Talk:MDMA/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about MDMA. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I have problems with things throughout this whole article

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As this is a highly controlled drug which is illegal in the United States, unbiased and reputable sources on the subject are hard to find. As this is not a well known subject, we should only trust sources such as science journals and scholarly articles. I have problems with some of our sources.... I think that the information here is a little biased in favor of the drug... 24.13.78.4 04:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Biased in favour of the drug? It's more a matter of other sources not getting the right information and making MDMA out to be more dangerous than it is. Every well-researched resource done by educated people about MDMA shows that it isn't dangerous - because it isn't dangerous.

Saying MDMA isn't dangerous is pretty stupid. Sure, when taken responsibly by educated users there might be next no adverse effects, but this doesn't mean it's not a dangerous drug. There's a risk involved when taking any stimulant, although it may be slight, it should not be ignored or denied. Speaking of 'ecstasy' rather than pure MDMA there's an even bigger risk as you don't know what's in the pill unless you test it (which few people do), it could have all kinds of adulterants in it and you wouldn't know. People look at this website for concise information, so please be careful about what you say.

Government drug websites and "drug facts" sources claim crap like MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine) being similar to methamphetamine (crystal/ice) in both its chemistry and effects - it's complete rubbish.

If you were better informed, you might realise that MDMA is merely methamphetamine with a methylenedioxy ring attached to the benzene, hence, methylenedioxy-methamphetamine. And in fact, it _does_ have a stimulant effect by the same mode of action as meth. Nevertheless, "similar" is not good enough in this case, as it does do a number of things methamphetamine doesn't, and it's a much much weaker stimulant. 60.224.48.152 05:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The fact that mdma can come with adulterants, has little connection to how dangerous actual mdma is. Which it isnt. Illegal drugs are given to us by criminals, not the goverment, hence there not as pure.

I did mention I was talking about ecstasy (the pills sold on the street by drug dealers) rather than pure mdma when I spoke of adulterants. Anyway, are you really trying to tell me that a drug that highly increases body temperature is not dangerous? There's a reason most mdma related deaths are down to severe dehydration (overheating) or overhydration (often as a result of panicking about overheating or trying to get rid of the drymouth side effect.) Sure, you could argue that those deaths might not have occured if the user had sipped water sensibly or drank something that increased sodium levels, but in most cases they wouldn't have happened without the drug either. Any drug that increases heart rate, body temperature or acts on the CNS is dangerous to an extent. In fact, a simple increase in energy is a potentially dangerous effect which could lead to overexertion (dancing all night, the oh so popular tale ring a bell?) In regards to lethal doses (LD50 = 100-300mg/kg) you're right, mdma is relatively safe, however, high doses of mdma can make people almost completely lose their inhibitions (worse than alcohol), become unresponsive and hallucinate. These effects can also play a part in irresponsible actions taken by users. Please note that I'm not biased against the drug, I simply want to point out potentially dangerous effects that could arise from irresponsible ecstasy use.

The body temperature thing is a minor problem. Mdma is a stimulant, meaning it speeds up your cns, but that doesnt mean your body doesnt dehydrate if you overwork. And your right, drinking responsibly, and sodium level etc makes ecstacy a safe drug. Did you know that ecstasy is illegal because ppl do it for fun, or other recreational reasons. Not because you can die from it, i believe only 7-8 deaths can be connected to ecstasy. Prescription medicine is also dangerous, even aspirin causes more deaths and overdoses than ecstasy. But at least they come from a doctor, and with specific guidelines.. ie no more than 2 a day, etc. Otherwise you can overdose and die! Your argument connects dangers of ecstasy by pointing out the mistakes of the inexperienced. Very ridicuous logic.

I wouldn't call it ridiculous logic. I was replying to the comment about how it isn't dangerous, when it clearly is. Obviously it wouldn't cause half as many problems if it could be purchased in a box with clear instructions of use written on the back from the pharmacy, but that wasn't the point being discussed.

The body temperature thing isn't a big deal. Of course there's an inherent danger in almost anything. People should be given the facts and decide their own level of acceptable risk. Is MDMA more dangerous than say skateboarding or cycling?

I don't know how one decides how to define big deal, but repeated studies have shown that the toxicity to the seratonin system resulting from high-dose MDMA use is directly related to the increase in body temperature, ie., animals with artificially lowered body temperatures during MDMA administration do not seem to experience the same damage that occurs in animals exposed to MDMA without these temperature controls. This is not related to hydration. [1] Adrade 20:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar: Hyponatremia as side effect

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Alkivar: this item you keep adding in is totally false, and your casual citations in edits of "FDA statements" are baseless. The FDA has not made any such statements.

First: hyponatremia is hyper-hydration, not dehydration. Opposites.

Second: in the unbelievably rare instances of hyponatremia in patients who have used MDMA, it is due to a patient overhydrating themselves - ingesting fatal amounts of water; not by direct action of the drug.

I disagree. The drug stimulates the part of the hypothalamus that controls the thirst drive. It is a direct result of the drug that you want to drink like a fish. Much like it is the direct result of your immune system making you feel cold and make you want to get a blanket to raise your body temperature giving yourself a fever.

Third: even if the first two parts of your premise held true, it would be logically inconsistent; it would not be a "chronic side effect". Hyponatremia cases are acute, not chronic. It is a result of bad judgment made by a user in a single experience - not as a result of chronic use.

This is akin to saying that totalling a Ferrari is a side effect to chronic alcohol usage. In one in a million instances, it will happen if some moron gets drunk and takes a Ferrari onto Ocean Drive, but no serious medical scholar considers totaled Ferraris to be a side effect of chronic alcohol usage. It is intellectually puddle-deep.

And finally: hyponatremia cannot exist as a chronic condition. A human generally cannot sustain hyponatremia for more than a few hours without severe brain and organ damage.

So please provide verifiable evidence for this false statement, which I know you will not find anywhere, or stop adding it back in. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.172.70.31 (talk • contribs) .

Mostly agreed, hyponatremia is not a direct physiologic consequence of MDMA ingestion. However if documented deaths exist from hyponatremia while under the influence of MDMA it warrants mention in this article, properly cited and contextualized, of course. It should be noted that DWI (and related injuries or death) is, in fact, considered a significant risk of alcohol use/abuse/addiction, despite it being a quite indirect effect of the substance. --Bk0 (Talk) 03:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

agree, and would say hyponatremia is well-treated in the article already. but to suggest that it, or its opposite (dehydration) are side effects relating to chronic use is not supported by the facts. --Anthony Citrano 04:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Freeform Discussion

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I added

As with any drug it is much safer if you do decide to take ecstacy to take it with people who have experienced its effects before, and as it affects your emotions and mental state to such a large extent it would certainly be advisable to take it for the first time with people you can trust.

to the safety advice

I changed "psychoactive substance" to "synthetic drug" because it didn't say anywhere in the article that ecstasy is synthetic.

It is usually synthesized from safrole, a naturally occurring substance.

"I changed "psychoactive substance" to "synthetic drug" because it didn't say anywhere in the article that ecstasy is synthetic."

Well, its synthetic till proven natural. I know of a scientist who believes he might have found MDMA naturally occouring although this is still being verified.

Moved to talk:

FDA language - the FDA did not approve it for "research into the use in patients" - they approved actual administration of the drug to patients in two PTSD programs. I have reverted it to the previous language. If anyone has a beef with this, please read the FDA approval or the IRB protocol. The fact is: the FDA has approved clinical trials with human administration of MDMA, therefore the previous language ("for use in patients") is more accurate than "research into use".

"Despite popular belief, the drug is not very deadly: the LD50 is 100mg/kg or roughly 70 standard quality clandestine pills. (LD50 is the amount of a substance at which half of those will take this amount will die.)

The dangers today is largely believed to be of a more mental aspect. Severe depression is regarded as the most evident."

Note that this could be taken to mean that 25% of those who take 35 pills or approximately 2% of those who take three pills will die. However, there is no requirement that the LD50 scale linearly - it could be 0.005% at three pills or 40% - there's no way to tell from the LD50 alone. Also note that the LD50 tells nothing about other side effects - a hypothetical drug might have an LD50 of 75 pills, but 80% of people who take even one pill are rendered permanently parapalegic.

I agree that the LD50 is unreliable information (especially since its based on the physiology of a rat), but it is true that MDMA is very unlikely to cause death at virtually any imaginable dose. The few deaths that have occurred related to ecstasy consumption have been related to auxiliary factors - severe hepatotoxicity caused by missing liver enzymes or the co-consumption of other drugs. This is not to say that ecstasy doesn't likely cause severe damage to the serotonin distribution system of the brain after administration of large dosages - because it most likely does. --Adrade 10:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

What about other types of "extacsy," such as religious or sexual? F. Lee Horn

If they're worthy of an encyclopedia article, we have articles called "religious ecstasy" or "sexual ecstasy", and move the contents of this to "ecstasy drug" or similar. We then make up a "pointer page" on the parent to this page pointing to the two or three articles. However, we should probably keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Robert Merkel

I realize this, although I seem to see quite a few articles which are not much more than dictionary style definitions. Thank you for the pointers on creating the articles, though. : ) F. Lee Horn

This should really be under MDMA.

No it shouldn't. "Ecstasy" is seldom pure MDMA. Ecstasy can be/is usually a mix of chemicals, the majority of which may or may not be MDMA.

Ecstasy is just the street name of MDMA. It does not matter whether or not it is cut with other things.

There's more to be said about the effects of the drug; it's been called an "empathogen" because of the way it breaks down barriers between people (this is why Shulgin and others were using it in psychotherapy). Also, towards the end of the article it talks about serotonin receptors, but nowhere is it mentioned that MDMA is an SSRI. XTC was another street name. (These are mostly notes to myself; when I get time, and if nobody beats me to it, I'll make these changes...)

Does that mean if I get a prescription for SSRIs from my doctor, I can take enough of them and get ecstacsy-like effects? :) Also, does ecstacsy have any risk of causing serotonin syndrome? -- SJK

No you can't. MDMA does not act like an SSRI. In fact SSRI's counteract the effects of MDMA. You can experience the effect of a high SSRI dose by taking tryptophan.

Well the dosage most people take in street E is way in excess of the usual pharmacological dosage of things like anti-depression drugs. I assume weird stuff would happen if you OD'd on prescription drugs but its not a course I'd recommend. Very few of the E related deaths have been due to overdose, those that weren't ascribed to external factors (too much/little water etc) where usually put down as allergic reactions. The little experimental evidence so far suggests that long term excessive generation of seratonin causes burn out with low seratonin levels when not under the effect of the drug.

SSRI-type anti-depressants should also then cause this burn out.

You can't compare the dosage of MDMA to any SSRI, anymore than you can compare the dosage of one SSRI to another. Each drug has its own threshold and active dose.

I love shulgin...

SSRIs do half of what MDMA does. They inhibit the reuptake of serotonin to the recepters. MDMA does that as well as flooding your brain with serotonin. The result is lots of serotonin in your brain, and your brain is unable to "reuptake" it (i.e. get rid of extra). If you take a bunch of SSRIs you get sick, dizzy, nauseated, lightheaded, with excessive yawning. (I did it when I was 14 to see what would happen. ha.)

Many dangers associated with "ecstacy" are because pressed pills people buy on the street are almost always cut with other substances- amphetamines, MDA, ketamine, caffeine, etc. There are websites where you can look up your pill (the color and mark on it) and see a chemical analysis of its content. There are also pill-testing kits you can buy online.
Sometimes they have no MDMA at all, often substituting MDA, which has very similar effects, but is more likely to induce running around telling everyone you love them. Pure MDMA has a mellow, calm, more rational feeling than pressed pills, which make you feel speedy and overly affectionate. parallax

Some of that is just subjective. A large percentage of street pills are just MDMA.

While some of this is just subjective, "a large percentage of street pills are just MDMA" is only an opinion. I've seen people prepare the powder and i've seen the pills, which are always larger then 100-150milligrams. So "something" is being used as a filler, and dealers are trying to make money so if they can cut other drugs into it to make it (the pills) more addictive, or to make more money, i doubt they would think twice because "the pills wouldnt be pure anymore" they can say anything they want and people will believe it.

It's been reported in some sources that long- (and possibly medium-) term ecstasy use can lead to depression and especially unnatural paranoia, which I don't see mentioned here. Anyone have any reliable information? --Delirium 07:42 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Not really. There are very few proper studies on Ecstasy (and many other illeagal/non-prescription drugs) and its long term effects. Those that are often contridict or are mis-reported in drug education campaigns. However this is not to say that such effects do not occur but the body of eveidence is low compared to other drugs.

A lot of information that users use is anecdotal or hypothesis of experienced professionsals.

Decent research is a general problem with all recreational drugs unfortunatly. Alex

The theory about MDMA causing depression is based on the "comedown" period after use, where serotonin levels drop. In theory repeated use of MDMA would result in the brain reaching a state where it is no longer able to replenish serotonin levels adequately, however there are some ways of negating this.

I have chronic depression, for which I take 100mg of 5-HTP daily. I've found that SSRIs and MAOIs tend to exacerbate my depression, a situation made worse by the side-effects of the drugs - I found I was better off without them. 5-HTP has very few side-effects, none of which I've yet felt, and has thus far been much more effective - unlike before, I'm now able to consciously control the condition.

5-HTP works by increasing the amount of serotonin the brain is able to produce, which means it is much safer than SSRIs since the overdose risk is much less, and it can help 'level out' serotonin production. A serotonin spike caused by a drug like MDMA would therefore not be followed by a trough.

I've been using MDMA on a monthly basis for the past eight months, and so far have had no ill effects - in fact, my depression has become less of a problem. I do not know anyone who uses or has used MDMA who suffers from depression as a result of MDMA use, and in the majority of cases these are people who take 5-HTP alongside MDMA. In some cases, these are people who have been using MDMA for fifteen years or more. 23:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Extremely heavy users can suffer depression. Average users do often find they're actually happier overall.

There actually is quite a bit of literature on the topic of long-term psychoaffective consequences to MDMA use - just search through PubMed - lots of research has been done. Mental disorders in current and former heavy ecstasy MDMA users. - Long term psychiatric and cognitive effects of MDMA use. - Long-term neuropsychiatric consequences of "ecstasy" MDMA: a review. Adrade 20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm rephrasing the "enitre months supply" because as far as I can tell no research that points to the amount dumped, and it will be subjective and related to dose... Alex

Hey, I just wanted to make a note here: I'm going to remove the phrase "notwithstanding the tremendous amount of FUD propagated through the media by well-financed, politically motivated anti-drug groups (including some scientists)." due to its inherently POV nature. Any problems?

The statement is fact.

MDMA is said to have been used during world war II on the Russian Front by the Germans

In light of the recent section renaming does anyone think it would be worth splitting of the Chemistry (and possibly pharmacoligical) bits into an article on MDMA leaving this article to deal with the recreational effects and legal issues? - Alex

Yes, I also feel this article would be more properly titled MDMA (as it is in most medical literature), and to have a disambiguation page of ecstasy point here. It's not like ecstasy is a plant like cannabis. - Chris Marcellino

Actually, they really do need to be separate. Ecstacy and MDMA aren't necessarily the same thing. In the UK MDMA certainly doesn't refer to Ecstacy pills; it refers to pure, crystalline MDMA (which is generally snorted). E is considered a separate drug which happens to contain an amount of MDMA, generally with other active chems - in fact, Ecstacy need not have any MDMA in it at all.

And you think the powder you're buying is pure just because its a powder?

This particular article should be titled Methylene deoxymethamphetamine, because it's about MDMA - not street E. Street E should be given Ecstasy(drug) as ts article. Rarr 22:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. Ecstasy is the street name of MDMA.

Is it a hallucinogen or not?

I've noticed a few back-and-forth edits over whether pure MDMA is a hallucinogen or not, and I don't think this bodes well for the veracity of the article. Can someone get hard, verified, backed up with citations information on this? - Korpios 17:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As a long time user I can tell you MDMA in its pure form is NOT a hallucinogen. MDA and MDM both have visual aspects to them, visual blurring, motion trails, eye twitching, MDMA does not. none of the three has full on visuals like you would expect from something like LSD. Alkivar 06:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the issue to be debated with MDMA is whether or not it causes visual hallucinations. Although visual hallucinations are the most frequently discussed, keep in mind that there are other senses that can be distorted. Aural hallucinations are not uncommon and hallucinations of taste, though rare, do exist.

If distortions of taste and hearing are considered hallucinations, then I don't see why a distortion of touch should be excluded. On that basis I would argue that MDMA falls under the category of 'tactile hallucinogen'. It all boils down to a subjective definition of the term 'hallucinogen'.

But is an enhancement necessarily a distortion? As you say above, it depends on what one means by hallucinate. I agree with the others that MDMA is not a hallucinogen. A hallucination is defined as "a perception of objects with no reality" and I don't think anyone would argue that MDMA can, by itself, cause true hallucinations.

The most common classification is "entactogen". However as far as I know MDMA is the only drug to be classified as such, making the usefulness of the term somewhat dubious. "Hallucinogen" is a clumsy and inaccurate term that unfortunately is widespread. The only recreational drugs that can be meaningfully classified as hallucinogens are the anticholinergic delerients like Datura, belladonna, etc. Bk0 05:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Speaking from experience I can tell you it's possible to hallucinate at high doses (non-lethal overdoses.) Hallucinations are not a primary effect though.

Saftey advice?

I'm minded to remove this again. Apart from some objections to the advice I think its best to point people at the relevant drug information or even advocacy based sites rather than the fluctuating medium of Wikipedia. Anyone got any good reasons why it should stay? - Alex 26 Jul 2003

The information on the effects of the drug are relevant for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While the framing may be inappropriate or the information might should be subsumed elsewhere in the article, that information must remain in the article. Disregarding the fact that well-formed articles are rather stable, what does the "fluctuating medium" of Wikipedia have to do with it? This is no reason why this information should be removed from the article, any more than information in other subjects of scientific study should be removed. - Centrx 01:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I feel the "safety" information should be included, although it should be rephrased more neutrally in terms of potential effects, e.g., what might occur if certain steps are (or are not) taken when using the drug according to some. It should not read as a "How-To" guide. - Korpios 05:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Preparation

Preparation is something that should absolutely be discussed. Especially PROPER methods for binding(pill pressing) using non offensive agents. Not enough people know how to cleanly deal with mdma which is why it's often sold at lesser quality with unknown cuts/bindings. - Gnonymous

I'm not sure if information regarding preparation, usually from Safrole, is allowed or appropriate. - Anonymous

Definitely both allowed and appropriate. prat 23:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Allowable but worth it? If you want to maybe as a seperate article, although I suspect linking to existing sites would be a better course of action. See PHIKAL for proper synthesis instructions. Alex

Re: RTI

should this even be here at all with such specificity and unconfirmedness

There is no doubt who the supplier was. Only their alleged mistake is unconfirmed.

I meant the entire section. I don't think a narrative is appropriate. These aren't news stories, rather facts. If this information would not be appropriate here (disregarding accuracy) twenty years in the future, then it should not be here at all. - Centrx 20:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Intro risk section

The order should be

Real overdoses (direct effect of the compound, therefore first)
Dehydration (common indirect effect)
Water intoxication (this is rather a less common curiosity)

Cacycle 12:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Water Intoxication is the #1 cause of death related to Ecstacy in the USA (other than taking a fatal chemical that isnt MDMA). Every single reported case of death by OD in the USA has been from it. Do the research, I have. Alkivar 17:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See also Leah_Betts and Anna_Wood both of which were reported as "overdoses" but were in fact Water intoxication/Hyponatremia Alkivar 01:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

while i'm at it... got any cases that link to conclusive overdose of 100% pure MDMA? I called the FDA and even they can't point to a specific case that was caused by pure MDMA, and not a combination of other drugs. Alkivar 04:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a scientific paper, Tissue concentrations of MDMA and its metabolite MDA in three fatal cases of overdose (Forensic Sci Int. 2003 Aug 12;135(2):110-4) which discusses 25 fatalities relating to MDMA in Spain. Three of these were studied in-depth, and in a toxicity screen one of the three was free of all other screened drugs of abuse including alcohol (the other two studied also showed signs of benzodiazepine use). So there is a possibility of a relatively 'pure' fatal overdose. However, you are right to say that usually an ecstasy overdose is really a 'polydrug' overdose.

Also, you are right to say that water intoxication is the #1 cause of problems. The same paper I mention says water intoxication / hyponatremia may be compounded by profuse drug-induced diaphoresis (sweat is very rich in sodium) and MDMA inhibition of vasopressin (preventing kidneys from flushing out excess water). Hence, hyponatremia is a real risk even if over-dosers don't drink a huge amount of water; it's not just a "curiosity." -- FirstPrinciples 07:46, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Alkivar: Sorry, I haven't studied the cases like you did. Maybe you could add some more details and numbers into a new 'side effects' or 'fatalities' section of the main article? Maybe we should replace the misleading term water intoxification by something like electrolyte dysregulation. Cacycle 15:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I happen to like the phrase "water intoxification" its a laymans terminology and it does get the point across clearly. If you were to walk up to a random person and use "water intoxification" and "electrolyte disregulation" people would have somewhat of a clue with the first and minimal with the other. besides for a true medical term there is an entry at hyponatremia. Alkivar 01:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With misleading I just meant that you can get a "water intoxification" even without drinking excess water (although I haven't checked that). The term could give users a false feeling of security. Maybe writing about "salt imbalance" instead?

that might be a "more betterer" topic name ;). On another note i think this page should be moved to MDMA and the Ecstasy (drug) page be used more as a list of substances sold as "ecstasy" including DXM/PMA/MDA/MDM/MDMA/etc. and a way to tell them apart. Alkivar 23:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Would you like to make the changes discussed above?

Supply

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It might be worth noting Israel's a big player in the supply. "According to a report issued in 2003 by the U.S. State Department, Israel is at the center of international trafficking in Ecstasy...the most commonly heard estimate is that Israeli criminals control no less than 75 percent of the Ecstasy market in the U.S." (Ha'aretz) 142.177.120.204 18:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Their numbers/estimates are VERY wrong. If Israeli criminals controlled 75 percent of the market I would have encountered at least one in the 12 years i've been going to/promoting/throwing raves. Speaking from first hand knowledge the majority of the supply comes from Europe (mostly from the netherlands, germany, and spain) and passes thru canada before reaching the street in the USA. For a while pills were coming via FedEx! which inevitably led to a major bust. As I recall close to 3 million tabs were caught in just one bust in Boston in 2001, point of origin was The Netherlands, as a result prices of E in New England jumped up to almost double. If one bust could double the price overnight then its obviously more than just a 25% share of the market especially considering this is just in one region. Alkivar 18:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose or agree if I move the page to MDMA?--Sonjaaa 01:09, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

oppose moving it to MDMA. move to Methylene Dioxymethamphetamine (did i spell that right heh). Point the MDMA redirect to the full name. then turn the Ecstasy (drug) into an article on whats sold as "ecstacy" on the street. I havent had the time to request the move. Alkivar 01:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This makes sense. Let's start moving drugs to their chemical names and linking street names and chemical abbreviations to them. Any objection? RadicalHarmony 22:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No objections here. It seems silly that MDMA redirects to its street name. Rarr 00:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

I had made a few edits to the MDMA article which have been reverted.

The reverter (Cacycle) claims that the edits were either factually wrong or annoying. I agree that element links are annoying, and I didn't add any (at least not intentionally).

It's clear that Cacycle has a vast understanding of psychoactive substances - much greater than my own.

However, I feel that the article in its current form has some misleading claims and fairly serious omissions. As far as I know, everything I added was factually correct. I'm particularly suprised at the deletion of the refrence to powder MDMA (or "molly"). Why should the article not contain a refrence to this?

I also take issue with the fact that the refrence to the Johns Hopkins study doesn't mention its retraction until the third paragraph. Also, the actual pharmacokinetics of MDMA are not very clearly explained, and from what I understand, the release of additional Serotonin is a very small and perhaps insignificant part of MDMA's psychoactive effect.

I'd like clarification on which parts of these edits were "factually incorrect."

Hi RadicalHarmony,

MDMA does act by being taken up into the cell and blocking / reversing vesicular transporters. MDMA is not changed in this process. It is degraded, but the metabolites are not active.
For an encyclopedic article it is not that important how you and your friends from a certain small region of the world call powdered MDMA (BTW, the "east coast" of which country?). Please also cite your references for the prevalence, the purity, or the reliability of powdered MDMA - your personal experiences might not be valid in general.
You have obviously confused the study at the University of Manchester (that shows that MDMA can be beneficial in L-DOPA treated Parkinson's Disease patients) with the retracted study at John Hopkins' by Ricaurte.
Sorry for the "annoying" part, this change was actually made by Ugen64 shortly before you edited the article.

The changes made by 68.174.248.159 were either wrong (mechanism of action), redundant (MAPS), or without sources (and without previous reading of this talk page) (risks section).

Cacycle 20:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm - thank you so much for this response. I'm really learning to love WikiPedia.

OK, so, on the first three points:

1) So shouldn't this mechanism of action be mentioned rather than simply stating that it causes a dump of Serotonin? To read this article as is could lead readers to presume that a dose of Serotonin (5-HT) would be the same as a dose of MDMA, as it depicts the primary mechanism as being a flood of Serotonin without mention of the actual chemical reaction and the subsequent effects on other neuro-transmitters.

2) It's quite presumptuous of you to assume that the word "Molly" is a slang among my "friends" in a small part of the world. In my research into drugs and drug culture, I have come across "Molly" many times, and judging by the immense ammount of research you seem to have done, I'm sure you have too. In fact, Molly seems to be, at least as far as I can tell from reading the relevant media and talking to activists around the country, at least as popular a name for MDMA as "ecstasy."

It should also be noted that some kind of binding agent is always neccesary in order to "press" MDMA into a pill form, so that powder MDMA has a higher potential purity level than in pill form. Along with this information it should also be noted that power MDMA is also more easily adulterable at lower levels of the distribution chain and is thus very often adulterated, and is more often adulterated with street drugs than "ecstasy" pills. DanceSafe and EcstasyData have verified this obvious conclusion for years.

3) You are just plain correct here. I read it too fast. Sorry about that.

Interestingly, the IP Address you mention is mine, but those changes were not made from my account. It must have been one of my housemates. We've all discovered WikiPedia at the same time. :)

I'll figure out who it is and urge them to join this discussion.

RadicalHarmony 22:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A user named Alkivar, without participating in this discussion, has re-applied many of the edits (which I originally wrote) that Cacycle felt were in error. I'm not sure what to do at this point - I don't mind if they are suspended until we resolve this. I hope Alkivar will make his or her case here on the discussion board.

One thing that Alkivar didn't re-edit was the mention of powder MDMA ("molly"). I feel this is a crucial part of an encyclopedia article covering MDMA use. In any case, I hope that Cacycle, Alkivar, myself, and all other interested WikiPedians can quickly resolve this situation and finalize these edits one way or another. RadicalHarmony 01:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Radical et al. I do think it's important to mention that MDMA is found in pure powder form, though I've never heard the term 'molly' before (I live on the west coast of the US). A quick search of Erowid does turn up a 4 year old reference to the term as slang for molecule in powder form. Whether the word molly is cited or not I don't think is as important in mentioning that MDMA does exist in powder form. Ekai 03:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I reverted to the wrong version. I had meant to correct some of your changes and leave the rest in my revert, OOPS ;) as for the LDOPA trial in the UK, they've since said that they have not been able to reproduce their results, which leads them to question its validity. ALKIVAR™

03:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alkivar: The mechanism of action was definitely wrong, see above - this was the main reason for disputing. The "molly" parts could have been retained (for goods sake) - but I didn't have the time to re-edit them in after your brutal revert :-) Do you have a link to the problems to reproduce the Parkinson study? Cacycle 09:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll track down the link for you, I read it in a printed journal. ALKIVAR™

17:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to move all chemisty / pharmacology out of the first paragraph and instead create a section called Mechanism of Action or something. Cacycle: Can we at least agree that MDMA works by entering a Serotonin transporter and that subsequently, either via normal Serotonin delivery means or by some kind of "revolving door" effect, the synapse is flooded with Serotonin?

Also, I must insist that some mention of Powder MDMA, whether or not it mentions the word "Molly," be added.

Finally, I have read that 5-HTP might prevent some cases of dopamine-related neurotoxicity by spurring the creation of more Serotonin so that serotonin transporters aren't left vacant. Obviously this doesn't completely preclude the possibility of dopamine toxicty, as a sufficient dose of a SSRI would, but perhaps it's still worth mentioning? I'm not aware of any labratory research of the subject.

Overall, I just don't feel the mechanism of action (and the implications of the conditions of the brain) are very well laid out in a way that most readers will clearly understand at present. Thoughts?

RadicalHarmony 15:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Overdose deaths

I have removed the following edit:

leading to 2600 overdose deaths between 1994 and 1998 (Deaths source: Kaplan & Sadock, A Comprehensive Textbook on Psychiatry, 8th edition, 2005 p.1199).

This would belong to the Effects or risks section. But even then this simple sentences does not make sense. We need more information: How and where were the cases counted? What was causing the deaths? Was it enough to have ecstasy in the blood or in the pocket? Did they count suicides, accidents, and deaths resulting from other risky behaviour? In what relation stands this number to the number of uses and how would that relate to other commonly accepted risks? And so on. Unfortunately I don't have that textbook so that I cannot check that chapter and its primary sources. Cacycle 15:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On rereading, it appears I have picked the wrong Club Drug page for this stat. The actual quote at the end of the MDMA section is: "Of the Club Drugs, methamphetamine is the substance that accounts for the largest share of Drug Abuse Warning Netwrok (DAWN) emergency department mentions and the highest number of deaths (approximately 2600) in the 5 years from 1994 to 1998. MDMA use generated more national concern and media coverage during 1994 to 1998 because young people were disproportionately represented in emergency department visits involving Club Drugs." The chapter ends with 30 references to studies and medical papers, but that's rather much a moot point since a simple search on google will turn up death stats in Britain for MDMA and coroborate the methamphetamine death stats in that period exactly as quoted anyway (along with lots of glowing reviews of altered consciousness by people with no experience or training in determining their long-term personality, memory, creativity or cognitive changes objectively) 24.42.235.224 23:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The US FDA is only able to conclusively link 9 fatalities to MDMA in the US since 1989 (according to my phone call). Thats not to say that there are not other fatalities from MDMA, but that the results were inconclusive as to whether it was other drugs or alcohol etc... that were responsible. ALKIVAR™

02:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that we point out within the first two paragraphs that there have been "several fatal overdoses of MDMA" but if one checks the Aspirin entry there's no mention of the hundreds of annual overdose deaths there... or caffeine. We are a weird people. ;) Perhaps we should go adding that info in?

Certainly a little statement about relative harm in perspective would add something. -SV|t|add 17:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Updates

I've made some large revisions regarding the mechanism of neurotoxicity. It's now pretty well accepted that dopamine is not the causal agent of MDMA-induced neurotoxicity and as such, I've removed it from the page. If anyone wants to add a note about dopamine->H2O2 oxidation as a now-somewhat-defunct idea, I think that would be good. Dopamine's currently-accepted role is in inducing the hyperpyrexia that potentiates (but is not required for) neurotoxicity. --Matro 02:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MDMA is a dangerous drug

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I don't know why people are reverting me in this article...if it's not dangerous why than is it illegal in the United States?--198 02:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Can someone really be that naive?)

That's great logic. Absolutely stunning. By that reasoning, alcohol and tobacco damn well ought to be illegal too. So should bungee jumping, skydiving, driving a car, thunderstorms, and hurricanes. It's illegal for casual use. So are a lot of other drugs; in fact, all prescribed drugs are illegal to take without a prescription. It's illegal to take oxycodone without a prescription. It's illegal to take methadone without a prescription. Neither of these is a dangerous drug if used properly. Note also that the FDA currently says MDMA is safer than Vioxx, Celebrex, or Bextra. (You can be prescribed MDMA under certain circumstances. You can't be prescribed any of the COX-2 inhibitors any more because of serious safety concerns.)

This is not true. You cannot be prescribed MDMA unless you receive it as part of the administration of an approved clinical trial, and these are extremely rare and tightly controlled. Vioxx is unquestionably less controlled than Ecstasy - tests are still being conducted. I actually think that the respondent's logic is slightly off as s/he falsly is assuming that the OP's comment implies that s/he believes that legal drugs must not be dangerous because drugs made illegal are dangerous. Of course, the former cannot be derived from the latter. In defence of the OP, I think that there exist very valid reasons why improper use of MDMA by itself may be dangerous, even though its accute effects do not include physical debilitation or death. Nobody is saying that the same warning does not apply (perhaps even stronger) to alcohol, but what I am saying here is that it does apply to Ecstasy. MDMA's damaging effects on serotonin neurons in the brain at high doses have been well documented in a variety of animal species, and there are really no reasons to believe that these results cannot be extrapolated to humans. Adrade 20:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't take E, I don't particularly encourage anyone to take E, but I sure as hell don't try to hide it when I make blantantly POV edits to articles.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frequently when things are made illegal, it has a lot to do with money.Sandpiper 02:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Think about it. Would certain large companies prefer that you pay a one-time $10 fee for a single pill, or that you spend the next forty years paying for their antianxiety medications?

If MDMA were patentable it would be legal.

Merck held the original patent. [2] Adrade 20:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Be sure to keep in mind that before MDMA was permanently scheduled as Schedule I, there were several appeals to reschedule the drug to Schedule III. There was even a court case involving the improper scheduling of the drug. The judge ruled for the head of the DEA to review and reschedule MDMA, but he refused, and MDMA remained a Schedule I drug. --Damae 09:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Right-hand Table

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I filled in parts of the right-hand table with information from the article. I don't know why no one else bothered to; if there was a reason, please revert or correct the table. Oh, yeah, what is that table called? 05:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I am removing neuroleptic malignant syndrome from the list of potential side-effects. There is no study of which I am aware that links MDMA to the development of this disorder. Any evidence I've seen so far has been from case-studies or anecdotal reports. If someone believes it should be included, would you please include a reference? --Adrade 09:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

International regulation

See http://www.maps.org/dea-mdma/pdf/0165.PDF for the WHO report recommending Schedule I status. Remember me 19:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is correct - the hyperpyrexia associated with excessive MDMA ingestion is the result of a generalised 'serotonin syndrome' - the result of excess levels of serotonin in (probably) both central and peripheral tissue.

"Safety "

I think the "Safety" section is a mix of different things -- it has "Adverse effects", "Risks associated with illegal drugs (e.g. questionable purity)", "Unusual effects that have been associated with MDMA use" and some long-term and short-term effects.

Whether the term "Safety" is appropriate is another question--it is usually used in the context of prescription medications/over-the-counter meds. MDMA isn't like some other illegal drugs... but it isn't what I'd describe as "safe" Nephron