molly is probably the lamest moniker for a drug, ever.
even 'disco biscuits' and 'antifreeze' are better.
LAdazeNYnights
Honestly, I'm just sick and ing tired of people trying to explain to me "no man, it's different. Molly is puurreee mdma. Ecstasy is mixed with adulterants and ."
No, you ing mentally handicapped imbecile, a powder is easier to adulterate by anyone down the line than a pill is. Most pills now a days are e (it seems) and so is most of your 'molly'. If you're eating pure molly that's great, but if you're chewing your teeth out of your skull and can't sleep for the next 9 hours you certainly weren't dosed with mdma crystals. Eat and die.
Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights
Come on, Jack.
You know better than that.
I've never actually tried that. I did take some with a girl once when I was at her place and that may have been her intention when she suggested it, but it just totally kills my sex drive.
Bierheld
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I know it's not the point of the article. I'm just picking up on these bits:
MDMA is good for a very specific purpose: dancing to loud music in dark rooms. Outside of that context, I'm not sure many people advocate choosing it over alcohol.
It's not really a fair comparison anyway since alcohol doesn't come in pill form with a dosage high enough to instantly get someone drunk. Although I agree with the sentiment.
quote:
EDIT: To be more specific, this article paints a very rosy picture of the drug by only discussing the positives and completely avoiding any mention of the negatives. Taking MDMA multiple times in a week causes absolute carnage to your day-to-day life.
Very few people actually show such behaviour, exactly because it requires such a big energy investment. Since it has little in the way of physically addictive properties most people wouldn't use it if they don't feel up to it. Also the setting is important, a party is probably one of the worst places to use it in terms of physical strain and risk management. Basically the highest-risk group is already using it.
quote:
I think it's probably a good thing that it remains a limited, special occasion drug. Unleash it upon a wider public without restrictions of price, access and fear of criminal repercussions and you just know there's a large demographic of consumptive, excessive people who'd probably go nuts and ruin their lives in record timing.
Ideological garbage IMO. Overall usage is probably far more related to culture then availability.
The Netherlands is a good indication, even though marijuana is freely available the actual usage here is far lower then any of the neighbouring countries and just about half of the USA's. It's simply not part of our culture, which is still largely a drinking one.
Also I repeat the notion that this demographic you speak of is already there, I now very few users who haven't used it incredibly irresponsibly for at least some period in their lives. Usually when they're students. Same with alcohol, the vast majority of lives aren't ruined even though they reasonably should be. People tend to have more sense in them then studies give them credit for, they do actually learn.
Besides, XTC isn't even that popular any more with club culture losing it's communal roots in favour of macho individualism. It is no longer cool to look like you're ed up which makes cocaine a far more hip thing to use these days. But I'm rambling now.
Kylle
I would like to try a low dose of mdma, but i don't know where to get it.
I guess i'll have to travel to the Netherlands
Bierheld
If it is ever to be legalised and sold in clubs I would seriously suggest selling it in drinks with low dosage or something similar. I think a lot of people take the full dose without second thoughts even though it's hardly ever necessary. Although I'm not sure it lends itself well to prolonged moderation.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by Bierheld
It's not really a fair comparison anyway since alcohol doesn't come in pill form with a dosage high enough to instantly get someone drunk. Although I agree with the sentiment.
That's my point. The nature of the drug precludes it having the same social elasticity as alcohol. It's much more all-or-nothing in nature.
quote:
Ideological garbage IMO. Overall usage is probably far more related to culture then availability.
The Netherlands is a good indication, even though marijuana is freely available the actual usage here is far lower then any of the neighbouring countries and just about half of the USA's. It's simply not part of our culture, which is still largely a drinking one.
Fuzzy logic. Since the drug culture of the Netherlands is, as you say, different to other countries, the Netherlands itself is not a particularly informative case study of the effects of wide availability of the drug. If you were to compare the Netherlands with another country identical to the Netherlands except for its drug policy, you might be able to draw some conclusions about the consequences of that policy. In other words: you don't really know what's going to happen in a given country until you change the law on drugs and observe the results.
Bierheld
I know it's nothing more then a loose indication, but surely we should have seen a significant rise in usage after the decriminalisation if your theory hold true. It didn't happen, and it didn't happen in Portugal either.
Besides that we also know that young ones like their forbidden fruit. The high usage of other societies may well be partially caused by the illegal status.
Even if it doesn't hold true, there surely are far more effective strategies to combat drug abuse then to forbid and then call it a day.
Kylle
quote:
"While there is little risk of harm in using MDMA, the greatest health risk comes from not knowing what (non-MDMA) adulterants are in black market pills. For some, this has been alleviated by the emergence of online illicit drug marketplaces, which have vendor feedback and user reviews confirming the purity of the drug. "It's been a godsend," says "Malcolm".
This would be great if it weren't for the fact that you would be opening yourself up to being busted for importing controlled substances?
SYSTEM-J
Again, attitudes and culture surrounding marijuana are pretty different to those around MDMA. It's interesting that the Netherlands attract a lot of drug tourists - there are any number of people from my country who have only ever tried marijuana (and other drugs) whilst on holiday in Amsterdam. Again, it's only anecdotal, but it certainly backs up an oft-encountered attitude that people have where they don't use drugs entirely because they're illegal, and exhibit hypocritical and excessive attitudes towards legal vices.
And I don't know if you're just resorting to rote positions by accusing me of being "ideological" or suggesting I think drugs should just be plain "forbidden", but you really need to stop this crude misrepresentation of what I've actually written. There's a big difference between "forbidden" and "limited".
Bierheld
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Again, attitudes and culture surrounding marijuana are pretty different to those around MDMA. It's interesting that the Netherlands attract a lot of drug tourists - there are any number of people from my country who have only ever tried marijuana (and other drugs) whilst on holiday in Amsterdam. Again, it's only anecdotal, but it certainly backs up an oft-encountered attitude that people have where they don't use drugs entirely because they're illegal, and exhibit hypocritical and excessive attitudes towards legal vices.
Regarding tourists, again, if it would have been legal in their countries they probably wouldn't be so interested in it. In fact they probably wouldn't even have gone to Amsterdam. It's a skewed image when you have people purposefully coming here to try it out. Also, just because they tried it when the opportunity presented itself doesn't mean they would have become full blown (ab)users.
quote:
And I don't know if you're just resorting to rote positions by accusing me of being "ideological" or suggesting I think drugs should just be plain "forbidden", but you really need to stop this crude misrepresentation of what I've actually written. There's a big difference between "forbidden" and "limited".
What you wrote is this:
quote:
Unleash it upon a wider public without restrictions of price, access and fear of criminal repercussions and you just know there's a large demographic of consumptive, excessive people who'd probably go nuts and ruin their lives in record timing.
Not only did you explicitly mention criminal repercussions as a contributing factor to limited usage, which I proceeded to try and debunk. It's also a statement very much in line with typical right winged ideologies that makes a rather big assumption regarding the behaviour of a large group of people.
If you want to take that back then that's fine, but were having a discussion here. I don't really see why you have to take things personal, it's a useless and rhetorical approach to weakening my argument.
