Template:Talkheaderlong

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs Unassessed (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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:FAOL

Can someone who is better at the drug boxs than me integrate the spinning MDMA gif?

You can find the code for the .gif in the MDMA History Archive from the Microswitch edit of the same name.

24.144.50.186 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskinesia

Archive 1

[quote]MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine), most commonly known by the street names ecstasy or XTC (for more names see the full list), is a synthetic entactogen of the phenethylamine family, whose primary effect is believed to be the stimulation of secretion as well as inhibition of re-uptake of large amounts of serotonin as well as dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain, inducing a general sense of openness, empathy, energy, euphoria, and well-being. [/quote]

The first problem with this statement is that MDMA is never referred to as Ecstacy when trying to buy pure MDMA on the street. If one wants MDMA one asks specifically for MDMA and nothing else. Everyone knows when you buy E you get MDMA (if your lucky) and some other cocktail of sh*t.

I really don't think that archiving request, nor the fulfilling of it, was very wise. __meco 10:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section on colloquial references is bloated and I have a hard time seeing the actual purpose of it in its current state. Anyone? __meco 20:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence has been removed due to lack of citation :Most blackmarket pills are made in basement labs with household chemicals [citation needed](often containing other products) and are thus dangerous because of their impure content. The information provided by the media, police and the Home Office (UK) suggests that MDMA supplied to Europe is mainly produced in laboratories in Israel and the Netherlands.

In the same section are other unverified statements especially about contaminents and additives, (e.g. cocaine and heroin). I have yet to find any test results showing these two particular contaminants. Cocaine is highly unlikely as it is vastly more expensive than MDMA and such a small amount ingested would have little effect. Similarly for heroin. PLEASE PROVIDE SOURCES. Or the offending parts will be removed. --Dumbo1 17:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can confirm cocaine and heroin as substituents at: http://www.ecstasydata.org

Personally, I am concerned about the accuracy of the statement:

"Sometimes more dangerous chemicals such as PMA or methamphetamine alone or in combination with MDMA are added to ecstasy tablets."

I am not aware of evidence that meth is more dangerous than MDMA. I think that PMA and Meth should be neutrally referrred to as 'other potentially toxic psychoactives'.

--Mattbagg 06:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe much of the alleged history in the article is inaccurate. For example, MDMA was used by Shulgin in the 70s not 60s and he didn't really bring it to public attention, just to the attention of some scientists and a therapist named Leo Zeff. I have made a first pass at editing this section.

--Mattbagg 06:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It must be noted that in the U.S., being in possession of "X" amount of ecstasy pills can lead to a conviction of manslaughter, due the risk the someone may die under heavy use of the drug.( Need legal citation/note ) "

I think this spectacular claim submitted by User:Sam, Happy Mancan stay here until it can be verified. __meco 09:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my state, manufacturing or importing more than 30 kilograms of MDMA, or more than 30 kilograms of a mixture containing is a CAPITAL felony actually punishable by death. See: Florida Statute Title XLVI Chapter 893 Section 193 I find it easy to believe other states have similar laws. Cloaked Dagger 20:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Ecstasy (drug)

Our policies say that we should use the most common name... why is this article at Methylenedioxymethamphetamine? bogdan 17:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the best peg to hang this article on would be MDMA. __meco 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@bogdan. There is a very good reason.^[1] MDMA is a precisely defined chemical substance, whereas ecstasy is not. It is a drug that often contains also other amphetamines and in some cases not a trace of MDMA, although sold as E.^[2] Most often the producer is the only one who knows what is in it. But indeed, in this article one should sort out everything that belongs to the article Ecstasy. --84.136.234.127 18:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The article does not substantiate claims that dilution and specifically contamination is a prevalent phenomenon. Also, the article is about this "precisely defined chemical substance". The fact that it has various other aspects than the chemical / biochemical aspects are sidelines that can easily be dealt with as such within an article about MDMA. It should be noted that communities and authoritative sources such as Erowid, Lycaeum, and indeed Alexander Shulgin, when discussing various social / entheogenic / other aspects all use MDMA as primary reference however noting that other terms exist. __meco 08:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

I'm finding it a little confusing to read your comment since there are no aticles to merge. There is but this one. The question is merely whether it should reside under the name Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, which it currently does – a name few people are going to recognize as being MDMA/Ecstasy when browsing a category directory for instance, or one of the two alternative names MDMA and Ecstasy, both currently being redirect pages to Methylenedioxymethamphetamine. If we bother to consider what the other Wikipedias have chosen to name their corresponding article we find that 10 have chosen "Ecstasy", 5 have chosen "MDMA" and six I cannot determine due to foreign alphabets, however, judging from the length of the article name I think at most one of those could have chosen "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine". Another comparison shows that LSD is thte main article name whereas Lysergic acid diethylamide and LSD-25 are redirects to that page. When the proper chemical name is as unwieldy as in the case of "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine" I think it's unreasonable to keep the article under its current name. __meco 13:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to MDMA

It has been suggested to move this article to MDMA. I find this a very good idea. --84.136.207.196 01:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion. Ecstasy and MDMA are not the same thing. Although MDMA is commonly the principle ingredient in ecstasy, ecstasy frequently contains other agents (frequently other pyschoactive components, not just cutting agents) in a high enough proportion that they have separate street names. Pure MDMA is usually referred to as Molly, while Ecstasy is a combination of pyschoactive compounds with MDMA likely being the principle ingredient. 67.87.98.164 03:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this article's name is "Methylenedioxymethamphetamine", which is the full name of MDMA (MethyleneDioxyMethAmphetamine). This is the proper Wikipedia convention, and there is a redirect from MDMA to here. Secondly, Ecstasy and MDMA are the same thing. The name "ecstasy" was given to the substance MDMA. The fact that some people try to pass other things off as ecstasy is the same age old problem of being ripped off -- scammed. Molly is just another slang term for MDMA, and while it has recently come to refer to (mostly) unadulterated MDMA in the underground illicit drug trade, Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide. For approximately 20 years, the term "ecstasy" had referred to MDMA and nothing else. Only within the past ten years has "ecstasy" pills being commonly mixed with meth, dxm, heroin and sometimes experimental research chemicals become a growing problem. --Thoric 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with moving it either to MDMA or Ecstacy (drug). Having it here is not useful. Morwen - Talk

How is having it here not "useful"? Please explain yourself. --Thoric 16:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the full name is almost comically unwieldy. I was confused briefly at what this article even was, and I'm decently familiar with this stuff (er, drug articles, not MDMA). There really isn't a convention that relates to this specifically, as far as I know, because there isn't an INN for MDMA. (Actually, heroin has the INN diacetylmorphine, but the page is at heroin. Go figure.) I think it would be *much* more helpful for readers, and no less accurate, to have this article at a less unwieldy title, either MDMA or ecstasy (drug). --Galaxiaad 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, this has already been said elsewhere on the page. I stand by what I said though. By the way, Thoric, I adore the psychoactive drug diagram. --Galaxiaad 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's correct name is 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine! I believe most people would be familier with the name MDMA, rather than "methylenedioxymethamphetamine". Because of this, I think it is probably better to rename the article MDMA.(Technically though, it should be 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine! As a scientist, this is what I would prefer!) There's no strict convention, but most other articles on drugs use common names rather than the correct chemical name of the molecule, for example fluoxetine. By analogy to the methylendioxymethamphetamine article, the fluoxetine article should be renamed N-methyl-3-phenyl-3-[4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-propan-1-amine! Fluoxetine is a made up name, akin to the use of Ecstasy as a name for MDMA. The article really should NOT be renamed Ecstasy. Bobby charriot 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly rewrote this section to reflect the ambiguity of the scientific and medical literature. It could probably use some smoothing. Some of the points may be controversial to some. --Mattbagg 15:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been hanging atounf for way too long without any verification. Sections may be returned if they're documented:

Pills sold illegally on the street do not always contain MDMA as the only active ingredient. In British Columbia, Canada, recent government tests showed that some of the pills tested contained methamphetamine in doses as high as 20 milligrams ^{[citation needed]}. Analogues of MDMA such as MDEA, MDA and MBDB are often found, and more rarely other psychoactive additives such as amphetamines (speed), DXM, ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, PMA, 4-MTA, caffeine, ketamine (Special K), 2C-B, 2C-T-7 or other compounds may be present ^{[citation needed]}. In addition to MDMA ecstasy pills may contain cocaine, heroin, or mescaline ^{[citation needed]}; Mescaline is an especially unlikely contaminant, as a large amount is required for an effective dose ^{[citation needed]}. There have been a few cases where an extremely potent synthetic opiate, Fentanyl, has been identified in pills ^{[citation needed]}, which could potentially be very dangerous if people took several of them thinking that they only contained MDMA ^{[citation needed]}.

Aspirin, paracetamol (acetaminophen), or even canine heartworm tablets have had the letter E scratched into them and have been sold as ecstasy [1], for enormous profit. While overdose from MDMA itself is rare, many more toxic substances are often sold as ecstasy ^{[citation needed]}, and overdose or other adverse reaction to adulterants is not uncommon ^{[citation needed]}.

__meco 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that this moving is according to Wikipedia policy, WP:V states "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}." As this unverfied information has been in the article for some time it is my prerogative to move the text here pending verification of these numerous unsourced statements. And I might add what Jimmy Wales is quoted qith stating on this same subject (also at WP:V): ""I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." __meco 23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis, you could probably delete a large proportion of anything outside the top 100 articles on Wikipedia. I'm in the camp that believes that some information is better than none, and that the Wikification process will take place naturally over time. If we remove stuff, aggressively, it (i) annoys people and (ii) makes the Wikification process a lot less likely, because people tend to edit what's in front of their noses, rather than copying stuff between pages which takes longer. Just my view, but there's lots written about this topic elsewhere.

Most of all, though, the sections you have removed are objective, verifiable facts, and not POV. Links may be missing but they will surely be added over time. Punanimal 14:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

And then they will be reintroduced into the article, one by one. __meco 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis, would you therefore please delete almost the whole article on England, which is largely unsourced. Feel free. Punanimal 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This drug is known in some circles as a gay drug (especially when taken by males). The increased emotion and desire to rub everything and oral fixation and connection to dance culture all make it gay. This article never addresses this issue. ShadowyCabal 15:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference? Never heard of that, FWIW. Morwen - Talk 16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Sucking lollipops and really "understanding" everyone. And you get all sweaty and dancy. Fucking gay! Not to mention Jay Mohr in Go (film). You know, these homos get together with their hot oil rub downs and whatnot. ShadowyCabal 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this drug may make some people a little less homophobic, that certainly doesn't make it a "gay drug". --Thoric 20:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying this drug makes you gay like sodomy makes you gay. I'm saying it has a social stigma, like eating lots of chocolate or watching Grizzly Man. I just want this article to acknowlege if such a stigma exists. If this social stigma doesn't exist, my heterosexual friends have been making up excuses not to induldge in an awesome drug. ShadowyCabal 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is more of a "social stigma" (and evidence to go along with it) to mark methamphetamine as a "gay drug", than to mark MDMA. (The New York Times published a report stating that a survey of homosexual men had reported that 25% had used crystal-meth within the past few months). I have not come across any similar data to draw a strong trend between MDMA use and homosexuality, but much of this is meaningless as a survey of homosexual men would likely show that 90% had consumed alcohol within the past few months -- does that make alcohol a "gay drug"? --Thoric 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So long as we're all on the same page here. ShadowyCabal 05:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

never heard of that for crystal meth or E. Liquid gold is perceived as a 'gay thing' round my parts because it makes your anus dilate (or so the 'stigma' goes) but it doesn't stop straight people sniffing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.56.35 (talk • contribs) 15:02, August 22, 2006 (UTC)

This article is of markedly lower quality than it was a couple of months ago (and I see it's been knocked off the good article list.) I haven't yet gone back through the history to see what's gone wrong, but a revert to an earlier time is more than a little tempting. Thoughts? Anthony Citrano 10:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps too few people have a watchful eye on this particular article. When a vandal like this is being fixed like this without anyone noticing what has happened and this is combined with fairly frequent editing so that checking edits done in, say the last 5 days in itself becomes a daunting task, the article will deteriorate steadily. __meco 01:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment. Having just read the article for the first time, and being very pro the liberalisation of MDMA (atleast) this article isn't so much pro such a view but very agressive against views contrary to this stance. user:mr_happyhour August 22 2006

Agreed wholeheartedly. Regardless of liberalisation sentiment, what we need is quality and fairness and facts. The article has gone a bit junior-high-school in its tenor. I reiterate my "vote" for a reversion to a better quality date, which I'd roughly guess is sometime back in May or June. How to determine the most proper way to do this (that won't tick off a bunch of folk)? Anthony Citrano 23:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I'm against such a dramatic reversion. I think the low quality parts would be easier to fix than to re-add all the sutble higher quality edits. And the current article is pretty good; mostly it just needs some more references. --Mattbagg 19:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Netherlands is by far the biggest XTC producer in the world. It is estimated that about 80%-90% of all the pills ('knijters', 'pilletjes' or ' piefies' in Dutch) in the world are produced in the Netherlands."

I think we should actively move all unsourced claims and assertions here. I think the fact that we don't often do this is a major reason why the quality of the article has significantly deteriorated since the time it was listed as Good. __meco 15:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article stipulates that one of the effects of ecstasy is 'a relieving sense that problems in life are insignificant'. I am not sure this is appropriate; rather, to be more precise, something like 'it is easier to face problems in life', or 'realisation of who we are, what we have lead to a decreased burden of problems of life'. Im just afraid the sentence currently in there doesnt portray the effects of the drugs quite well, and can misinform.

Also, in the same section: 'the feeling that something "tremendously important" or "fundamental and positive" is occurring'. It is put in a way that seems to make that statement sound absurd. --DragonFly31 00:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above (Recent Quality Drop) - this is a good example of the greater problem with which this article now suffers.... Anthony Citrano 22:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine), most commonly known by the street name ecstasy, Thizz, E, beans, or XTC, is a ...

I thought an e tab is not pure MDMA, ecstasy tablets are mainly made of MDMA but most of them also contain Caffeine, Methamphetamine, in some cases, Diphenhydramine, Procaine and I have even heard about tables made with some Ketamine and Pseudo/Ephedrine.

Why is this not mentioned on the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaddyC (talk • contribs) 02:59, August 31, 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's a rumour? This article already suffers from all sorts of rumours of what people have heard or believe and unless there's a reliable source to such claims the article should not have to propagate them. __meco 08:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ecstacy" / "E" is supposed to contain nothing but MDMA, but it is common knowledge that it's buyer beware when you're buying unregulated substances as opposed to real phamaceuticals. Cutting drugs with other substances is hardly anything new. Sometimes you get what you asked for cut with other drugs, sometimes you get something completely different, and sometimes you get nothing at all. --Thoric 00:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and the qualm expressed by PaddyC is as (ir)relevant here as it would be in the article about heroin. This, as you contend, is the principal response (the one I make above would be subsidiary). __meco 16:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I don't much like it here, I would prefer it at Ecstasy (drug) or MDMA. I don't mind which. Anyone want to speak in defence of the article being at the name Methylenedioxymethamphetamine? The "proper wikipedia policy" here would beWikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) (actually a guideline not a policy), which recommends common names where they exist - this would imply moving it. There's more specific naming conventions on Chemistry - is there any section of that which overrides "common names"? Morwen - Talk 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy/guideline to follow would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/General/Naming of drug pages, which states that the International Nonproprietary Name should be used. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really advice for this context, though is it? It's saying "use ibuprofen not some random trademark" (or dealing with the case that there are two popular scientific names), rather than dealing with the case where the drug has a non-scientific common name, or an abbreviation which is more popular than the full name. 194.66.226.95 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy states: 'Wikipedia policy on naming convention states that, "naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." To that end, the World Health Organization International Nonproprietary Name (INN) forms the basis of this policy.' .. so if it has an INN, that is the name to be used, otherwise the name that 'the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity.' I would say it fits the context. Personally, if there is no INN, maybe MDMA or XTC (I think Europe does know it mainly under that name). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how a name which probably most people would find it almost impossible to spell or even know the actual name of, makes "linking to those articles easy and second nature". This isn't a solely a biochemistry jargon article where this sort of verbosity might be forgiven: it has interest to a far wider audience. 194.66.226.95 18:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I did not say methylenedioxymethamphetamine is the INN name .. the person above asks, what is the policy. This is the policy that we apply to, and to find this article, we use redirects, type MDMA in the search box (or click on the link that I provide), and see where you get (notice the first line '(Redirected from MDMA)')! And there is nothing wrong with an article using a link MDMA (as this paragraph now does have two), you will get at the right spot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, does anyone want to speak in defence of having the article here? I am declaring my intention to move it in a few days, either to Ecstacy (drug) or to MDMA. I would be happy to discuss the merits and policies.... Morwen - Talk 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I support any of the two alternatives over the current name. __meco 20:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly disagree with any name change, as Wikipedia norms are already being applied here. MDMA, as a search term, redirects here, and searching for ecstasy turns up a disambiguation page that will lead one here. And look at another, similar, recreational drug: 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine is not listed as MDA (although searching for MDA will lead you there). Don't change the name, as methylenedioxymethamphetamine is the proper article title, and MDMA (the next logical choice) already redirects users here.--Ryan! 01:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, don't move pages because 'you don't like it here.' Policy says that the INN name should be used (which may very well be methylenedioxymethamphetamine, but maybe even more difficult, could be '1-(benzo[d][1,3]dioxol-5-yl)-N-methylpropan-2-amine'), so please check what the INN-name of this compound is, and then propose a move to that name. If there is no INN, the first logical choice might be MDMA, which is against policy (abbreviations should not be used as a pagename). The next choice would be Ecstacy, which is already in use as a disambiguation page, so the choice would be between 'methylenedioxymethamphetamine' or 'ecstacy (drug)' .. the latter has exactly the same problem as the first, people might not link correctly to that. Redirects bring you to this page, there is nothing wrong with not being able to remember the name methylenedioxymethamphetamine as a link, just create a link to MDMA or to ecstacy (drug) in articles that need a link to methylenedioxymethamphetamine (as most pages in Wikipedia already do). So I oppose the move. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I vote move to MDMA or Ecstacy (drug), per Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/General/Naming of drug pages, there is currently no INN, so "naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" would suggest MDMA or ecstacy (I don't currently mind which). Methylenedioxymethamphetamine doesn't seem to me to fit with the whole Wikipedia feel; it is just not accessible, hardly anyone really uses it except to show off. I'm a phamacist and I struggle to remember or spell it! PeteThePill 22:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • So, on the one hand we have the actual naming policy, which says to move, on the other hand we have Dirk who says that the policy says not to move. If Dirk would like justify reading of policy, please do so. Morwen - Talk 14:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting Subjective effects

I think the subjective effects are heartfelt descriptions but are not systematic. They partly overlap each other and are difficult to find citations for. What about something like this instead?:

Effects desired by users include:

• increased positive emotion and decreased negative emotion
• increased sense of well-being
• increased sociability and feelings of closeness or connection with other people (Vollenweider et al. 1998, Greer and Tolbert 1986)
• reduced defensiveness and fear of emotional injury (Greer 1985)
• a sense of increased insightfulness and introspective ability (Shulgin and Shulgin 1991, Greer 1985)

These descriptions are easier to link to citations than the current ones, although some may feel they don't capture the spirit of the current ones. --Mattbagg 19:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link is 404: UK National Drugs Line factsheet on Ecstasy

A study conducted by Bryan Yamamoto of Boston University alsoshowed that MDMA damages the blood-brain barrier. He gave the drug torats and then injected a dye into their blood that is normally toolarge to cross the blood-brain barrier, yet the dye easily reached thebrain. Even though the rats were given no subsequent doses of ecstasy,newly injected dye could still penetrate the brain 10 weeks later. This dysfunction of the blood-brain barrier exposes the brain totoxins and pathogens. Although Yamamoto does not know exactly how longthe drug's effect lasts in humans, it is estimated that 10 weeks in arat's life corresponds to five to seven human years (Vollmer 2006).13

I have removed this dubious paragraph because I could not find such a study using PubMed. The provided reference refers to a lay press article and is not accessible without paying a fee. Cacycle 21:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Ricaurte had also come under fire for supplying PET scans to the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy that were used in anti-drug literature (Plain Brain/Brain After Ecstasy) that seemed to suggest MDMA created holes in human brains, an implication that critics called misleading. Ricaurte later asked the Agency to change the literature, citing the "poor quality" of the images." lacks a citation and can be found at http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Ecstasy_(drug)#Long-term_effects They do not seem to acknowledge credit so maybe it was copied from here. I can't tell, just though I would say something.

"Metabolites of MDMA that have been identified in humans include 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), 4-hydroxy-3-methoxy-methamphetamine (HMMA), 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyamphetamine (HMA), 3,4-dihydroxyamphetamine (DHA, also called alpha-methyldopamine), 3,4-methylenedioxyphenylacetone (MDP2P), and N-hydroxy-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDOH)."

I would like to find the IPAUC nomeclature of these metabolites. Diagrams of these metabolites would show visibly how it is metabolised.

Using my limited chemical nomenclature and chemsketch:

• HMMA is (2-methoxy-4-[2-(methylamino)propyl]phenol)? SMILES: Oc1ccc(cc1OC)CC(C)NC ?
• HMA (4-(2-aminopropyl)-2-methoxyphenol)? SMILES: Oc1ccc(cc1OC)CC(C)N ?
• DHA (4-(2-aminopropyl)benzene-1,2-diol)? SMILES: Oc1ccc(CC(C)N)cc1O ?
• MDOH (1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-N-hydroxypropan-2-amine)? SMILES: CC(NO)Cc1ccc2OCOc2c1 ?

--x1987x(talk) 02:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this section, as not only was it rather disjointed and misplaced, but most of the claims were either repetitive of what was already in the article (e.g. jaw-clenching), or asymptomatic in light of the standard references to the effects of MDMA (e.g. "weightlessness" and "tightening of skin under chin"). References to "intoxication" and "drunkenness" only seem plausible in event of excessive - and therefore atypical - consumption. I've also removed the reference elsewhere to "possible muscle aching after usage" as this is widely regarded as a result of dancing continuously while under the influence of MDMA, rather than a direct effect of the MDMA itself (cf. Saunders). Someone who has not been dancing for hours will not experience muscle ache, while someone not on MDMA who has been dancing for hours will experience it. Nick Cooper 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know of any statistics on Hyponatremia and Ecstasy use? It is quoted often as a possible negative side effect of E use, but is much rarer than most people think I believe. I saw some statistics on this before from UK or US but can't remember where from. That stupid British girl is the only case I can remember where it happened, and I don't think there were that many more instances of it as it isn't too hard to avoid if you have a brain in your head.

It seems like MDMA has methamphetamine in it. But it is generally considered chemically a close relative mescaline. It effects seem to be more similar to methamphetamine though. Is MDMA a sort of mix between methamphetamine and mescaline? Zachorious 17:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, MDMA does not have methamphetamine "in it," as both are distinctly separate molecules. The same three atoms that exist in methamphetamine (carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen) exist in MDMA, but alongside oxygen. Mescaline is composed of the same atoms as MDMA, but again in different proportions, i.e.:

Methamphetamine = C₁₀H₁₅N

MDMA = C₁₁H₁₅NO₂

Mescaline = C₁₁H₁₇NO₃

Nick Cooper 17:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article could do with a section / expansion of a section to incorporate the effect that Ecstasy has on Body temperature. i.e. Details on how this effects the UCP3 in skeletal muscle to produce hypothermia etc Genomaniac 15:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.umcutrecht.nl/research/agenda/2006/10/Ecstasy+leaves+memory+intact.htm

ccasional use of ecstasy (an average of a total of two pills) or frequent cannabis use (several marijuana cigarettes a week over a period of an average of four years) does not lead to long-term abnormalities in memory or ability to concentrate, or related brain activity. These are the main findings in Gerry Jager’s doctoral thesis. She studied the long-term effects of the popular drugs ecstasy and cannabis on brain functions (memory and ability to concentrate) using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Jager will receive her PhD from Utrecht University on October 31. The title of her thesis is, “Functional MRI studies in human ecstasy and cannabis users.”

Don't know when this will be published or where, but it would definitely be worth looking in to in respect to this wiki.

The University and website hosting are both in The Netherlands, so the study will presumably be Dutch. If an abstract is published in English, it would definitely become very relevant to the article. Thank you for alerting us to the study.--Ryan! 03:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone notice that this is in "other putative uses" in the infobox? It sounds like vandalism to me. mrholybrain's talk 13:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before it's scheduling a small group of psychologists did use MDMA for Marriage Counseling Cloaked Dagger 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup box just added by somebody. Long-term adverse effects needs massive work.

Please sign your posts on talk pages. Unless somebody (that person or others) comes here to the talk page and says precisely how the article needs cleaning up, the tag should simply be removed IMO.

Far better, of course, for them to have cleaned the article up themselves... discussing proposed changes here first if they appear controversial. Andrewa 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On June 22, 2006, MattBagg stated:

Personally, I am concerned about the accuracy of the statement:

"Sometimes more dangerous chemicals such as PMA or methamphetamine alone or in combination with MDMA are added to ecstasy tablets."

I am not aware of evidence that meth is more dangerous than MDMA. I think that PMA and Meth should be neutrally referrred to as 'other potentially toxic psychoactives'.

[end quote]

I can offer fairly good evidence that both PMA and methamphetamine are more dangerous than MDMA. First, case studies have revealed a greater potential for overheating (hyperthermia) with PMA. Overheating due to PMA occurs more frequently than with MDMA, occurs at lower doses than MDMA, and typically is more severe. Here is my reference for the above claims: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/174_09_070501/ling/ling.html

Second, methamphetamine has more addictive potential than MDMA. I think that this should be fairly common knowledge, but if not, you would not have to look far to find references related to meth addiction. In addition, methamphetamine is mentioned in a far higher number of emergency room visits than MDMA. For example, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) statistics for 2004 revealed that MDMA was mentioned in 8,621 emergency room visits, whereas methamphetamine was mentioned in 73,400 emergency room visits. You can find this information here: https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/DAWN2k4ED.pdf (Table 4, p. 24)

Finally, when MDMA is considered alongside a list of legal and illegal drugs, it ranks toward the bottom in terms of overall risk. For example, the UK Select Committee on Science and Technology recently determined that MDMA is an altogether safer drug than heroin, cocaine, alcohol, ketamine, benzodiazepines, amphetamine, tobacco, cannabis, and LSD, to name some. You can find the results of this study here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031we15.htm

One last thing I wanted to mention is that bupropion (Wellbutrin) is an antidepressant which is not considered to be an SSRI. It is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. Previous research has indicated that dopamine uptake inhibitors protect against MDMA serotonin depletion, without having any apparent effect on body temperature. The reference for this can be found here: http://www.maps.org/w3pb/new/1999/1999_shankaran_204_1.pdf

Basically, since bupropion is not an SSRI and instead is a dopamine uptake inhibitor, it has the potential to provide neuroprotection without affecting the positive effects of MDMA. Of course, bupropion specifically administered along with MDMA would be necessary for an even higher degree of certainty in this effect. Personally speaking (yeah, here comes some anecdotal evidence), I have taken Ecstasy (pills purported to be MDMA) several times along with bupropion, with no complications, and an unnoticeable lessening of positive effects.

Okay, signing out.72.147.252.133 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)MDMAresearchguy[reply]

There's some good information there, and the references are good. But it's not encyclopedic as is, because it's structured as an argument. We just present the information, we don't structure it in this way.

Thank you for the contribution. I'd encourage you to try to add the encyclopedic information to the article, but now it's here someone else might, that's one of the reasons for having talk pages. And adding any of this without making the article into a POV essay will be quite a challenge. Andrewa 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no negative user opinions mentioned in this drug article. The negative long-term effects section is started with sentence "these are debated among scientist" - but this is outdated. Maybe between neurobiologist there were some debate, a long time ago, but between psychiatrists and psychologist things stand strong - MDMA or ecstasy definitely has pleasant primary effects, but it is a drug with all it's negative consequences. THERE'S NO MAIN PROBLEM to take enough water when on ecstasy... this is really funny. Nobody is going to tell you what really happens on ecstasy and what kind of different psychical problems you are starting. (I'm writing this as student of psychology with my own experience of mdma). There is always only this "QUASI-scientific approach" to describe hallucinogens, but things are really simple - nobody needs this DRUG, and EVERYBODY who will take it will suffer the ways he is not able to imagine now. I don't suppose my voice will be heard because of lobby for ecstasy - on every forum they are users who ALWAYS advocate it, and EX-USERS ho hate it. And, there are some more informations from another side: http://ecstasy-effects.com (why THIS is not in links?? - and don't lie, I posted this address before, altough I don't have anything to do with it).

so, to summarize - after common folks read this article, they have 1000x times better view on ecstasy as it is in reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.102.3.94 (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If by "better view" you mean more realistic, then I agree. There are no real downsides to moderate use of MDMA in humans, as demonstrated by study after study as well as the tens of millions of MDMA users who have neutral or positive feelings about their experiences with the drug. There are huge downsides to addictive abuse of most substances or activities that humans can choose to incorporate into their lives. Sinned 13:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one look at the top page of "Ecstasy Effects" reveals numerous demonstrably false or highly misleading claims. The bottom line is that it is a commercial site "selling" a "recovery programme," and as such cannot be considered an impartial source of information. Nick Cooper 14:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well all i can say is this...you can take ecstacy or not...no one forces u too...u have a choice...the issue really is that many people want to take ecstacy...even have taken it before and thoroughly enjoy its effects without experiencing any negative effects...yet they are not allowed to make their own choices...and so we have this ridiculous situation and battle over the information on it, simply as people arnt allowed to make their own choices over it...thats the root of the problem on this page...and incidently i have never "suffered" from taking ecstacy...that is ridiculous...surely as with anything...even nuts or milk or gluten...some people will "suffer" from taking it...to say everyone will suffer is ridiculous and we can come up with a million signatures stating so from past users...cases of normal standard doses that "suffered" are so much harder to find than people pleased with standard doses...and weve even got ricaurte on record stating experiments with it on humans arnt especially dangerous...there are a million and one chemicals out there more dangerous than this one...this issue is unfortunately influenced by the fact that there are huge sums of money involved on all sides...it could be a major competitor with other things such as tobacco, alcohol, and various drugs...the cocaine lobby doesnt want people using mdma...the tobacco people dont...the beer companies dont...the heroin pushers dont...big pharmas "psychotherapeutics" pushers dont...there is a massive lobby against it...yalls best hope is to get a big pharma on ur side with a "hybrid... MDMA attached to something patantable" drug...and there is great politcal fear for several reasons...fear that people may stop taking their other substances if they came to try mdma...fear that people will think differently afterwards...fear that the chemical can cause major political changes...after my review of the evidence surrounding humans and their favored biochemical imbibings i think really only the first fear has ground...and this just barely...i just dont think any chemical yet created is enough to greatly influence and change a persons thinking and basic personality and way of life...at most they can sway a person...go ahead an e-out cheney and see if theres a difference...no way...anyways wikipedias responsibility is to provide as accurate a picture of mdma as possible under the circumstances so people can make informed choices about the biochemical, have accurate scientific info, and if they choose to use it they use it responsibly and in the manner that is proven most beneficial and pleasant...thats the issue with all chemicals and substances...getting people to behave and act responsibly with them...with some its no easy task...look at worldwide alcohol statistics and the number of abusers and ill effects...its frightening...russias men may be losing 10 years on average from their lifespan...its crazy...yet should we ban alcohol? of course not...first of all we know it doesnt work to use such tactics...tons of people use responsibly...and its even thought to be healthy in moderation...and as people can choose freely whether to take it or not...the information on it is somewhat not quite so polarized...the key to bringing alcohol further towards responsible use isnt prohibition yet is propaganda...its up to ur parents, schools, the media, and ur peers to get u to make appropriate choices...when the government tries to force you it usually ends badly...the governments job is propaganda... not dictation...Benjiwolf 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]