Content deleted Content added
Perspeculum (talk | contribs) Reverted to revision 407317192 by DMacks; Blatant trolling.... (TW) |
Reverted 1 edit by Melissa jane carls (talk): Spam |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} |
|||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{DelistedGA|20:55, 26 May 2006|oldid=55312896}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Pharmacology|importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|importance=Mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs}} |
||
{{WikiProject Rave}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Chemicals|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Autism|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness|importance=High}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
|||
{{Copied |
|||
|from = Effects of MDMA on the human body |
|||
|from_oldid = 629799567 |
|||
|to = MDMA |
|||
|to_diff = 630020170 |
|||
|to_oldid = 630000831 |
|||
|date = 17 October 2014 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{annual readership}} |
|||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|||
| age=2160 |
|||
| archiveprefix=Talk:MDMA/Archive |
|||
| numberstart=9 |
|||
| maxarchsize=100000 |
|||
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|||
| minkeepthreads=5 |
|||
| format= %%i |
|||
| archivebox=yes |
|||
| box-advert=yes |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{DelistedGA|20:55, 26 May 2006|oldid55312896}} |
|||
{{User:WildBot/m01|dabs={{User:WildBot/m03|1|David Pearce}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|NIDA}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|Oral}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|auditory}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|insecurity}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|purity|pure}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|subjective}}|m01}} |
|||
== Article Edit == |
|||
I don't want to register an account as I very rarely edit Wikipedia, however, regarding the following line: |
|||
:In 2010 the BBC reported that use of MDMA had decreased in the UK in previous years. This is thought to be due to increased seizures and decreased production of the precursor chemicals used to manufacture MDMA. The availability of legal alternatives to MDMA such as mephedrone is also thought to have contributed to its decrease in popularity.[24] |
|||
Mephedrone is no longer legal in the UK so this should be reworded to remove legal. Mephedrone usage is common and is frequently unknowingly used (swapped out in place of real MDMA) as well as recreationally used on its own. |
|||
An excellent link describing usage of Mephedrone in the UK (and its replacement of MDMA in tablets): http://scientopia.org/blogs/drugmonkey/2010/09/19/mephedrone-4-methylmethcathinone-appearing-in-ecstasy-in-the-netherlands/ |
|||
Hopefully somebody can edit this article for me :) |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/72.52.102.5|72.52.102.5]] ([[User talk:72.52.102.5|talk]]) 02:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Merge or Link With Ecstasy (Drug) == |
|||
I was looking for info on ecstasy and when I opened the ecstasy page it read as a sales pitch for ecstasy, no facts or harmful effects I didn't even know the MDMA page existed, the only link to this page is a link to Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, which many people (including I) will overlook as just a link to some chemical compound. The only things on the ecstasy page are a description of the positive effects, the ways to mitigate negative effects (without naming them), a list of about 25 substances that could be in ecstasy tablets, and a reference to a study that says how harmless ecstasy is. |
|||
Because of the lack of information and NPOV, I suggest that ecstasy (drug) become a redirect to MDMA. Maybe copy over the harm reduction section, but there are no sources on any of the claims there, so I suggest rewriting that into a new section as well. |
|||
A temporary solution would be to put at the top of the page a link to the MDMA page something like "For the active ingredient in ecstasy, see MDMA." |
|||
I don't know how to do this, otherwise I would. |
|||
What do you all think? [[User:Holman.mike|Holman.mike]] ([[User talk:Holman.mike|talk]]) 03:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: On a related note [[Talk:Ecstasy (drug)]] is erroneously redirecting here. I will amend this. [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] ([[User talk:Nick Cooper|talk]]) 13:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: It's not "erroneously" redirecting here: {{user|El3ctr0nika}} forked the article in August, but didn't fork the talk page. I've re-merged and pinged the user. [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I added more links on the Ecstasy (Drug) page to MDMA, including at the top of the page. [[User:Tova Hella|Tova Hella]] ([[User talk:Tova Hella|talk]]) 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I restored the redirect pending a consensus being reached otherwise. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 14:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== After effects == |
|||
I'm changing the heading "Rebound / withdrawal" to "After effects". We could also use "Subacute effects", as "subacute" means between acute and chronic, but "after effects" is more common language. "Subacute" and "after" are the terms most commonly used in research articles for effects occurring within a week of MDMA use. Both terms are neutral, unlike "rebound" or "withdrawal". |
|||
"Rebound" implies that after effects are the opposite of acute MDMA effects. This up/down ecstasy/agony model is overly simplistic. Many after effects of MDMA are just a continuation of the acute side effects, and some may be a consequence of sleep deprivation (mood, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19351799 Pirona and Morgan 2009 J Psychopharmacol]) or physical activity (muscle ache). |
|||
"Withdrawal" implies that if people just continued taking MDMA repeatedly they would not experience these effects. [[User:Tova Hella|Tova Hella]] ([[User talk:Tova Hella|talk]]) 19:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I edited the uncited sentence regarding chronic depression after use being attributable to brain damage. That's rather egregious misinformation if untrue so it definitely needs a citation. [[Special:Contributions/67.233.200.190|67.233.200.190]] ([[User talk:67.233.200.190|talk]]) 03:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Side effects == |
|||
I've called for improved references in the Side effects and After effects sections. The first one forthcoming was - {{cite journal | author = Lester SJ, Baggott M, Welm S, Schiller NB, Jones RT, Foster E, Mendelson J | year = 2000 | title = Cardiovascular effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial | journal = [[Annals of Internal Medicine]] | volume = 133 | page = 969-973 | url = http://www.maps.org/w3pb/new/2000/2000_lester_1097_1.pdf}} |
|||
I suggest that it's somewhat dubious to add reference to a study which only speculates - "preexisting cardiovascular conditions could increase cardiovascular risk compared with the carefully screened healthy volunteers in our study" - in support of the contention that both tachycardia and hypertension are "most common [[adverse effect|adverse side effect]]s reported by users". |
|||
--[[User:SallyScot|SallyScot]] ([[User talk:SallyScot|talk]]) 20:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Draeco reverted the dubious tags 21:59, 21 November 2009. I've since updated so the whole section is referenced. |
|||
--[[User:SallyScot|SallyScot]] ([[User talk:SallyScot|talk]]) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Sexual Dysfunction == |
|||
I removed the following text from the article, because it implied that it was supported by references elsewhere in the article, but such references were absent. Please re-add the material, citing [[WP:Reliable Sources|Reliable Sources]] if it is in fact accurate. |
|||
: (along with paradoxical [[sexual dysfunction]] (see [[MDMA#Side_effects|below]])) |
|||
Thanks, [[User:Vectro|Vectro]] ([[User talk:Vectro|talk]]) 23:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Globalize == |
|||
I have marked this article as in need of globalization. |
|||
It has alot of information that is not specific to any country - ie, the chemistry section. BUT, whenever it is possible for the shift to focus on a country, it focuses on either the US or UK. |
|||
The sections that in my opinion are most in need of work are "history", "legal issues", and "health concerns" - within health concerns, specifically the sub-sections "harm assessment" and "recommendation to downgrade" - it seems unbalanced to have so much detail on specific actions and assessments by health and government authorities in the UK, and no detail relating to any other countries. |
|||
Minor mention is made of europe (europe as a whole- not of any specific countries other than the UK). For instance, in the recreational use section, ecstasy prices are given in euros and US dollars (no other countries or currencies mentioned). |
|||
This article gives a strong impression that ecstasy is only used in the US and Europe (mainly the UK) - maybe someone could research a new section detailing the history and extent of MDMA use worldwide- or the "recreational use" section could be substantially expanded to include this information? |
|||
[[User:Brunk500|Brunk500]] ([[User talk:Brunk500|talk]]) 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Biased by ectasy users == |
|||
So ecstasy is perfectly fine to use? I get the impression in this article that it is pro-ecstasy use. I find this disturbing as we all know that teenagers would refer to this Wikipedia page with more faith than what their teachers and parents are telling them (maybe justly so). Still I really think this article should put more emphasis on the negative long term effects of ecstasy. So what if there is a Chinese study on ecstasy which contradicts another study which finds ecstasy harmful? What we need is convergence not to put a chronology of every pro-ecstasy article and every anti-ecstasy article. |
|||
Lets face it doing this drug once or twice will not ruin your life. Still this article comes off as too benevolent because I know people who have abused ecstasy and there are cognitive impairments. This may be just anecdotal but I think many people would agree long term ecstasy abuse will destroy your life as easily as long term alcohol abuse. |
|||
I am just concerned this article is written by ecstasy users for ecstasy users. It's a closed circuit and if anyone finds a study that shows the negative effects of ecstasy the editors will find another study which counters it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/206.108.31.35|206.108.31.35]] ([[User talk:206.108.31.35|talk]]) 17:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:How about you read the entire article, it is NOT being passed off as a benign drug. And I and other drug users (hopefully) know that isn't the truth. If you have problems with specific wording please do say so. ''[[User:C6541|C6541]]'' <small>''([[User talk:C6541|T]]↔[[Special:Contributions/C6541|C]])</small>'' 17:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I also find parts of the article biased, putting ecstasy in what is probably a too positive light. As for specific suggestions for improvements, take a look at the 'effects' section. It is a long list of unsourced claims with positive rings to them. I would say that all these claims should be backed up by reliable sources as per Wiki rules, or be removed. Pubmed gives a heap of documentation, such as [[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20157852?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1]]. Even with such sources, the positive short-term effects are given undue weight. --[[User:EthicsGradient|EthicsGradient]] ([[User talk:EthicsGradient|talk]]) 14:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Check out erowid.org for good sources. And often the negative side effects come at high doses, so while I think the list should be weighted better it should also reflect this fact. [[User:AirCombat|AC]] ([[User talk:AirCombat|talk]]) 18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I've briefly reviewed erowid.org. It does seem to be a decently run web-site, but it is in itself very positive about drug-use. This is okay, but compared to statements from peer-reviewed literature it should not be given too much weight. If a statement found at erowid is contradicted by peer-reviewed literature, it would have to give way to expert-generated, quality-controlled knowledge. [[User:EthicsGradient|EthicsGradient]] ([[User talk:EthicsGradient|talk]]) 15:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
If i may, illegal drugs are an area where widespread misinformation is the norm. Not only the government, but drug trafficers and users informed by heresay spread information that is misleading, unsubstantiated, or intentionally lies/propoganda. Therefore, saying that this article is "too positive" or "too harsh" needs to be backed up by reliable scientific sources - NOT your personal opinions. It should not be surprising that this article doesn't fit your view of the world. [[Special:Contributions/98.207.159.144|98.207.159.144]] ([[User talk:98.207.159.144|talk]]) 22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Ecstasy user bias == |
|||
So ecstasy is perfectly okay to use? I find that this article is too benevolent to ecstasy. I think ecstasy users are trying to make this article pro-ecstasy use. For every study that finds anything negative about ecstasy the editors will find a Chinese study which counters it. This leads nowhere. |
|||
This article is created by ecstasy users for ecstasy users. I find this distrubing as teenagers may use this article to inform their decision to use the drug or not. I will keep editing this talk page until this discussion goes somewhere. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:24.71.136.35|24.71.136.35]] ([[User talk:24.71.136.35|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/24.71.136.35|contribs]]) 05:14, 17 December 2009</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
:Your vague generalisations are not very helpful. Could you please identify the specific parts of the text you disagree with, and why? [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] ([[User talk:Nick Cooper|talk]]) 14:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Not sure which sections your referring to but certainly the section heading "Beneficial effects" is problematic. Principally because it is not NPOV [[WP:NPOV]] but also because the reference it cites does not use the word "Beneficial" at all. I will change this to "Subjective effects" in line with the majority of MDMA-related literature on psychological and physiological efects of the drug.--[[User:Amaher|Amaher]] ([[User talk:Amaher|talk]]) 08:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
because it causes brain damage in people. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.38.64.153|64.38.64.153]] ([[User talk:64.38.64.153|talk]]) 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:So does alcohol. Even [http://www.buzzle.com/articles/water-intoxication-symptoms.html water can cause brain damage]. The question is how, why, and can it be avoided. [[Special:Contributions/98.207.159.144|98.207.159.144]] ([[User talk:98.207.159.144|talk]]) 22:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
* As a medical student I have been taught on the wards and in pharmacology that ecstasy is an extremely dangerous substance that can induce amphetamine psychosis. I can't help feeling while reading this article that it's biased toward portraying ecstasy as much less harmful than it is. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.69.68.12|87.69.68.12]] ([[User talk:87.69.68.12|talk]]) 13:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:New content with references are welcome. - '''<font face="courier" color="#487946">[[User:Steve3849|Steve3849]]</font>'''<sup>'''<font face="courier" color="#487946">[[User_talk:Steve3849|talk]]</font>'''</sup> 14:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Yet [[stimulant pyschosis]] does not mention MDMA, although it does methylphenidate and even caffeine. Not saying that MDMA can't lead to it, but clearly it's not a particularly common effect. [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] ([[User talk:Nick Cooper|talk]]) 17:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Problems With Neurotoxicity == |
|||
I have a few problems with the neurotoxicity section. First and foremost, "A number of studies [84] have demonstrated lasting serotonergic changes occurring due to MDMA exposure". This quote is completely unsubstantiated. "A number of studies" must be backed up by more than one study. I'm changing that immediately because it is not factually supported. I will change it to indicate that only one study has shown this. Secondly, this study was carried out by Ricuarte, whose work has been marginalized recently. The main problem is internal variance in his data that showed (almost certainly mistakenly) people in the same group (both in the non-user and user sections) has up to 10 times more serottonin than one another. This is biologically absurd, and makes any findings highly suspect. Even ABC, a major news network typically very anti-drug, discredits Ricuarte's study in their report. I will not change that immediately, however, as there is evidence (however faulty) behind it. If you have legitimate points to keep that, please respond soon. [[User:Sas556|Sas556]] ([[User talk:Sas556|talk]]) 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:[[George A. Ricaurte]] is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] on this subject. I would suggest working on the main article, [[Effects_of_MDMA_on_the_human_body#Long-term_adverse_effects]] (which is in need of more references), and keeping the section here as a summary of that.--[[User:Pontificalibus|<font style="color:#333333"><strong>Pontificalibus</strong></font>]] ([[User talk:Pontificalibus#top|talk]]) 15:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Hello. Here we have a very recent article showing the lack of neurotoxicity in humans: |
|||
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03252.x/abstract |
|||
Thanks, --[[Special:Contributions/79.150.179.227|79.150.179.227]] ([[User talk:79.150.179.227|talk]]) 21:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Prevalence== |
|||
There is currently almost no information in the article about prevalence of use. I think that a section on this should be added. For example, information about the percentage of U.S. teenage students who have used ecstasy is available at http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/HSYouthtrends.html. [[User:MathEconMajor|MathEconMajor]] ([[User talk:MathEconMajor|talk]]) 13:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Solid review of the animal and human data regarding potential neurotoxicity and anxiety following MDMA administration or use == |
|||
I think that the following review article (book chapter) presents a good summary of the animal and human literature concerning the potential development of neurotoxicity and anxiety following MDMA administration or use: |
|||
http://www.maps.org/w3pb/new/2007/2007_Guillot_22962_1.pdf |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/68.54.107.114|68.54.107.114]] ([[User talk:68.54.107.114|talk]]) 18:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)MDMAreferenceobserver |
|||
that article seems to not be peer-reviewed (it is from a book), which should be a red flag. |
|||
--[[User:Butterworth99|Butterworth99]] ([[User talk:Butterworth99|talk]]) 01:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Legality in Canada == |
|||
Currently, the drugbox says it's Schedule III, which is correct, but the link goes to Schedule II. The confusion here may stem from the fact that the Canadian Parliament currently has a bill to move MDMA from schedule III to II. Anyone know how to fix the link? For some reason I don't get how it works. [[User:AirCombat|AC]] ([[User talk:AirCombat|talk]]) 18:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:This was a problem in the drugbox template, which I have corrected - just waiting for the update to take effect, as soon as an admin updates the template. [[User:Perspeculum|<span style="color:black"><b>ῤerspeκὖlὖm</b></span>]]<span style="color:red"><sup><i> in ænigmate</i></sup></span> [[User_talk:Perspeculum|<sup><i><b><span style="color:black">( talk )</span></b></i></sup>]] 23:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== UK Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971 == |
|||
"''Due to the wording of the United Kingdom's existing Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971, MDMA was automatically classified in the UK as a Class A drug in 1977.''" |
|||
What wording? I didn't find any info on this on the article for that act. In fact, I didn't find anything about automatic classification of drugs in that article. According to the article, the drug must be listed and classified before it is illegal. What am I missing here? [[Special:Contributions/98.207.159.144|98.207.159.144]] ([[User talk:98.207.159.144|talk]]) 22:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: It's regarded as a derivative of amphetamine, so automatically went into Class A. [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] ([[User talk:Nick Cooper|talk]]) 12:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Edit request 19 July 2023 == |
|||
::Hang on, if that was the case, it would have been classified when the original act came into force. There must have been an ammendment effected in 1977 with the intention to classify it. --[[User:Pontificalibus|<font style="color:#333333"><strong>Pontificalibus</strong></font>]] ([[User talk:Pontificalibus#top|talk]]) 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
"Endogenous" is used in the introduction. It's neither linked nor defined. It's a $5 word. A $0.50 word would be better. Failing that, it would be helpful if it were a link to something - Wiktionary or an appropriate Wikipedia page. Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/108.64.118.44|108.64.118.44]] ([[User talk:108.64.118.44|talk]]) 00:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Indeed I found it was classified in 1977 by the ''Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1977''.[http://www.ecstasy.org/books/e4x/e4x.ch.07.html (1)] I therefore removed the above sentence from the section.--[[User:Pontificalibus|<font style="color:#333333"><strong>Pontificalibus</strong></font>]] ([[User talk:Pontificalibus#top|talk]]) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} --[[User:WikiLinuz|<span style="font-family:Optima;color:#292928;">'''Wiki'''<span style="color:red;">'''''Linuz'''''</span></span>]] {[[User_talk:WikiLinuz|<span style="font-family:Optima;">talk</span>]]} 01:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== The BP in a medium vacuum should not be listed == |
|||
::The important distinction is that MDMA wasn't classified specifically, but rather it falls within the blanket ban on derivatives of tryptamine and phenethylamine adopted in the 1977 modification to the 1971 Act. The [http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1977/jun/20/misuse-of-drugs-act-1971-modification debate in the House of Lords], for example, does name some specific drugs, but not MDMA. In fact, I think I'm right in saying that MDMA was unknown in the UK at the time. [[User:Nick Cooper|Nick Cooper]] ([[User talk:Nick Cooper|talk]]) 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::I reworded the UK legality section to reflect the above. --[[User:Pontificalibus|<font style="color:#333333"><strong>Pontificalibus</strong></font>]] ([[User talk:Pontificalibus#top|talk]]) 17:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
The infobox currently lists the boiling point at 0.4 mmHg, which is a medium vacuum. It is not sourced, and it doesn't say whether this is the free base or what salt it is. This is nearly useless information and it isn't sourced, it should simply be removed. The melting points of the free base and any common salts, at atmospheric pressure, would be interesting data to add. Boiling point in a vacuum is silly. [[Special:Contributions/209.6.225.254|209.6.225.254]] ([[User talk:209.6.225.254|talk]]) 09:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Edit request from Poyandow, 30 June 2010 == |
|||
== Is MDMA a psychedelic or not? == |
|||
{{tlx|editsemiprotected}} |
|||
<!-- Begin request --> |
|||
Since 1995, Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS)has been working to develop psychedelics into legal prescription drugs. MAPS helps scientists design, fund, and obtain regulatory approval for studies of the safety and effectiveness of a number of currently illegal substances. MAPS works closely with government regulatory authorities worldwide such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) to ensure that all of its sponsored research protocols conform to ethical and procedural guidelines for clinical drug research. Included in MAPS’ research efforts are MDMA (Ecstasy) for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). |
|||
<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidisciplinary_Association_for_Psychedelic_Studies</ref> |
|||
Achievements |
|||
The best source for this claim is that there may be 5HT2A agonism, which "supposedly contributes" to "mild psychedelic hallucinations" caused by "high doses" of MDMA. That's a lot of words to say that its status as a psychedelic is pretty flimsy. |
|||
* Opened an FDA Drug Master File for MDMA. This is required before any drug can be researched in FDA-approved human studies.<ref>http://www.betterchem.com/DMF/database/6293.htm</ref> |
|||
* Assisted Dr. Charles Grob to design, obtain approval for and fund the first FDA-approved study in the U.S. to administer MDMA to humans. |
|||
* Assisted in the design and is funding the world's first government-approved scientific study of the therapeutic use of MDMA (Spain). |
|||
* Sponsored studies to analyze the purity and potency of street samples of "Ecstasy". |
|||
rrently, MAPS has been given a Schedule I license to conduct research with MDMA on veterans and survivors of physical or sexual assault who are suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, as well as with advanced-stage cancer patients who are experiencing anxiety associated with this diagnosis, the first licenses the DEA has granted for MDMA psychotherapy research.<ref>http://www.maps.org/mdma/</ref> |
|||
The other sources don't support that it is one, either, just that it's commonly referred to as one. This is similar to how cocaine is called a "narcotic," a legal stipulative definition that's quite different from the scientific one. |
|||
<!-- End request --> |
|||
[[User:Poyandow|Poyandow]] ([[User talk:Poyandow|talk]]) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)poyandow |
|||
I'm not arguing that MDMA isn't a psychedelic, but if these are the best sources we have I think it should be removed from the lead. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1017:B103:D814:CCC9:7381:FFDB:5A2D|2600:1017:B103:D814:CCC9:7381:FFDB:5A2D]] ([[User talk:2600:1017:B103:D814:CCC9:7381:FFDB:5A2D|talk]]) 17:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ESp|q}} Do you have a link to where this study has been written about in an academic journal, a science magazine, or some other independent [[WP:RS|reliable source]]? —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:MDMA is not in any way, shape or form, a ''classic psychedelic'', meaning that it cannot be directly compared to [[LSD]], [[psilocybin]], or even [[mescaline]], but it ''is'' somewhat closer to mescaline than many other things that people consider to have psychedelic properties, such as [[cannabis]], [[ketamine]], [[salvia divinorum]], and even [[muscimol]]. The lead says it has "minor psychedelic properties", but that doesn't mean that it ''is'' a psychedelic. Perhaps we just need some clarification in the lead that while it has ''minor psychedelic properties'', it is not technically a psychedelic. [[User:Thoric|Thoric]] ([[User talk:Thoric|talk]]) 18:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ESp|nfn}} All the links provided are primary sources (the DMF filing, maps.org); there's no evidence of independent coverage in reliable sources. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 03:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::The sources are not a problem (try Google News archives for 'maps mdma'), but we already mention this in the Therapeutic use section. The above text appears to be mroe about MAPS, and could be added to the [[Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies]] article, although that contains some similar text already.--[[User:Pontificalibus|<font style="color:#555555"><strong>Pontificalibus</strong></font>]] ([[User talk:Pontificalibus#top|talk]]) 12:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Bruxism → Chewing Gum? == |
|||
== Edit request from 90.198.134.57, 11 January 2011 == |
|||
Should we add that some users chew gum in order to deal with grinding teeth? Since the article is semi-protected, I wanted to check before just adding it in (especially since finding a good source for this is trickier than I though). [[User:Niplav|Niplav]] ([[User talk:Niplav|talk]]) 13:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{[[Template:edit semi-protected|edit semi-protected]]}} |
|||
<!-- Begin request --> |
|||
Please change "MDMA is legal in most countries" |
|||
== The role of Danny Leclère in the production of XTC as partydrug == |
|||
to |
|||
I have a proposition to add some text regarding [[Danny Leclère]] who developed in the 1990's a formula to produce "pure XTC" as party drug and set up a worldwide illegal network to have the drugs distributed. It's because if him XTC became popular in nightlife. The formula of Leclère is still the most used in the manufacturing of (illegal) XTC. Valid/Trusted references can be found in the article about [[Danny Leclère]]. I think a short topic in the article of MDMA is advisable due to Leclère his role in production/distribution of illegal XTC. [[User:Ino mart|Ino mart]] ([[User talk:Ino mart|talk]]) 15:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
"MDMA is illegal in most countries" |
|||
:is "pure XTC" MDMA? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- End request --> |
|||
::According the documentary "Bad, Bad Belgium" the term "pure XTC" refers to the formula by Leclère: it is the first XTC-formula which only contains MDMA as drug. At that time, MDMA-drugs also contained other ingredients such as meta-Chlorophenylpiperazine and para-Methoxy-N-methylamphetamine. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/90.198.134.57|90.198.134.57]] ([[User talk:90.198.134.57|talk]]) 18:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} Vandalism reverted. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 18:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:15, 19 March 2024
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Edit request 19 July 2023
"Endogenous" is used in the introduction. It's neither linked nor defined. It's a $5 word. A $0.50 word would be better. Failing that, it would be helpful if it were a link to something - Wiktionary or an appropriate Wikipedia page. Thanks! 108.64.118.44 (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The BP in a medium vacuum should not be listed
The infobox currently lists the boiling point at 0.4 mmHg, which is a medium vacuum. It is not sourced, and it doesn't say whether this is the free base or what salt it is. This is nearly useless information and it isn't sourced, it should simply be removed. The melting points of the free base and any common salts, at atmospheric pressure, would be interesting data to add. Boiling point in a vacuum is silly. 209.6.225.254 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Is MDMA a psychedelic or not?
The best source for this claim is that there may be 5HT2A agonism, which "supposedly contributes" to "mild psychedelic hallucinations" caused by "high doses" of MDMA. That's a lot of words to say that its status as a psychedelic is pretty flimsy.
The other sources don't support that it is one, either, just that it's commonly referred to as one. This is similar to how cocaine is called a "narcotic," a legal stipulative definition that's quite different from the scientific one.
I'm not arguing that MDMA isn't a psychedelic, but if these are the best sources we have I think it should be removed from the lead. 2600:1017:B103:D814:CCC9:7381:FFDB:5A2D (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- MDMA is not in any way, shape or form, a classic psychedelic, meaning that it cannot be directly compared to LSD, psilocybin, or even mescaline, but it is somewhat closer to mescaline than many other things that people consider to have psychedelic properties, such as cannabis, ketamine, salvia divinorum, and even muscimol. The lead says it has "minor psychedelic properties", but that doesn't mean that it is a psychedelic. Perhaps we just need some clarification in the lead that while it has minor psychedelic properties, it is not technically a psychedelic. Thoric (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Bruxism → Chewing Gum?
Should we add that some users chew gum in order to deal with grinding teeth? Since the article is semi-protected, I wanted to check before just adding it in (especially since finding a good source for this is trickier than I though). Niplav (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The role of Danny Leclère in the production of XTC as partydrug
I have a proposition to add some text regarding Danny Leclère who developed in the 1990's a formula to produce "pure XTC" as party drug and set up a worldwide illegal network to have the drugs distributed. It's because if him XTC became popular in nightlife. The formula of Leclère is still the most used in the manufacturing of (illegal) XTC. Valid/Trusted references can be found in the article about Danny Leclère. I think a short topic in the article of MDMA is advisable due to Leclère his role in production/distribution of illegal XTC. Ino mart (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- is "pure XTC" MDMA? Bon courage (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- According the documentary "Bad, Bad Belgium" the term "pure XTC" refers to the formula by Leclère: it is the first XTC-formula which only contains MDMA as drug. At that time, MDMA-drugs also contained other ingredients such as meta-Chlorophenylpiperazine and para-Methoxy-N-methylamphetamine.