1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
  1. 23smooches
    From The American College of Neuropsychopharmacology

Comments

  1. thrackelsby
    If I am interpreting this right, it seems to be heartening news. It makes me glad that regulatory authorities in several major countries are authorizing any sort of MDMA/similar compounds experimentation. It's a start on the road to allowing therapeutic usage of psychedelic drugs.
  2. x cynic x
    Therapeutic? Nah, Swim thinks the value of MDMA is much more applicable to recreational usage. All that is necessary to maintain good health is moderation. MDMA is perfectly safe when used on occasion with supplements such as 5-HTP. These doctors simply want to justify the legal status of the drug, as results such as theirs are praised by most of society. If doctors went around saying why MDMA should be legal, they surely would be execrated by all of their Christian friends/family/associates.
  3. thrackelsby
    I am not quite sure what you are saying. This article is refuting claims that:
    A) a single dose of MDMA causes serotonergic neurodegeneration a.k.a. brain damage

    B) MDMA is not able to be used ethically in experimental situations on humans

    MDMA is also being tested as a therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and by all indications, is serving its purpose well. Here's a link to an article concerning it in the Washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112001777.html
  4. 23smooches
    I think moderation, as in once every other month would be good. Other than that, I think even once a month is pushing it. This drug is great for therapy under controlled circumstances, but other than that its definitely not good. Recreational use of any drug is not very good in my opinion though. These are valuble chemicals, and its almost sacreligious to use them for anything but therapy. A good dance session is therapy for me, and its almost spiritual to be feeling the music, and experiencing the complete connection with an entire crowd and bonding, with or without any chemicals. A good time with friends is therapy, and very spiritual, in fact, everything about life is beautiful and spiritual. These chemicals only need to be used to remind swim of that every once in LONG while. Using all the time to feel that way is wrong, swim doesnt need a drug to feel complete ecstasy and connection with the cosmic. If you are using these drugs "recreationally" I think you are misusing them, and you are the reason they are illegal.
    (but swim must admit, mdma is fun as hell!)
  5. entheogensmurf
    Who gets to choose what is and is not ok for recreational usage? Talk about control freak issues. The FACT that we have booze legal, negates everything in regards to any downtalk of other drugs used in recreation. IN case you didn't know: Alcohol is a drug.

    The recreational use may be the therapy in itself. There's recreational use and THEN there is abuse. They are not the same by any means. As horrid as alcohol can be, it's the abuse that is the primary destructor. If people were sticking to 1-2 pints would we see the 300,000+ dead a year from booze? I'd think not, though that is only a guess.

    It's only a smaller population who over do the drug fun in comparison to the whole.

    Setting a restriction of recreational use or condemning it with negativity where a person is having fun and harming none seems a bit religious and overseerian in nature. Punishing the whole for the acts of a few (who might not even abuse to the point they do IF the drug was not illegal) is simply sickening. There needs to be an application of common sense and fairness.

    Some people become deathly ill and die from eating peanuts. While this is not abuse BUT it is an example of a few that cannot consume them. Should we then make peanuts illegal because of the few? Hell no. You make the dangers known on the side.

    The roots and current reason for the illegal status of drugs has little to do with recreational usage as a whole. It's about control and fear of freethinking. We just happen to be more exposed to the downsides of abuse as that is all we hear about in the media. The front page gleams with reports on teens taking ONE pill of ecstasy and dying but they fail to mention that ecstasy does not equal MDMA only. If they do mention MDMA: they then explain how dangerous the drug due to impurity issues; however, the drug wouldn't be impure if it was legal. In fact, as a whole, it's the illegal status that killed the teen. The law and lawmakers are more responsible than anyone else.
    They didn't force the teen to take the pill but the product would have been clean and in theory the silly teen could have taken a small dose to check for reactions.

    Lets have a front page for all of the acetaminophen complications:
    The National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) indicates that there are an average of 26,256 hospitalizations per year related to acetaminophen overdoses. Although the TESS data best indicate the time trend for acetaminophen-related mortality, the best estimate of the average number of deaths per year related to acetaminophen is 458, according to death certificate data. Acetaminophen is the leading cause of toxic drug ingestions in the U.S. By any measure, this is a major national health problem.

    If that's all we saw in relation to acetaminophen on reports, that would slowly warp the minds of laypeople and individuals who simply don't care to research the validity of the drug, into thinking this medicine is evil.

    When you purchase hair dye you are suppose to place a small dab on your arm or wherever to make sure there isn't some horrendous allergic reaction. It's that simple. Because of the laws against recreational drug use these things are sought out less. Who cares if a person is stupid enough to not test for allergies. That's their own undoing.

    Booze and cigarettes would be illegal if it was based on abuse and danger... you know, the things that actually harm others and self.

    While I do believe many people do ABUSE MDMA and may in fact be inflicting some damage to their brain, there seems to be enough data out there that would counter these problems.
    It's not common knowledge that a simple pre/post dose of certain antioxidants along with other measures reduce possible damage. Why is that? Because it's illegal. We should have kits at the store that are specifically designed in respect to harm reduction. Instead we have people (I usually assume teens) taking high doses (which is moronic regardless if pure MDMA or cut) and exposing themselves to the elements that contribute to an overheated brain.

    Why do we not have these over the counter preventative measure kits at the store? Because, according to the twits in control "This sends the wrong message. It says we have given up and lost the war." Tripe such as that.

    GHB would be a great replacement for booze if we had a tight regulation on dosage control. This meaning that a drugtender (bartender) provides exact doses to prevent an... overdose and what have you. GHB can be deadly of course, but this is more of overdosing related issues. Yet again to call upon the indisputable example of alcohol. Too much = dead or other naughty things. Ketamine used correctly is a better alternative than what is legal as well.

    So, I don't agree with you.
  6. 23smooches
    . . We are all entitled to our opinion, and I gave my opinion. All I was doing was expressing how I felt about recreational usage. If you have a problem with that, you need to check your head, because I dont care what anyone does with drugs, lifes pretty good without them though.
    You didnt have to write an essay on why your right and Im wrong. Thats your issue though. Relax please.:) and smile.
    it seems like you put alot of effort into that reply, maybe I said something that offended you? Im sorry, and Im not a control freak, Im pretty far from it.

    PS, I didnt even read that shit because it was too long and felt driven by your bitterness and more or less like you just wanted to sound smart.
  7. chemlove
    i agree w/ the assumption though not fully proven that MDMA is more recreations then medicinal. There seems to be a faction that believes MDMA is a great therapy tool to help people open up and such. I hope well intended research is continued on this compound. Because i think its very evident that the research in the 80's and early 90's was completely flawed and self serving for the Gov and the DEA.
  8. TheBlackPope
    Wow, you are a generalizing moron.

    Many, many, many christians are involved in drugs to one degree or another.

    I myself have a huge cross tattooed on my body to signify my relationship w/ Christ. I promote drugs relentlessly. I thought this forum was more open minded than that. Wow.
  9. Euphoric
    There will still be counterfeit drugs and production errors. Purity would likely improve but it would remain imperfect.
  10. entheogensmurf
    Sure, your life (perhaps you are more along the lines of chemically balanced) is fine without rec drug use. The thing is, some people self medicate. There are boozers that take this route at times; though, not always being fully conscious of their choice in alleviation. I will never deny some or many are simply gluttonous pleasure seekers but the others found a way to break out of their apathy or constant onslaught of unpleasant existence. When a human brain is not 'balanced' within the typical range, they may be under par in well being. There are other drugs but medications under the class of SSRI (and other antidepressants) have negative side effects as well. Additionally they may have never sought help, lack the medical insurance, etc...

    IF Zoloft, Prozac and other such drugs were illegal and people used them to feel good... that would be considered rec use and then looked down upon for their method of resolution or at least balance.

    Life is not always good without drugs for some people. Their recreation may be their medication. That and it still seems silly to be jaundiced towards recreational drug use when 'they' are not harming others.

    MDMA in the doses for therapy are lower than rec doses. While DXM is not used for therapy, the same line applies. In low doses DXM is used for medical reasons and in high doses it's used to get high (in general).
    MDMA 'was' being used for therapy back then and they just recently began more trials. I believe the current victory was an ok to perform MDMA testing on soldiers with PTSD. And I believe in the olden days PTSD was referred to as shellshock :)

    Well, Christians by default are ignorant and brainwashed. ANYTHING that takes away love from their disgustingly sexist God is repugnant in His eyes. Just read the Bible, it's plainly stated.

    I don't recall ever reading a report of bunk pills when MDMA/Ecstasy was legal. Surly it could have happened. However, it was only during the aftermath of the scheduling that we saw cut pills as a norm. There wasn't a market for fake pills as the chemicals were readily available and plenty of chemists willing to produce the drug without the fear of prison.
    Also, if it was legal, MDMA could be produced through heavily regulated labs where quality testing is required. Instead of some guy/gal that is a chemist and knows how to follow instructions, we'd have professionals outputting the hug drug.

    Not to mention that we might have more exacting and non biased based research to help people from fcking themselves over.
  11. TheBlackPope
    Your a very closed minded, ignorant and angry individual. Just as not all black people steal and murder, not all Christians folllow the OLD TESTAMENT bible to the tea.
  12. 23smooches
    I agree entirely. EntheogenSmurf seems to be harboring some unhealthy bitterness towards men, God, and Christians, and it is making his/her posts biased. It became clear as soon as entheogensmurf called me a control freak that there was something wrong. Lets agree to disagree if we must. An excellent example is that Some black people murder and steal, most dont. That doesnt mean that we will label black people in america as criminals. We will also not label all christians as closed minded. Here comes the Irony, Some "liberal minded" drug advocates that have contributed to this discussion are just as closed minded, and are in addition angry about something or other.. We will not label all liberals and "open-minded" individuals as angry, bitter and biased because of these few individuals.
    It is simply not healthy to label any group of people in a negative way because of their beliefs. Acceptance is peace, and the rave culture is all about PLUR. I am not putting down your god, or your beliefs, so please grow up, and dont criticize anyone else until you are perect yourself. And once again, chill the fuck out.
    That is what I call hipocrisy and Irony. "May Lilith Smile Upon You"
    If I started criticizing you or Lilith, or women, and started talking about how illegitamate, sexist, and biased your beliefs are, would you be pissed? Would I be wrong? YES.
    I have grown up Christian, women are highly reguarded and equal to men in every aspect. It is not even an issue. This is not the stone ages. It seems like you are the one who is stuck in stone age like thinking.
    Generalizing anything is never right.
  13. TheBlackPope
    Huh, I thought Plur was only a SoCal thing. Is that nation wide?

    [edit]
    Nevermind, just saw you were from Cali.
    [/edit]
  14. ticketmaster
    p.l.u.r. is world wide....

    but mostly for under age ravers, other wise it stands for...

    "P"etaphile "L"oves "U"nderage "R"avers....

    :vibes:

    Namaste'
  15. 23smooches
    Yeah Im from L.A. but I thought it was world wide, or at least nation wide.

    Yeah, raver kids... lol raves can be pretty nasty, but you can meet some really cool people there.
  16. Euphoric
    I agree quality will go up, but there are lots of perfectly legal medications and supplements that are counterfeit because there is profit in placebos/cut product/different chems. There is counterfeit tylenol. I've read about busts of fake pharmacy (prescription only and otherwise) pills. Not a good thing when a man dies because he thought his heart medication would work.
  17. Heretic.Ape.
    If you wish to debate religion etc, please do so in an appropriate thread and without the flaming.
  18. entheogensmurf
    Thanks for sharing. I didn't know we had bunk Tylenol out there. That appears to be a good example of how fully legalized and produced drugs does not equal pure product all the time. And, of course I know that doesn't mean "oh no! We must test all Tylenol." It simply means it can happen, in theory. Online pharmacies would be more prone to this vile scam I'd imagine.
  19. stoneinfocus
    this article is quite positive, as I think tat 4mg/kg bodyweight is a huge dose. In human only the fine embedded axons are damaged by huge repated doses and this only through oxidative damage by H2O2 and NH3.

    4mg/KgBW is 280mg and I doubt that this can be easily had in pure form in one night or several times.

    Swim was happy with 30mg pure stuff, as a therapeutic dose and I think, that many pills are cocktails with psychedelic amphetamines, amphetamines and alike, to get the optics into your "eve" or a more euphoric feel in the user.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!