Cannabis Ruderalis

Page views for the last 12 months


Source for history section

Stashing this here. Has some new details about Clegg and corroborates some of the details of the Austin Chronicle article. http://www.playboy.com/articles/ecstasy-was-legal-in-1984-and-it-was-glorious

Has blurb on current usage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36503623/danger-from-ecstasy-greater-than-ever-say-drug-experts Sizeofint (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional source for history/spiritual uses to add if I can track down the original Guardian article. http://csp.org/practices/entheogens/docs/saunders-ecstasy_rel.html Sizeofint (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Roger-Sánchez, Concepción; García-Pardo, María P.; Rodríguez-Arias, Marta; Miñarro, Jose; Aguilar, María A. (April 2016). "Neurochemical substrates of the rewarding effects of MDMA". Behavioural Pharmacology. 27: 116–132. doi:10.1097/FBP.0000000000000210. Sizeofint (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
French, Larry G. (June 1995). "The Sassafras Tree and Designer Drugs: From Herbal Tea to Ecstasy". Journal of Chemical Education. 72 (6): 484. doi:10.1021/ed072p484. Sizeofint (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[1]

Content deleted from John Lawn page, mostly redundant but some may be integrated here

Role in the Criminalisation of MDMA

In January 1984, worried about increasing recreational use of MDMA, the DEA prepared a document for scheduling MDMA as a Schedule I substance,[1] a classification for drugs seen as having a high potential for abuse and having no accepted medical use. Because MDMA was already in widespread use by psychiatrists, a group of psychiatrists and their lawyer filed a request for a hearing. The request was granted, although MDMA was scheduled on an emergency basis by the DEA before the hearings were heard anyway.[2] On the basis of multiple witnesses testifying that there were medically accepted uses of MDMA in treatment, the administrative law judge in charge of the hearing, Francis L. Young recommended that MDMA be classified as Schedule III, a scheduling that many researchers, including Alexander Shulgin were willing to accept. However Lawn disagreed with the recommendation and ultimately MDMA was scheduled as Schedule I. The events were later echoed in 1988 when Lawn again overruled Justice Young who recommended for the reclassification of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.

However, in 1987 the Harvard psychiatrist Dr. Lester Grinspoon sued the DEA, and the federal court sided with Grinspoon, calling Lawn's argument "strained" and "unpersuasive",[3] and MDMA was unscheduled. However, less than a month later Lawn claimed that he had reconsidered the evidence and again classified MDMA as Schedule I. In his ruling Lawn claimed that evidence psychiatrists gave that they had administered MDMA to approximately 200 patients with positive effects should be dismissed as "merely anecdotal" as they were not published in medical journals.

References

  1. ^ http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8889454/Lewis,_Donald_00.html?sequence=2
  2. ^ Ecstasy : The Complete Guide : A Comprehensive Look at the Risks and Benefits of MDMA by Julie Holland
  3. ^ http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/dll/mdma_scheduling_history.htm#_ftnref6

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MDMA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly phrased sentance.

"There are numerous methods available in the literature to synthesize MDMA via different intermediates.[98][99][100][101]" seems this sentence is worded very poorly. It's redundant, essentially stating "There are many ways to make MDA" twice. I also don't think it needs the qualifier "in literature". I think a better sentence might be "There are numerous methods available to synthesize MDMA.[98][99][100][101]"

--173.66.69.186 (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'different intermediates' portion is to emphasize the different precursors (safrole, isosafrol, etc.). The "in literature" part can be cut. Sizeofint (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provenience

I had this crazy idea... How come people don't tell the truth and save everyone of the troubles arising from lies. Like: Mdma is extracted from sea shells... plain and simple.

  • see also cocaine from ivory

Rgb.trouw (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US data in the lead

As the US is the largest EN speaking country in the world IMO this "In the United States, about 0.9 million people used ecstasy in 2010.[1]" belongs in the lead.

The Persian version of the article should have the prevalence of usage in Iran the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this marginalizes the rest of the English speaking population by making Wikipedia seem US centric on articles that have a global scope. The 0.9 million number reflects a use level of ~0.3% which is in line with the global number we give. Sizeofint (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Drugs2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Non-use in first paragraph

Doc James, could you explain why we should emphasize that MDMA is not used medically in the intro paragraph? There is nothing substantial in the preceding sentences that hints at medical applications - that information isn't provided until the fourth paragraph - so the abrupt statement that MDMA has no medical use seems out of place to me. At that point in the lead the reader has no context in which to understand the non-use statement. I think it makes more sense to state this after the reader has learned about the ongoing trials. Sizeofint (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead often follows the same layout as the body of the text. We talk about non medical uses and than we mention that their are no medical uses. Flows very well IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see. Anyone else have thoughts about this? Sizeofint (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some are promoting it for medical uses. Thus mentioning that these are not accepted upfront is IMO important. Plus this is similar to the layout of heroin and cocaine were we discuss both medical use and recreation use in the first paragraph. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between this and cocaine or heroin is that those drugs are actually approved for medical use, at least in some countries. If MDMA is approved I have no problem including this in the first paragraph. We could also compare this article to LSD or psilocybin which also have proposed medical uses but do not include a mention of non-use in their leads. Sizeofint (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply