This article is of interest to multiple 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. Neuroscience B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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 Mid‑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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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. Autism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture 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.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Altered States of Consciousness B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Altered States of Consciousness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of altered states of consciousness 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.Altered States of ConsciousnessWikipedia:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessTemplate:WikiProject Altered States of ConsciousnessAltered States of Consciousness 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.

Page views for the last 12 months

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]

DSM-5 content can be expanded. 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm16 Sizeofint (talk) 06:02, 28 September 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.

"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]

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]

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]

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 first paragraphs. Sizeofint (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Doc James that the the non-use statement fits well. The first sentence of the article introduces MDMA as a recreational drug. Whether it has accepted medical uses is therefore a very natural question that should be clearly answered in the lead as well. Rgr09 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see that by virtue of being a recreational drug the question of medical use becomes immediately paramount (if that is what you are saying). We have hundreds of articles on recreational drugs with no accepted medical uses on en:wp. This may be the only in which we have decided to place this non-use in the lead paragraph. The non-use mention is warranted - in my view - because of this particular drug's history and current research efforts, not because the medical usage status of every psychoactive drug is of utmost importance. The connection between this drug's history and its current non-use status is why I suggest this statement be placed in the last paragraph. Sizeofint (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THC has medical uses, so does cocaine, alcohol, and heroine. So in contracts to those MDMA does not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When we say "medical use", we're actually referring to "medical indications", which is a slightly different concept. In the context of drugs, a medical indication for a drug is a form of medical use for treating a condition that has been deemed to have sufficient treatment efficacy and an adequate safety profile, particulary in relation to any existing alternative pharmacotherapies for the condition. For example, amphetamine is a very effective nasal decongestant and it was used several decades ago for treating nasal congestion under the brand name "Benzedrine". Nowadays, amphetamine isn't indicated for nasal congestion and I doubt that any doctor would prescribe it for that condition given that there are alternatives treatments available, like pseudoephedrine, which have comparable efficacy and much fewer side effects (NB: the decongestant effect of amphetamine-type stimulants is mediated peripherally in the sinuses by noradrenaline).

Since medical indications are listed in drug labels following regulatory approval, non-indicated uses are typically called "off-label uses". MDMA has no drug label since, internationally, it's not approved by any government for medical use. At the moment, MDMA is just an experimental drug which is currently undergoing clinical trials (i.e., an experiment) for the treatment of PTSD despite also being a globally banned substance. In other experimental drug articles, we don't say that the experimental uses of the drug are actual "medical uses", so we shouldn't do this with MDMA either until it receives regulatory approval for treating a condition (e.g., PTSD) and consequently acquires its first "medical indication". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is true and I completely agree Seppi333. However, this is tangential to the point I am trying to make. My objection is to stating MDMA has no medical uses in the first paragraph. I am imagining a reader completely naive to to this topic. As they read they see 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), commonly known as ecstasy (E), is a psychoactive drug used primarily as a recreational drug. Desired effects include increased empathy, euphoria, and heightened sensations. When taken by mouth, effects begin after 30–45 minutes and last 3–6 hours. It is also sometimes snorted or smoked. So far so good. In the next sentence they read As of 2017, MDMA has no accepted medical uses. At this point the reader might think to themself, "well obviously it has no medical uses, MDMA is a recreational drug. Why would anyone think it has medical uses?" It is not until the fourth paragraph discussing current research and history that this statement can have any meaning to the naive reader. My proposal is to move the sentence there so when the reader first encounters it they can immediately understand its significance. Sizeofint (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad. In that case, I agree with you. Putting medical indications in the first sentence/paragraph is only relevant to drugs that actually have one. Moreover, it's more coherent to place that statement in the fourth paragraph because it provides context. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We always discuss medical uses before research. Please get consensus before moving. The no medical uses has been in the first paragraph for a while. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This obviously doesn't apply to compounds with no medical uses though; I mean, we don't go into the hydrochloric acid article or more obscure compound articles like castalagin and say silly things like "HCl/Castalgin has no medical uses", right? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an obscure compound. Restored the lead to follow the body of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to put things slightly out of order if it reads better that way. The order of content coverage in the lead isn't required to follow the same order as the body. It's just supposed to summarize it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it flows better the way it was before so restored it. It had been in the prior layout for a long time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone besides Doc James think it's a bad idea to cover each significant topic only once in the lead, or should we keep the coverage of medical use scattered and make the 1st and 4th lead paragraphs redundant? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One is medical uses, the other is research. They are two separate topics and generally we keep them as two separate topics. It is a ongoing problem that people try to position tentative research as confirmed medical uses. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th paragraph is discussing an expedited drug approval process which would result in an MDMA having an "accepted medical use". That's not research. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an early step "setting it on a fast track for review and potential approval" per [1] That is NOT approval. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]