & astrology, yet some of ur pronouncements tend to sound hypocritical...people will always use the substances they want...ur percentages of drug users goes up and down and up and down...and stays the same...yet we all trust ya when it comes to our bodies as we know how well u handled the AIDs epidemic...and as i see crystal meth as a serious problem, and want this chemicals use to die down, im just not so sure anymore even something clearly of horrendous nature should be made illegal...perhaps the only way the US can fight off the ever increasing meth problem is to legalize it and produce it at low prices while taking over the market to see who is using and then give appropriate treatment...yet the reality is there is no sympathy or compassion for the populace from that quarter and they are content to watch a million tweakers wreck their lives and say "i told u so"...just as they were content to watch a few homosexuals get AIDs and said "i told u so"...and then let disaster unfold into the entire worlds heterosexual population as well...there are other ways to keep the world economy afloat than these types of schemes...so i say even for the worst...tobacco & crystalmeth...we keep it legal...give people the ability to know what they purchase...and give them the most accurate info Benjiwolf 17:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes Nick, it's a science - for everybody except you

Researches I posted before (and I've found them in 5 minutes!) ARE GOOD ENOUGH for American Academy of Neurology, which is an organization counting 20 000 members (let me guess - mostly neurologist), as well as Radiological Society of North America which is including 38 000 professionals in 100 countres. But apparently you are really selective... Actually I'm really surprised that this wiki topic is not run by psychedelic guru from this one-man MAPS company.

that was regarding facts, and now regarding my netiquette - I'm sorry you feel like my post are not worth your grandious answer. But honestly I don't care too much, because I just want to present an ALTERNATIVE view to this peacefull and really-really interesting image of mdma, amphetamine - hallucinogen drug. By the way do you use it? If not, I would like to cite that hallucinogens "cause people to see or experience unusual things outside the range of normal perception". Do you think normal perception and normal reality is not enough for a man? Do you think that natural love TO A PERSON (not caused or manipulated by a drug) is not enough? If you need more than that, I feel sorry for you. MDMA is a drug and nobody needs it - MAYBE except some extremely specialized medical research about it's possible treatment effects in some cases.

benjiwolf: mister, I'll definitely leave you your mdma abuse (whereas I don't need to drink Pilsner Urquelle). But, do you think is reasonable to argue with somebody who compares psychoactive characteristic of alcohol to mdma? Firstly FYI, maybe half of the people who drink alcoholical beverages drink it because of it's taste - wine, beer. How many people use mdma because of it's taste? Next thing, alcohol is not hallucinogen nor amphetamine category. Alcohol can't cause you to fell in love with "1-drum-and-1-tone" music. It doesn't make you hold your hands like a mantis for hours and repeat machine-made movements most of the time. Alcohol is not so sophisticated, and it's intoxication don't feels so superb. Themore, you take even 100x bigger mass amount of alcohol than mdma, and you would hardly feel drunk - so what are you comparing then?! And I'm not interested in any drug war (or Drug War), but if there is any going on, that's only good. This beautiful reality, resp. our natural fantasy gives everybody more then enough opportunities to love and realize themselves. Or do you think we should learn basics of psychedelics on elementary schools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.9.253 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No mate, it seems like its only science to YOU. These studies may be good enough for the "American Academy of Neurology", but I also read an interesting article about pruneing roses that was good enough for the Royal Horticultural Society. Unfortunately, neither have much to do with the argument at hand, dont just go citing random experiments that give little data and dont seem to be well run or prove anything much of interest. Anyway, my head hurts from decyphering your bizzare English. Ciao TSMonk 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

to whoever that was: you are unintelligible...and alcohol in just the US kills 81,000 people each year...MDMA is responsible for 100 or less, or many even say just 10 or less a year...that argument was pathetic!!! alcohol affects ur perception, can even make u see all sorts of things, & do all sorts of stupid things...and its clearly bad for ur english judgeing from ur contribution...anyways im not anti-alcohol use when its responsible...just as im not anti-mdma use when its responsible...the guy in russia that just chopped his wifes head off as he saw tentacles coming out her head...ill betcha he had some vodka in himBenjiwolf 15:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

89.102.9.253 (Vladimir, presumably), I'm at a loss as to understand why you are behaving this way, and in particular why you are singling me out for "answers" you have absolutely no reason to expect, let alone deserve. Rather than respond to anything I have actually said (you seem to have been confused on that score already, having attributed something to me that it is plainly obvious I never said), you have come up with several disjointed and barely coherent rants, "citing" several web-links without actually being clear as to what exactly you're offering them in response to.

You have also jumped to a number of completely unfounded and somewhat amusing "conclusions" about me based on nothing but your own conjecture and prejudice. I could refer you to these two Usenet postings [3] [4], written ten years ago, at a time when I had read a lot about MDMA, without having used it personally. Or this posting [5], just over six year ago, at a time when I had read more about MDMA, without having used it personally, or this one [6], two years ago, by which time I'd read even more about MDMA, without having used it myself, etc., etc., etc. Get the picture? No, you probably don't.... Nick Cooper 16:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Im trying to make this exchange less personal...anyways Vlad "leaving me to my MDMA abuse" was entirely conjectural...and a personal attack...so i returned with the conjecture that he abuses alcohol...vladimir has made some interesting contributions...his english is hard to decipher yet it may be not just as of alcohol use, yet also as hes not a native english speaker...anyways vladamir... its not ur english that ruins ur arguements...it is passable enough to get by...its their content that leads to self-defeatism...yet in this last u made some interesting points about things not really relating specifically to MDMA...such as "do we need anything (supplements) to love a person"...and with this i say hopefully not...hopefully we humans are created to a high enough degree so that we are perfect...yet it is not so..and people clearly use things like alcohol or mdma to break down barriers between themselves...and to experience more social contact...it is very clear from human history that homo sapiens enjoys the use of biochemicals that alter its "natural" mind state...so perhaps then this is indeed "natural"...the homo sapiens using substances/techniques to alter its mental state is this creatures natural state...its not necessary to use biochemical substances to alter ones neurochemical state...some people enjoy meditation and other spritual/religious techniques to attempt altered states of mental functioning...some whip themselves with sticks/chains and walk on coals...yet clearly the majority prefer to use plant substances and derivatives, in addition to whatever else they may do...like cats enjoy catnip...as to reality being beautiful...it indeed is...sometimes so much so that one needs nothing...not even food and water...yet many times it is not so beautiful...and is a nightmare even...(just look at iraq, or a disease ridden area of africa)...and so sometimes people use things like alcohol to escape, and sometimes this leads to abuse...yet anyways from your last response you clearly have a cultural issue that compounds ur abhorrence of MDMA...you seem to dislike the music some mdma users listen to...their dancing...it sounds like a cultural issue to me...and u are desperately looking for evidence to justify your own cultural way of being and put down theirs...yet ive never heard of someone on MDMA attacking and beating their wife...surely it has happened as just chance...yet maybe no, as of the nature of its effect...yet with alcohol i have heard a thousand and one stories of people being beaten...car accidents...all sorts of awful stories that "make this beautiful reality not so beautiful...that turn it to a nightmare even"...millions of these stories...yet anyways prohibitions dont work...its up to the culture to encourage responsible behaviors and responsible alterations of human mental patterns...Benjiwolf 17:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

...and anyways as to taste...alcohol is an acquired taste...it is bitter or burning many times and not everyone likes it...children will spit it out (and of course as its a poison)...people like alcohol as its effects and the culture that encourages its use...they grow to like the taste as of its cultural associations typically, the social interactions it reinforces and the positive times and partying associated with it...people from beer drinking cultures many times dont like wine...and vice versa...yet sometimes they like both or neither...people from mdma taking cultures many times dont like alcohol...and vice versa...yet sometimes they like both or neither...if they are not beating their spouses and running people over on the streets etc. then i say let them choose what they wish...

vladimir's last reply for some time

TSMONK: my english is good enough to let you know that we spell decyphering with an "i".

BENJIWOLF: well that exactly is misleading - facts about physical death are one thing, but to measure SUBJECTIVE effects of ecstasy after you stop using it is another thing. Here the ex-users are the most competent (!) - and tell me where on this page I can find ANY ex-users opinions? Your arguments are the same I used to have as I was a fan of psychedelics. But everybody who messes with drugs will suffer, and I'll not repeat this anymore. Let's call it "my subjective opinion". PS-one more difference compared to beer - alcohol does'n shrink my memory to few seconds before actual moment!

NICK COOPER: ok, you tell me I'm not exactly citing you - I admit it, i just summarize your opinions. But You are NOT AT ALL replying on my key objections: - where are ex-users opinions on this drug in this wiki topic? mine is, it's a REALLY negative thing evetually whatever amounts you take. - why you don't consider this page of a recovery center as reasonalbe facts about negative effects on ecstasy? Why do you even say it's tendential?! They are going against themselves by saing "don't use ecstasy". If it is impartial, it's from their everyday experience! I really must laugh. I'm convincing you that drugs have donwsides! :) - Nobody who is using some drug, don't give you complete information, mostly not the negative ones. - You stated not-so-clearly, that you dont have the experience of mdma. Ok, write about it as much as you want (but it's a BIT inappropiate), but don't be so narcissistic and don't underestimate first person experience of MDMA. - science researches "good enough" for publishing throughout the whole world, are not good enough for you - and just by random, they state facts opposite to your consistently peacefull image of ecstasy.

see you later, you mdma advocating decade-ignorant of negative ex-users opinions. (yes, you can delete this one sentence).

SMILES Nomenclature is confusing

The SMILES entry text for MDMA on the wikipedia page is:

CC(NC)CC1=CC=C(OCO2)C2=C1

However, at PUBCHEM the SMILES for MDMA is:

CC(CC1=CC2=C(C=C1)OCO2)NC

Can someone familiar with this system correct the SMILES entry to reflect the actual substance? I understand that MDMA has isomer's (R and S).

Microswitch 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Microswitch (talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Popular Names

I feel that there are not enough accurate names in this article. I am currently enrolled in a facility/rehab and all we are allowed to access is Wikipedia. I (and others here) feel that there should be more names of MDMA listed, and of course, ones that are commonly used. I wish I had another website to base this information off of but I can not access one. On the other hand, I don’t necessarily think that a website should be needed here. There are numerous people here who are very familiar with this drug including myself. I am hoping that you all can understand where I am coming from here. I don’t mean to add 1000 names either, only 4 or so. I don’t exactly know where to place them in the article but that shouldn’t be too hard. Here is what I had in mind (in addition to what is already mentioned):

• Rolls
• Skates
• ADAMS
• Love Bugs

Please take this into consideration.

Thanks, PulsHrd 15:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas??

PulsHrd 14:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Every street drug can have inummerable names, with new ones sprouting like mushrooms after the rain every year. There are 4 names and spellings in the article now. If there are one or two more that are very popular in a large geographic area, add them into the first sentence. Be aware that another problem with street names is that they can overlap-- X, jellies, and happy candy are example names that people throw at many unrelated recreational drugs, so they don't necessarily add information to readers. Gaviidae 13:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

McDonalds Donalds Massive Anarchy

I have NEVER heard ANYONE ever refer to MDMA as "McDonalds Donalds Massive Anarchy" - so I'm just wondering where that came from?

As a past user of MDMA (just for experimentation purposes), I've heard all kinds of slang being used to describe MDMA but "McDonalds Donalds Massive Anarchy" has never been mentioned.

I think that part of the article needs to be reconsidered, as that is not a popular slang or name for MDMA.

That's just my opinion, but I might be wrong. Maybe that term is used more often in other countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.183.220.44 (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

pet names for mdma

i dont think we can include every pet name that comes along for mdma on the main page...the only of the four i would accept that tipton prisoner offered would be "rolls"...as it is used more widely and isnt just a local phenomenon...and people in some quarters use the term "rolling" to describe using it...these others i have never heard...yet "E" or sometimes "X" are the most frequently i have heard and are the term i use when talking of this subject...perhaps tho if tipton prisoner wishes to create a linked page with all the thousands of names that people come up for E then this would be interesting as a side article...all they let u use is wikipedia hugh???...well it could be worse...you can get to all sorts of interesting stuff at least on wikipedia...wikipedia may have found its highest function yet: in helping maintain the sanity of a few unfortunate trapped mdma users...Benjiwolf 11:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking that it's getting particularly pointless to have so many variations listed, especially since some are claimed to be essentially local variations without any evidence that they are even real. Nick Cooper

If someone wants some reference for some of the names, I was trying to find the source for a comment above about the Florida penal code (could not find it, only references and florida.gov was down) and ran across an article from Dept of Justice which mentions two more names, Beans and Adams http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugs_concern/mdma/mdma.htm Of course, as soon as adults and cops begin to use the slang terms, the kiddies will think up new ones. But USDOJ is a decent source if someone's worried about geography or whatnot. Gaviidae 14:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

74.101.121.107

source number 7 does not check out. someone verify its claims or remove it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.121.107 (talk • contribs)

Ricaurte

Section attacking Ricaurte under Parkinson's needs to be removed. It wasn't MDMA so what is the relevance? If the "holes in the brain" thing creates an inaccurate portrayal, why discuss it?Blackrose10 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It needs including because it - like much of Ricuarte's previous (at times also misrepresented) work - was featured heavily in government propaganda, and continues to be alluded to, despite the retraction. It's entirely probable that some people will come to this page and, having heard of the "holes in the brain" nonsense, will wonder why it's missing. It needs including precisely because its initial publicity was far greater than the retraction. Nick Cooper 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem. "propaganda" shows your slip a bit. One of the things that needs to be cleaned up on this page, imo, is this fascinating belief that an encyclopedia entry is the place to advance an opinion, a rebuttal to perceived "propaganda". This seems inappropriate. it is inconsistent with neutral point of view. Perhaps there should be a "controversies" section or something for MDMA. But an encyclopedia is, to me, a source for what IS, not a place for discussing what IS NOT if you see my point. A good section on possible lasting consequences should simply omit a link to parkinson's. Encyclopedias would be unbelievably unwieldy if they were diatriabes against rumour and misconception. Now, if you can show, with citations, that misunderstanding of a given point is rampant, than there would be a point of discussing things. but you can't possibly address every erroneous thing that someone somewhere might believe about each and every topic of encyclopedic interest. so it is an inappropriate general defense. and finally, the inclusion of Ricaurte's name is a personal attack and irrelevant if your real issue is something related to "government propaganda", is it not? Blackrose10 18:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to forgive me if I equally have suspiscions about the motives of someone using an account that has never been used for editing Wikipedia until this article on this day. I also fail to see how the section of Ricuarte's self-acknowledged discredited work constitutes an "ad hominem" "attack". Ricuarte's study failed due to fundamental errors and that is a fact, as is that his earlier work was misrepresented. We are not talking about some vague and inconsequential "rumour" here, but work that were widely publicised and cited in support of government policies. Nick Cooper 18:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it takes little time at all for you to go ad hominem towards me in preference to addressing the issues. out of curiosity, why is it relevant that I begin my wikiness today and on this topic? should I go over and bash around on THC and Meth and, oh say, "garden gnome" a bit? be that as it may, i never said "rumour" applied to the facts of the Ricaurte affair. the point is that if one's real target is the misuse of science by "government propaganda" there is little need to bring in his name. if one's point is to further the sort of personal vilification practiced over at MAPS, mission accomplished but this is no way to get the entry back into some reasonable semblence of neutral. there is an advocacy position for MDMA, clearly. some in this position feel that a sort of "drugs are bad, m'kay" position is the only position in the scientific literature and therefore it is all suspect. this is not justifiable and an uncritical approach to the advocacy side is just as bad as an uncritical approach to the science or even the public policy side.Blackrose10 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving the point by totally sidestepping the Ricuarte issue. Nick Cooper 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really taking your point here. what sidestep? if you can show that there is an area of consistent misunderstanding (and i happen to agree that this is likely the case but you need harder evidence than opinion) than it should be addressed. I don't, however, see any point in making this personal. Especially if one's real target is "government propaganda". There is also no reason to go through the whole "claims were hotly disputed" business- what's the point other than to say "nah, nah we were right all along"? why the comment about Ricaurte failing to "follow up" with RTI? it is sophomoric at best. an encyclopedia entry is just not the place for some he said/she said debate, nor even for a very high level academic debate over the totality of available evidence for that matter! it is a place for the neutral presentation of verifiable information, is it not? now how about you stop sidestepping and address my actual point?Blackrose10 17:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I just had an interesting read of the discussion and history of the page on Ricaurte himself. very fascinating. I suppose I have a little more insight as to "why" there is so much personalization of this page. similar comments on his page keep getting booted so someone goes ahead and puts it in over here, hoping to avoid the living-person policies. this doesn't make it appropriate. Blackrose10 19:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Acute toxic/dangerous effects

Continuing on a theme here. Why is all this comparison with other drugs here? Why does the death rate need to be compared with anything else? And if it needs to be so compared, how do you select the list of comparators? second hand smoke and generic "alcohol" are particularly bogus because it is not comparing acute reponses. why not focus on chemicals or toxins that produce acute fatality?

The section on hyperthermia is unbelievably speculative and behind the times. I direct you to Freedman et al 2005. Human skin temperature increases in concert with body temperature, cutaneous vessel constriction is not likely to be the issue. Changes in sweating are more likely to contribute but the same study (which was conducted in hydrated, non-dancing subjects) showed that this is because of a delay in the triggering of sweating not because of dehydration! There is no evidence, as yet, that high ambient temperature adds risk in humans or monkeys (rats another story) and in fact there is evidence that it does not. Single study in each case and the jury is still out. but it is interesting that the entry is simultaneously skeptical to the nth about studies concluding risk from MDMA itself and totally accepting of speculative and unproven hypotheses which suggest that all MDMA-related fatality can be attributed to nonMDMA situational factors!Blackrose10 19:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

people want to see the toxicity of this chemical in comparison to other commonly used drugs...it is a valid comparison to look at commonly used drugs such as alcohol and tobacco in comparison to mdma...we instantly see the acute and also lethal risk and threat of this compared to other things so we have a frame of reference...it would be nice to factor in though acute alcohol poisonings per year if someone finds that stat...from the stats we see quite clearly it is not a serious societal source adding to death rates...comparing mdma to botulism toxin has little meaning...comparing it to dioxin or arsenic has little meaning...it should be compared to other recreationally used chemicals like nicotine so we see a presentation and comparison of its lethal effects on the human population...the fact that many more people die of second hand smoke each year or even fetal deaths from smoking mothers is a very nice fact to have to put things in perspective in this section of acute/toxic & lethal effects...Benjiwolf 19:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

if the goal is to compare toxicity versus other common drugs than it should be more comprehensive. Also, the chosen comparisons should be direct- acute versus acute, not a comparison of acute MDMA fatality with deaths attributable, say to cirrhosis consequent to lifetime alcohol abuse or cancer subsequent to lifetime living with a smoker. I suspect you'd be all over it if a similar apples to oranges contrast was used to argue that MDMA is dangerous. i'm suggesting that it is not merely "nice" to compare apples to apples, it is essential for this to attain a neutral point of view. Blackrose10 21:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

According to ONS figures, ICD-10 codes denoting "accidental poisoning by and exposure to alcohol" (as opposed to all the other alcohol-related causes) accounted for 160 deaths in England & Wales in 2004. Figures for "deaths from drug-related poisoniongs" for the same year show 48 where MDMA was present, 25 of which involved no other drugs. A combination of alcohol and MDMA, either in isolation or with other drugs, accounted for 14 deaths. Nick Cooper 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

perfect. exactly the type of approach I would agree with. like to like comparisons and preferably presented directly without editorializing on the relevance or application to public policy. and it would be better still if you included the denominator, you know just like all other legitimate risk statistics one has to present an estimate not of raw rates but of rates relative to some standard of use. per capita users, per dose episode, something along those lines. global stats, presented without denominator may possibly be useful for public policy but tell the individual essentially nothing about relative risk which i assume is what benjiwolf meant by "people want to see the toxicity..."Blackrose10 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

i firmly disagree with blackrose...there are two measures...acute lethal toxicity...and actual practical toxicity and contribution to death rates...and in fact the practical effect a recreational drug such as tobacco has on death rates is far far far more important than its acute deaths which are mainly non-existant except maybe a few heart attacks a cig might trigger...its nice to see acute alcohol toxicity, yet really when comparing the lethal effect of various recreational substances we have to look at their effect on the death rates to see their deathly effects...that is the more important comparison...so tobacco has very high lethality yet minimal instantaneous lethality...alcohol has a rather large instantaneous lethality as well as greater lethality in general (mainly as off traffic accidents/murders and such and some acute poisonings)...the true lethal harm of cigarettes is tremendous compared to mdma, even just for unborn children or second hand smoke cases its a degree of magnitude or greater...and there are thousands of times more people dieing from tobacco each year...Benjiwolf 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: when you see these actual impacts a recreational drug is having on society you then can make a solid determination as to where to best spend your money on preventions/treatment to have a significant effect for your money in aiding society and protecting the citizens welfare and lowering death rates and disease...death rates are not the only factor in making this determination though...yet a very important one obviously (or at least it should be in the future with more rational programs dont you think???)(and obviously drugs that impact the health of someone other than the voluntary user are of greatest concern, drugs causing thousands of infant deaths and deaths to others in the smoke area or that lead to thousands of murders and traffic accident deaths are where emergency measures need to be put in place)...Benjiwolf 15:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

look, i understand the public policy debate issues. your points are pertinent to such a question. my view is that an encyclopedia entry is not the place for what would necessarily be a very lengthy debate. a place for the hard information relevant to such a debate, such as fatality rates, sure. but even if you limit it to "recreational drugs" the list is still to long for a concise entry, imo. so you have to select your comparisons. and doing so leads to a loss of neutrality unless you adhere to some semblence of rational rules. overall cumulative death rate versus acute toxicity doesn't make the grade as i see it. ignoring drugs more commonly abused with minimal tox (cannabis) is peculiar. Blackrose10 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree perhaps cannabis death rate should be included...(someone got that???)...(pretty low just some few traffic deaths perhaps ((supposedly far far fewer than more debilitating alcohol))...i do think however, there is not at all a debate in the article's actual section and it is just a couple lines comparing death rates and toxicities...alcohol, tobacco, (as stands) and then ganga, plus cocaine % a hallucinogen like LSD or shrooms i would think would be brief yet covers our main comparitives...so add lsd, cocaine, and cannabis someone if u wish more info...(perhaps an abused pharma too)...yet comparing to the two most heavily used drugs tobacco and alcohol is sufficient in some senses...and the death rate from allergic shellfish reactions and nuts etc. puts it all in some perspective (and gives us a little different perspective than a DEA site that makes no mention of shellfish & nut deaths)(were not the DEA here)...anyways as i dont think ganga is included in anyones tables of deaths as the figure hovers around zero... what is the use of including something that leads to no deaths at all???...and anyways one year death rate is the valid accurate comparison when assessing a substances lethal toxicity impacts...then u can mention just exactly how and why the substance/drug caused these deaths and how many were overnight acute deaths...Benjiwolf 19:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, for England & Wales, for the 12 years 1993-2004 there were 8 in total where only cannabis was implicated - never higher than 2 in a single year, and seven years with none at all - average of 0.6 per year. Cannabis + alcohol 57 over the same period, with a low of 2 and high of 8 - 4.75 per year on average. Cannabis + at least one other drug is 147 - 12.25 per year on average.[7] Nick Cooper 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

well it seems less than 1 death per year from cannabis alone in britain, im not sure where ur statistics are from, i would have guessed between 10-100 from traffic death & just cannabis each year...yet perhaps i overestimate...just how is it they died anyways???...u need to smoke a bale of the stuff to die from it...must have been traffic death or violent crazy person that happened to have some ganga in their system too???...8 deaths in 12 years???...how many from lightning in 12 years in the UK???...Benjiwolf 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

mdma deaths in perspective

well i go to the shellfish page and see two sentences describing toxicty and death...why is it we even have an mdma section on lethal effects??? and not just a single sentence, "there have been a few reported cases of people dying from mdma similar in number to yearly shellfish deaths"...why is it we dont???...because we want as much info as possible...yet when creating a long section on mdma deaths we need to put this in perspective as to how much of an issue it really is for society...if someone (anonymous user???blackrose???)...wants to remove the sentences putting this topic in perspective..then im going to eliminate the entire section to make it as long as the shellfish article on deaths: one sentence on mdma deaths...i dont like deleting info though, so please dont delete cited factual information and i wont have to...Benjiwolf 16:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

does anyone know?

have there been any studies in mice/rats that use a high zinc+ high vitamin C multi-vitamin/mineral coating on an adjusted standard mg/kg dose that a human responsible-user would employ (eg. a 75mg, 100mg, 125mg, 150mg??? human mg/kg))...what would the tests show 1 dose in a year, 2 in year, 4 in a year, 6 in a year, 12 in a year??? etc.)...how about human test with one dose with the coated pill, that have never used any drugs and dont thruout the study???...how would that affect memory tests and such???...someone please if these types of tests havent been carried out on various animals subjects and humans, do some so we start to get an accurate idea of the toxicity of mdma...both with control, normal pill, and vit/min. coated pill...its time the propaganda wars ended and the public gets accurate information on substances they might voluntarily use or see others voluntarily use...its time we establish a clear toxicty threshhold for mdma & humans...its time we see exactly what it takes to block any possible toxicty...Benjiwolf 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

first of all, i'd suggest you become familiar with PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) if you are genuinely interested in navigating what is / is not known about various topics of concern to health. this assumes that you are indeed honestly interested in

an accurate idea" of anything in particular. second, it is almost categorically the case that the exact perfect study that you dream up to answer your own question has not been done, this is the beauty of being in science as it happens. there is always lots more to accomplish. but it is also the case that you have to apply what is, at the core, basic common sense. That is, science arrives at some approximation of what is likely to be so by....approximation (and replication). by the totality of the evidence and by converging evidence. not by one study which either proves or disproves something categorically. so don't fall into the intellectually lazy position of finding an objection to a single paper and concluding that you know what is true. This is what is so bizarre about the obsession with the Ricarute 2002 Science paper- as if the fact that this even occurred questions the dozens of studies conducted previously by many investigators showing lasting serotonergic alterations produced by MDMA. This is also what is so bizarre about the unending stream of allegedly informed critique of the scientific literature by the MAPS group. One gets the impression that the advocacy position never met a scientific study that they agree actually demonstrated anything. For those of us that tend to understand the benefits and limitations of the scientific process, this appears to be a theological process. One driven by pre-existing belief rather than a quest to find out what might be so. If one is inclined to read the scientific literature carefully, one tends to find that it is not consistent with belief of a monolithic government propaganda enterprise, but rather clearly identifies consistencies and gaps in existing knowledge. Yes, and identifies limitations to specific experiments and whole approaches as well. so there is lots of information on what "people might actually use". the question is whether is it communicated effectively. there are three major barriers in this area that I see. first, trust (see "government propaganda" verbiage), two, education (i am dismayed at the general lack of understanding of the scientific process and the concept of probability and variance-this goes waaaaaay beyond the topic at hand) and third, what might be termed advocacy propaganda which attempts to advance a theological agenda, part of which is intentionally misrepresenting scientific observation. Blackrose10 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of "clear toxicity threshold" one needs to consider a few things. First, the concept of a "clear threshold" does not exist, period. In pharmacology there is a truism that everything is toxic, all you are discussing is the dose. I would add that there is also the issue of individual susceptibility to various insults and, of course, environmental or situational contributors. Second, any approximation of a threshold is going to depend on outcome of interest. Mortality? Permanent effects on cognitive function? Effects which last X amount of time? interaction with other natural or exogenous insults? The "threshold" is going to vary so you have to be clear on outcome measure. Third, from a public policy perspective there is a further issue of cost/benefit meaning that idea of "threshold" for various outcomes is further varied. Take the 3.75 mg/kg cumulative dose in current clinical trials (that's right, add it up for 50kg adult women). It likely has some nonzero risk value that can be attributed to it. Now if the benefit is relief from a lifetime of PTSD symptoms (per the claims) or if the benefit is one good night of psychotropic drug use, the equation is substantially different even if the direct physiological drug risk is the same. Governments take additional steps of dealing with the legal issues associated with criminalization, civic approaches to liberty/privacy, broad scale public health issues, etc as you well know. I happen to agree with much of what seems to be your public policy agenda, however I emphatically disagree that the public policy debate is some sort of integral part of an encyclopedia entry on MDMA. And I particularly object to an approach that seems to willfully downplay or misrepresent established knowledge on the toxic effects.Blackrose10 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

a reply

Im not trying to downplay acute lethal effects, yet im putting them in perspective, there is currently a scare tactic agenda in many countries on this subject of MDMA now, and the fact is things like pesticides and herbicides which are far more toxic and that effect people in a non-voluntary manner have a completely different set of guidelines to what chemicals people may choose to voluntarily come into contact with...it is somewhat hypocritical...if people want to use scare tactics then take a look at tobacco and alcohol with massive harm, leading to many millions of deaths & suffering each decade just in the US, add up unborn infant deaths from tobacco in a decade to hit 10,000, add up second hand smoke to hit 30,000...this just in the US...add up legal pharmaceutical deaths and abuses to hit tens of thousands from these...yet i dont live in that land anymore, and i never will again, i am tired of the hypocrisy, and im tired of seeing people dying & suffering (by the millions even) as of the hypocrisy...two years of hypocrisy and you hit one million deaths from alcohol and tobacco in the US...yet people want to use their scare tactics on MDMA???...3000 people died from 911, in the year 2001...that was horrible...well guess what???...3000 people died from second hand smoke that year too...and they did the next year...and the next year...and every year...im upset with all the millions dying themselves from alcohol and tobacco, yet they take these voluntarily, the approach should be accurate propaganda & information and not criminal law and prohibition...criminal law comes when you affect others than yourself...if you are drunk (or have anything in your system that may affect ur driving including mdma) and then you run someone over on the highway then its time for criminal law...anyways MDMA is far far less a concern than these other drugs...and doesnt lead to these deaths on people other than the actual user...the number of deaths is similar to shellfish allergy and nut allergy...some people happen to be "allergic to MDMA"..."the allergy" is typically their own irresponsibilty leading to their deaths, yet sometimes its accidental like with shellfish & nut deaths, sometimes its as of these prohibitions and people dont know what they have taken, or the size of it in mg, or its impure or not even MDMA

anyways as to threshholds...yes i understand ur statements, yet the fact is many studies on MDMA toxicity were based on massive repeat overdoses or with multi-drug abusers...when this biochemical was listed, enough studies such as i mentioned were not done...even without studies like this, they didnt listen to the DEA judge and placed it in schedule I instead of III right???...and we dont have a good idea of the various toxicity threshhold yet and its because studies like these wernt done...we have a general idea...we could have had a very precise idea yet people are subtley conducting studies to prove it harmful using things like unreasonable doses (that tell us possible pathways and areas to look in and little else)...and also volunteers that lead to skewed results...its been many decades of research with this and we should have been able to say just what the mg/kg non-toxic dose is(im talking about minor toxicity like to serotonin receptors and such or to memory, not for acute deaths) the fact is the research was handled poorly and was even just blocked from happening...and the fact is people need to do some research on a highzinc+vitaminC-multivitamin/mineral coated mdma pill and play with the coatings to see what totally blocks any possible mild toxicty...ive never heard of a study doing that...maybe you need to take the vitamin-mineral supplement some time before the mdma?...people need to study this to see if theres an effect and what the best timing is...but the fact is even without methods like this it could likely pass drug registration...put it with vitamin/mineral coat with the mdma absorbed after the vitamin/mineral coat takes action...then you can even put in a delayed absorbed SSRI if that isnt enough...yet i betcha just the vitamin/mineral coat is even enough...and maybe you dont even need that if the dose is responsible level and not taken every day for weeks on end...(the delayed absorbed SSRI could be used to block those that would abuse mdma, from causing neurotoxic effects to themselves, until a more rational responsible system comes to the fore besides prohibition which leads to abuse and unpredictability of dose)...Benjiwolf 11:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

your comment that "research was handled poorly" bears addressing. first, it is not at all clear that you are intimately familiar with the literature. in the case of MDMA there is absolutely no excuse for this since MAPS maintains a nearly comprehensive database of the MDMA-related scientific literature which is available to anyone with a Web connection. if you were familiar with the literature, you would realize that a lot of studies have been done addressing questions of threshold and route of administration, particularly in the early going in the late 80s and early 90s. yes some from your favorite guy Ricaurte but also from others. second, statements such as this, as well as "blocked from happening" betray a further misunderstanding of the way science is conducted. it is true that there is a lot of apparatus in place to ensure the quality of science and to minimize some guys' random speculation or belief about what might be the case based on personal anecdote coming to be viewed as authoritative evidence. sure. and funding agencies are able to pick and chose what to fund out of what has been proposed to them (the NIH, for one, does not however interfere in the actual science after funding, see recent Johns Hopkins study on psilocybin). but to suggest we don't know anything about threshold because of someone or something "blocks" the right kind of research? come on. finally, let's take the issue of outcome measure. most of what I discuss in terms of "threshold" is relevant to the outcome of lasting alterations in brain serotonergic function from a neurochemical perspective. along comes a paper by Giorgi et al 2005 showing that 5 mg/kg MDMA twice a day for only two days in a mouse (not much of a dose if you really understand pharmacokinetics and drug metabolism. but see below for more on "massive overdose") results in a susceptibility for seizure. nobody really paid much attention to seizure before. in part because it was probably assumed that human seizure was thermogenic. but if you look carefully at the case reports you will see that there is really no way to tell which came first in people who "collapsed" or presented with tonic or clonic seizure-like behavior in combination with high temperature. giorgi shows that their phenomenon is not associated with frank serotonergic alterations. the point here, again, is that the idea of "threshold" depends on outcome measure and like it or not research is finite. all one can do is present what is known. the absence of data does not imply that something is "safe". it seems to me that trying to create an encyclopedic entry that navigates all possible relevant comparisons, rather than simply stating what is known will end up being uninformative at best.

now as far as your pet vitamin example i confess i don't know the specific relevance. in general terms there has been the occasional study to test out the folk remedy against MDMA-tox thing. hydration levels, SSRIs and ambient temperature, to name a few. is it of interest to the scientist to chase around every combination of conditions under which some individual might become exposed to MDMA? not really. is there a legitimate and interesting mechanism at work that might explain how MDMA produces it's effects? then someone will get around to it eventually.

"massive overdose". another pet critique of the science. first, you should be gratified that much recent attention has been paid to improving this area with considerably more low-dose and actual pharmacokinetic data appearing in recent years. however, you will go bust betting that some incredible seeming recreational dose or combination or schedule is not being done by some person and likely quite a few people. take a look at some of the human cognitive-deficit type literature and look quite carefully at the categories for most-tablets-in-a-night. it is not hard proof, sure, because it is self-report and nobody knows tablet content. sure. but given the numbers of reports, analyses of tablet content (and percentage pure/impure) it is very hard to believe an argument that there are not substantial numbers of people being exposed to 5 and 10 mg/kg doses. a single 5 mg/kg oral dose led to lasting brain changes in nonhuman primates. the abovementioned seizure data are also of interest. data are trickling out that single doses of this magnitude may lead to some medical emergency in other nonhuman models, stay tuned. the point being that continually beating the "massive overdose" drum is part of what looks like a willful misrepresentation of the scientific data. just because there is a high-dose model which has been used to address the question of mechanism does not mean that this is the threshold for lasting damage.Blackrose10 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

you dont seem to understand, the fact is research was blocked and very hard to carry out for many years. This has been the case with other things than mdma too. It is highly relevant to carry out studies with an antioxidant coated pill, many people do take vitamin/mineral supplements while taking mdma, and people might even start designing pills coated with such things. I agree with you some people take overdoses, i agree it is unhealthy, yet i argue many times they take these large amounts specifically in this climate of prohibition, not knowing what they have taken or the size dose, not trusting any government propaganda as it is half false, not being provided with accurate information, anyways clearly the animal studies dont show the reality, millions of people use mdma, seizures are a rarity and no one is even sure its really the mdma when on these rare occasions, in the US 80,000 people die from alcohol each year, 440,000 die from tobacco, maybe 10 or so die just from mdma, 1000 unborn infants die from tobacco, at least 3000 people die from second-hand smoke, mdma seizures are one of the least of our worries, & ur better off warning people how to avoid lightning, yet the legislation instead prioritizes those 10 deaths like they are the end of the world...Benjiwolf 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

what i do not understand is how the research was "blocked" as you put it. please get specific. i have a passing familiarity with the way MDMA science is funded and conducted, in the US as one example. it is true that it is not easy to do independent science, to get trained, find a job, acquire funding. there is a process and yes, another one to get permission to experiment with controlled substances. it is bogus to suggest that specific kinds of research are "blocked" just because some individual fails to navigate this fairly brutal system. it is also bogus, and in fact MAPS is guilty of this, to make one half-hearted attempt to acquire grant funding and say "see, they won't fund me" while ignoring the fact that, at present, only some 7-10% of proposals are getting funded. And only about 1% are getting funded the first time they are submitted. One does not get funded just because one has a good idea, there are simply too many of them. in addition, success goes up with some prior demonstration that one can actually do good quality science. Does it mean that the research topic is "blocked" if a given investigator doesn't have the track record, can't write a paper or a grant properly? no, and this has nothing to do with topic. It is true that there is a bias in science (again, not specific to MDMA) for funding and publishing work that has an interpretable outcome. Meaning that a bunch of "experiments" which fail to show any effect are not going to fare well. There are good reasons for this; it is all to easy to have an experiment fail to show anything. This is not, however, an impediment to anyone with an ounce of sense who wants to address issues of toxicity threshold, the key being to have good positive control conditions. Any fair minded person can see this because just about every single paper involving MDMA or Ecstasy has one dependent variable or another where there was no effect! The reporting of such non-effects weren't "blocked", by definition.

The bottom line is this. People on the MDMA advocacy side advance a paranoid world view in which (take the US) a right wing prohibitionist political agenda co-opts the government science and health apparatus to rigidly control the conduct of individual scientists to promulgate a propagandistic and untrue picture of MDMA. This is jaw-droppingly laughable to anyone who is involved with biomedical science in general and drug abuse scientists in particular. Do you have any idea what sort of person becomes a scientist in the first place? mulish independence is one of the more common traits. left-of-center politics are a well established fact.

think again bro [[8]] thats right, college degree 49% bush, 49% kerry,...some college 54% bush, 46% kerry, college grads 52% bush, 46% Kerry, and only in post grads did it swing back 44% bush, 55% kerry, to give us the overall average 49% bush & 49% kerry, so even in scientists with post graduate degrees there is only a 10% difference...in addition to that you must realize that hundreds of millions of people outside of america would categorize bush as not only right, but radical right...half of the college educateds in amiland voted extreme right in that election. This business about a liberal academy or a liberal american media is ridiculous, and only exists as an argument within the states, & its proposed by the right to shift things even more right. Most people outside the states have no illusions that the entire country is right leaning, & many democrats in america would be conservatives in europe for instance...and thats fine if the states wants to be right, but dont try and play these illusory games with educated folks from outside the states blackrose, the US as a whole is a right leaning country, about the furthest right in the world, its mainstream media is right leaning, and so is even much of its scientific establishment and many of its academicians...thats OK, yet thats the reality, turn on Amy Goodman from public TV & "Democracy Now" if you want to see left media, otherwise it doesnt exist (if your area even carries her, where i was visiting in the states she came on at midnight when everyone was already to sleep) 83.78.187.33 19:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

of course we're not talking about the general college graduate population are we? We're discussing the people conducting the MDMA-related science. To wit, doctoral degreed scientists and, when it comes right down to it, those who have an independent research lab. why should observing that such individuals tend toward the left-of-center generate such ranting about overall US politics?Blackrose10 23:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

and!...and!!!..it took several homosexual scandals, one in the republican congress!, near 2000 people drowning like rats in New Orleans!!, several high profile corporate corruption trials, including Ken Lay one of the presidents personal friends and top fundraisers & previous chairman of the RNC!!!, major lobbying scandals, including the abramoff scandal with links to many many republicans including the president, & with several republican resignations including Tom DeLay the House Majority Leader!!!!, and...and!!!... a bloody fiasco with 4000 brave american service people and military contractors dead in Iraq!!!!!, and thousands upon thousands of cripples and wounded, & 24/7 daily Iraqi civilian massacres..in short it took a virtual tidal wave to get the americans, including their scientific establishment, to give a miniscule democrat majority in congress, (in the senate that shifts back if even a single dem senator dies!)(if the states wants to be right thats fine, just dont pretend with a straight face to those outside america's borders that it is somehow some liberal bastion, the "left wing media" or "left wing academy" propaganda only works on Americans, in America)(sure there are some liberals in america, after all there are 300 million people, yet unlike Osama Bin Laden, they are "securely contained", amy goodman for instance is "securely contained" 83.78.187.33 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

while it must be fun ranting about US policy, scientists (heck, people employed by some sort of university) are a minority. is this not obvious?Blackrose10 23:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

novel findings and approaches are the best respected career outcomes.

Now as to the "half-false" propaganda. It seems to me that what you are objecting to is mostly the interpretation of data and possible what you see as an attempt to create an inaccurate impression. How is this any different from your concerted effort to question the veracity of scientists, object to every laboratory finding on minimally informed grounds and minimize harm by comparing it to other essentially unrelated categories of risk? This distills my most essential objection to your approach to this entry. That there is much here that is trying to advance a belief, an agenda, even a theological position rather than simply sticking to what is known about MDMA. Sounds like propaganda to me.Blackrose10 02:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont know bro, you have consistently dodged the issue of priorities and the facts that 10 or so people die each year from mdma similar to deaths from peanuts, vrs several degrees of magnitude more for even second hand smoke. The veracity of scientists wasnt questioned, yet since you bring that up why not?...and "every laboratory finding" wasnt either. You have never addressed the multiple lab findings that in recommended dose it is totally harmless. You have never addressed the fact that vast numbers of people die from multiple other drugs, including legal ones, and even people not using are killed from others using. You also consistently dodge responding to issues of high zinc+C vitamin/mineral supplements used in combination with MDMA, and doing studies to acertain the several ways of exactly how to block toxicity, of even large definitely neurotoxic overdoses. You seem to have a paranoid view that anyone not slamming mdma are conspiracy theorists or something, or else you revert to the excuse that they havnt looked at the evidence enough, or pretend that MAPS is somehow a lone crazy organization advocating MDMA for certain medical issues. In the current climate of fear surrounding mdma, to advocate such a thing publicly is no easy task, yet Rick Doblin isnt at all alone. (Maybe you need to read some more chemistry and to look at a few more mdma studies yourself). Ive gone to college with all sorts of other science types next to me, there are all sorts bro, and a bunch of em are intellectual rejects even too, you cant at all generalize about scientists, some are very smart, some aren't so smart. "mulish independence"...think again, half the scientists are slavishly beholden to the status quo, they believe just about anything, and are more concerned with pleasing their superiors or getting funding or jobs than anything else, it just really depends on the scientist. Sorry for my right wing bias!, yet!: Itd be a catastrophe if not for the very bright ones steering the rest in the proper direction.

This is your brain on prohibitionist mdma propaganda

Anyways we know much but not all science is relatively independent, and much of it is good, most scientists whether "right" or "left" are typically good and decent people, and at least they are of above average intelligence hopefully, yet we know for a fact that there are some issues and controversies in some areas, such as drug politics and other areas, some scientists even just get straight up paid off for one side or the other.[[9]] Oh...and ridiculous government propaganda and half false info doesnt exist?, such as mdma drains your spinal fluid? You must be a lay person and not a scientist, as the hallmark of a scientist is being a sceptic, including scepticism of science being always 100% correct, especially on controversial issues. If this is your brain blackrose...this sounds like your brain on propaganda. Someday most all science will be independent and neutral, someday in the future perhaps. Your crying wolf about MDMA when there is a Tyrannosaurus rex devouring people through tobacco, alcohol, and many many other substances, both drugs legal and illegal, and certain chemical products used in mass. Yes abusive or addictive personality types exist in this world, yes if they abuse MDMA it can do some harm to themselves perhaps, yet I'd rather have my neighbors abusing MDMA than alcohol (which damages your brain and multiple body systems) and even beating their wives or other people and running people over in the streets. I'd also rather see them do MDMA than tobacco, altering their brains[[10]] and ruining their lungs, and even in some cases turning into narrow minded paranoid uptight jerks always desperate for their next nicotine fix, and poisoning their neighbors with their second hand smoke. If people abuse instead of use MDMA, sure maybe some aspects of their memory might be somewhat impaired, at least theyll be nice and sweet though. But even heavy abusers remember who they are, how to drive a car, how to cook dinner, in fact they remember most anything they need to remember. But we allow them to choose these and not MDMA? Its attitudes like yours, of deflections from our true problems, that have helped crush the health care systems. People should be free to choose, yet they need good information & accurate propaganda, the tobacco page on wikipedia compared to the MDMA page was ridiculous, MDMA even has established medical uses, yet there wasnt even a mention of the types of numbers of deaths we are seeing with utterly useless tobacco, let alone long detailed sections on the many toxic effects, finally after today at least on the page, we can see the numbers of deaths each year in the states. Anyways, you sound somewhat educated, but to point you in the right direction, your best argument blackrose against MDMA, will be Huxley's insinuated argument in Brave New World, as very soon we will even be able to block toxicty from doses above the recommended dose and have the blocking engineered right into the pill, its actually a rather simple task compared to many. I'll respond to the Huxley argument in another essay...83.79.168.184 21:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

you are projecting a very large number of arguments upon me that i've not made now, aren't you? i'm making no arguments "for" or "against" MDMA and the fact that you think this should be a discussion "for" or "against" MDMA makes the point. This discussion is misplaced in an encylopedia entry. I doubt you have any idea where I stand on the public policy implications for MDMA or any other psychoactive and I've acknowledged tacitly and overtly that I agree MDMA results in far fewer deaths per year than a whole host of other threats including psychoactive drugs. There is no "dodge" involved in suggesting this is the wrong place for a public-policy-implications discussion. Also, I've never said there was no such thing as government propaganda with respect to the dangers of MDMA. Rather I take exception to a consistent perspective that all science in this area is simply a tool of said government propaganda. It doesn't square with available facts, is paranoid and is used cynically, IMO, by pro-MDMA propagandists to advance their agenda. Here's a hint, I'm not a big fan of misrepresentation of science to advance any public policy agenda "for" or "against" MDMA.Blackrose10 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

P:S: as to research blocked, well for starters when it was placed in schedule I instead of schedule III, (against the DEA's own judge's recommendations to place it III), that was a highly effective block to research...83.78.187.33 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

oh my. if this is your definition of "blocked", i really have little to say. if laws and regulation that limit the context in which research may be conducted is "blocking" it, you can say this about 1) any and all animal research and 2) and the vast majority of controlled human research. Even calling in a bunch of undergraduates to push a key on a computer requires IRB approval for goodness sakes. Blackrose10 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

SSRIs

The statement "Some MDMA users administer an SSRI while, or shortly after taking MDMA, in an attempt to prevent possible neurotoxicity. These SSRIs are typically antidepressants such as fluoxetine or sertraline. This is done to prevent dopamine from entering through the serotonin reuptake mechanism, where it is theorized that monoamine oxidase enzymes then break it down into harmful chemicals." under adverse affects is not entirely accurate. An SSRI is a SELECTIVE Serotinin reuptake inhibitor, meaning that it selectively inhibits the reuptake of Serotonin. It does not block the reuptake of dopamine (even though both are monoamine neurotransmitters). I'll try to gather some thoughts and sources to expand accurately on this section. =) Apoptic 03:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And yes, MAO does break down dopamine that is transported back to the presynaptic neuron (via the dopamine reuptake pump), but this is a natural, necessary occurence! Apoptic 03:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that SSRIs block the non-selective uptake of dopamine through the serotonin transporter. But if you check the original publications, you can see that the effect was very small. Cacycle 05:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To expand ever so slightly. The use of "reuptake inhibitor" in SSRI is unfortunate in this particular application. Compounds in this class should perhaps have been termed selective serotonin transporter inhibitors because, as is alluded to here, there is evidence that the serotonin transporter moves dopamine into serotonin terminals. There is work suggesting that this effect underlies toxicity although of course the relative magnitude of the contribution is not well established. So the point which concerns Apoptic is more or less sound. If dopamine transport via the serotonin transporter mediates toxicity, blocking dopamine transport by the serotonin transporter (using a serotonin transporter inhibitor) should be protective. The magnitude of contribution is debatable and there aren't many studies on this but there's nothing wrong with the logic.Blackrose10 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I stand corrected, thank you. Does anyone have reference to a particular good study on SSRI protection from MDMA? I seem only to find studies based on patient subjectivity. =) Apoptic 06:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)