This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pharmacology B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs B‑class (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Rave B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rave, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.RaveWikipedia:WikiProject RaveTemplate:WikiProject RaveRave articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Chemicals B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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 :)

72.52.102.5 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section which says " Although one study[61] argues that MDMA itself causes fluid retention and increased body temperature, while alcohol is a diuretic and lowers the body temperature. Therefore, it is possible that a small amount of alcohol may help counteract a few of the adverse effects of MDMA." Should be removed or placed next to the following information (with rewording); although it refers to a study which shows that alcohol may limit the side effects of MDMA the general scientific concensus shows that it is best to rehydrate with water or isotonic drinks, in order to rehydrate the body. Alcohol will obviously only further dehydrate the body.

This i potentially dangerous misinformation and i think it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.88.80 (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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? Holman.mike (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note Talk:Ecstasy (drug) is erroneously redirecting here. I will amend this. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "erroneously" redirecting here: El3ctr0nika (talk · contribs) forked the article in August, but didn't fork the talk page. I've re-merged and pinged the user. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added more links on the Ecstasy (Drug) page to MDMA, including at the top of the page. Tova Hella (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the redirect pending a consensus being reached otherwise. --John (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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, 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. Tova Hella (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. 67.233.200.190 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've called for improved references in the Side effects and After effects sections. The first one forthcoming was - Lester SJ, Baggott M, Welm S, Schiller NB, Jones RT, Foster E, Mendelson J (2000). "Cardiovascular effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial" (PDF). Annals of Internal Medicine. 133: 969-973.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

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 side effects reported by users".

--SallyScot (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draeco reverted the dubious tags 21:59, 21 November 2009. I've since updated so the whole section is referenced.

--SallyScot (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Reliable Sources if it is in fact accurate.

(along with paradoxical sexual dysfunction (see below))

Thanks, Vectro (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Brunk500 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.35 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. C6541 (T↔C) 17:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 [[1]]. Even with such sources, the positive short-term effects are given undue weight. --EthicsGradient (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. AC (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. EthicsGradient (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. 98.207.159.144 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dissagre, i think if anything this is biased against use of ecstacy, due to the large amount of information of adverse effects compared to how rare these actual effects are. I suggest that an incidence rate for each side effect should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.88.80 (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.136.35 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 17 December 2009

Your vague generalisations are not very helpful. Could you please identify the specific parts of the text you disagree with, and why? Nick Cooper (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Amaher (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

because it causes brain damage in people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.64.153 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So does alcohol. Even water can cause brain damage. The question is how, why, and can it be avoided. 98.207.159.144 (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.68.12 (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New content with references are welcome. - Steve3849^talk 14:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sas556 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George A. Ricaurte is not a 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.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, --79.150.179.227 (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. MathEconMajor (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

68.54.107.114 (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)MDMAreferenceobserver[reply]

that article seems to not be peer-reviewed (it is from a book), which should be a red flag. --Butterworth99 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. AC (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 23:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"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? 98.207.159.144 (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's regarded as a derivative of amphetamine, so automatically went into Class A. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I found it was classified in 1977 by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1977.(1) I therefore removed the above sentence from the section.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the UK legality section to reflect the above. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} 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). ^[1] Achievements

• Opened an FDA Drug Master File for MDMA. This is required before any drug can be researched in FDA-approved human studies.^[2]
• 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.^[3]

Poyandow (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)poyandow[reply]

 Question: Do you have a link to where this study has been written about in an academic journal, a science magazine, or some other independent reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: All the links provided are primary sources (the DMF filing, maps.org); there's no evidence of independent coverage in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "MDMA is legal in most countries"

to

"MDMA is illegal in most countries"

90.198.134.57 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vandalism reverted. DMacks (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why nobody bothered to update this page with Addiction's February, 2011 study, so I'll take the liberty of doing so. --134.129.54.198 (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, found it cited under "Harm Assessment". Any objections if it's mentioned in the "Chronic Usage" section as well? Seems relevant. --134.129.54.198 (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so this artical says there is no cognitive imparements. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1432.007/abstract;jsessionid=671FB773DC5A0DC17D8D6ACEB864BD46.d03t03 and this artical says a MDMA users brain looks similar to someone who is developing alzeimers but it actually doesn't. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1432.007/abstract;jsessionid=671FB773DC5A0DC17D8D6ACEB864BD46.d03t03 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.63.220 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the animated space-fill GIF is adding anything to the representation, and I find (unwanted) moving objects on screen annoying. Can we replace it with a static image? Jon C (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Cantaloupe2 's recent edit, I have restored the correct picture of the Jakarta factor that was erroneously changed without explanation by Editor182 on 29 November 2010. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you people understand that this article has been written from the criminal point of view and is totally void of medical, that is professional usage, the right dosage etc? As criminal, it is sensationalist. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you're seeing, perhaps you could give some details here, or alternatively be WP:BOLD. As far as medical dosage, well there isn't one since it isn't approved by any organization that I know of for medical use. N^oformation ^Talk 18:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought "ecstasy" was a more common name for this compound than MDMA. Anyone agree? NickCT (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed in the past; see [2]. Also WP:DRUGGUIDE. Simishag (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cite to policy. I'm a little surprised by the rINN naming convention. It strikes me as though there would be examples of where WP:COMMONNAME and rINN pointed to distinctly different titles. But perhaps that a discussion for elsewhere. NickCT (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a judgment call, but I think the biggest reason is that "ecstasy" was in use in the English language long before MDMA was first synthesized; see the disambig page for ecstasy. Contrast with heroin which had no previous use (and was in fact a trade name when it was legal). This page was at one point named "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine" but MDMA is certainly easier for people to type. Some have argued that "MDMA" refers unambiguously to the chemical while "ecstasy" could refer to pills sold as MDMA but really containing other substances, but this seems to me a weak argument; no one makes this argument about cocaine even though it is almost always adulterated. Simishag (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... Interesting points. Out of curiosity, what is the rINN for cocaine and heroin, and what is the best source to get that info. NickCT (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search turned up this useful UN reference: http://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/MLD-06-58676_Vol_1_ebook.pdf . The relevant answers are "cocaine", "heroin" and "3,4-methylenedioxymetamfetamine (MDMA)". Simishag (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is flagrantly biased towards the opinion that MDMA is not addictive. It's bizarre since it's an amphetamine, but I'd suggest you at least provide something more than two citations to support over 30 statements regarding the addictive nature of MDMA.

The chart labeled "Comparison of physical harm and dependence regarding various drugs." references citation number 58. http://web.cgu.edu/faculty/gabler/drug_toxicity.htm

It arranges the information there counterfactually by assuming that Moderate/low, Moderate, Moderate/high fall within a continuity of succession.

The chart labeled "Relative physical harm and dependence of ecstasy" combines the information from this source with the data in source 59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FS0140-6736%2807%2960464-4

These charts are presented without any context or characterization of their meaning within the main body. In fact, instead of characterizing dependency and addiction through prose, it begins: "The UK study placed great weight on the risk for acute physical harm, the propensity for physical and psychological dependency on the drug, and the negative familial and societal impacts of the drug..." but then devotes the entire paragraph to a discussion of how MDMA injuries are reported more often than paracetamol deaths.

This article presents a wealth of information indicating that few deaths occur from MDMA use yet treats psychological dependency in a facile manner.

The subarticle "Ecstasy and it's effects" has already been flagged.

My main disagreement is that this article presents MDMA as being non-addictive. It fails to mention any uniform definition of addiction physiological/psychological (cocaine and crystal meth under this criteria are non-addictive as well as they do not cause physical dependence, however it would be laughable if an article on cocaine did not mention addiction), and the article presents a bias towards the POV that MDMA is non-addictive by purposefully omitting any reference to this controversy.

I will be going through and noting all places where citation is needed. Please, do not revert them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeyfaces (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an expert in the field? Will you be presenting any references from those who are? --John (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert. However, it's hard to ignore the mounds of evidence for both physical and psychological MDMA dependence.

Here is an article from 2010 Is Ecstasy A Drug of (Physical) Dependence? Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19836170 Full: http://www.qcmhr.uq.edu.au/Publications/Global%20Burden%20of%20Disease/GBD%20website_2011_attachments/Degenhart%202010%20Is%20ecstasy%20a%20drug%20of%20dependence.pdf

"Few studies have examined ‘dependence’ among ecstasy users [...] An early study found that 64% of a sample of 185 regular ecstasy users met criteria for lifetime ecstasy dependence..."

"The United Kingdom survey of 1106 ecstasy-consuming dance magazine readers screened 17% positively for lifetime ecstasy dependence..."

Here are some more article and pull-quotes:

A study of 26 US university students who used ecstasy found that 14 met criteria for ecstasy DSM-IV abuse or dependence (Hanson and Luciana, 2004).

Seventeen percent of 154 Washington rave attendees screened positive on the Center for Substance Abuse Research Arrestee Drug Screener for probable ecstasy dependence; gender, race and other drug use were the strongest predictors of ecstasy dependence (Yacoubian Jr et al., 2004).

This article is simply a warehouse of all previous studies concerning ecstasy dependence.

The part of the article marked 4. Summary and implications is a good idea of what I feel we need to include.

I'd also appreciate it if JOHN would stop removing the POV flag before this issue is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeyfaces (talk • contribs) 20:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite difficult to take you seriously when you misrepresent sources, as you have done twice now. I'll let the tag stay for 24 hours or so to see if there is any real issue; so far from your edits I do not see one. --John (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that the source you cite in support of MDMA's physical addictiveness contains this: "Some people report problems controlling and concern about their use, but the notable lack of case reports of severe withdrawal syndromes in the literature suggests that physical symptoms play a more limited role than psychological ones. Although tolerance has been reported, as has withdrawal, the relevant literature consists largely of self-reports in research studies involving questionnaires designed for the assessment of withdrawal from other drugs. Animal models similarly suggest that any withdrawal syndrome is much less severe than for other drugs of dependence." --John (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume the issue is now resolved. I am taking down the tag now. --John (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i think there should be an article about them Nikos 1993 (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are you saying there should be a separate article about non-MDMA "ecstasy" pills? --Thoric (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]