Should MDMA be legalised?

Scroll to see replies

marcusfox

Proven? Really? By what research? Current research indicates there are a number of side effects.

I drink alcohol in moderation. So do millions of people across the globe. Are you saying that they all have permanent brain damage visible to the naked eye?

Marcus

The research that proves your point has been recalled:
Some assertions about the negative health affects of MDMA use are exaggerated, and researchers have been forced to retract their more extreme claims. Dr. George Ricuarte wrote the journal Science on Sept. 12, 2003: "We write to retract our report "Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA ("ecstasy")" (1), following our recent discovery that the drug used to treat all but one animal in that report came from a bottle that contained (+)-methamphetamine instead of the intended drug, (±)MDMA. Notably, (+)-methamphetamine would be expected to produce the same pattern of combined dopaminergic/serotonergic neurotoxicity (2) as that seen in the animals reported in our paper (1)." Source: Ricuarte, George A., Jie Yuan, George Hatzidimitriou, Branden J. Cord, Una D. McCann, "Retraction," Letter to Science Magazine, Sept. 12, 2003, Vol. 31, p. 1479.

Only a few people have had long lasting psycological or physical effects from MDMA. Another problem you may have is that they took a hell of a lot and aren't good studies and that they weren't just taking MDMA.

http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n1/06108neu.html

Reply 21

34253

krisss

MDMA should be legalised. Heres why.

1. In its pure form it is relatively harmless
2. It is very impure in the streets and often mixed with harmful drugs, speed etc, this has led to some deaths with impure tablets. Legalising mdma would regulate it and prevent deaths.
3. It has psychotherapeutic benefits.
4. It leads to love, E isnt a violent drug, unlike alcohol which is a strain on the NHS.

You're right people won't fight on mdma but alcohol putting a strain on the NHS? There was me thinking alcohol was taxed 9bn a year and it's users cost the economy 6bn a year!

Reply 22

marcusfox

Elipsis

For a start the dodgy batch is the fault of prohibition, legality would remove that. People would also know that you need to drink 1 pint of water an hour, not 0 pints not 5 pints but 1. You do realise the odds of dying on it are exactly the same as dying eating peanuts, would you feel responsible for your friends death if you introduced him to peanuts?

Ah, so that makes it alright then! In what way would they know? Instinct perhaps? And if they were drunk? I would need a cite before I can believe that about peanuts, but if I believed that there was a chance he would die if he was misusing illegal peanuts, then yes I would, the same way that a regular user of ecstacy knows it is possible to die from its misuse. Anyway, it's pointless arguing with you, you've already made up your own mind, and so have I. The difference is, mine goes along with current scientific opinion. Which is on what the government, and other governments have based their decisions on when determining whether or not they should prohibit it.

Marcus

Reply 23

marcusfox

Elipsis

The research that proves your point has been recalled: Some assertions about the negative health affects of MDMA use are exaggerated...

Only a few people have had long lasting psycological or physical effects from MDMA. Another problem you may have is that they took a hell of a lot and aren't good studies and that they weren't just taking MDMA.

http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n1/06108neu.html

I see. That's not "proven", that's "gives evidence for". Unless you are going to also argue that Charles Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is also proven. Or are you going to say that the Creationists have proven that the world was made in 6 days using the simple fact that the Bible exists?

However, I think you'll find there is more convincing research that gives evidence that MDMA does have damaging side effects. One I found from a quick Google.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713982186~db=all~jumptype=rss

Although I don't know what you'd find convincing. Evidence that only supports your views I suppose.

Marcus

Reply 24

34253

marcusfox

I just linked you to scientific opinion from MAPS. Scientific opinion created the Lancet report on drugs which ranked it as one of the safest and most benign drugs. The thing is eating a peanut is as dangerous as taking MDMA whether it's legal or not, so they will be undergoing the same risk by doing so. But strangely enough I doubt you'll be looking down your nose at them for eating one? http://www.dancesafe.org/documents/druginfo/risk.php

1 in
100,000

Quite
Low

Ecstasy/MDMA
Amphetamine
Cocaine; GHB
Prescription Drugs
Analgesics
Contraceptive Pill

Dance Parties
Fighting Sports
Snow Sports
Soccer & Rugby
DIY (home)
Sports Spectator

Meningitis
HIV/AIDS
Asthma
Sudden Death Syndrome
Food Poisoning
Cervical Cancer

Airplane Travel
Rail Travel, etc.
Stairs (falling)
Eating (Choking)
Electrocution
Drowning; Fires

Child Abuse
Refusal of Int. Care
Manufacturing (cars)
Passive Smoking
X-rays; Machinery
Homicide; Guns

So you see the risk of death is the same as rail travel, stairs, eating, passive smoking, x-rays... This is how great the risk is without correct information and with the risk of getting a bad pill, imagine how low it could be with legality.

Reply 25

Click11

Hi Marcusfox, I am no expert on this subject however i found the horizon program interesting. It said that the study of the different drugs was done over a two year period and by top scientists. I am not sure how to do a link to the program but the part about MDMA is in the first part of the program 1/5. If you would like to hear what was suggested you can find the clip on youtube by typing "britains most dangerous drugs"

I would be very interested to see what you make of this.

Thank you

Reply 26

34253

marcusfox

I don't know what you'd find convincing? You are taking a bigger risk with your health drinking that's for sure but you do it because you haven't been brainwashed. The brain rebuilds itself after abuse:
http://www.maps.org/media/ricaurte-mccann.html

Reply 27

34253

Click11

It's also published in the government report called 'Making a hash of it'. If a report sponsored by the government on what to do about drugs carried about by top scientists isn't enough then what is? I wouldn't care if it was banned and they also banned alcohol and tobacco, it's just the hypocritical nature of it, they either care about our health or they don't.

Reply 28

nothingspek

No, but you know my stance on drugs.

Reply 29

34253

nothingspek

No, but you know my stance on drugs.

Yeah, you think your moral hatred of drugs should be a legitimate reason for those of us with evidence on our side to be put into prison, which harms us more than drugs ever could.

Reply 30

nothingspek

Elipsis

Yeah, you think your moral hatred of drugs should be a legitimate reason for those of us with evidence on our side to be put into prison, which harms us more than drugs ever could.

I don't have a moral hatred.

Reply 31

marcusfox

I don't have a moral hatred of drugs. Being a chemist, my reasons are based on rational scientific research.

Marcus

Reply 32

34253

nothingspek

I don't have a moral hatred.

Well it certainly isn't based on facts.

Reply 33

marcusfox

Elipsis

Well it certainly isn't based on facts.

Yes of course. All research that disagrees with your point of view is not a fact, and therefore must be wrong.

Marcus

Reply 34

joeydeacon

Don't even get me started on this. They have never done me any harm, whatsoever.

Reply 35

nothingspek

Elipsis

Well it certainly isn't based on facts.

Sorry for conflicting with your "Facts" then.

Reply 36

1721

krisss

and isnt that what the world is about. LOVE.
spread the love... legalise the MDMA.

Reply 37

34253

marcusfox

I don't have a moral hatred of drugs. Being a chemist, my reasons are based on rational scientific research.

Marcus

But there is plenty of rational scientific research on my side. As the New Scientist said the jury is out on this one for a fair few years. However although the scientific knowledge may have come to a stalemate it's enough for me to know that millions and millions of people have taken it over the last 30 odd years and 99.999% of them are fine.

Reply 38

marcusfox

Elipsis

That depends on how you define fine. Just because they're still alive or not seriously brain damaged does not equal fine. And I'm sure that's of some consideration to the friends and family of those that aren't.

Marcus

Reply 39

trance addict

Legalise it .. It's no more dangerous than alcohol yet alcohol is legal. Everything has already been said in this thread.