|
Ecstasy 'not worse than riding' (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
haha. i bet the only thing e taught you was that you liked kissing men. |
You're confusing the terms "ecstasy" and "high school". |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
haha. i bet the only thing e taught you was that you liked kissing men |
Stop projecting, PKC.
I did, however, learn to make MEGA GURN FACES. Only in the breakdowns though, obviously.
Edit: Lol, I gotta go find some of my old party pics and scan them. LMAO. Gurn baby gurn, disco-biscuit inferno. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Anecdotal evidence implies personal experience, i.e sailing the whole way around the world and deducing that this means it's not flat, as opposed to just theorising.
I too know plenty of veteran pill heads who are outwardly healthy. Look at little closer and you might realise they're not as happy or confident as they seem, or that their memory and concentration aren't what they used to be.
Everyone is different - I agree with you that some people come out the other side of heavy ecstasy usage almost unscathed, but a far greater number are affected in such an insidious, subtle way that they rarely even notice themselves slipping and will happily tell people that their usage has had no ill effects.
A smaller percentage (standard bell curve thing going on here) will be affected quite substantially and find themselves anxious all day, unable to concentrate, and often depressed for no reason. They will no longer be as outgoing socially or as confident as they used to be. Their inner dialogue will increase to a roar every time they're alone. |
so you pretty much just said it's entirely relative THEN put your opinion into the ring... :conf:
ALSO, are you talking about the come-down the day after, or Long-term consequences...???? where's your evidence dude? you're saying they're subtley being affected... according to whom!?!?! and there could be a million reasons why: , it could even just be age taking it's toll (edit: as sushi said), or completely normal fatigue just from going out and dancing a lot and not sleeping heaps (not related to the drug itself kinda thing).
the variables for measuring effects of ecstasy are simply astronomical, i don't think it's safe to claim anything. it's probably not good for you, but neither is binge drinking (which is over 4 drinks or something tiny like that (a figure most of us would achieve after the first hour :p ))
where's your control group?
people who are always healthy and happy and never touch anything bad?
i don't really take pills that much, i just think it's pretty silly saying it's bad for you when
1: it hasn't even been around long enough for anyone to know the long-term effects, and
2: the drug itself changes with each batch doesn't it..?? |
|
|
| Taranis |
The mechanism by which MDMA acts on the brain is very similar to that of methamphetamine, the difference is that MDMA acts more on serotonin and less on dopamine, which leads to less potential for psychological addiction and a different subjective high. It also means that the drug can achieve the desired effect less frequantly (serotonin depletes faster and takes longer to recover, which is why you can't go on an MDMA bender for 3 days the way you can with meth).
The point being that people accept without question that methamphetamine is neurotoxic. They refuse to do the same for MDMA because people like to promote the image it has as a 'safe' drug, and because they enjoy the high too much to want to believe it's damaging them.
Using every 6 months? Probably not going to make a noticeable impact on your mental health. Using every weekend? I imagine it almost certainly will.
The real question is exactly how dangerous is it, how often can it be used without significantly impacting on the user, and to what extent, if at all, does this damage eventually reverse with complete abstinance?
In an ideal world, we'd have answered these questions years ago because science wouldn't have been repressed by the prohibitionist agenda, but sadly with things the way they are we simply don't know.
It makes me sad because there's a real culture of denial about MDMA out there. Too many people are munching pills down like M&M's, without any respect for the drug, because they view it as harmless. By the time they find out it isn't, the damage is already done. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Taranis
The real question is exactly how dangerous is it, how often can it be used without significantly impacting on the user, and to what extent, if at all, does this damage eventually reverse with complete abstinance?
In an ideal world, we'd have answered these questions years ago because science wouldn't have been repressed by the prohibitionist agenda, but sadly with things the way they are we simply don't know.
It makes me sad because there's a real culture of denial about MDMA out there. Too many people are munching pills down like M&M's, without any respect for the drug, because they view it as harmless. By the time they find out it isn't, the damage is already done. |
concur...
i wonder how much people think about the last point though, i think it's a good point about respect for the drug, but yeah, i really think you give people too much credit if you think most people think about what they're doing to themselves.
drugs (legal or no), just like junk food are enjoyable.. people don't want to live forever, and they don't care if it's a little bit bad, as long as it's not instantly fatal (if only because we have all perspective when it comes to our health/future vs present)... we're ing gluttons.
hehe this is like an australian debate :p aussies love to self-mutilate apparently :D |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Drugs adviser says sorry over ecstasy article
The government's drugs adviser last night apologised for saying that the risk in taking ecstasy was no worse than in riding a horse. Home secretary Jacqui Smith had yesterday carpeted Dr David Nutt over comments that emerged 48 hours before his committee was expected to recommend downgrading the drug.
She demanded an apology and told the professor that his comments went beyond the scientific advice she expected from him. "I've spoken to him. I've told him that I was surprised and profoundly disappointed," Smith told MPs yesterday. She said they made light of a serious problem, trivialised the dangers of drugs, showed insensitivity to the families of victims, and sent the wrong message to young people.
Smith's attack on Nutt, the new chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, comes when this week it will publish a report expected to recommend downgrading ecstasy from class A to class B. Smith has made clear she will veto the council's view as she rejected its advice last year not to reclassify cannabis.
Lib Dem MP Evan Harris complained to the Speaker at Smith's attack, describing Nutt as a "distinguished scientist" unable to answer back in parliament for what was set out in a scientific publication. His article in the Journal of Psychopharmacology was written before he became chairman, but picked up in the weekend press.
Ecstasy is the UK's third most popular illicit drug with an estimated 470,000 people using it last year, including 5% of 16- to 24-year-olds. Last night, Nutt apologised saying he had "no intention of trivialising the dangers of ecstasy".
"I am sorry to those who may have been offended by my article. I would like to apologise to those who have lost friends and family due to ecstasy use," he said.
The article, "Equasy", [sic] ironically argued "equine addiction syndrome" accounted for 100 deaths a year, as against 30 a year for ecstasy use. |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...sy-drugs-policy |
|
|
| Taranis |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
concur...
i wonder how much people think about the last point though, i think it's a good point about respect for the drug, but yeah, i really think you give people too much credit if you think most people think about what they're doing to themselves.
drugs (legal or no), just like junk food are enjoyable.. people don't want to live forever, and they don't care if it's a little bit bad, as long as it's not instantly fatal (if only because we have all perspective when it comes to our health/future vs present)... we're ing gluttons.
hehe this is like an australian debate :p aussies love to self-mutilate apparently :D |
We're apparently the biggest consumers of MDMA per capita in the world, so makes sense :p
I think it's a cultural thing. Aussie youth culture really glorifies getting ed up. It's not enough for us to just get high and have fun, we have to get as ed up as possible, on as many substances as possible, for as long as possible, and if you can remember how much fun you had, you weren't trying hard enough.
But yeah that's the whole problem, people don't think about the consequances, even the few who are aware of them. People don't care if they'll be depressed or anxious or cognitively impaired for years afterwards because they wanna have fun 'now'. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Taranis
Aussie youth culture really glorifies getting ed up. |
Unlike what other youth culture? :p |
|
|
| Taranis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Unlike what other youth culture? :p |
I meant even more so than usual hahah. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by ownymcown
The reasoning of the article in the OP may be flawed, but the more important issue is the legality of it. Why make it illegal? Legal drugs have killed far more people (oxies, benzos).
A better analogy is, if you let people jump out of planes (risk taking behavior), why not let them risk their lives with drugs? |
Actually the point of the article!!! :p | quote: | | "This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates - indeed encourages - certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others such as drug use." |
Even the part I quoted in the first post! |
|
|
| ownymcown |
"Ecstasy's long-term effects revealed"
http://www.newscientist.com/article...led.html?page=2
| quote: | THEY called it the second summer of love. Twenty years ago, young people all over the world donned T-shirts emblazoned with smiley faces and danced all night, fuelled by a molecule called MDMA. Most of these clubbers have since given up ecstasy and are sliding into middle age. The question is, has ecstasy given up on them?
Enough time has finally elapsed to start asking if ecstasy damages health in the long term. According to the biggest review ever undertaken, it causes slight memory difficulties and mild depression, but these rarely translate into problems in the real world. While smaller studies show that some individuals have bigger problems, including weakened immunity and larger memory deficits, so far, for most people, ecstasy seems to be nowhere near as harmful over time as you may have been led to believe.
The review was carried out by the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), an independent body that advises the UK government on drug policy. Its headline recommendation is that, based on its harmfulness to individuals and society, MDMA should be downgraded from a class A drug - on a par with heroin and cocaine - to class B, alongside cannabis. |
Dated Feb 11 2009 |
|
|
| snatonsb |
| Does 5htp really work? |
|
|
|
|
