Talk:MDMA/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

For inclusion in section of medical use?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskinesia

---

[quote]MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine), most commonly known by the street names ecstasy or XTC (for more names see the full list), is a synthetic entactogen of the phenethylamine family, whose primary effect is believed to be the stimulation of secretion as well as inhibition of re-uptake of large amounts of serotonin as well as dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain, inducing a general sense of openness, empathy, energy, euphoria, and well-being. [/quote]

The first problem with this statement is that MDMA is never referred to as Ecstacy when trying to buy pure MDMA on the street. If one wants MDMA one asks specifically for MDMA and nothing else. Everyone knows when you buy E you get MDMA (if your lucky) and some other cocktail of sh*t.

Request for archiving fulfilled

I really don't think that archiving request, nor the fulfilling of it, was very wise. __meco 10:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Streetname section

The section on colloquial references is bloated and I have a hard time seeing the actual purpose of it in its current state. Anyone? __meco 20:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Method of Production and Contaminated Pills

This sentence has been removed due to lack of citation :Most blackmarket pills are made in basement labs with household chemicals [citation needed](often containing other products) and are thus dangerous because of their impure content. The information provided by the media, police and the Home Office (UK) suggests that MDMA supplied to Europe is mainly produced in laboratories in Israel and the Netherlands.

In the same section are other unverified statements especially about contaminents and additives, (e.g. cocaine and heroin). I have yet to find any test results showing these two particular contaminants. Cocaine is highly unlikely as it is vastly more expensive than MDMA and such a small amount ingested would have little effect. Similarly for heroin. PLEASE PROVIDE SOURCES. Or the offending parts will be removed. --Dumbo1 17:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You can confirm cocaine and heroin as substituents at: http://www.ecstasydata.org

Personally, I am concerned about the accuracy of the statement:

"Sometimes more dangerous chemicals such as PMA or methamphetamine alone or in combination with MDMA are added to ecstasy tablets."

I am not aware of evidence that meth is more dangerous than MDMA. I think that PMA and Meth should be neutrally referrred to as 'other potentially toxic psychoactives'.

--Mattbagg 06:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

History

I believe much of the alleged history in the article is inaccurate. For example, MDMA was used by Shulgin in the 70s not 60s and he didn't really bring it to public attention, just to the attention of some scientists and a therapist named Leo Zeff. I have made a first pass at editing this section.

--Mattbagg 06:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit removed from front page

"It must be noted that in the U.S., being in possession of "X" amount of ecstasy pills can lead to a conviction of manslaughter, due the risk the someone may die under heavy use of the drug.( Need legal citation/note ) "

I think this spectacular claim submitted by User:Sam, Happy Mancan stay here until it can be verified. __meco 09:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In my state, manufacturing or importing more than 30 kilograms of MDMA, or more than 30 kilograms of a mixture containing is a CAPITAL felony actually punishable by death. See: Florida Statute Title XLVI Chapter 893 Section 193 I find it easy to believe other states have similar laws. Cloaked Dagger 20:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaming discussion

Moving to Ecstasy (drug)

Our policies say that we should use the most common name... why is this article at Methylenedioxymethamphetamine? bogdan 17:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest the best peg to hang this article on would be MDMA. __meco 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

@bogdan. There is a very good reason. MDMA is a precisely defined chemical substance, whereas ecstasy is not. It is a drug that often contains also other amphetamines and in some cases not a trace of MDMA, although sold as E. Most often the producer is the only one who knows what is in it. But indeed, in this article one should sort out everything that belongs to the article Ecstasy. --84.136.234.127 18:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article does not substantiate claims that dilution and specifically contamination is a prevalent phenomenon. Also, the article is about this "precisely defined chemical substance". The fact that it has various other aspects than the chemical / biochemical aspects are sidelines that can easily be dealt with as such within an article about MDMA. It should be noted that communities and authoritative sources such as Erowid, Lycaeum, and indeed Alexander Shulgin, when discussing various social / entheogenic / other aspects all use MDMA as primary reference however noting that other terms exist. __meco 08:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Notes:

I'm finding it a little confusing to read your comment since there are no aticles to merge. There is but this one. The question is merely whether it should reside under the name Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, which it currently does – a name few people are going to recognize as being MDMA/Ecstasy when browsing a category directory for instance, or one of the two alternative names MDMA and Ecstasy, both currently being redirect pages to Methylenedioxymethamphetamine. If we bother to consider what the other Wikipedias have chosen to name their corresponding article we find that 10 have chosen "Ecstasy", 5 have chosen "MDMA" and six I cannot determine due to foreign alphabets, however, judging from the length of the article name I think at most one of those could have chosen "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine". Another comparison shows that LSD is thte main article name whereas Lysergic acid diethylamide and LSD-25 are redirects to that page. When the proper chemical name is as unwieldy as in the case of "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine" I think it's unreasonable to keep the article under its current name. __meco 13:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving unsourced claims to talk page pending references

"The Netherlands is by far the biggest XTC producer in the world. It is estimated that about 80%-90% of all the pills ('knijters', 'pilletjes' or ' piefies' in Dutch) in the world are produced in the Netherlands."

I think we should actively move all unsourced claims and assertions here. I think the fact that we don't often do this is a major reason why the quality of the article has significantly deteriorated since the time it was listed as Good. __meco 15:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Effect

The article stipulates that one of the effects of ecstasy is 'a relieving sense that problems in life are insignificant'. I am not sure this is appropriate; rather, to be more precise, something like 'it is easier to face problems in life', or 'realisation of who we are, what we have lead to a decreased burden of problems of life'. Im just afraid the sentence currently in there doesnt portray the effects of the drugs quite well, and can misinform.

Also, in the same section: 'the feeling that something "tremendously important" or "fundamental and positive" is occurring'. It is put in a way that seems to make that statement sound absurd. --DragonFly31 00:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above (Recent Quality Drop) - this is a good example of the greater problem with which this article now suffers.... Anthony Citrano 22:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the same

"MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine), most commonly known by the street name ecstasy, Thizz, E, beans, or XTC, is a ...

I thought an e tab is not pure MDMA, ecstasy tablets are mainly made of MDMA but most of them also contain Caffeine, Methamphetamine, in some cases, Diphenhydramine, Procaine and I have even heard about tables made with some Ketamine and Pseudo/Ephedrine.

Why is this not mentioned on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaddyC (talk • contribs) 02:59, August 31, 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's a rumour? This article already suffers from all sorts of rumours of what people have heard or believe and unless there's a reliable source to such claims the article should not have to propagate them. __meco 08:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Ecstacy" / "E" is supposed to contain nothing but MDMA, but it is common knowledge that it's buyer beware when you're buying unregulated substances as opposed to real phamaceuticals. Cutting drugs with other substances is hardly anything new. Sometimes you get what you asked for cut with other drugs, sometimes you get something completely different, and sometimes you get nothing at all. --Thoric 00:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and the qualm expressed by PaddyC is as (ir)relevant here as it would be in the article about heroin. This, as you contend, is the principal response (the one I make above would be subsidiary). __meco 16:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Even our most reliable psychoactive information source, erowid, states quite clearly and boldly, "Ecstasy tablets are notoriously impure, often containing chemicals other than MDMA. See Ecstasydata.org for pill testing results." I think this is something that should definitely be mentioned in the article. I would say cite erowid as a source, and also link to Ecstasydata.org. I've also heard of something along the lines of pillreports.com (maybe org instead of com?). I think, if anybody wants to take the time, there's probably plenty of citable things there, or maybe just a link to the site. On a MySpace group all about Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, when discussing the common impurity of Ecstasy, these two websites were linked to, as showing certain pills and their purity, or lack thereof. Not only that, but being an Ecstasy user myself (only three times so far, but still), I know that most users are aware of the fact that impure pills are common. So I believe this should be stated in the article. 4.234.51.41 18:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Devil - as usual - is in the detail. Whether intentionally or not, phrases like "notoriously impure," "common impurity," and "impure pills are common" can be taken to imply a large minority, if not a majority, and this is certainly the angle to most government/anti-drug propaganda. Obviously there are variations from country to country and region to region, but it's significant that one review (AC Parrott, 2004) of past survey results from the UK, the US, the Netherlands, Italy and the Czech republic concluded that, "the most recent surveys suggest... MDMA purity rates of around 90-100%." And even that has to be seen in the context that the similar MDA and MDE/MDEA made up a substantial part of the non-MDMA content. Nick Cooper 23:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Page name

So, I don't much like it here, I would prefer it at Ecstasy (drug) or MDMA. I don't mind which. Anyone want to speak in defence of the article being at the name Methylenedioxymethamphetamine? The "proper wikipedia policy" here would beWikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) (actually a guideline not a policy), which recommends common names where they exist - this would imply moving it. There's more specific naming conventions on Chemistry - is there any section of that which overrides "common names"? Morwen - Talk 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy/guideline to follow would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/General/Naming of drug pages, which states that the International Nonproprietary Name should be used. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not really advice for this context, though is it? It's saying "use ibuprofen not some random trademark" (or dealing with the case that there are two popular scientific names), rather than dealing with the case where the drug has a non-scientific common name, or an abbreviation which is more popular than the full name. 194.66.226.95 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy states: 'Wikipedia policy on naming convention states that, "naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." To that end, the World Health Organization International Nonproprietary Name (INN) forms the basis of this policy.' .. so if it has an INN, that is the name to be used, otherwise the name that 'the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity.' I would say it fits the context. Personally, if there is no INN, maybe MDMA or XTC (I think Europe does know it mainly under that name). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how a name which probably most people would find it almost impossible to spell or even know the actual name of, makes "linking to those articles easy and second nature". This isn't a solely a biochemistry jargon article where this sort of verbosity might be forgiven: it has interest to a far wider audience. 194.66.226.95 18:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I did not say methylenedioxymethamphetamine is the INN name .. the person above asks, what is the policy. This is the policy that we apply to, and to find this article, we use redirects, type MDMA in the search box (or click on the link that I provide), and see where you get (notice the first line '(Redirected from MDMA)')! And there is nothing wrong with an article using a link MDMA (as this paragraph now does have two), you will get at the right spot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So, does anyone want to speak in defence of having the article here? I am declaring my intention to move it in a few days, either to Ecstacy (drug) or to MDMA. I would be happy to discuss the merits and policies.... Morwen - Talk 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I support any of the two alternatives over the current name. __meco 20:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with any name change, as Wikipedia norms are already being applied here. MDMA, as a search term, redirects here, and searching for ecstasy turns up a disambiguation page that will lead one here. And look at another, similar, recreational drug: 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine is not listed as MDA (although searching for MDA will lead you there). Don't change the name, as methylenedioxymethamphetamine is the proper article title, and MDMA (the next logical choice) already redirects users here.--Ryan! 01:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please, don't move pages because 'you don't like it here.' Policy says that the INN name should be used (which may very well be methylenedioxymethamphetamine, but maybe even more difficult, could be '1-(benzo[d][1,3]dioxol-5-yl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine'), so please check what the INN-name of this compound is, and then propose a move to that name. If there is no INN, the first logical choice might be MDMA, which is against policy (abbreviations should not be used as a pagename). The next choice would be Ecstacy, which is already in use as a disambiguation page, so the choice would be between 'methylenedioxymethamphetamine' or 'ecstacy (drug)' .. the latter has exactly the same problem as the first, people might not link correctly to that. Redirects bring you to this page, there is nothing wrong with not being able to remember the name methylenedioxymethamphetamine as a link, just create a link to MDMA or to ecstacy (drug) in articles that need a link to methylenedioxymethamphetamine (as most pages in Wikipedia already do). So I oppose the move. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• I vote move to MDMA or Ecstacy (drug), per Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/General/Naming of drug pages, there is currently no INN, so "naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" would suggest MDMA or ecstacy (I don't currently mind which). Methylenedioxymethamphetamine doesn't seem to me to fit with the whole Wikipedia feel; it is just not accessible, hardly anyone really uses it except to show off. I'm a phamacist and I struggle to remember or spell it! PeteThePill 22:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • So, on the one hand we have the actual naming policy, which says to move, on the other hand we have Dirk who says that the policy says not to move. If Dirk would like justify reading of policy, please do so. Morwen - Talk 14:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting Subjective effects

I think the subjective effects are heartfelt descriptions but are not systematic. They partly overlap each other and are difficult to find citations for. What about something like this instead?:

Effects desired by users include:

• increased positive emotion and decreased negative emotion
• increased sense of well-being
• increased sociability and feelings of closeness or connection with other people (Vollenweider et al. 1998, Greer and Tolbert 1986)
• reduced defensiveness and fear of emotional injury (Greer 1985)
• a sense of increased insightfulness and introspective ability (Shulgin and Shulgin 1991, Greer 1985)

These descriptions are easier to link to citations than the current ones, although some may feel they don't capture the spirit of the current ones. --Mattbagg 19:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Broken link

This link is 404: UK National Drugs Line factsheet on Ecstasy

Dubious citation

A study conducted by Bryan Yamamoto of Boston University alsoshowed that MDMA damages the blood-brain barrier. He gave the drug torats and then injected a dye into their blood that is normally toolarge to cross the blood-brain barrier, yet the dye easily reached thebrain. Even though the rats were given no subsequent doses of ecstasy,newly injected dye could still penetrate the brain 10 weeks later. This dysfunction of the blood-brain barrier exposes the brain totoxins and pathogens. Although Yamamoto does not know exactly how longthe drug's effect lasts in humans, it is estimated that 10 weeks in arat's life corresponds to five to seven human years (Vollmer 2006).13

I have removed this dubious paragraph because I could not find such a study using PubMed. The provided reference refers to a lay press article and is not accessible without paying a fee. Cacycle 21:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Ricaurte had also come under fire for supplying PET scans to the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy that were used in anti-drug literature (Plain Brain/Brain After Ecstasy) that seemed to suggest MDMA created holes in human brains, an implication that critics called misleading. Ricaurte later asked the Agency to change the literature, citing the "poor quality" of the images." lacks a citation and can be found at http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Ecstasy_(drug)#Long-term_effects They do not seem to acknowledge credit so maybe it was copied from here. I can't tell, just though I would say something.

Metabolites?!?

"Metabolites of MDMA that have been identified in humans include 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), 4-hydroxy-3-methoxy-methamphetamine (HMMA), 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyamphetamine (HMA), 3,4-dihydroxyamphetamine (DHA, also called alpha-methyldopamine), 3,4-methylenedioxyphenylacetone (MDP2P), and N-hydroxy-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDOH)."

I would like to find the IPAUC nomeclature of these metabolites. Diagrams of these metabolites would show visibly how it is metabolised.

Using my limited chemical nomenclature and chemsketch:

• HMMA is (2-methoxy-4-[2-(methylamino)propyl]phenol)? SMILES: Oc1ccc(cc1OC)CC(C)NC ?
• HMA (4-(2-aminopropyl)-2-methoxyphenol)? SMILES: Oc1ccc(cc1OC)CC(C)N ?
• DHA (4-(2-aminopropyl)benzene-1,2-diol)? SMILES: Oc1ccc(CC(C)N)cc1O ?
• MDOH (1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-N-hydroxypropan-2-amine)? SMILES: CC(NO)Cc1ccc2OCOc2c1 ?

--x1987x(talk) 02:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Physical Effects" section

I've removed this section, as not only was it rather disjointed and misplaced, but most of the claims were either repetitive of what was already in the article (e.g. jaw-clenching), or asymptomatic in light of the standard references to the effects of MDMA (e.g. "weightlessness" and "tightening of skin under chin"). References to "intoxication" and "drunkenness" only seem plausible in event of excessive - and therefore atypical - consumption. I've also removed the reference elsewhere to "possible muscle aching after usage" as this is widely regarded as a result of dancing continuously while under the influence of MDMA, rather than a direct effect of the MDMA itself (cf. Saunders). Someone who has not been dancing for hours will not experience muscle ache, while someone not on MDMA who has been dancing for hours will experience it. Nick Cooper 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

New Research On Long-Term Negative Effects (or absence of...)

http://www.umcutrecht.nl/research/agenda/2006/10/Ecstasy+leaves+memory+intact.htm

ccasional use of ecstasy (an average of a total of two pills) or frequent cannabis use (several marijuana cigarettes a week over a period of an average of four years) does not lead to long-term abnormalities in memory or ability to concentrate, or related brain activity. These are the main findings in Gerry Jager’s doctoral thesis. She studied the long-term effects of the popular drugs ecstasy and cannabis on brain functions (memory and ability to concentrate) using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Jager will receive her PhD from Utrecht University on October 31. The title of her thesis is, “Functional MRI studies in human ecstasy and cannabis users.”

Don't know when this will be published or where, but it would definitely be worth looking in to in respect to this wiki.

The University and website hosting are both in The Netherlands, so the study will presumably be Dutch. If an abstract is published in English, it would definitely become very relevant to the article. Thank you for alerting us to the study.--Ryan! 03:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Title: Functional MRI studies in human Ecstasy and cannabis users

Author: Jager, G.

Year: 2006

Publisher: Utrecht University

Document type: Dissertation

Full text: The full text of this item will be available after 30-04-2007

http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2006-1031-200808/UUindex.html

Looks like we'll have to wait until end of April. Also looks like it'll be in English. So many students in Utrech and Leiden and Groningen are English speakers and foreign students so don't worry about it being in Dutch. Gaviidae 13:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. —Mets501 (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Methylenedioxymethamphetamine → MDMA — I can't even say methylenedioxymethamphetamine - how can we expect that it could be the most common name (per WP:NC)? I won't argue that this and Ecstasy are different drugs - but, following this article's lead, we'd have to rename Codeine to 7,8-didehydro-4,5-epoxy-3-methoxy-17-methylmorphinan-6-ol! A perfect example of why the "most common name" convention is a key part of WP:NC. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Strong oppose - Preverably no acronyms as name (there may be more things that use the same abbrev, though there is no disambiguation at the moment at MDMA), and the redirect is in place, so a) one can link to MDMA (works perfectly, click on the link!), or type MDMA in the searchbox, you get to the right place. Codeine is named following INN (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/General/Naming of drug pages), apparently methylenedioxymethamphetamine does not have an INN, hence this name is used. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Knowledge of "MDMA" seems widespread, even on a colloquial level, but very few know what it stands for (this is quite apart from the fact that various sources do not use it as a single word). I find the objection to using an acronym unconvincing, since there are plenty of "real world" examples where the acronym is far more widely known and recognised for what it is than the actual phrase it represents (e.g. NTSC, SECAM, MI5, etc.). Nick Cooper 13:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ...LSD, NASA. A WP:RM to move NASA to the full name failed recently. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. There seems at least some doubt as to whether the acronym is much better known, so we should follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) and leave the name spelled out. Andrewa 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. MDMA is an acronym, methylenedioxymethamphetamine is what the acronym stands for. MDMA should redirect to Methylenedioxymethamphetamine as it currently does. "Ecstasy" is a slang term, and should not be used, but is allowed as a redirect to the proper article. If you take a look, all Wikipedia articles are under the full expanded title of the acronym, and the acronym redirects to the proper article. Any that don't are incorrect and should be corrected. Any article that is named by a slang term for which there is proper name is also incorrect and should be corrected. Also, specifically drug related articles should be under the proper generic name of the substance as you would read it on a pill bottle. I can assure you that phamaceutical grade MDMA is not labeled "Ecstasy". --Thoric 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your claim about "all" acronyms redirecting to the "proper" name is clearly incorrect, as the various examples cited above by myself and others demonstrate, and I suspect that any attempt to rename most of them would be met with strong resistance (if they haven't already). Nick Cooper 17:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose MDMA is an acronym. It is also an ambiguous acronym. MDMA may refer to the Museum Domain Management Association (MDMA), Midwest Direct Marketing Association (MDMA), Minnesota Donkey and Mule Association (MDMA), Multithreaded Daemon for Multimedia Access (MDMA), Many Delinquent Modern Anarchists (MDMA), Medical Devices Manufacturers Association (MDMA) and several others. MDMA may one day need to become a disambiguation page. Methylenedioxymethamphetamine is precise and unambiguous. MDMA on the other hand is not. Thus, I oppose this move. Bendono 01:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Personally, I find the redirect arguments unconvincing since it goes both ways - so that's a push. Therefore WP:NC takes precedence and that convention is clear that the most common name should be the article name. If you can find CNN articles and other common world examples where Methyldiowhatever is used in a regular sentence, that would be a more effective argument. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The WP:NC policy does talk about using both the full name and the acronym (abbreviation) and which should preferably be used (citation: "Convention: Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (NATO, laser, radar, and scuba are good examples of acronyms that are commonly thought of as words).". In this case, both MDMA and methylenedioxymethamphetamine are used by BBC and CNN; the former indeed occurring more in a google test, ecstasy occuring way more, for both we can question if it is the name which is more known to the public; I think most people recognise XTC/ecstasy, but I don't know if people know MDMA or methylenedioxymethamphetamine. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have been all for moving it to Ecstasy (drug) but I read folks saying that MDMA and Ecstasy are not 100% the same thing. Also, now that you mention it, both BBC and CNN are good examples of acronym article titles. ;D —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

XTC/Ecstasy are not the same thing, hence not viable as a new name. And I don't see the problem with methylenedioxymethamphetamine, as I said, you don't have to type it. IMHO MDMA is not according to WP:NC. What would be viable is the INN (but I don't know if it has an INN). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add some stats, a quick check on Google returns:

"ecstasy"/"ecstacy" + drug = 1,500,000

"MDMA" + "ecstasy"/"ecstacy" = 1,040,000

"methylenedioxymethamphetamine" = 287,000

"methylenedioxy methamphetamine" = 54,000

"methylenedioxy-n-methamphetamine" = 72,000

Using the abbreviation would, of course, circumvent the fact that there isn't even consistency in the full name. Nick Cooper 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cleanup

Cleanup box just added by somebody. Long-term adverse effects needs massive work.

Please sign your posts on talk pages. Unless somebody (that person or others) comes here to the talk page and says precisely how the article needs cleaning up, the tag should simply be removed IMO.

Far better, of course, for them to have cleaned the article up themselves... discussing proposed changes here first if they appear controversial. Andrewa 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

PMA and methamphetamine are more dangerous than MDMA; potential for neuroprotection with bupropion

On June 22, 2006, MattBagg stated:

Personally, I am concerned about the accuracy of the statement:

"Sometimes more dangerous chemicals such as PMA or methamphetamine alone or in combination with MDMA are added to ecstasy tablets."

I am not aware of evidence that meth is more dangerous than MDMA. I think that PMA and Meth should be neutrally referrred to as 'other potentially toxic psychoactives'.

[end quote]

I can offer fairly good evidence that both PMA and methamphetamine are more dangerous than MDMA. First, case studies have revealed a greater potential for overheating (hyperthermia) with PMA. Overheating due to PMA occurs more frequently than with MDMA, occurs at lower doses than MDMA, and typically is more severe. Here is my reference for the above claims: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/174_09_070501/ling/ling.html

Second, methamphetamine has more addictive potential than MDMA. I think that this should be fairly common knowledge, but if not, you would not have to look far to find references related to meth addiction. In addition, methamphetamine is mentioned in a far higher number of emergency room visits than MDMA. For example, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) statistics for 2004 revealed that MDMA was mentioned in 8,621 emergency room visits, whereas methamphetamine was mentioned in 73,400 emergency room visits. You can find this information here: https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/DAWN2k4ED.pdf (Table 4, p. 24)

Finally, when MDMA is considered alongside a list of legal and illegal drugs, it ranks toward the bottom in terms of overall risk. For example, the UK Select Committee on Science and Technology recently determined that MDMA is an altogether safer drug than heroin, cocaine, alcohol, ketamine, benzodiazepines, amphetamine, tobacco, cannabis, and LSD, to name some. You can find the results of this study here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031we15.htm

One last thing I wanted to mention is that bupropion (Wellbutrin) is an antidepressant which is not considered to be an SSRI. It is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. Previous research has indicated that dopamine uptake inhibitors protect against MDMA serotonin depletion, without having any apparent effect on body temperature. The reference for this can be found here: http://www.maps.org/w3pb/new/1999/1999_shankaran_204_1.pdf

Basically, since bupropion is not an SSRI and instead is a dopamine uptake inhibitor, it has the potential to provide neuroprotection without affecting the positive effects of MDMA. Of course, bupropion specifically administered along with MDMA would be necessary for an even higher degree of certainty in this effect. Personally speaking (yeah, here comes some anecdotal evidence), I have taken Ecstasy (pills purported to be MDMA) several times along with bupropion, with no complications, and an unnoticeable lessening of positive effects.

Okay, signing out.72.147.252.133 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)MDMAresearchguy

There's some good information there, and the references are good. But it's not encyclopedic as is, because it's structured as an argument. We just present the information, we don't structure it in this way.

Thank you for the contribution. I'd encourage you to try to add the encyclopedic information to the article, but now it's here someone else might, that's one of the reasons for having talk pages. And adding any of this without making the article into a POV essay will be quite a challenge. Andrewa 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Any negative user opinions about ecstasy are missing

There are no negative user opinions mentioned in this drug article. The negative long-term effects section is started with sentence "these are debated among scientist" - but this is outdated. Maybe between neurobiologist there were some debate, a long time ago, but between psychiatrists and psychologist things stand strong - MDMA or ecstasy definitely has pleasant primary effects, but it is a drug with all it's negative consequences. THERE'S NO MAIN PROBLEM to take enough water when on ecstasy... this is really funny. Nobody is going to tell you what really happens on ecstasy and what kind of different psychical problems you are starting. (I'm writing this as student of psychology with my own experience of mdma). There is always only this "QUASI-scientific approach" to describe hallucinogens, but things are really simple - nobody needs this DRUG, and EVERYBODY who will take it will suffer the ways he is not able to imagine now. I don't suppose my voice will be heard because of lobby for ecstasy - on every forum they are users who ALWAYS advocate it, and EX-USERS ho hate it. And, there are some more informations from another side: http://ecstasy-effects.com (why THIS is not in links?? - and don't lie, I posted this address before, altough I don't have anything to do with it).

so, to summarize - after common folks read this article, they have 1000x times better view on ecstasy as it is in reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.102.3.94 (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

If by "better view" you mean more realistic, then I agree. There are no real downsides to moderate use of MDMA in humans, as demonstrated by study after study as well as the tens of millions of MDMA users who have neutral or positive feelings about their experiences with the drug. There are huge downsides to addictive abuse of most substances or activities that humans can choose to incorporate into their lives. Sinned 13:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one look at the top page of "Ecstasy Effects" reveals numerous demonstrably false or highly misleading claims. The bottom line is that it is a commercial site "selling" a "recovery programme," and as such cannot be considered an impartial source of information. Nick Cooper 14:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well all i can say is this...you can take ecstacy or not...no one forces u too...u have a choice...the issue really is that many people want to take ecstacy...even have taken it before and thoroughly enjoy its effects without experiencing any negative effects...yet they are not allowed to make their own choices...and so we have this ridiculous situation and battle over the information on it, simply as people arnt allowed to make their own choices over it...thats the root of the problem on this page...and incidently i have never "suffered" from taking ecstacy...that is ridiculous...surely as with anything...even nuts or milk or gluten...some people will "suffer" from taking it...to say everyone will suffer is ridiculous and we can come up with a million signatures stating so from past users...cases of normal standard doses that "suffered" are so much harder to find than people pleased with standard doses...and weve even got ricaurte on record stating experiments with it on humans arnt especially dangerous...there are a million and one chemicals out there more dangerous than this one...this issue is unfortunately influenced by the fact that there are huge sums of money involved on all sides...it could be a major competitor with other things such as tobacco, alcohol, and various drugs...the cocaine lobby doesnt want people using mdma...the tobacco people dont...the beer companies dont...the heroin pushers dont...big pharmas "psychotherapeutics" pushers dont...there is a massive lobby against it...yalls best hope is to get a big pharma on ur side with a "hybrid... MDMA attached to something patantable" drug...and there is great politcal fear for several reasons...fear that people may stop taking their other substances if they came to try mdma...fear that people will think differently afterwards...fear that the chemical can cause major political changes...after my review of the evidence surrounding humans and their favored biochemical imbibings i think really only the first fear has ground...and this just barely...i just dont think any chemical yet created is enough to greatly influence and change a persons thinking and basic personality and way of life...at most they can sway a person...go ahead an e-out cheney and see if theres a difference...no way...anyways wikipedias responsibility is to provide as accurate a picture of mdma as possible under the circumstances so people can make informed choices about the biochemical, have accurate scientific info, and if they choose to use it they use it responsibly and in the manner that is proven most beneficial and pleasant...thats the issue with all chemicals and substances...getting people to behave and act responsibly with them...with some its no easy task...look at worldwide alcohol statistics and the number of abusers and ill effects...its frightening...russias men may be losing 10 years on average from their lifespan...its crazy...yet should we ban alcohol? of course not...first of all we know it doesnt work to use such tactics...tons of people use responsibly...and its even thought to be healthy in moderation...and as people can choose freely whether to take it or not...the information on it is somewhat not quite so polarized...the key to bringing alcohol further towards responsible use isnt prohibition yet is propaganda...its up to ur parents, schools, the media, and ur peers to get u to make appropriate choices...when the government tries to force you it usually ends badly...the governments job is propaganda... not dictation...Benjiwolf 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Animated MDMA molecule Gif

Can someone who is better at the drug boxs than me integrate the spinning MDMA gif?

You can find the code for the .gif in the MDMA History Archive from the Microswitch edit of the same name.

24.144.50.186 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Still no seeing negatives of ecstasy?

Haha :) dear Nick Cooper, well, you know, I have the advantage that I'm not personally interested in ecstasy anymore - as you are. It's very clear that you are at least casual ecstasy user, because logic related to ecstasy seems to be nothing for you. Your nice stylization will change nothing about it.

1) You are ready to condemn some web page with minority opinions, because you find it impartial - maaan, who are you gonna believe then? A drug dealer?! Or current user (e.g. alcoholics never let in "I'm dependent")?! Or a company which has lots of practical cases and goes AGAINST ITSELF by saying "people, don't do it". Do you understand this or are you totally goofy? :) If their main goal were to make money (or they would love mdma), they would be running webpage just like this one. They would be RATIONALIZING any danger behind non-emotional quasi-facts like following:

2) "There are no real downsides to moderate use of MDMA in humans, as demonstrated by study after study." This is plain lie. Only to know ecstasy belongs to metamphetamines is enough. Just look here. Speed is not ecstasy? Ok, here you can read about ecstasy causing 50% memory loss after first experiences with it. This is outdated? Ok - here you have it one more time, frankly and fresh.

3) Neurons oxidization with hydrogene peroxid, loss of memory - every user of ecstasy accepts it, BECAUSE IT'S WORTH IT! Ecstasy is not "neutral" or "somewhat good", no, ecstasy is GREAT! It is the most georgious thing in your life, everyone says it after first time. They even have the feeling they have it under control (of course, otherwise it would not feel good!), and EVENTUALLY experience pure happyness. They can count on it - at least few hours. Morning after they are changed for months, seeing only one side of the coin. I've seen people to be HELL decided to stop their "moderate use" and have seen them in a month saying "Aaaah, yees, I remember... let's move on, well you know I'm kind of crazy HAHA." In Douglas Rushkoff's Kyberia there are ex-users after years of staying clear saying "man, maybe everybody has some sum of happyness.... sometimes I think I deplate mines already with mdma" - and that's exactly the point of psychical suffering.

Nick Cooper, I want now that you admit that drug recovery company saying "don't take drugs" are going against themselves, and definitely don't need to think up facts. And I want you to admit that you lied when you said "There are no real downsides to moderate use of MDMA in humans, as demonstrated by study after study" because I showed you several scientific researches about it. That's all (I'm not dumb to be awaiting that current user admits psychological negatives altough he experiences it).

yours sincerely Vladimir Marcek, czech republic

PS BENJIWOLF: I'm not and expert on goverment and money flows as you are, but I know that existence of one drug is not reason for existence of multiple drugs. Ecstasy can't be used "moderately" (remember, metamphetamine), and if, then maybe in 50x smaller amounts than it is common. Have you seen somebody on ecstasy while you were clear? I believe so. So you must know why it is strictly banned on whole world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.9.253 (talk • contribs)

To:Vladimir in Czech...i appreciate ur concern, yet ur contribution is somewhat reactionary and too emotionally charged and unscientific. One of your links is to methamphetamine and already higher up in this article it clearly establishes MDMA is not crystal meth, in fact the famous retracted article on this issue was exactly a switch of crystal meth for MDMA by Ricaurte, and he was severely chastised for that switch, dont make the same mistake as he did. They are 2 totally different substances and not even in the same category of drug classification...if u can say MDMA is meth than i can say coffee is cocaine...formulas:MDMA C11H15NO2 crystal meth C10H15N...(even if MDMA didnt have oxygen attached and had the same 3 elements yet in a different ratio it would be a totally different substance with possibly entirely different chemical nature)....In fact it isnt so banned, it was legal for a long time in the US, and while not normally legal it is tolerated in many countries, (and it was made illegal mostly worldwide as of pressure from some individuals in the US government)(and the opinion of the DEAs own judge wasnt followed) and as to myself being "clear"...i have only taken MDMA a handful of times in my life...i am almost always "clear"..and anyways i am especially "clear" the few times i have taken MDMA...in fact thats why i have a good opinion of it...i have experienced exceptional clarity while taking it...i have seen people on MDMA...they are basically quite normal...a little lovey dovey or like theyd drunk a few beers...yet greatly interested...more communicative generally...their thoughts and speech isnt impaired like if theyd drunk a few beers...theyr super sweet usually...anyways... i have nowhere seen MDMA causes "50%" memory loss the first time or even after repeated overdoses...as well memory is a complicated variable comprising many things and short term memory is just one aspect of it...Another of your linked articles has a scientist saying people that have used MDMA a few times in their lives DONT show any permanent memory loss or impaired functioning...these studies were with frequent users as well...none of these studies looks at people that use MDMA in combination with antioxidants or utilizing other neuroprotective measures...in any case people can read what they wish and then make their informed choices...in fact thats what people from my part of the world fought for over in ur part...to allow people to make their own choices...please stop trying to meddle in my part of the world and remove our freedoms and ability to make our own choices...im not concerned with what other people voluntarily put in their bodies when they have access to the info about it as long as they dont attack others with an axe like people using alcohol sometimes do...I am concerned with all the toxic chemicals they use that end up in my body from their pollution and that damage all my body systems including mental and reproductive abilities, and that cause mutations in my genetype... and all creatures genetypes for that matter...anyways here is a link for u[1] so stop trying to ban my choice to use MDMA Vlad and i wont mess with ur ability to drink Pilsner Urquell...its a nice beer...tastes nice...i have drunk it a few times...yet i really try not to drink alcohol...its impairs many body systems including the brain and memory...only do studies examining very light use show any possible benefit...so its only usually when im with friends that really drink a lot that i have a beer or two...in fact as i travelled thru lovely slovakia some great slovakians kept buying me beers and alcohol...yet really insisted i drink it...and to be nice i did...yet i had a headache afterwards and it likely did damage to my brain...sincerely...benjiwolf... —Preceding unsigned comment added by benjiwolf (talk • contribs) 14:43, 16 January 2007

Vladimir, your barely-coherent and entirely conjectural ramblings are not worthy of any response other than this one, although you hardly help yourself by throwing quotes at me which I never used. Nick Cooper 14:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir, that isn't science. From the first article you linked to: "Fifteen MDMA users, ranging in age from 17 to 31, participated in the year-long study. Participants of the study took the drug an average of 2.4 times per month." They have no controls in this study, they don't monitor the intake of these users, they don't measure the dosage, they don't measure the purity (how do you know they aren't eating methamphetamine and ketamine?) There's absolutely no evidence that these people ever ingested MDMA, because the researchers did not perform a controlled study. This is about as scientific as conducting a random telephone survey of 15 people. Sinned 05:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

From the second link you pasted, "After 18 months, 59 first-time ecstasy users who had taken six tablets on average and 56 non-users were re-examined with the same techniques and tests. The study found that low doses of ecstasy did not severely damage the serotonergic neurons or affect mood. However, there were indications of subtle changes in cell architecture and decreased blood flow in some brain regions, suggesting prolonged effects from the drug, including some cell damage. In addition, the results showed a decrease in verbal memory performance among low-dose ecstasy users compared to non-users. ". Once again, there are no control groups in these studies. There's no monitoring of the ingestion of the drugs, there's no evidence that they ingested MDMA, there's no measurement of doses, there's no verifiable measurement of frequency of dose. There's not even evidence of any harmful effects, because the only result they measured was a decrease in blood flow in certain brain regions, which for all they know is a positive change. There's no mention of OTHER drugs used during the 18 month time period, not even alcohol use. This isn't science, it's drug war propaganda. Sinned 05:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A Final Response to Vladimir

looked a little more into the last study Vlad quotes, as this one had the most to it, then i saw some problems...study was done in amsterdam, and one of the first things we notice is that the volunteers were at "high risk" for ecstacy use yet never had tried it...what does that mean "high risk"...likely it means they are irresponsible volunteers or hard partiers or something of this nature...and a few of them that really abuse their bodies over that 18 months could really skew those results...and right away we see they might misuse whatever they get a hold of...yet here is where i see the real problem...these people that used "on average 6+ occasions" ...how did they get their MDMA?...from the streets??...on the streets of A-town? if uve ever been there, ull know that there are hundreds of swindlers and pushers selling anything they can find that is cheap to come by and passing it off as "exstacy" or "coke"...they are typically illegal immigrants or hard drug addicts with no incomes other than what they can swindle...(to get actual MDMA one is better off with a full Dutch one knows privately yet even here we still wouldnt know for sure the exact makeup of the pills)...we have no idea what these users ingested, it could have been anything, and after 6+ pills the odds of one being something other than E are very high...i went to a free pill test center in amsterdam and heard from the staff, that there are all sorts of things people are trying to pass off as "XTC" on the streets...anyways this is the problem...these young people are being put at risk as they have no way to aquire real and pure standardized MDMA, as the tests show, and the UKs own parliamentary committee found, that this drug is minimally harmful and less so than alcohol and tobacco...yet millions of young people are put at risk as the way it is handled...instead of accurate and truthful propaganda, and info on how to use it responsibly, sources where it can be acquired in pure form in known and standard dosages, we have a situation where young people have no idea what they are putting in their bodies...they may have found some real MDMA a few times, know they like it and it isnt harmful, and then get fake MDMA on other occasions that in fact does serious harm to them...that situation is criminal...and the responsibility for undoubtedly millions of americans and europeans being slightly poisoned on occasion lies with some in the american government and how they have handled this! We know full well, that in human history people will acquire what they want...making MDMA illegal has compounded its problems, luckily it is innocuous enough so that at least it itself leads to few problems...its the hundreds of adulterations that have led to the more severe toxicity issues...and fire away ur propaganda nancy reagan as u conduct ur "ever so christian astrology seances", there is nothing especially wrong with christianity & astrology, yet some of ur pronouncements tend to sound hypocritical...people will always use the substances they want...ur percentages of drug users goes up and down and up and down...and stays the same...yet we all trust ya when it comes to our bodies as we know how well u handled the AIDs epidemic...and as i see crystal meth as a serious problem, and want this chemicals use to die down, im just not so sure anymore even something clearly of horrendous nature should be made illegal...perhaps the only way the US can fight off the ever increasing meth problem is to legalize it and produce it at low prices while taking over the market to see who is using and then give appropriate treatment...yet the reality is there is no sympathy or compassion for the populace from that quarter and they are content to watch a million tweakers wreck their lives and say "i told u so"...just as they were content to watch a few homosexuals get AIDs and said "i told u so"...and then let disaster unfold into the entire worlds heterosexual population as well...there are other ways to keep the world economy afloat than these types of schemes...so i say even for the worst...tobacco & crystalmeth...we keep it legal...give people the ability to know what they purchase...and give them the most accurate info Benjiwolf 17:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes Nick, it's a science - for everybody except you

Researches I posted before (and I've found them in 5 minutes!) ARE GOOD ENOUGH for American Academy of Neurology, which is an organization counting 20 000 members (let me guess - mostly neurologist), as well as Radiological Society of North America which is including 38 000 professionals in 100 countres. But apparently you are really selective... Actually I'm really surprised that this wiki topic is not run by psychedelic guru from this one-man MAPS company.

that was regarding facts, and now regarding my netiquette - I'm sorry you feel like my post are not worth your grandious answer. But honestly I don't care too much, because I just want to present an ALTERNATIVE view to this peacefull and really-really interesting image of mdma, amphetamine - hallucinogen drug. By the way do you use it? If not, I would like to cite that hallucinogens "cause people to see or experience unusual things outside the range of normal perception". Do you think normal perception and normal reality is not enough for a man? Do you think that natural love TO A PERSON (not caused or manipulated by a drug) is not enough? If you need more than that, I feel sorry for you. MDMA is a drug and nobody needs it - MAYBE except some extremely specialized medical research about it's possible treatment effects in some cases.

benjiwolf: mister, I'll definitely leave you your mdma abuse (whereas I don't need to drink Pilsner Urquelle). But, do you think is reasonable to argue with somebody who compares psychoactive characteristic of alcohol to mdma? Firstly FYI, maybe half of the people who drink alcoholical beverages drink it because of it's taste - wine, beer. How many people use mdma because of it's taste? Next thing, alcohol is not hallucinogen nor amphetamine category. Alcohol can't cause you to fell in love with "1-drum-and-1-tone" music. It doesn't make you hold your hands like a mantis for hours and repeat machine-made movements most of the time. Alcohol is not so sophisticated, and it's intoxication don't feels so superb. Themore, you take even 100x bigger mass amount of alcohol than mdma, and you would hardly feel drunk - so what are you comparing then?! And I'm not interested in any drug war (or Drug War), but if there is any going on, that's only good. This beautiful reality, resp. our natural fantasy gives everybody more then enough opportunities to love and realize themselves. Or do you think we should learn basics of psychedelics on elementary schools? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.9.253 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 19 January 2007

No mate, it seems like its only science to YOU. These studies may be good enough for the "American Academy of Neurology", but I also read an interesting article about pruneing roses that was good enough for the Royal Horticultural Society. Unfortunately, neither have much to do with the argument at hand, dont just go citing random experiments that give little data and dont seem to be well run or prove anything much of interest. Anyway, my head hurts from decyphering your bizzare English. Ciao TSMonk 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

to whoever that was: you are unintelligible...and alcohol in just the US kills 81,000 people each year...MDMA is responsible for 100 or less, or many even say just 10 or less a year...that argument was pathetic!!! alcohol affects ur perception, can even make u see all sorts of things, & do all sorts of stupid things...and its clearly bad for ur english judgeing from ur contribution...anyways im not anti-alcohol use when its responsible...just as im not anti-mdma use when its responsible...the guy in russia that just chopped his wifes head off as he saw tentacles coming out her head...ill betcha he had some vodka in himBenjiwolf 15:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

89.102.9.253 (Vladimir, presumably), I'm at a loss as to understand why you are behaving this way, and in particular why you are singling me out for "answers" you have absolutely no reason to expect, let alone deserve. Rather than respond to anything I have actually said (you seem to have been confused on that score already, having attributed something to me that it is plainly obvious I never said), you have come up with several disjointed and barely coherent rants, "citing" several web-links without actually being clear as to what exactly you're offering them in response to.

You have also jumped to a number of completely unfounded and somewhat amusing "conclusions" about me based on nothing but your own conjecture and prejudice. I could refer you to these two Usenet postings [2] [3], written ten years ago, at a time when I had read a lot about MDMA, without having used it personally. Or this posting [4], just over six year ago, at a time when I had read more about MDMA, without having used it personally, or this one [5], two years ago, by which time I'd read even more about MDMA, without having used it myself, etc., etc., etc. Get the picture? No, you probably don't.... Nick Cooper 16:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Im trying to make this exchange less personal...anyways Vlad "leaving me to my MDMA abuse" was entirely conjectural...and a personal attack...so i returned with the conjecture that he abuses alcohol...vladimir has made some interesting contributions...his english is hard to decipher yet it may be not just as of alcohol use, yet also as hes not a native english speaker...anyways vladamir... its not ur english that ruins ur arguements...it is passable enough to get by...its their content that leads to self-defeatism...yet in this last u made some interesting points about things not really relating specifically to MDMA...such as "do we need anything (supplements) to love a person"...and with this i say hopefully not...hopefully we humans are created to a high enough degree so that we are perfect...yet it is not so..and people clearly use things like alcohol or mdma to break down barriers between themselves...and to experience more social contact...it is very clear from human history that homo sapiens enjoys the use of biochemicals that alter its "natural" mind state...so perhaps then this is indeed "natural"...the homo sapiens using substances/techniques to alter its mental state is this creatures natural state...its not necessary to use biochemical substances to alter ones neurochemical state...some people enjoy meditation and other spritual/religious techniques to attempt altered states of mental functioning...some whip themselves with sticks/chains and walk on coals...yet clearly the majority prefer to use plant substances and derivatives, in addition to whatever else they may do...like cats enjoy catnip...as to reality being beautiful...it indeed is...sometimes so much so that one needs nothing...not even food and water...yet many times it is not so beautiful...and is a nightmare even...(just look at iraq, or a disease ridden area of africa)...and so sometimes people use things like alcohol to escape, and sometimes this leads to abuse...yet anyways from your last response you clearly have a cultural issue that compounds ur abhorrence of MDMA...you seem to dislike the music some mdma users listen to...their dancing...it sounds like a cultural issue to me...and u are desperately looking for evidence to justify your own cultural way of being and put down theirs...yet ive never heard of someone on MDMA attacking and beating their wife...surely it has happened as just chance...yet maybe no, as of the nature of its effect...yet with alcohol i have heard a thousand and one stories of people being beaten...car accidents...all sorts of awful stories that "make this beautiful reality not so beautiful...that turn it to a nightmare even"...millions of these stories...yet anyways prohibitions dont work...its up to the culture to encourage responsible behaviors and responsible alterations of human mental patterns...Benjiwolf 17:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

...and anyways as to taste...alcohol is an acquired taste...it is bitter or burning many times and not everyone likes it...children will spit it out (and of course as its a poison)...people like alcohol as its effects and the culture that encourages its use...they grow to like the taste as of its cultural associations typically, the social interactions it reinforces and the positive times and partying associated with it...people from beer drinking cultures many times dont like wine...and vice versa...yet sometimes they like both or neither...people from mdma taking cultures many times dont like alcohol...and vice versa...yet sometimes they like both or neither...if they are not beating their spouses and running people over on the streets etc. then i say let them choose what they wish...

vladimir's last reply for some time

TSMONK: my english is good enough to let you know that we spell decyphering with an "i".

BENJIWOLF: well that exactly is misleading - facts about physical death are one thing, but to measure SUBJECTIVE effects of ecstasy after you stop using it is another thing. Here the ex-users are the most competent (!) - and tell me where on this page I can find ANY ex-users opinions? Your arguments are the same I used to have as I was a fan of psychedelics. But everybody who messes with drugs will suffer, and I'll not repeat this anymore. Let's call it "my subjective opinion". PS-one more difference compared to beer - alcohol does'n shrink my memory to few seconds before actual moment!

NICK COOPER: ok, you tell me I'm not exactly citing you - I admit it, i just summarize your opinions. But You are NOT AT ALL replying on my key objections: - where are ex-users opinions on this drug in this wiki topic? mine is, it's a REALLY negative thing evetually whatever amounts you take. - why you don't consider this page of a recovery center as reasonalbe facts about negative effects on ecstasy? Why do you even say it's tendential?! They are going against themselves by saing "don't use ecstasy". If it is impartial, it's from their everyday experience! I really must laugh. I'm convincing you that drugs have donwsides! :) - Nobody who is using some drug, don't give you complete information, mostly not the negative ones. - You stated not-so-clearly, that you dont have the experience of mdma. Ok, write about it as much as you want (but it's a BIT inappropiate), but don't be so narcissistic and don't underestimate first person experience of MDMA. - science researches "good enough" for publishing throughout the whole world, are not good enough for you - and just by random, they state facts opposite to your consistently peacefull image of ecstasy.

see you later, you mdma advocating decade-ignorant of negative ex-users opinions. (yes, you can delete this one sentence).

SMILES Nomenclature is confusing

The SMILES entry text for MDMA on the wikipedia page is:

CC(NC)CC1=CC=C(OCO2)C2=C1

However, at PUBCHEM the SMILES for MDMA is:

CC(CC1=CC2=C(C=C1)OCO2)NC

Can someone familiar with this system correct the SMILES entry to reflect the actual substance? I understand that MDMA has isomer's (R and S).

Microswitch 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Microswitch (talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

McDonalds Donalds Massive Anarchy

I have NEVER heard ANYONE ever refer to MDMA as "McDonalds Donalds Massive Anarchy" - so I'm just wondering where that came from?

As a past user of MDMA (just for experimentation purposes), I've heard all kinds of slang being used to describe MDMA but "McDonalds Donalds Massive Anarchy" has never been mentioned.

I think that part of the article needs to be reconsidered, as that is not a popular slang or name for MDMA.

That's just my opinion, but I might be wrong. Maybe that term is used more often in other countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.183.220.44 (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

74.101.121.107

source number 7 does not check out. someone verify its claims or remove it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.121.107 (talk • contribs)