{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

{{WikiProject Pharmacology|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}}

{{WikiProject PDD|class=B|nested=yes}}

{{WikiProject Rave|class=B|nested=yes}}

{{chemicals|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}}

{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B|nested=yes}}

{{talkheaderlong}}

{{DelistedGA}}

{{Archive box|

*[[Talk:Methylenedioxymethamphetamine/Archive01|Archive 1]]

*[[Talk:Methylenedioxymethamphetamine/Archive02|Archive 2]]

*[[Talk:Methylenedioxymethamphetamine/Archive03|Archive 3]]

|}}

==ball and stick model==

the way the molecule rendered it looks like the orbital geometry is wrong on the nitrogen for one of the enantiomers <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/129.133.142.149|129.133.142.149]] ([[User talk:129.133.142.149|talk]]) 08:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The nitrogen in amines is usually considered tetrahedral (''sp''³) but in most simple compounds does not have a stable configuration: it inverts rapidly (via an ''sp''² intermediate where the lone-pair occupies the ''p'') at room temperature (see [[Chirality (chemistry)#Chirality of amines]] for more details). So, except under conditions where the N configuration is frozen or at least being studied directly, it is not usually considered a stereogenic center in casual conversation about the compound. Thus, the secondary C where the methyl is attached is the only "permanent" stereocenter and the two ball'n'stick structures represent the enantiomers of the compound with respect to it. OTOH, it ''is'' confusing, and I think would certainly be improved by redrawing the N inverted also, and/or adding an explicit note about amine lone-pair inversion. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 10:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

==NPOV in "toxic/dangerous effects" section?==

Though it's not a glaring flaw, the toxic/dangerous effects section has a very optimistic and supportive tone to it. Although it ''is'' only using what I'll assume are factual figures, it presents them in a skewed way.

:I agree, for an illegal drug it makes it look kinda like it was no big deal[[User:Avatar of Nothing|Avatar of Nothing]] 23:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Avatar of nothing

::Legal status has absolutely no bearing on potential harm, and is invariably completely arbitrary. e.g. see [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm] [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] 07:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

:Agreed, anyways, it wouldn't be the first time the US Govt Was behind the times [[User:Avatar of Nothing|Avatar of Nothing]] 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Avatar of Nothing

I think that the total lack of information about the possibile negative effects of MDMA use is ''completely'' inexcusable, irresponsible and most importantly incorrect. No, whether or not a substance is illegal has very little relationship to how dangerous it is. It has nothing to do with how behind the times the US government is, their policies and actions have little to do with research findings on safety. The truth can be found somewhere between the kind of pro-MDMA propaganda in this article and the drug war rubbish the government puts out. MDMA isn't some evil drug that fries holes into your brain, nor is its use risk free, an attitude that this article seems to have been written to encourage. Is there a problem with knee jerk pro-MDMA folks reverting any change containing negative information about MDMA use, whether or not it is truthful, supported and sourced? Is this a Scientology article or something? The current article isn't good for anyone- it doesn't inform those doing research on MDMA and its effect of real possible risks, it doesn't help MDMA users in harm reduction, but worst of all it doesn't present the truth. --[[User:Revaaron|Revaaron]] 01:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

:I think labeling this article as "propaganda" is inappropriate, particularly since you have not offered any suggestions as to where such propaganda can be found in the article. The health risks are duly noted in the article, as well as the "Effects" article linked in that section. Your claim about this article's use in "research" is specious: as an encyclopedia, we cite published research, not the other way around. Do you have constructive suggestions for improvement? [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 02:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

:I have made some constructive improvements. This article was entirely ignorant of the past 10 years of MDMA research and I have been careful and put a few hours into updating the risk and safety sections (which seem like they should be callapsed into one section). I cited several sources as well. I am not sure if the downplaying of MDMA's negative effects was propoganda and misinformation or if it was ill-informed wishful thinking- anyway it wasn't factual and that is what I have attempted to correct. This will always be a difficult compromise when users and researchers contribute to the same wiki-entry. Users have a tendency to be in denial of the costs while researchers have a tendency to be moralistic and not interested in the [potential] benefits. [[User:jben78wi|jben78wi]] 6:08, 15 July 2007 (CST)

::I'm not particularly impressed with your edits, since you seem to be making a number of claims that can't be checked directly, due to the absence of free links to the articles you're citing. In addition, what is available in article abstracts don't always seem to corroborate the interpretation you place on them. Few people would claim that MDMA is risk free, any more than they would claim alcohol is risk free, but you seem to be making great play of citing sources that document quite marginal effects and blowing them out of all context, as if the effect someone drinking a bottle of absinthe every day has any bearing on the potential effect of one glass a wine a week on someone else. Considering the levels of MDMA consumption in certain countries - even what seem to be conservative official estimates - there seem to be remarkably few "casualties." [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] 12:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I concur, and I'll also note that much of this information is ''already present'' in [[Effects of MDMA on the human body]], a fairly well-cited article about the specific physiological effects of MDMA. Everyone keeps complaining about the lack of info here, but no one's even edited the "Effects" article in almost a month. Please try to add highly specific health information to "Effects" instead of here. This article is already way too long, and it needs to cover more than just health risks. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

::Researchers tend to have an interest in getting grant money as well, much more so than being moralistic. --[[User:Funkbrother3000|Funkbrother3000]] 03:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:::This is an [[Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial|ad hominem circumstantial]] argument. In the absence of specific evidence of fraudulent or biased research, we should endeavor to give proper weight to peer-reviewed studies, without underhanded accusations of bias towards a POV. A source of funding, alone, is not evidence of bias. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

::On [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]]'s comments:

::1)These claims can be directly checked, any research-level university library will carry these journals and as a tax-paying citizen you are welcome to visit the library. It is OK to cite peer-reviewed academic articles on wiki-pedia, just as it is okay to cite books that are currently under copyright.

::2) On "marginal effects": The effects are not "marginal" effects; massive axonal death of serotonergic neurons is a very acute and specific effect. I think what you mean is "unknown" effects, because the data only suggests that these biological effects may have correlate mental effects in humans.

::3) On "bottle of absinthe every day": The Fischer study uses a single dose on a squirrel monkey. Again the data is suggestive. I reworded some of what I wrote to make it more conditional.

::4) On "there seem to be remarkably few 'casualties.'": How do you define casualty? These effects are subtle!! I can remove a non-negligible part of your frontal-lobe (where these 5-HT neurons lie) and you and many others will not notice the difference. The potential effects of axonal death here are not going to lead to physical health problems, they will adversely affect memory and decision making in subtle ways.

::On [[User:Simishag|Simishag]]'s comments:

::1) I didn't know the article [[Effects of MDMA on the human body]] existed. I agree that most of these details can be rolled into that article, but I also think there should be a link to that article at the beginning of the MDMA article and at least a summary of it in the MDMA article, because frankly these effects were not mentioned in the safety section of the MDMA article.

:: 2) thanks for moderating.

:: On [[User:Funkbrother3000|Funkbrother3000]]'s comments:

::The point on a researcher's interest in grant money. Yes this motivation is an issue but the peer-review process and replication studies usually take care of this. Generally studies with contaminated data come to the fore eventually... for example it was revealed that in one study on dopamine neurons (Principal Investigator: GA Ricaurte) used data from animals administered methamphetamines and not MDMA. It is notable that the authors themselves brought up the issue after their results failed to replicate- it is much worse to have another researcher discover your mistake than for you to discover it yourself.

::[[User:jben78wi|jben78wi]] 9:52, 21 July 2007 (CST)

:::On your comments to me:

:::1) Please don't make patronising assumptions of what people have access to based on what may be true where you live, but is not necessarily so for every user of English-language Wikipedia.

:::2), 3) & 4) Whatever they may mean in a specific scientific context, "chronic harm" and "subtle effects" do not sit well together with most people. "Unknown" is a great red herring, but the fact is that MDMA use has been widespread in certain countries for the last twenty years, with more sporadic use going back a further twenty years. To take a specific example, the [[Home Office]]'s (very conservative) estimate is that it was used by just over half a million people aged 16-59 in England & Wales in the 2005/06 financial year, and that 2.3 million had ever used it. In the full possible range of usage from a single dose to multiples over many years, this has not manifested itself in widespread physical or mental health (or indeed social) problems attributable to MDMA use.

:::On your comments to [[User:Simishag|Simishag]]:

:::1) The effects article was already appropriately linked on this page when you made your edits. [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] 08:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

:::1) The effects article was already appropriately linked on this page when you made your edits. [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] 08:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

::::To [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]]: Again, it is OK to cite peer-reviewed academic articles on wiki-pedia that are no free to all, just as it is okay to cite books that are currently under copyright. I understand that "chronic harm" and "subtle effects" do not sit well together with most people, but their specific scientific context matters. A drug can cause chronic physical harm and have subtle effects at the same time. Let me explain: chronic physical harm as opposed to acute physical harm (like overdose and death) means that the physical effects can show up from chronic use, e.g. there is more axonal death in serotonernergic neurons of the orbitofrontal cortex through repeated administration of MDMA to laboratory animals and less regeneration after withdrawal of the drug. Now the behavioral effects (not the physical effects) are subtle, an untrained eye will not notice a difference in behavior in these laboratory animals and I am not aware of any study that has investigated the behavioral changes in these animals after prolonged withdrawal. Likewise in humans, it is reasonable to assume there will be chronic physical harm (axonal death), but we know that the behavioral effects in humans are subtle and only obvious to the undiscerning eye in the most extreme cases of MDMA abuse. Nevertheless human users underperform non-users in the subtle tasks used to draw out these behavioral differences such as memory deficits and impulsivity (I cited those in the article). So there exists both chronic physical harm and subtle behavioral effects arising from MDMA. Now what does this mean for MDMA user 20 years from now? The data is only suggestive, so we have to say that the long-term effects in humans are "unknown". Your data citing the widespread use of MDMA without the widespread physical and mental health effects is off base for two reasons: 1) in principle this is not how public health studies are done, you have to control for covariates, 2) the effects of MDMA in all but the most extreme cases do not appear to cause much more than memory impairment and impulsivivity. A raver is much more likely to visit an otolaryngologist for hearing loss than for these subtle effects. We probably both agree that decision makers whether public policy makers, doctors, or users need a clear picture of the risks and potential risks and what evidence there is for this just as they should also know of the benefits and potential benefits. I am not sure what our disagreement is about but I think it is one of emphasis, is relegating this information to the safety and risks sections not enough? In my opinion if you look at the article before I made my entry, the safety and risks section served the purpose of minimizing the research that suggests that even in moderation MDMA may long-lasting effects. Many decision makers would only want to favor a drug in which there are clear and present benefits that outweigh all the risks and uncertainties (unknowns). We both (and Simishag) obviously feel like devoting some of our time towards this article so let's come to some agreement about what the risk and safety section should look like. We might want to break down harm into categories like the recent UK report by Nutt, D. and King, LA and Saulsbury, W. and Blakemore, C. where they have 3 categories of Harm: Physical Harm, Dependency, and Social Harm, each of which have subcatagories, Acute physical harm, chronic physical harm, psychological dependency,physical dependency, intoxication, health care costs, etc... What do you think?

::::[[User:jben78wi|jben78wi]] 12:27, 22 July 2007 (CST)

==Ongoing NPOV discussion==

I've archived the old discussions and I'm starting a new section for this. The first thing I want to note is that these discussions usually break down along the lines of politics, opinions on the drug war, debates over the perceived emphasis or de-emphasis of this study or that one, including incredibly detailed analyses of why this study or that one belongs or doesn't... Honestly, it's getting old. If you need to get some sleep, read the archived talk pages and see how many times these arguments have been rehashed. Let's all try to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]].

Second, I think we all need to step back for a moment and refocus. This article is fairly long already, although not as long as it once was. It is likely to be the first place a reader looks for information on MDMA, and it needs to cover a wide range of topics. We simply cannot include every single study or every single health risk in this particular article. To do so would unfairly reduce our treatment of: MDMA's history, supply, legal status, importance in the rave subculture, etc. There are many ways of linking to subarticles or additional content that don't involve dumping it all right here.

In response to [[User:jben78wi]] on citing sources: Yes, peer-reviewed sources are acceptable regardless of whether they are accessible online. '''However,''' it is the responsibility of the editor to cite sources appropriately, and more importantly, to avoid paraphrasing sources unnecessarily. Most of us are not qualified to paraphrase highly technical sources such as the ones used here; this is why the source usually includes an abstract. You have written an incredibly detailed response above on various studies, but how do we know you're representing the sources accurately? It is far more appropriate to quote the source or its abstract, and to let the reader draw their own conclusions. The editor's responsibility in this regard is enhanced when the source itself is not easily available to the average reader. Readers do not necessarily have access to university libraries, nor should they be expected to track down all of the academic sources listed here, nor should they be expected to understand the fine points of every academic study. There is a fine line between providing accurate, concise, encyclopedic summaries, and overwhelming the reader with information. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why anyone still advances this "I don't have access to the research articles" red herring. The MAPS database is free to all with an internet connection and has a VERY good collection of the relevant research articles.[[User:Blackrose10|Blackrose10]] 08:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

:The article in question was not freely available (except as an abstract), so I don't see how it's a "red herring". In any case, I think you missed the broader point, which is that editors need to be careful about paraphrasing sources. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

==Health Risks==

The current "Health Risks" section focuses too much on long-term unclear risks, and IMHO, constitutes [[WP:OR|original research]], in that it synthesizes the results of a number of sources into new conclusions. If nothing else, the section should be reordered to put the short term risks first. There are well-known, potentially fatal interactions between common MAOI drugs and MDMA; why aren't these noted first? [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:I have a small problem with the part that says that the health risks are ranked "lower than even alcohol". It is insinuating that alcohol is the safest drug, with the lowest risk. Not only is this not impartial, it is flat out untrue. heatsketch, 0804, August 9th

::I would presume the only "insinuation" is to compare an widely illegal drug with a widely legal one. Which bit exactly do you think is "untrue"? [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] 13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point Simishag. I also agree with your earlier point. Perhaps there should be a section for known risks and a section for potential/speculative risks...

[[User:Jben78wi|Jben78wi]] 04:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

== Methylene-dioxy-dimethyl-amphetaminium ==

would using dimethylaminium instead of methylamine make Methylene-dioxy-dimethyl-amphetaminium andif so would it be more potent than MDMA?

Nope <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.169.117.188|67.169.117.188]] ([[User talk:67.169.117.188|talk]]) 10:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Purity vs. Health Risks ==

From "Purity" section:

<blockquote>Recent surveys of seized Ecstasy pills indicate that purity levels are generally high, and that adulterants are rare.</blockquote>

The "Health Risks" section includes the following:

<blockquote>The MDMA content of Ecstasy tablets varies widely. They usually contain other substances</blockquote>

These are in direct contradiction of each other. Only the first is sourced. Perhaps the second should be deleted.

[[User:Drone5|drone5]] 09:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree. High purity levels doesn't mean 100 percent purity.

[[User:Rbuttigi|Rbuttigi]] 03:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends what you mean, i guess[[User:Phil Ian Manning|Phil Ian Manning]] 02:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added information from EcstasyData.org which indicates results consistent with the latter category, and have offered a compromise as to what the truth about adulteration may be, lying somewhere in between the two extremes.

[[Special:Contributions/24.59.244.71|24.59.244.71]] ([[User talk:24.59.244.71|talk]]) 01:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

== Methylenedithiomethamphetamine ==

Could this be made? it would be related to MDMA the same way [[4-MTA]] is to [[PMA]]. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/202.161.0.177|202.161.0.177]] ([[User talk:202.161.0.177|talk]]) 04:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== plagiarism/vandalism in the arcticle ==

After the introduction, and right before the table of contents, you may notice that the word "JEWS" is written. It does not appear there when editing the page. I find it might be offending and sould not be there. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.1.131.205|89.1.131.205]] ([[User talk:89.1.131.205|talk]]) 23:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Reference ==

I do not understand the meaning of PMID in the reference: "Roland W. Freudenmann, Florian Öxler, Sabine Bernschneider-Reif (2006). The origin of MDMA (ecstasy) revisited: the true story reconstructed from the original documents. Addiction 101, 1241–1245. PMID". Is some PMID number missing? [[User:Ulner|Ulner]] 22:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

== PMA ==

After initially expanding greatly on the topic of tablets sold as ecstasy being adulterated with or actually being [[PMA]], I was considering that I may have written information which I had not confirmed, that being that there is no reagent that produces a positive test result in the presence of PMA. After checking the [[pill testing]] page on Wikipedia itself, I realized that I had been misled into believing that no reagent did this because none of the ones which were available at dancesafe.org did [http://www.dancesafe.org/testingkits/]. However, there are clearly two other reagents which Dancesafe does not provide which can screen for this chemical.

I deleted the aforementioned information in addition to other content which I had derived based on my initially faulty data. I also reorganized the remaining content that I had written in a more logical and concise order. These revisions have been repeatedly undone by various persons, the first claiming "tortuous (and somewhat inaccurate) nitpicking".

On the contrary, the most recent version of my contribution is in fact accurate to the best of my knowledge, and certainly more accurate than my initial work under this heading. The so-called nit-picking simply is no one's place to undo. Any reorganization I have decided upon is done with the intent that users who are unfamiliar with general ecstasy subject matter are not discouraged to educate themselves by disorganized information.

Apparently, my final edit remains at this time, as I hope it will continue to.

[[Special:Contributions/24.59.244.71|24.59.244.71]] ([[User talk:24.59.244.71|talk]]) 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

:Your comment about discouraging users is laughable considering that you have added an enormous amount of content, mostly in the form of novel theories. What remains after I eliminated your obvious conjecture and synthesis is highly specific and properly belongs in the article on the health effects of MDMA. Please try to limit the amount of scientific data related to health issues in this article. We do not need to know about every single MDMA study in this article. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] ([[User talk:Simishag|talk]]) 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

==MDMA and Smoking==

The paragraph on smoking I'm having trouble with.

<blockquote>

Many ecstasy users smoke cigarettes in combination with the former drug in order to enhance certain desired effects.

</blockquote>

This could use a citation.

<blockquote>

Based on the pre-existing knowledge that dopamine plays the most significant role in MDMA neurotoxicity, smoking will aid neurotoxicity in that nicotine stimulates the release of dopamine in addition to certain ingredients in cigarettes other than nicotine inhibiting MAO (see nicotine), thereby preventing the breakdown of dopamine which has been shown to be toxic to serotonin cells by itself.

</blockquote>

This is speculation, as are the two sentences following it. I can find no supporting studies on nicotine/MDMA in the literature. If the contributor who wrote this paragraph can rewrite and support it, or someone else can, great. If not I would suggest that it should be removed. In the meantime I'll have a more through look through the literature for supporting evidence.

[[User:BertieB|BertieB]] ([[User talk:BertieB|talk]]) 15:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

== Lipoic acid ==

If this blocks neurotoxicity of MDMA, why don't they sell the lipolate salt or make N-lipoyloxy MDMA? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Phil Ian Manning|Phil Ian Manning]] ([[User talk:Phil Ian Manning|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Phil Ian Manning|contribs]]) 10:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

If I remember correctly, the rats were given intravenous ALA continuously, something you couldn't expect a person to sit through on MDMA. The amount needed to block toxicity in humans completely is probably extremely high, especially considering the process lasts about 6 hours. I also believe both ecstasy manufacturers and health food stores alike take no time to consider the implications of their product on the mental health of the weekend raver, which is to say nothing of the inherent recklessness of so many ravers themselves.

[[Special:Contributions/24.59.244.71|24.59.244.71]] ([[User talk:24.59.244.71|talk]]) 04:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

==New article for neurotoxicity==

I propose moving the neurotoxicity stuff to a separate article. The current organization places too much weight on the topic when viewed in the overall context of this article. We can leave a paragraph or two here but no more than that. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] ([[User talk:Simishag|talk]]) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

==Simishag==

I am loving how so little time passes before my additions are removed by this same person.

This latest crap, "undue weight; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", absolutely kills me, which is to say nothing of the fact that this could be applied to about a thousand other items on this page alone; cute little sayings in logic don't go very far in a field of research which is still very young and conflicted, you wouldn't be able to put most of this on wikipedia, so best to leave them at home.

Interestingly enough, the citations following the bit on heroin tell a clear-cut story. One source you didn't even realize at one point was lab-testing results, but you instead referred to it as an "online survey". Nothing I wrote was out of the realm of what is well-known and verifiable. One pill containing a small amount of heroin out of over 1500 over an extended period is ''really'' pretty solid, added to the fact that other labs couldn't find a single pill with heroin at all.

Basically, ecstasy being spiked with heroin to get people addicted is one of the oldest and most commonly-held myths about MDMA. I've heard it claimed personally and there are numerous sources of information online that address this issue. They basically say the exact same thing: ecstasy never has heroin in it, which based on some findings is correct. This statement is made more accurate when "never" is replaced with "extremely rarely" in light of this single exception which I have found.

But google "ecstasy laced with heroin" and you'll invariably come across websites claiming the same old stuff: either that it never happens, is very unlikely, drug control office articles which discuss users seeking to buy such pills, or observations by users about the effects of a tablet taken when no test has been done for heroin. Should I take this time to mention the reported "stoning" feeling that MDE often produces, or that pills are more frequently laced with ketamine which has a reasonably-high oral bioavailability as opposed to heroin?

Perhaps there are more exceptions to the one heroin pill, in fact I would bet on it, but the numbers are clear: people aren't wasting huge amounts of money cutting MDMA with heroin and so you're unlikely to find a pill with any notably quantity in it, let alone an amount that would affect you, let alone one that would get you "addicted" to heroin. The economics and practicality of such a practice would be totally inconceivable, as they would be with cocaine.

Of course, posting such things constitutes original research, at least previously because I had not yet taken the time to retrieve the appropriate sources. The whole heroin-cocaine bit was deleted because I hadn't cited sources, erowid or otherwise. Now I do and apparently, it still isn't good stew to tell the public they probably aren't buying heroin when they buy ex. under the heading "well what if tomorrow we found 100 different brands of pills containing ecstasy, then what?". I don't see it happening, to me ''that'' is conjecture.

Absence of evidence ''is'' evidence of absence to the degree I mentioned ("almost never") based on the duration and consistency of the research, hence I was not dwelling on the "total absence" which seems to be the basis of this one edit. When you have millions of doses of ecstasy taken weekly around the world, huge shipments of pills being uncovered, hundreds of brands seized and analyzed by labs around the world and basically no heroin is found, it's pretty clear what to say when people inquire on this topic: "probably not".

Or via the other logic, this monologue wouldn't constitute anything unusual: "''Well, Mr. Simishag, I know you say you've felt fine since our last visit, and although all the tests and scans came back clean, we feel it's best that we went ahead and shaved your head right now and got you prepped for neurosurgery. Why you ask? Well because we think that, to be honest, there is probably a tumor in your brain somewhere and we really ought to find it before it gets out of control because after all, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. We wouldn't want to put too much weight on just feeling healthy now would we? It just wouldn't make sense. Well we'll probably have to remove your entire skull in order to be certain you're not about to become very ill. I think I should take this time to mention that you'll probably be left with some scarring, bald spots, and possibly an odd-shaped skull in this case in addition to the results of any complications which may occur which have high incidence in this type of surgery. Any questions?"''

Of course back in reality we realize that the basis of all of human knowledge and decision-making are not the things which we hold to be invariably certain, but the data we collect and study and the ability we have to make judgments. I think I recall Socrates saying something to the effect that "a wise man knows his own ignorance but searches for the truth". Of course Socrates had his own problems when he would argue but this certainly is not one of them, certain of course based upon my own ability to reason with my ignorant mind.

But anyway, I think what I said is what I posted, I think that's what was removed. Not edited, not improved, not researched by the editor himself, but ripped out completely by the same person who as best as I can remember has made completely unverified claims on this subject himself. If only Oprah had said it it would be fine.

No, I think I'll leave all of this alone now, I obviously don't know what I'm doing or what I'm talking about nearly as well as I previously thought. I've put plenty of time into the MDMA page, to say nothing of the length of this response. "Laughable" I am, your great respect notwithstanding.

''Every power trip breeds a power crash''

''When Johny thinks of his philosophy merit badge''

[[Special:Contributions/24.59.244.71|24.59.244.71]] ([[User talk:24.59.244.71|talk]]) 06:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

:An impressive rant. I deleted your content because I thought it was poorly written and overstated the case. "Rumors ... are almost never verified" is poor prose and, ironically enough, unverifiable. "Some labs ... have not come across a single pill" is almost certainly true (given enough labs) but also meaningless; your phrasing is essentially a [[negative proof]]. You present the statistics far too strongly, as if they are unimpeachable, and in any case it's too much info for this article. We've already established that pills are not always pure and we've indicated some of the ''common'' substances that might be found; it's not necessary to get into statistics from pill test services or rumors of heroin or rat poison or whatever. [[User:Simishag|Simishag]] ([[User talk:Simishag|talk]]) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

== History ==

[http://thedea.org/drughistory.html] has some additional information which might be of interest, and also contradicts some claims in the History section. This is an advocacy site, and not necessarily reliable on its own, but it often cites other sources which could be checked. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 01:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

== United Kingdom ==

In this section of the article, we are told that "the Greater London Authority highlighted regional variations [in the price of MDMA]" and that "the average street price per pill in five selected cities was..."

And then there is a list of 7 -not 5- cities, the last two -in fact- with estimates, not averages, of the price per pill. "2-3" does not constitute an average. 2.5 would be the average between 2 and 3. And average is always, ALWAYS an exact figure. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.179.97.142|81.179.97.142]] ([[User talk:81.179.97.142|talk]]) 09:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: I have reverted the text back to the "prices" given in the actual GLA report, and added an in-page warning against making any additions/amendments. [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] ([[User talk:Nick Cooper|talk]]) 13:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

::81.179.97.142, you are now a recognised grammer obsessed wanker.[[User:Phil Ian Manning|Phil Ian Manning]] ([[User talk:Phil Ian Manning|talk]]) 02:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

== Effects - mode of action ==

This section requires significant revision, as little is cited. Reference 10, which discusses the mechanism, links to a website (dancesafe.org) that does not cite its sources further. Given the speculative nature of this material, it should be removed. [[User:Wrfrancis|Wrfrancis]] ([[User talk:Wrfrancis|talk]]) 16:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This review discusses the background of some of the theories:

http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/55/3/463

== Purity/EcstasyData.org data ==

I've removed this, as it doesn't actually tell us abou anything other than what was submitted to testing service. As the disclaimer from the site itself states:

:"Please note that the data from the EcstasyData testing project is not necessarily representative of what is available in the underground markets. Most tablets were voluntarily submitted by harm reduction workers or individuals and the data will naturally have unknowable sampling biases. These statistics are provided as an overview of the data for this project and not a generalization about percentages of ecstasy available in any given market."

In essence, it neither claims nor can be presented as a reflection of what is actually "out there". [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] ([[User talk:Nick Cooper|talk]]) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

== Difference between estacy and MDMA ==

I noticed that when you use search term "estacy" it brings you to this article, which is somewhat misleading as estacy is a combination of primarily MDMA and methamphetamine, and possibly a variety of other substances. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ShatBrickner|ShatBrickner]] ([[User talk:ShatBrickner|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ShatBrickner|contribs]]) 06:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:It's not misleading because - in most of the world - "Ecstasy" is categorically '''not''' "a combination of primarily MDMA and methamphetamine". For more than 20 years "Ecstasy" has meant primarily MDMA (or, rarely, MDA, MDEA or MBDB), with occasional adulterants or substitutions; methamphetamine as the latter has only appeared in the last few years in certain jurisdictions (principly the United States), but rarely or not at all in others. [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] ([[User talk:Nick Cooper|talk]]) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

:Indeed "Ecstacy" is the nickname given to MDMA due to the ecstatic experiences most people experience on MDMA, though some people name any pill which is sold as Ecstacy, no matter what it contains, even if it doesn't contain any MDMA at all, Ecstacy or Ecstacy pills. That assumption is incorrect as Ecstacy is the name reserved for MDMA. Also, only in a handful of countries in the world is methamphetamine added as an adulterant to pills sold as Ecstacy, these are the countries in which methamphetamine is available on itself, but in most countries, only amphetamine sulphate is available, predominantly Europe. In the Netherlands, where the largest part of the worlds supply of MDMA and Ecstacy pills are made, methamphetamine is unknown, and as such, no Dutch pills yet to date contained methamphetamine. In many countries though, MDMA in any form is pretty rare for global standards, and because of the high demand, a whole plethora of pills are available on the market containing all sorts of other substances designed to mimic MDMA and/or to boost profit. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.170.148.128|82.170.148.128]] ([[User talk:82.170.148.128|talk]]) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Transcendence==

[[Transcendence]] should link to [[Transcendence (religion)]] should it not? [[User:Tkgd2007|Tkgd2007]] ([[User talk:Tkgd2007|talk]]) 11:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

== Edit of Purity section ==

Several days ago, I've editted the purity section and added a section about the testing of pills in the Netherlands. I've posted the same section several times before in the past, and each time it was deleted for no reason. I've reposted it again, and ask anyone who wants to discuss edit my section, to first discuss it before making any changes. Because the article is regarding testing of pills in the Netherlands, it's very difficult for me to find any articles written in English to back up my claims, but I'll do my best to try and find them, and if I find any, to add them to the article as referrence. --[[User:Psych0-007|Psych0-007]] ([[User talk:Psych0-007|talk]]) 17:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

== Recreational use - United Kingdom sub-heading ==

I've reinstated this, as the information under it is clearly restricted to that country and that country alone. Ideally we should have - properly cited - similar material for other countries to give a more global picture, hence I've added an expansion tag. [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] ([[User talk:Nick Cooper|talk]]) 00:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

== Introduction ==

I have changed the "contentious" sentence to:

''Today, however, drug prohibitionists and critics within the medical community now hold that based on a body of recent research, MDMA may lead to [[neurotoxic]] damage of the [[central nervous system]], and that due to this and other risks, its use is inherently unsafe.''

from:

''Prohibitionists and other critics of the drug, however, hold that MDMA may lead to [[neurotoxic]] damage of the [[central nervous system]], and that for this and other reasons, its' use is inherently unsafe.''

It seems that the implication with which Nick Cooper was concerned is much less pronounced with this phrasing, but I am still having some trouble finding a way to summarize the opposition elegantly in this case. If the current version still presents a problem, suggestions would be nice, as I feel the introduction has been absent of this viewpoint, and therefor less than neutral, for far too long.

[[User:Kst447|Kst447]] ([[User talk:Kst447|talk]]) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

== Repeated vandalism and request for semi-protection ==

It seems as though the main article has experienced repeated vandalism from some who I assume are a number of different individuals. I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection| requested the page be semi-protected] in the hopes of largely addressing this problem.

[[User:Kst447|Kst447]] ([[User talk:Kst447|talk]]) 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

== Neurotoxicity ==

This section includes the statement:

: "In severe cases, however, the possibility for recovery of cognitive functions may be much more limited."

The citation, however, is to a piece on the infamous "man who took 40,000 ecstasy pills in nine years". At an average of more than 12 pills per day, with an actual claimed high of 25 per day for four years. This is pretty much off any reasonable scale of definition of "severe", regardless of how certain parties were prepared to use him to demonstrate whatever they wanted to demonstrate. [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] ([[User talk:Nick Cooper|talk]]) 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

:I think I see where you're going with this. You're suggesting a replacement with a reference to a study or studies which would demonstrate, say, severe deficits in memory or on cognitive testing beyond the normal limits in those who have used to excess?

[[User:Kst447|Kst447]] ([[User talk:Kst447|talk]]) 23:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)